In light of the growing Christian presence in public debate, linguist and postdoctoral fellow Lucas Nascimento has released The Poison of the Language: The Evangelical Challenge of Speaking the Truth Without Hurting (Editora Mundo Cristão), a work that questions the irresponsible use of language by religious leaders. Drawing on episodes of hate speech, xenophobia, and intolerance, the author proposes ethical communication guided by respect, justice, and sensitivity to contexts of vulnerability—principles that, he argues, should guide all Christian discourse.
In your book, you reflect on the contrast between Christian discourse and statements that often hurt rather than welcome. How do you see this contradiction being reproduced in churches today—and what led you to address this topic so directly?
Unfortunately, the history of Christian churches is full of contradictions, and at certain times, some become more evident. Currently, the public discourse of many Christians in Brazil has shown more arrogance and moralizing judgment than proclamation of the Gospel of the Kingdom. Many are confusing the proclamation of the Gospel with the propagation of an evangelical moralism motivated by moralistic and political ideologies. In my view, this is contrary to the spirit of what Jesus taught us and reveals that many Christians are not loving even their fellow believers, much less their “enemies.”
I’ve been studying evangelical religious discourse for over 15 years, and for some time now, I’ve observed that brothers and sisters have taken pleasure in speaking to hurt and humiliate in the name of God. Seeing this escalate, I decided to study how such things have occurred, in order to better understand the phenomenon and propose a path of wisdom for those who so desire.
The expression “poison of the tongue” is powerful and carries significant symbolic weight. Why did you choose this title, and how do you believe it provokes necessary self-reflection in Christian readers?
The metaphor of the venomous tongue is rich, and Jesus’ half-brother, in his letter, uses it to demonstrate the malignant power of perverse communication. He says: the tongue “is uncontrollable and wicked, full of deadly poison” (James 3:7). When I choose this title, I think of a source of wisdom, life, and peace available for Christians to draw from through their communication. Far from this source, the believer’s tongue can also become a deadly poison, especially if the heart of the one using it is filled with “bitter envy and selfish ambition.”
As I say in the book, Christians need to understand and reflect that their communication can produce life, but it can also produce death. And, unfortunately, this has been happening from the mouths of many evangelicals and Christian institutions in recent years in Brazil.
In the book, you propose the idea of “presumption of humiliation” as an ethical criterion for assessing the impact of speech. How do you imagine this concept can be incorporated into the daily lives of those who want to communicate with more empathy and responsibility?
The notion of “presumption of humiliation,” which I borrow from the Israeli philosopher Avishai Margalit , is an invitation to ethical sensitivity in the use of language, especially in asymmetrical contexts. By adopting this criterion, we propose that, when faced with doubt, the benefit of interpretation should be given to those who have historically been most exposed to symbolic pain, such as minorities and vulnerable groups such as LGBTI+ people, Black people, the homeless, Indigenous people, and many others. This does not mean giving up what one believes to be true or giving up criticism, but recognizing that not all criticism is fair simply because it is true.
In everyday life, this perspective can be practiced with small changes: asking yourself, before speaking, “If I were in the other person’s shoes, how would I receive this speech?” or “Is what I’m about to say necessary, edifying, and said with mercy?” Jesus calls us to the truth, but to a truth tempered by grace. Embodying this criterion is, therefore, a constant exercise in empathy, self-mastery, and fear; not fear of the other, but reverence for the fact that every human being bears the image of God and deserves to be treated with dignity, even when we disagree.
You mention instances of hate speech and stigmatization against vulnerable groups by religious leaders. How do you respond to those who use faith as a justification for offensive speech, claiming only to “speak the truth”?
Human beings tend to run away from their responsibilities. Often, science, the state, laws, and especially God or Scripture are used as escape mechanisms, serving to cover up evil intentions or justify the practice of iniquity against others. Unfortunately, many Christians speak in the name of God, but express more resentment and vanity than compassion and truth. They claim to “only be speaking the truth,” when in reality, they are enacting a type of justice that has nothing to do with the Gospel.
The German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer , who was killed by Hitler in the last century, was deeply sensitive to this. He warned us about the dangers of what he called “half-truth”—that which presents itself as pure and objective but disregards context and relationship. For him, there is an ethical difference between the content of truth and the act of speaking it. Those who speak “the truth” coldly, insensitively, and out of time dishonor the truth they claim to carry. Bonhoeffer even states that those who insist on speaking relentlessly and equally to everyone, without considering the relationship, the moment, or the human condition, are closer to the cynic than to the prophet. Such a person feels “like a God above weak creatures” and destroys “the living truth among people.”
The truth of the Gospel is always embodied, permeated by mercy. The Christ who said “I am the truth” was also the one who forgave the adulteress, wept with the mourners, and touched the untouchable and destitute of his time. Christian discourse that is not moved by this mercy may simply be using God’s name to perpetuate privilege, fear, and hatred—which, at its core, is a perverse form of idolatry. While I don’t embrace the concept of hate speech, I can affirm that hatred has been the sentiment that characterizes the speeches of many evangelical brothers and sisters. Are we being recognized by love?
Among the skills you propose, listening to different points of view before forming an opinion is at the top of the list. In your opinion, why has “listening” become such a challenge in the age of polarization and instant communication?
Today, people tend to hear only the echo of their own religious, ideological, or political voice, rather than that of others. This is no different among evangelicals. Social media has amplified this phenomenon, which experts call filter bubbles or echo chambers. The law of the tribe, of my group, of my ideology, or of my theology has prevailed. Virulent controversy has reigned. There is no willingness to truly listen to those who are different, much less those who disagree. This is a serious problem, as it further exacerbates division and lack of understanding.
Understanding depends on entering the other person’s world, listening to them, feeling what they feel, and then leaving and returning to oneself. From this comes understanding. However, for a polarized mind, this movement does not occur. It views the other from the outside, without truly listening, without empathy. This generates misunderstandings and further widens the gap between people. But this should not be the Christian’s attitude. We are called to enter the other person’s world, as Christ did when he entered ours. But this requires humility, a willingness to serve, and love. Wise communication cannot occur without humility and love for the other, therefore, it cannot occur without listening.
Your work combines linguistics and spirituality in a very unique way. How has your book been received in both academic and evangelical circles? Do you feel there’s an opening for this dialogue?
There’s an interesting opening. When I talk about the topic in lectures or classes at universities, my academic colleagues are quite interested, as they lack a clear understanding of what’s happening in the public sphere with the presence of evangelicals.
Many of them are unfamiliar with the research on evangelicals.
In evangelical circles, I’m still experiencing the results of this relationship between discursive ethics and spirituality. While I’ve received a warm and welcoming reception in some Christian circles, I’ve also noticed suspicion and reluctance in others. But it’s still too early to draw conclusions (laughs). The important thing is to fulfill the call to proclaim.
Speaking clearly, adjusting your tone, and choosing words wisely are skills that seem simple but require great care. In your career as a teacher and researcher, what have you learned about the power—and danger—of misplaced words?
Words have no power in themselves. Their power comes from a set of discursive factors (subjective, social, and institutional). These factors, together, can create empires, as has been the history of great empires over the centuries, but they can also destroy them even more quickly. Beyond specific spiritual elements, religions are symbolic constructions, which are produced in and through language.
I like to talk about curse words. This double meaning refers to the fact that poor communication can start wars, destroy kingdoms, and create chaos for individuals, groups, and institutions. Cancellations on social media are a small proof of this.
Developing the ability to know the reason behind what is said, what to say, how to say it, and when to say it at the right time, with wisdom, is fundamental so that words are not just words, but good deeds.
You invite readers to commit to a language that reflects love, justice, and wisdom. For those who want to begin this transformation in the way they communicate, what would be the first step you recommend?
The first step may be a deep awareness of the importance of language in life. We can do this by looking at three dimensions.
First, we must understand that words are not just words. They are actions in the world. With them, we bless or curse, heal or wound, give life or create death. Through the word, the world was created; and at the center of the Christian faith is the Word made flesh. To speak, therefore, is to act; and our words can (and should) be good works, as James 3 teaches us.
Second, we need to recognize that every word has an impact. Sometimes, a phrase that seems simple to us can open old wounds, reinforce trauma, or silently humiliate. Other times, a generous ear or a genuine compliment can lift someone up, as Solomon says: “Kind words are like honey, sweet to the soul and healthy for the body.” Words have therapeutic or destructive power—and this awareness changes the way we communicate and how we love.
Finally, it’s important to consider the motivation behind what we say or don’t say. As I write in the book, our words can have at least three sources: strategy, when we speak to achieve results; consequence, when we speak out of impulse or fear; or virtue, when we speak out of integrity and love. Ask yourself: Why am I saying this? What desire moves me?
From this triple awareness, the next step is to cultivate the virtues of speech. Developing a language that reflects the Kingdom of God: just, loving, and peaceful. Speech that is both truthful and full of grace.
Follow Lucas Nascimento on Instagram