Part 1 of a two-part series.
When you think of what the Bible says about “the tongue” and the words we use, what comes to mind? Verses on gossip, lying, and harsh words likely come to the forefront. I think of verses like “Do not speak evil against one another, brothers” (James 4:11) or “A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up strife” (Prov. 15:1) or “Keep your tongue from evil and your lips from telling lies” (Prov. 34:13).
There are also a whole host of verses that talk about how to speak wisely and prudently. I think of “Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person” (Col. 4:5-6) and “Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear” (Eph. 4:29).
In my graduate studies, I spent much of my research looking at how we choose to disclose or not disclose private information in various settings. There is a practical theory developed by Sandra Petronio called Communication Privacy Management (CPM) that looks at how people choose to conceal or reveal information to others.
Overview of CPM
There is value in broadening our understanding of verses related to the tongue and being wise with our words in light of how each of us manages privacy and disclosure. CPM can help us, as Christians, understand why confidentiality is valuable. The theory of CPM proposes five suppositions for privacy regulation.
First, when we reveal content about ourselves, we disclose private information. Many studies equate self-disclosure with intimacy.[1] Understanding that sharing information about oneself is a private and intimate exchange provides a healthy weightiness to how we choose to manage the information others share with us.
The second supposition of CPM uses a boundary metaphor to illustrate the lines between public and private information. Whether we realize it or not, we each form boundaries around information about ourselves. Some people have permeable, wide-open boundaries. They don’t mind sharing personal information, and they don’t necessarily care if that information is shared with others. Others have solid, thick boundaries, and they keep a closer guard on their information. For instance, while one person may consider a health diagnosis public information and willingly share all the details about it with others, another may consider it private information that is deeply personal. That person may have strong boundaries around who has access to their health information. Paying attention to each individual’s privacy boundaries allows us to love others well and look not only to our own interests but also the interests of others (Phil. 2:4).
The third point of CPM argues that people desire control over their privacy boundaries: “[p]eople believe that private information is owned or co-owned with others; thus, they desire control over the boundaries”.[2] You can imagine how this desire for control of information might play out—a parent shares a funny story about their child, only to realize their child is embarrassed that they told someone outside of the family; a coworker passes on information about another coworker, only to realize that their colleague wished that information to remain private. Understanding that people consider private information something that they own, and over which they desire control, helps us better navigate privacy with others.
The fourth tenet is that in addition to people desiring control over private information, people also form rules about how and when this information is shared. These rules might be a result of their upbringing or personal experiences. For example, I have very open privacy boundaries and loose rules about my private information. An unspoken rule I have is that unless I specifically tell someone not to share something about me, they are welcome to share it with whomever they please. However, I know many people who have the exact opposite rule. Unless they explicitly give me permission to share information, the information shared should be considered confidential. I have to be careful not to assume my rule applies to everyone else, or I may end up breaking someone’s confidence unintentionally.
Lastly, CPM explains that privacy management is dialectical in nature, meaning that we regularly experience tensions between opposites. We feel the tension of disclosure versus privacy, concealing versus revealing, public versus private, openness versus closedness, and autonomy versus connectedness.[3] We are constantly weighing these tensions as we interact with others. “Should I tell my friend what’s going on with our mutual friend, or will I break their confidence by sharing?” On the other hand, “Will my friend be hurt that I didn’t give them a heads-up so they could better support our mutual friend?” Or “Should I tell my son’s teacher about the situation that happened at home, even though my son doesn’t want anyone to know?” There are countless examples of dialectics in daily life where we weigh these tensions.
What Does It Mean for Me?
You may be thinking, “Why should I care about this?” or “How does this relate to the Bible?” We find many exhortations in Scripture to be wise and discerning with our words. There are multiple examples where we are called to set a guard over our mouths (Ps. 141:3) and to ponder how to answer others (Prov. 15:28). We’re commanded to let our speech always be gracious (Col. 4:6) and to let no corrupt talk spill from our lips, but only words that are useful for building others up (Eph. 4:29). These verses are instructive and inspiring. Yet, translating these passages into complicated conversations and complex relationships can be challenging. One of the ways to be wise with words and navigate complex relationships is to examine and study how and why people communicate. Using tools like CPM gives us insight into how to interact with others. This, in turn, allows us to be wiser with our words and more gracious.
In Part 2 of this series, I’ll give tips on how we can practically manage private information in a way that builds others up. In the meantime, I hope you’ll think about your interactions with others and notice the tensions we face and the different boundaries and rules we each have surrounding privacy management. As we seek to use our words for God’s glory, I hope you’ll go on this journey with me to examine how we navigate private information so that we can be wise and discerning in our relationships.
References
Baxter, L.A. & Montgomery, B.M. (1996). Relating: Dialogues and dialectics. New York, Guilford.
Petronio, S. (2002). Boundaries of privacy: Dialectics of disclosure. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Parks, M.R. (1982). Ideology of interpersonal communication: Off the couch and into the world.
In M. Burgoon (Ed.), Communication yearbook 5 (pp. 480-497). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
[1] M.R. Parks, Ideology of Personal Communication: Off the Couch and Into the World (1982).
[2] Sandra Petronio, Boundaries of Privacy: Dialectics of Disclosure. (Albany: SUNY Press, 2002), 3.
[3] L.A. Baxter & B.M. Montgomery, Relating: Dialogues and Dialectics. (New York: Guilford, 1996).
