What are We to do if Our Society no Longer Speaks "Church"?

http://www.crosswalk.com/newsletters-only/weblog-weekly/7-churchy-words-and-the-need-for-clarity.html

The article located at the link above, is talking about how our church “lingo” is losing its meaning in today’s American culture. When the United States was completely dominated by a Christian population, the use of “churchy” words was commonplace. Those words were easily understood by the entire population because the culture was Christian. Like any culture, it includes its own language. Since the United States was nearly all Christian, the language was uniform across the entire nation as it existed then. The problem today is that the majority of the nation is unchurched, even though the majority still claims to be Christian. By “unchurched” I mean they are not actually part of the current Christian culture. They do not attend church on a regular basis, and therefore, have lost their connection into that culture. So they no longer share in the Christian language either. The article addresses this fact and suggests that we may have to drop our “traditional” Christian lingo in favor of a language understood by the non-Christian culture.

While reading through the comments following the article, so many people were offended by the idea that we could possibly think about dropping our traditional words. Some went as far as to suggest that we teach the current population the meaning of those words so that they can understand us. So here’s the question I want to address with the remainder of my article: “Is it the non-Christian’s responsibility to learn OUR language so that we can lead them to Christ, or is it OUR responsibility to adjust and get into THEIR world and use THEIR language to lead them to Christ?”

Words and their meanings evolve over time. That is actually one of the true strengths of the English language. Some languages do not have the ability to evolve. For example, the word "computer" is not found in many languages because there is no way for the language to incorporate it. So it remains in its English form within that language. So if the word "grace" is no longer understood, we need to find an equivalent word that can relay the meaning to those listening to our message, who do not speak our “churchy” language.

Here's another example: many years ago, missionaries working in countries along the equator tried to teach a verse (or concept) such as Psalm 51:7 "Purify me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; Wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow." Exactly how can anyone, living along the equator, who has never seen or experienced snow, understand what that verse might mean? The missionaries first attempted to explain what snow was. But no one could understand it. Mainly because the native language did not have a word for snow, nor a description of any sort for frozen water, because it doesn't exist there! So they started describing the meaning of "white" in terms that were familiar to the native people. So did they "change" the Bible by using words other than "snow" when translating the verse? The Bible in that language does not use a term for "snow" (since there is none), but uses something else that will make it clear exactly how white you will be after being washed.

We, as Americans, are so stuck up in our Christianity, that we exclude people who are different from ourselves. At one time, missionaries tried to teach people in other countries the English language so they could understand the King James Bible. They found it was far more effective and easier if they translated the Bible into the native language. Also, the use of American hymns in other countries who do not appreciate our style of music. It was far more effective to adapt our messages into their preferred style of music and translate the words into their language.

My two business partners are not originally from the United States. Both of them are from Asian countries. So they have a very hard time understanding American metaphors and many of our phrases. They handle the language just fine, but our style of metaphors and humor is far outside that of simple translation of word meanings. Sarcasm is REALLY difficult for them. So we need to be sensitive to the differences in cultures. That also applies to groups within the United States. Many sub-cultures have emerged and if we want to spread the Gospel message, we need to be aware of the words and phrases we use. If "traditional" Christian words are becoming foreign to many in this country, then it is up to US, not THEM to adapt. Do you really want to tell someone that you have the answer to eternal life with God, but first, they must learn to speak like you, and use the words YOU use?

Let me repeat my original question: “Is it the non-Christian’s responsibility to learn OUR language so that we can lead them to Christ, or is it OUR responsibility to adjust and get into THEIR world and use THEIR language to lead them to Christ?” When you share the Gospel message with the lost, do you use words they don’t know the meaning of? Or do you use words they will understand? How effective is your witness if no one knows what you are saying? Paul says that you should refrain from speaking in tongues, if no one is present to interpret what you are saying. While speaking with “churchy” words is not quite the same as speaking in tongues, I believe his advice is still valid. He said to NOT speak if no one could understand you. It is a waste of time because no one is changed, if they can’t understand you. How is that any different from speaking in English, using words people don’t understand? It is a waste of time because no one is changed, if they can’t understand you. It’s time to stop trying to be catered to, and start catering to those who have not heard the Gospel message.

Apple vs the Federal Government Over Unlocking a Terrorist's iPhone

What has been happening over the past few weeks is a situation where computer/cell phone maker Apple, Inc. has been refusing to comply with the Federal government's requests/demands to hack the iPhone used by a terrorist couple who killed 14 people and injured 22 at a party. The couple was later killed in a shootout with law enforcement after they fled the scene.

I've been thinking about this situation a great deal. We all want to know what is on that phone. Is there any info about other terrorist plots, other targets they were going after, who were they in contact with, etc. We want to know because we're afraid that something worse is brewing. We also say, "well, they're dead, so it no longer matters about their privacy." We hear the cries about national security!!! So WHAT is Apple's problem?

What many people don't seem to realize is that the court order is not for the assistance to get data off of one phone. It is to develop the key (a computer program) to unlock any iPhone of any person who may have one. If law enforcement wants to look at the data on your iPhone, and they have the key to do so, what is to stop them? While I completely support our law enforcement agencies, I also want to support our right to protection against unlawful search and seizure. People, companies, even the President were asking for stronger encryption methods to protect our data from being tampered with, or stolen, but out of fear, due to this one incident, we are now asking for a universal method allowing the removal of that protection. We KNOW that we are not a security threat, so we should be able to protect our data, but the terrorists should not have such protections. The problem is, to remove the terrorist's protection, is to also remove our own protection. You can't have it both ways.

Are you WILLING to give up one of your most basic rights as an American citizen in order to gather data from one phone? Do you fear the enemy so much, that you are willing to throw away the protection against unlawful search and seizure guaranteed to you in the Constitution's Bill of Rights. The document that cost so many lives to guarantee that you would never be subjected to that sort of intrusive government? Would you be upset if the government broke down your door and started going through your private stuff without just cause? Once you give up your right to privacy in one area (out of fear, or emotional distress to help those who are suffering), how long will it be before that precedent is expanded to include other areas of your life?

Personally, there is nothing on my phone that I need to hide from anyone. If it is taken from me by anyone, I have no fear that it will ever cause me to lose sleep over the data stored on it. BUT, what if I have clients and I need to store information that is highly confidential to THEM? Or let's say I keep credit card information of my own, or someone I do business with on it? And I know that there is a key out there that can unlock that information?

Because I wanted ONE phone to be unlocked, out of fear, or emotional distress, is it really worth giving up my right, and that of every other citizen to get that data? There is also a very good chance that there is nothing on the phone that will be helpful if it is unlocked. But we are willing to give up our right to privacy just to find out. We have got to take our emotions out of this equation. I would like to know what is on that phone too. I want to uncover any other terrorist plots it might show us. I want those families who suffer to get the answers they seek. But that is because I fear the enemy. Because I have so much sympathy for the families. Any decent person would feel these emotions. But we CANNOT give up our rights because we "feel" bad. I'm sure it is even worse for those directly affected, but the 4th Amendment to the Constitution was not written so we would feel good all the time. It was written to keep our basic human rights intact. Which includes even when it doesn't seem fair, or because people are suffering because of it.

A new Pew Research study shows that a majority of Americans want Apple to cooperate and unlock the phone. One question they did not ask was, "Do you know what the court order is actually asking for?" or "Have you considered what this means for YOU?"

Let's look at this from a business aspect. I think this whole situation would be easily resolved if ONLY one phone was involved. But the case is much bigger than the majority of people realize. If Apple develops the key being asked for, how much business will Apple lose as people who keep sensitive data on their phones flock to buy a different brand? Once that key is developed, everyone who needs strict confidentiality, or perhaps keeps sensitive data on their phone, will be very aware that they have lost the integrity of the product. For many people, they don't care if Apple loses business, because what is on that phone is a top priority. But if you are an Apple employee, is losing your job worth it? If sales drop, the loss has to be made up somewhere. Personnel is the largest expense in any business, so that's where the company goes first. Has anyone considered the consequences outside of being able to retrieve the data?

So that's my take on this whole situation. I stand with Apple on this one. I am NOT willing to give up my right, as a citizen of this country, guaranteed to me by the 4th Amendment, in order to retrieve the data located on one terrorist's phone. If we give into fear, the terrorists have won. The whole idea behind "terrorism" is to spread "terror". Once you give into it, you handed them their victory. They have accomplished their goal, and we will destroy ourselves from the inside out.