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.
No comments:
Post a Comment