May 4, 2002

  • More On Religious Words


    Yesterday, I was thinking primarily about the difference between the way that sin is defined by theologians and by those who have less interest in Biblical theology.  (And I thank season for pointing out that I was excluding Jewish theology with my use of the word Christian.  I'm not very well versed in Muslim theology, although they are also a 'people of the book' and may use a similar definition.)


    I think that there is a huge disconnect between the way that theologians define a great many words and the 'common' understanding of what those words mean.  This is a problem of language whenever a word that has a specific meaning within a particular system is taken up in general usage.


    In addition to sin, the terms, incarnation, salvation, miracle, chosen, perfection, heaven, hell, repentance, righteous, church and many others have a very specific meaning when used by theologians.  There is a danger though in using religious words, it's the same danger that is inherent in any form of jargon.  People use the word without understanding the concept behind it. 


    Certainly there are some who consider themselves to be Christians who do not share the definition of sin I gave.  Some "new" Christians assume that they understand what 'sin' is because they thought they knew what it was before they became Christians and they haven't yet matured in their understanding of Christian theology.  Some people (Christians and others) find security in the formulation of "laws" that can be "kept" and would be very uncomfortable with the definition I gave because relationship is much broader than the "Law" can encompass.


    A church board was interviewing two candidates for a minister position.  Both candidates were equally educated and had excellent references.  It was becoming more and more difficult to distinguish between them in a way that made the decision even possible, much less clear.  Finally, an older member of the board thought of a question he wanted to ask.  One at a time the candidates were brought into the room.  The elder pointed out the window and said, tell us what you can of the spiritual nature of the next person who walks by, and what would you say if you spoke to him/her.  Candidate One said, "That man is a sinner in need of a Redeemer.  If I could speak to him I would try to help him understand this and would invite him to come into relationship with God."  Candidate Two said, "That woman is the beloved Creation of Almighty God.  He has loved her from before the time she was born and loves her now more than any of us could ever comprehend.  I would like to ask her in what ways God has revealed Himself to her."


    By Christian theology, both the statements these candidates made were correct, but the first saw people through the lens of law, the second saw people through the lens of relationship.  (And BTW the congregation hired candidate 2)


    I'm not trying to defend a particular definition of sin against any other definition.  I'm hoping to make the point that it isn't the word that is important compared to the concept that it represents to the individuals in the conversation.

Comments (21)

  • YEAH!  I get to comment first.  So, while words are used to convey concepts, the concept itself is the only thing that matters?  So the use, over-use, and mis-use of words are irrelevent? Hmmm.  Must think on this some more.

    Then again, I am reminded somewhat of Orwell and 1984.  Wasn't that the primary job of the protagonist, to limit the definitions of words, and thus help reduce the language available to the people, and in so doing, make individual thought (and thus revolution) impossible?

  • You just pushed the button faster wormy. I like this Terri. My feeling is that God sees sin as sin. One sin is no greater than the next. Stealing a cookie is a sin and so is murder.. one is no greater than the other. A sin is a sin is a sin. So therefore... as the bible says.. We are ALL sinners. No one on earth is able to say he is a non sinner. No one. That kind of makes us all equal doesn't it? Regardless of what we think Sin is.

  • Great analogy!  Following the law is great, but the knowledge that we are loved by God more than we could ever comprehend...wow.  In complete agreement with you that the word itself is insignificant - the concept and the meaning of it is everything.

  • I agree with Sada and Kris... in addition, there is no "Big Sin, Little Sin".  I find it hard to believe that a white lie is the same in God's eyes as a child molester... but it's true. It's hard for us to understand that concept... as are many things He tells us.

    Great blog!

  • I think, in a very real sense, this "problem of language" as you describe it is at the heart of a) the persistence of religions and b) the proliferation of segmentation of different religions. 

    This natural and personal interpretability is what makes the idea of religion, the meme itself, so persistent in the mind.  The key, crucial, underpinning vocabulary is ALL so nebulous and by design undefinable to any satisfactory degree that it performs this double edged dance; allowing everyone who uses the words to be certain they are using them correctly.  (That's the whole sword there, not one edge).

    The great theologian Emo Phillips tells us:

    I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off.
    So I ran over and said "Stop! don't do it!"
    "Why shouldn't I?" he said.
    I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!"
    He said, "Like what?"
    I said, "Well...are you religious or atheist?"
    He said, "Religious." 
    I said, "Me too! Are you christian or buddhist?"
    He said, "Christian."
    I said, "Me too! Are you catholic or protestant?"
    He said, "Protestant."
    I said, "Me too! Are you episcopalian or baptist?"
    He said, "Baptist!" I said,"Wow! Me too! Are you baptist church of god or baptist church of the lord?"
    He said, "Baptist church of god!"
    I said, "Me too! Are you original baptist church of god, or are you reformed baptist church of god?"
    He said,"Reformed Baptist church of god!"
    I said, "Me too! Are you reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1879, or reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915?"
    He said, "Reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915!"
    I said, "Die, heretic scum", and pushed him off.

    :)

    When you say, "it isn't the word that is important compared to the concept that it represents to the individuals in the conversation", I think that that statements contains an embedded tautological syllogism.  The word cannot be both less important and in the conversation performing as the concept's container.  This is like saying that the web browser is not as important as the content it displays.  It might appear to be true at first glance, but the browser determines the nature of the content that can be displayed.  You might say, oh, the browser differences only affect the bells and whistles, the appearance of the content.  This is just not so (unless you want to delimit the meaning of content all the way down to text only, but that wouldn't help the analogy work better when it goes back the other way to religious terminology), and if you ask any of the web based artists out there you will find them vehemently agreeing with me.

    The words are not the concepts, I'm not saying that. They are the delivery device, and as such must be afforded at least equal standing with the concepts...because if the concepts can't be delivered, they are inert.

  • I love the story of the two ministers... it's making me think.  And think.  And think.

    I'm not so sure I like either answer, though.  Hmmm.

  • If you believe in Christ as your savior there can be no sin...
    Ask yourself what the purpose of Christs's death was.

    Then refect on both statements. The ONLY christian statement was made by the second individual.

    But then again, this is from a fool who does not but...

    Sail on... sail on!!!

  • Interesting how politics is everywhere...church too. I finally got your site to load.

  • I agree with Sada, Kris, & Wickedgal.

    You always have the most amazing posts!

  • Regarding the use of "religious" words

    I agree with you. In any arena where words have a specific meaning, most of those outside the arena believe they know what the words mean, but frequently don't. Therefore, when folks attempt to communicate across the boundary, they misinterpret each other. Responses to your latest posts are prime examples.

    That's why we teach our youth to leave out "church talk" from their testimonies.

    Regarding the two preachers

    I have a preacher friend whose philosophy of ministry (how's that for church talk?) centers around the notion of eating from one or the other of the two trees found in the garden of Eden: The Tree of Life and The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Those who eat from the Tree of Knowledge see the world throught he lens of the law. Those who eat from the Tree of Life see the law through the lens of grace.

  • My friends and I refer to religious words as "Christianese."  It's often a second language that other folks don't understand, and it just sounds goofy.

    A friend moved back to Texas from England, and was staying at our house.  His old church buddies called us up and said "Glad Stephen's back... but how's his walk?"  Now, what the heck would that mean to a non-Christian person?  "He really has a heart for the lost."  C'mon.... that makes no sense outside of Christianese.

    Why is it bad if a secular band is a "sell-out," but good if we're "sold out for Christ?"

    Jesus spoke in the vernacular of his day... and I hope too, too. 

  • I don't think it's really my place to comment on all of this, but I enjoyed reading this blog nevertheless. 

    I got your books put in the mail yesterday, so they should be arriving soon!  Isn't this a gorgeous Indiana spring day today?  Have a great one! 

  • I like the "preacher" story

  • Did you know that the word sabbath means "heart's rest"

    The word sacrifice means "to make sacred"

  • the beloved Creation And THAT is what it's all about.

  • I think they picked the better of the two..... the first needs to season his people skills a bit more.

  • I say we drop words and changeover to telepathic communication.

  • Then doesn't the question become which is the 'true' Christianity: that of the few at the top, or that of the masses?

    If positions can be justified by the Bible, which is 'true'?

  • Hello... not a Christian, just thought I'd say it, so you can discount my comment before I open my mouth...

    If God exists, and thinks his creation beautiful, then sin is also beautiful, right?  To God I mean.  The way tragedy can be beautiful.  Or maybe God sees the world as vaguely ironic.  Or maybe God can see the world through both Trees, all at the same time, and juggle all the concepts of his creation in that rarefied air at the same time... Can you even conceive of that? 

    As for what humans think of as sin, or how we relate to a being capable of EVERYTHING... I believe we've "hired" God to be the forest, rather than the trees.  God is a "big picture" being, if a being at all. 

  • I think I know the leses you see with very well...

  • The most part of what you articulate interferes with my own brain, I imagine hence
    Juegos De Pasteles | wood chipper for sale | travel insured international complaints

Comments are closed.

Post a Comment