Take, for instance, "marriage". I've complained about this for years. To today's speakers I say, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." Originally the concept had content that is today not only lost, but causes offense if brought up. It included a "man of the house", the "head of house". He was the one responsible for providing, for decision making, for defending, for training. His wife was responsible to him and carried out all sorts of legitimate responsibilities, but under the protective umbrella and guidance of her husband. Children weren't an option; they were expected. They were a key components of this concept called "marriage". And something that was not to happen in this venue was the end of marriage because lifelong commitment was paramount.
Today, of course, there is hardly a vestige of that concept remaining. Men are no longer to be manly in any sense, but to "get in touch with your feminine side" and your "inner child". Any suggestion of male leadership or primary responsibility is sexism at its worst. We've moved so far from that original concept that there are those arguing for the elimination of males entirely when science provides a reliable way to reproduce humans without them. All that's bad in the world is from males. And children? No, thanks. Not now. Maybe later. Maybe. If I can fit them into my busy schedule of getting ahead for myself. Submission? What, are you crazy? "Lifelong commitment"? Don't be naive. Marriage? What's that?
Another painful example of this disassembling of language is the perspective in Christendom known as "Evangelical". Now, let's not get that confused. Evangelism is where we share the good news. Good. But "Evangelical" is its own concept. From the webpage of the National Association of Evangelicals,
Historian David Bebbington also provides a helpful summary of evangelical distinctives, identifying four primary characteristics of evangelicalism:Evangelicalism is a movement that began in the 17th century and was renewed in the 19th century as a response to the decline of a classic understanding of Christianity. While the liberal perspective shifted to an "many roads to heaven" perspective, Evangelicalism pointed to Jesus's claim to being the only way. As the "hyper" community eased up on spreading the gospel, Evangelicalism called on a renewed missionary effort. While satanic forces hewed away at a high view of the Word of God, Evangelicalism called for a stand on that Word as a viable and valuable and reliable source on matters of faith and practice. "Evangelical", then, meant all those things. It was primarily a counter to the liberal shift of Christendom that tends to crop up repeatedly.
* Conversionism: the belief that lives need to be transformed through a "born-again" experience and a life long process of following Jesus.
* Activism: the expression and demonstration of the gospel in missionary and social reform efforts
* Biblicism: a high regard for and obedience to the Bible as the ultimate authority
* Crucicentrism: a stress on the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross as making possible the redemption of humanity.
Now meet Rachel Held Evans, the author of a new book entitled A Year of Biblical Womanhood and the poster child for the new Evangelical. She was seen on NBC's Today Show recently talking about how ludicrous conservative Christians are and how the Bible cannot be trusted to provide up-to-date input on living. She "proved" it by spending an entire year living a "biblical womanhood" life. She spent her menstrual periods in a tent, held up signs at the entrance to town to tell people how wonderful her husband was, made her own clothes, all the things that the Bible requires of women. Oh, you missed those parts? Yeah, well, her point is made, then, isn't it? She (and her interviewer) classifies herself as an "Evangelical". She considers herself a "lousy Evangelical because she discards "inerrancy" and admits "As a woman, I’ve been nursing a secret grudge against the Apostle Paul for about eight years", but still an Evangelical. She argues for inclusivism, the notion that people will be saved apart from Christ, and argues against exclusivism, that silly notion that Christ is the only way. (You know, that silly idea from the lips of Christ Himself.) (She assures us that Evangelicalism "doesn’t mean exclusivism.") As for Scripture, well, it's all well and good, but neither Old nor New Testament are really authoritative now. No, what she does it looks for ways that help her love her neighbor as Jesus commanded and ignores the rest. Subjective, self-canonical, subjugating.
Now, mind you, I'm not saying that Rachel Held Evans is wrong. That's not my point. My point is that the term "Evangelical" has meaning ... or, more precisely, had meaning. It had a point. It had a purpose. It was a concept, like "marriage", with content. Now? Now it has been disassembled. Now identifying an "Evangelical" is pointless because the term is meaningless. "Christian"? Another example. I remember when I was young the question they used to ask was "Are you saved?" After awhile that phrase became meaningless, so they switched to "Are you born again?" After awhile, that phrase became meaningless so they switched to "Do you know Jesus?" Of course, that one is long gone, too. We keep having to reinvent terms to say what we mean because the terms we've been using get stolen, mangled, twisted, and discarded.
To Johnny 5 of Short Circuit, "disassemble" meant death. We have been disassembling important concepts ourselves for some time, and we can't seem to put them back together at all. It started with "Did God say ...?" and we've been at it ever since. For concepts like "marriage" and "Evangelical", it spells death. We're losing important concepts. At some point communication becomes tedious at best. Not a good thing.
7 comments:
Words change in meaning. Language is alive. There's no getting around that. If you want a completely static language, choose a dead one.
Good luck with that.
Thus, my continual use of the term "concept" instead of merely "word". We've deconstructed the concept of "marriage". What do you offer in replacement? We've deconstructed the concept of "Evangelical" -- those who believe that Christ meant it when He said He was the only way, that the Bible is the actual Word of God and, as such, a reliable and authoritative source on matters of faith and practice, that the Cross is key, and that sharing the Gospel by word and deed is important. What do you offer in replacement?
Words are not real. They are code -- symbols for reality. They are a means of transmitting information about reality. Strip off the symbol for "marriage" or "Evangelical" or "Christian" so that they no longer represent the realities they once did, and how will we communicate those realities? Your suggestion? "Good luck with that." My point exactly.
Coincidentally, I have commented on a blog wherein the subject of the use of the word "retard" (or a variation) by Ann Coulter is discussed. Some have sought to strip the word or the term "mentally retarded" from official state documents, laws and codes. They do this because the term is used as an epithet. But whatever replaces that term, say, "mentally challenged" for example, will simply be used as well by those who would choose to verbally attack others. Here, the reality hasn't changed, a new term is used to refer to it, but the abuse of the new term replaces the use of the old.
I don't disagree that languages evolve. It seems the concern with this post leans more toward a forced evolution to match the desires of those doing the forcing. To change the definition of a word to one more favorable to the desires of a small segment of society does indeed leave the original concept without a word to refer to it.
One case involves changing meanings of words, the other changing words used to label a meaning.
Stan,
It's interesting how often we forget that words actually describe reality. It's also interesting how flexible people get when it comes to using the dictionaly definitions of words. We see paople get really dogmatic about the dictionary definition when it backs up their position, yet very flexible when it doesn't.
I suspect that part of the problem is that groups (intentionally or not) try to co opt or intentionally stretch the definition of a word. Either so it means nothing or so that it means anything/everyhthing. I would suggest that your two examples illustrate that very well. "If we can stretch the meaning of evangelical to include anyone who wants to be..." The other thing that I've been seeing recently is that folks on the left (I'm sure it happens both ways, but I see it more on the left. I'm also sure that I see it more on the left because that's where I'd be inclined to see it.), seem to think that they should be able to define their opponents, rather than allow folks to define themselves. I think we've seen this in the debates where P-BO kept telling Romney what he (Romney) believed.
Marshall, on "retard", it's interesting. The term used to be "moron", but that was too offensive so they changed it to be more sensitive to "retarded", indicating a slowing of mental growth. Now that's too demeaning, so ...
Craig, on stretching intentions of words, have you ever considered the number of words in the English language with two unrelated meanings with one being a sexual connotation? Indeed, it seems like defining (for instance) "marriage" as "marriage" is banned, but any term at all can be used to indicate any sexual practice you might conceive.
On the meaninglessness of words (only slightly related), I was reading something the other day on the "Francification of America". This piece said that German law is primarily about what you must do and Italian law is primarily about what you must not do and French law is all about what you can and cannot do. French law is so comprehensive that it is technically impossible to remain within the law. At this point, they said, anything is legal as long as no one complains. Similarly, at this point, words are so wildly defined to mean absolutely nothing anymore ... and we are wrong for trying.
Stan,
I think at least part of the reason to redefine things is a desire of people who are out of the mainstream, but want to be in the mainstream.
For example, there is a certain pastor who is very outspoken about his belief that God does not exist, the Bible is fiction, etc. yet he continues to call himself a Christian. Obviously if someone who doesn't acknowledge the existence of Christ (let alone His deity) can identify as a Christian then the term Christian is on the way to having no meaning.
It's kind of like a kid who wants a toy someone else has. "Well Bobby has marriage, why can't I have marriage".
Your original point is well taken we need to remember the concepts behind the words, as the definitions are taken away.
Getting identified with mainstream when you're not is likely one genuine reason for it. That is the reason behind "gay marriage". It's not "normal", but if we can get it defined like everything else, it will be.
By the way, I know another Christian leader who is a genuine Christian and argues that God does not exist. Of course, he defines "exist" by its root -- "ex" = "out of" and "ist" = "that which is". Thus "exist" means most literally "That which is out of". All creation is out of God, so all creation "exists", but God is not out of anything or anyone, being the ultimate source. He just is.
Ah, yes, fun with words.
Post a Comment