by Jim R. Bowman

I hope Mr. Shakespeare will forgive my twisting of Juliet's question.  I am concerned, though, that we who intend to communicate the Gospel do not always examine the words we use.  Do we really understand the way our words are HEARD by the listener?  Fortunately for us, when the Holy Spirit begins to work in a listener's heart, some of our inaccuracies in vocabulary may cause little damage.  On the other hand, I am under the impression that a sharper sickle cuts more grain.

Words by themselves do have precise, academic definitions.  But our CHOICE of words reflect our bias, position, attitude and/or emotion.  As an exercise, take the following words, commonly used by Christians to describe relationships people have to their beliefs, views, philosophies and causes:

AVOWED:  Although the word is neutral, describing a person who has committed himself openly to some idea or cause, it has been used for so long to describe Marxists that by common consent we never use it to describe Christians.

DEVOUT: Although this word IS sometimes used to describe Evangelical Christians, it is most often used to describe Roman Catholics.  It has the connotation of one who faithfully observes all the customs and rituals.

HARD CORE: Its original associations seem to be with pornography, criminality, communists and liberals.  Yet the other day I heard a man refer to a Christian with perfect innocence as a hard core Christian.  The term seems to mean a person hopelessly yet wilfully entrenched in his way/lifestyle/belief, and not open to change.

DEDICATED:  Usually applied to Christians, by other Christians.  When we use this word we mean we have adjudged the Christian life of another to meet what we believe to be the Scriptural standard of discipleship.  Yet we less often refer to a communist as "dedicated," because the word describes a selfless giving of one's self to a valid cause, an entirely too admirable characteristic.

COMMITTED:  Same as "dedicated," without the semi-religious undertones.

NOMINAL:  This is a rather negative word when Evangelicals use it.  It means a Christian in name ONLY, as opposed to a Christian who believes and acts like "us."  Oddly, there seems to be no term for what lies between dedicated and nominal.  Nor do we often hear of nominal Roman Catholics or nominal communists or nominal Muslims.  For some reason, these latter people are seen as monolithic.

ENTRENCHED IN:  Related to hard core, with emphasis on the closed mind.  So it would be all right to say a person was entrenched in communism, or in the ways of the world, but never entrenched in Christianity.

INDOCTRINATED IN:  This reflects our belief that the position the "indoctrinated" person has is the direct result of institutional brainwashing. Such a person is not able to consider or test new information, and has become an android of some sort.  There is also the feeling in this word that the purpose of indoctrinators is to  a) hide contrary information, or b) manipulate the "indoctrinee" for some political or power end.

STEEPED IN:  Similar to entrenched, with emphasis on holding one's present views or traditions because of early, probably passive submission to institutional, cultural or peer pressure over a long period of time. These three terms are related, yet give quite different feelings.  The first reminds me of warfare, the second of the Inquisition, the third of basking tea leaves.  But none of these terms has room for the open, independent, accountable, interactive mind.  We Christians would be more comfortable with these (the following) terms:

ESTABLISHED IN: Mature, obedient.

TRAINED UP IN:  It would certainly be an insult to hear someone refer to our Sunday Schools as indoctrination, wouldn't it?

RAISED IN THE TRADITION OF: (the truly great Christians and denominations).

RABID: Communists and some liberals are rabid.  Christians are "on fire."

FANATICAL: Whereas "rabid" suggests an animal disease, this term connotes the psychological aberration of compulsive behavior, which is, at least, more human.

MILITANT: I think what we mean here is "too aggressive."  We would say Muslims are militant (possibly because some sects resort to violence), but I have also heard it used by non-Christians to describe hyper-fundamentalists.

EVANGELICAL:  To the Evangelical it means a truly "Biblical" Christian.  To more liberal Christians it means more conservative, fundamentalistic Christianity, and to non-Christians it frequently means Christians who are aggressive proselytizers.

 

Now this brief list consists ONLY of a few adjectives which describe a person's relationship to a cause.  Imagine how many other nouns, verbs and adjectives we commonly used like this in "Christian dialect."

Why DO we almost never refer to 'nominal communists?'  Is it because we imagine every communist is fully committed to his Cause?  Is it because we prefer to think of communists as more than human, incapable of doubt, laziness, hypocrisy and backsliding?

Why do we assume that all communists have only come to their present position by indoctrination?  Could it be that among communists there are some who at this point in time truly believe that socialism is better than capitalism, as a result of serious study and contemplation?  Could it also be that many Christians are Christians because of indoctrination rather than serious study and contemplation?

Your own imagination could place you in the mind of the (communist, muslim, atheist, etc.) listener, and see how these words change meanings.  The point to be made is that the use of words says more about the user than anything else.

When we use some words carelessly, we can convey bias and emotion. Some of the words we use convey arrogance, even though we may be using them quite innocently.   The truth is, Christian and non-Christian alike, we have all been steeped in some traditions, been indoctrinated in certain values, pursued some causes rabidly, entrenched ourselves in wrong and immature positions, and been avowed members of specific political entities.

What we are talking about here is ”rhetoric".  Rhetorical words or phrases are usually intended by the user to incite emotions rather than stimulate good decisions.  They are often over-generalized and do not tell the objective, specific truth about people and their ideas.  If inborn human intuition about credibility means anything, then we need to understand that the listener is< trying to decipher US and our believability.  When we lean on rhetoric, the listener instinctively knows our case is weak.  By this I do not mean that our basic Truth is weak, but that our own inner connection to it is!

Applying rhetorical words to people is both arrogant and dehumanizing.  Imagine how you would feel if a friend described your sincere attempt to evangelize as 'mindless propaganda.'  Would you not want another chance to explain your position, and how you arrived at it?  No one wants to be lumped into one glob with the public misconception of what a Christian really is.  We want to say, "Wait a minute!  I'm not a religious fanatic!   I carefully considered the claims of Christ personally, and made a conscious, rational decision to follow Him."

Neither do communists, or Muslims, or Roman Catholics like to be dehumanized by being lumped into groups which are commonly described with seemingly inane yet most unflattering adjectives.

Finally, rational thinking is difficult when emotion rules.  Accepting Christ may turn out to be an emotional experience, but ultimately it requires conscious, rational consideration of Truth.  The listener needs an environment of acceptance in which to open his heart.   When we use careless rhetoric to make  points, we may hit the listener's wrong hot button, and ruin chances of speaking to a tender heart.

 

(Taken from Ricefields Journal Vol I No. 2)

 

Link to Home

Link to Goldmine

previous