There is a view commonly held among evangelicals that Christians should avoid the use of distinctively Christian "jargon" (their term of choice, most certainly not mine as will become apparent). A good example of this thinking can be found here in a piece by Mr Jodie McNeill of "Youthworks" in the Anglican Diocese of Sydney (HT Creidamh A-mhàin where I commented on this topic before composing this essay here). Perhaps the irony of such a comment coming from a man who heads an institution whose very name itself might be considered a prime example of unnecessary evangelical "jargon" is lost on Mr McNeill (what is now called "Anglican Youthworks" was until fairly recently known by the much plainer but eminently more understandable name of the "Anglican Department of Youth and Education"). Anyway, I digress. This "anti-jargon" view, commonly held by many younger Anglican evangelicals (baby boomers and younger), might be considered just another part of what has been called the "worship wars" as those with a desire for more "contemporary" forms of worship inevitably come into conflict with those who prefer more "traditional" forms. But in my view such an explanation would be inadequate for explaining the "de-jargonning" movement, the prime example of which is arguably the suppression of the word "sermon" and its replacement with the word "talk" [or "Bible talk"]: on this view of things it is no longer a "preacher" "preaching" a "sermon" but a "speaker" "giving" a "[Bible] talk".
Now much of the tension between proponents of contemporary and traditional forms of worship can be viewed as largely ideologically (or perhaps doctrinally) neutral. In other words it is cultural and external. For instance it is understandable that a generation brought up on rock and pop music as well as television and the internet would feel much more at home with "contemporary" forms of worship incorporating those aspects of the culture rather than more "traditional" forms of worship based on less "popular" forms of musical expression as well as liturgical books and formality. A very significant part of these so-called "worship wars" is largely due to differences in culture and the church coming to terms with the fact that the Christian faith is expressed in a particular cultural context.
It is worth noting some parallels with Christianity brought by Western missionaries to non-Western cultures. African churches tended to adopt Western cultural forms (particularly in music, liturgy and clergy vestments) but there has been a move to indigenise much of the African church to the point where African forms of music are now more the rule rather than the exception in their churches. This is understandable in the case of Christianity coming to a culture for the first time. When the missionaries first arrived there simply wouldn't have been any hymns in the indigenous musical style because there weren't any Christians of that culture to write them! Over time, however, things changed and the African church now has a rich tradition of indigenous African church music on which to draw. And thanks be to God. I'm all for different nations expressing the Christian faith within their own cultural context. If I walk into an Anglican cathedral in most of Africa the music might be very different from what I'm used to hearing and singing in church but doctrinally speaking I would be on pretty much the same page as the local Christians. The fact that they sing African music and I sing Western music is completely beside the point. (And in actual fact I think I would very much like to sing African music in church -- at least when in Africa.) And to an extent it is like that with the differences between the older and younger generations in the so-called "worship wars" in many Western cultures. You can have the older generation and the younger generation agreed in doctrine but preferring different external forms. One person happens to like traditional hymns, choirs, organs, liturgy from a book and robed clergy while another happens to like modern songs, solo vocalists, bands, LCD projectors and service leaders in casual clothes. On this view both are different cultural expressions of the Christian faith, but equal in validity.
But when it comes to the modern evangelical church in the West and particularly the linguistic changes afoot I don't actually think the picture I have just painted holds for the most part. That would be a most charitable reading of the motives of those who have implemented change in our churches. Ideologically neutral cultural shift of the I-like-electric-guitars-while-you-like-pipe-organs-but-I-guess-that-both-are-cool-in-their-own-way kind is certainly part of the picture, but only a small part. Of course culture is not monolithic and different people like different things and over time the younger generation as a whole will tend to prefer certain alternatives to what the older generation did and so we should expect some change. But such change you would expect to come about naturally and progressively rather than being forced on us from above. The "de-jargonning" movement hasn't arisen because younger generations stopped using what to them were obsolete words. No, an entire young generation is consciously being reeducated by those in authority to think in a different way. The change has actually been ideologically driven and I would suggest that a more accurate analysis would therefore be to view this as a revolution. We might therefore more approproately call this an anti-church revolution.
As may already be apparent I oppose that revolution. Let me first be clear on what I am not opposed to. I am not against the church naturally finding different legitimate cultural expressions of universal Christian truth. Whether we use electric guitars or pipe organs (or both!) in church is for the most part irrelevant in the scheme of things. That's not what I'm on about. For what it's worth I actually play both of those instruments and enjoy playing both but definitely prefer pipe organs to electric guitars in church. But that's largely a personal preference. If you prefer electric guitars to pipe organs in church that's your prerogative (although we may at some stage need to have a discussion on aesthetics!). What I am opposed to is this ideological revolution whereby a group of people impose the view that Christians should no longer go to church to hear a "preacher" "preach" a "sermon" but rather hear a "speaker" "give" a "talk" etc (this is just one of several examples).
This is not a question of obsolete words being replaced by newer ones. McNeill is therefore wrong to imply that this is the case when he says in relation to his yachting analogy that club members "are not willing to change the terminology to reflect modern usage" (emphasis mine). But the debate is not about modern versus obsolete usage. All the sailing terms McNeill lists are not by any stretch of the imagination obsolete but reflect thoroughly modern usage among sailors. The debate is about specilised versus generalist usage and group identity. If it were just about obsolete vs modern usage we wouldn't even be having a debate. As an example consider Genesis 32:15 in an old translation such as the AV with more modern translations such as the ESV. The AV uses the obsolete "kine" for the plural of "cow" while modern versions say "cows". Even Christians who continue to use the Authorised Version of the Scriptures would still say "cows" rather then "kine" unless they were directly quoting from the text. No-one is saying that Christians should use obsolete words. This is not a debate remotely concerned with current versus obsolete usage. Rather, it's a debate about stripping Christians as the gathered people of God of their specialised vocabulary and forcing them to adopt more general terminology. It is my contention that this strips Christians of a part of their unique identity which distinguishes them from the world.
What the "de-jargonners" fail to grasp is that language is inextricably bound together with identity. In other words, language is not purely functional. This is an important point to grasp. McNeill's example of "yachties" and their unique terminology actually proves the point I am making. He made the point that "yachties" have separate words for all kinds of things where there are "ordinary" English equivalents that will do the job just as well. Well, for an outsider maybe. But not for an insider. Indeed, the use of this distinctive language is part and parcel of what it means to be a "yachtie"! Take this away and you are stripping them of their distinctive identity. Yes of course it places a sort of a "barrier" between insiders and outsiders, but if you remove that barrier then you have abolished their own unique identity: in other words "yachties" are no more (or at best a mere shadow of their former selves).
I suspect that one reason most of the the "de-jargonners" fail to get this point is due to the fact that -- like most people in English speaking countries -- the majority of them are hopelessly monolingual. If you speak several languages well (fluently even) then there will still be one that is dearest to you -- that is your "heart language". It is a core part of your identity and communicating in language B or C rather than your heart language A is not the same. As an example of this I lived and went to university in Germany and I speak fluent German (after learning it for several years). Now obviously when speaking with Germans I would speak German. But at times I even spoke German with fellow native English speakers in Germany -- typically in a group setting where not everyone in the group was a native English speaker. And at times there was even the odd Australian in the group! If you're reading this and can't speak anything but English then I can tell you that the idea of two true blue Aussies speaking anything but Strine to one another is rather odd (as is the idea of an Australian and an Englishman speaking German to one another). Even if both parties speak fluent German and can communicate effortlessly in that language it just doesn't feel "right". Why is this? Because language is such an important part of our identity. It is part and parcel of who we are as Australians (or any other particular culture).
If you visit foreign shores and label their language as mere "gobbledygook" because you don't understand it you would be both ignorant and offensive. I don't speak Chinese but I don't think Chinese people speak "gobbledygook" and nor do I as an outsider to Chinese culture think that they should stop speaking their language (with which their Chinese identity is bound up) and start speaking mine. No, they speak Chinese with one another in their own country (or culture) -- and rightly so. It is their birthright and if for whatever reason I want to go and live in China then I should learn to speak their language. Now none of that prevents a Chinese person speaking English (or another language I happen to understand such as French or German) with me so that we can effectively communicate (perhaps even thereby promoting Chinese culture and language) or perhaps speaking a simpler form of Chinese in order to help the poor foreigner whose broken Chinese is not up to standard. Those things can and should take place. BUT the fact remains that it is right and proper for Chinese people in China to speak Chinese and it is wrong to expect them to speak anything else. It is simply risible to suggest that the Chinese should somehow carte blanche abandon their own language and start speaking a foreign language because there are people who don't speak Chinese. No, an integral part of what it means to be Chinese is to speak Chinese. If they stop doing that then they have lost an important part of their identity.
And yet that is the equivalent of what the (so-called) "de-jargonners" are telling us to do in the church. As Christians we have our own unique vocabulary. Although there are similarities between what we call a "sermon" and what the world calls a "talk" or a "lecture", for us they are not the same thing. Using these words are part and parcel of what it means to be a Christian and what it means to belong to the church as distinct from the world. Rightly understood these words are not "jargon" but rather part of our own native language as Christians. Now I think I should point out that even for the "de-jargonners" there are words that they refuse to "de-jargonise". For example they have not (yet at any rate) "de-jargonised" the word "sacrament" which is arguably far less intelligible to an outsider than the word "sermon" (which nearly everyone understands!). And even if they eventually do "de-jargonise" this word -- again robbing Christians of something that is their birthright -- I do not think they will ever be able to "de-jargonise" the word "God" for instance. Like a deconstructionist who is happy to deconstruct the received wisdom but refuses to deconstruct his own commitment to deconstructionism, the de-jargonners' ideology is shown up as bankrupt by the fact that if carried through consistently the project would collapse under its own weight.
Now of course Christians should be welcoming to those outside of the group and that means using language they understand. So when explaining the faith to a non-believer I am careful to make sure I am using language that he can understand. And sometimes that will mean substituting one "regular" English word for another more specifically "Christian" one. But other times when explaining the faith to an outsider I think we are better served by using an "insider's" word but then being careful to explain what is meant by it (for example I think it's counterproductive to attempt to avoid the word "sin" altogether in our evangelism, instead using it and explaining carefully what is meant). But the fundamental mistake the "de-jargonners" make is then to apply this to our own church gatherings. What they fail to grasp is that church is a thoroughly Christian phenomenon. Theologically speaking, church is the gathering of God's covenant people. In brief, church is for Christians and not for non-believers. That might sound like heresy to many evangelicals but I would submit it is they who have departed from sound Biblical theology at this point. Church is fundamentally a "family gathering" of God's people and it is right and proper that Christians speak their own native language in such a setting. Now I share the evangelical concern that non-believers become believers and that the church has to reach out to such people. I certainly hope and pray that we all welcome non-believers in our midst and do our best to present Christ to them and explain anything they don't understand. But their presence is not the raison d'être for our church gatherings. Continuing the metaphor, the aim is that outsiders join the family and not the family destroys its own identity and becomes indistinguishable from the world around it. So of course we should explain and interpret things to those in our midst who don't understand; but the church should not do so at the expense of abandoning its own unique vocabulary and identity. So hopefully it should be clear this whole movement for "de-jargonising" our church gatherings (as I have said evangelism is a slightly different kettle of fish than church gatherings) is a mistake predicated on a faulty theology of the church. Moreover, it is profoundly ignorant and offensive to even call Christians' distinctive language "jargon" in the first place.
One final point to mention is that most of the "de-jargonners" are actually quite patronising in their approach towards non-believers. In my experience people are not as stupid as the de-jargonners assume. To take McNeill's example, I'm not a "yachtie" and yet I know my port from my starboard, my bow from my stern and my aft from my fore. Sure, at one stage I didn't, but some time between the ages of about 5 and 15 I came to know what all these words meant (port, starboard, bow and stern at a very early age -- there is after all a well known children's game based on these and other nautical terms -- aft and fore a little bit later as these weren't a part of the game). As an outsider there will still be some words with which I'm not au fait, but I already understand quite a bit and can get the gist of what they're saying. And I suspect most people are like me in that regard. Even though as a non-"yachtie" I don't regularly use these words in everyday conversation (I don't have any reason to), I still know what most of them mean. And even though they don't have the same (positive) connotation of group identity for me as they do for a "yachtie" for whom they are part and parcel of his identity, I still appreciate the fact that for "yachties" these words do have such a meaning and I would never dream of taking that away from them or expecting them to give up on their specialised vocabulary for the sake of people like me. If I was impressed by yachting and wanted to become a "yachtie" then I would in time adopt their unique vocabulary and embrace it as my own because I know that that is part and parcel of being a "yachtie". Most non-Christians, I suspect, are exactly like that when it comes to Christianity. They know that Christians have their unique practices and unique words to describe them and that Christians -- indeed like any group -- will use words not normally used outside of their particular group setting. After all, that's a characteristic of any group. People know that a "sermon" is something a Christian hears at church and they don't expect Christians to give up on using the word "sermon" because they as non-believers don't have any reason to use it in their everyday lives and that a Christian sermon has some similarities with a secular "talk" or "lecture". It's quite patronising when Christians assume that non-Christians are a bunch of dolts who have no idea about anything whatsoever. Of course it is possible that a few may not know but most already have a good idea what a "sermon" is and are not made uncomfortable by Christians' use of specialised vocabulary such as this. One thing that is going to be different for non-believers is the connotation (as opposed to the denotation) of the word. Unlike the case with non-believers, for us Christians, hearing a "sermon" should have a positive connotation and one of a wholly different kind than hearing a mere "talk" or "lecture".
0 comments:
Post a Comment