Posted by Eliza on: 08.10.2006 /
I sometimes get confused when listening to, or reading, Christians – as if I recognize the words but I don’t understand the meaning.
As an example, I’ve been approached on occasions in the past by evangelical Christians who asked, “Are you saved?” or “Have you accepted Jesus Christ?” I felt like I kind of knew what they meant, and the answers were “no”, but I didn’t know why they were using the words “saved” and “accepted” in a way that was so foreign to me.
Comment by: Dan
1Hi Eliza,
What’s a “never-Christian”? Is that how you identify yourself?
I think every social grouping has it’s own language that isn’t well understood by non-users. I’m a computer programmer for example and we have a pretty extensive jargon of our own, most of which makes little sense to those unfamiliar with it.
I guess that good communication means being sensitive to the language your hearer uses and trying not to use jargon they won’t understand, or explaining the jargon if you do! I would never ask someone who wasn’t a Christian if they were “saved” or whether they’d “accepted Jesus” but then perhaps I make other jargon-based slip ups without realising it…
I guess another interesting thing about this sort of jargon, which you seem to be alluding to, is that different people (i.e. different Christians) can sometimes mean different things by it. N.T. Wright says that religious terms are often like packing cases – they’re a sort of shorthand that enables you to refer to a lot of stuff very quickly. Sometimes though, we need to unpack the cases to make sure we really understand each other. Because we don’t often do this, a lot of religious debates are effectively reduced to people hitting each other over the head with locked packing cases!
I haven’t directly answered your 2 questions I’m afraid! The list of words would be enormous, and I can’t think of any specific examples of misunderstandings at the moment.
Comment by: Helen
2Thanks Eliza – I’m glad you posted about this because I’ve been thinking for a while now that ‘churched’ and ‘unchurched’ people do speak different languages. (Throughout what I write please understand that this is a generalization – some ‘church’ people speak much more in their own language than others)
It’s doubly confusing because the two languages seem to be the same. So it takes a while to realize how different the meanings churched and unchurched people ascribe to some words are.
I’ve spent about 2 decades of my life in the UK and two in the US so I’m aware of how confusing it can be when (sub)cultures appearing to speak the same language actually aren’t, quite.
It seems that everyone realizes now how crazy it is to speak your language to someone who doesn’t know it and expect them to understand what you mean. These days most missionary organizations require Christians going overseas to begin by going to language school for a couple of years.
Yet – ironically – there’s no concerted effort, as far as I know, to teach churched people who are in contact with ‘unchurched’ people every day (or should be) ‘the language of the unchurched’. Some of them perhaps knew it once but immersion in the language of the churched has probably caused it to recede/be overwritten since then.
It particularly intrigues me how some words are ‘bad’ in (some) church subcultures and ‘good’ (or ‘varied’) everywhere else. For example, ‘pride’ and ‘tolerance’. ‘Pride’ is a sin and ‘tolerance’ connotes being inappropriate tolerant of habits or beliefs which God doesn’t approve of – so that’s ‘bad’ also.
On the whole I find that church language – which I often call Christianeze – robs language of its full range of meaning, putting a more narrow and often more negative spin on words than they have outside the church. I find that unfortunate.
Comment by: Helen
3Dan wrote:
Thanks Dan – this is a great word picture!
Yes…I wish it weren’t but I’m afraid it probably is.
Maybe it includes most of the words in the Bible except, ‘a’, ‘the’ and proper nouns ;) – and the Bible is a big book!
Comment by: Eliza
4Hi, Dan – I chose “never-Christian” because I’d suspect those who’ve never attended church regularly would be the least likely to understand “Christian-ese”. Most of the atheists who’ve been participating in discussions here and on the CatE Discussion Board were raised as Christians, & I’d hazard a guess that the word usages I’m asking about are more familiar to them.
I don’t have examples right at hand, but I’ve certainly seen posts from people, usually new to the discussion here, which seem full of “Christian-ese” – often seem to be urging the “lost” * among us to read the Bible and seek God, but in language that’s almost impenetrable to me. I mean, I recognize all the words as English, but alot of them are used in ways I don’t really understand!
* “Lost” is one of those words – to me, that means an item or person which is misplaced, not sure where it is or where to go. I’m not “lost” in the usual meaning of that word in English…but in “Christian-ese” I apparently do fit the meaning of “lost” – but in Off The Map’s usage of “lost”, I don’t think I do. (I didn’t used to be a church-goer & active Christian, who stopped going to church & stopped active involvement.) Wooo, it gets confusing at times!
Comment by: Dan
5I think some Christians almost think the words themselves are a kind of “magic” (although they certainly wouldn’t use that word!) and that if they repeat them enough times, loudly enough, then other people will somehow “get it” and become Christians! It’s a bit like the “Brits on holiday” thing (are you familiar with that stereotype?) – i.e. the attitude that if we (I’m British by the way) talk to foreigners loudly and slowly enough then they’ll eventually understand what we’re talking about!
Most evangelical Christians at least are taught to believe that the gospel (i.e. the message of what Jesus did, how we are “saved” etc.) is powerful – something I would agree with – but they don’t seem to realise that it has to be communicated in a way that makes sense to outsiders. It can’t just be repeated parrot fashion as it may have been taught to them in church.
Comment by: Helen
6Eliza – “lost” is a great example of a word that has a different meaning in “Christianese”.
It’s an interesting point that “lost” outside church circles means “something that’s mine that I can’t find anymore” whereas in church circles it often means people who – so it seems – never were God’s
The word comes from the parables in Luke 15 and each lost thing/person in those parables did belong to someone in the first place then went missing.
So should we think of people who are not currently followers of Jesus as being God’s, but temporarily missing? If so then why would God let those who are his stay missing and then go to hell?
This illustrates another problem I have with Christianese – namely, the meanings it gives words are supposed to be from the Bible, but I’m not always convinced they truly represent what the Bible is saying anyway.
Comment by: Karen
7Eliza, this is SO funny. We must be having a Vulcan mind-meld or something. Or perhaps I should say, in good Christianese, “The Holy Spirit must have been moving on both of our hearts.” ;-)
I just got done posting a reaction to the “Christianese” in the video that Helen put up over on the eBay atheist forum, because it struck me so strongly watching that film that an unbeliever would have NO IDEA what those people were talking about (of course it’s aimed at a Christian audience, so that’s okay).
Here’s what I wrote over there:
Anyway, there you have it: More proof that GMTA (great minds think alike). :-)
Comment by: Helen
8LOL Karen – I read your comment on eBay atheist before seeing this; then I came over here to see if you’d discovered yet that you and Eliza are both thinking about Christianese today!
Comment by: Karen
9You were hot on my trail, Helen! :-)
Comment by: Eliza
10Perfect timing! I’ll have to check it out at home – the security system at work is so beefed-up that I can’t load any page with a video link in it.
More ‘Christian-ese’ words:
(1) Love – this was the subject of a pretty heated discussion on the Discussion Board last month – atheists feeling that Christians were tossing it around lightly, or at least using it to refer to feelings that weren’t truly “love”.
(2) “Christian” – I’ve been a bit confused when people (mostly patients) tell me, “That’s so Christian of you!” Leaves me with a baffled look on my face, though I think I get the basic idea of what they mean…little do they know, though, how inaccurate that adjective really is for me! ;)
Comment by: Julie Marie
11here’s one that just recently started irritating me, used as a closing to an email:
Love In Christ,
The context struck me….this person can only love me if they do it through Christ. It made me sad, because this is a friend who I loved – with or without Christ’s assistance. Although I have never used this term, I certainly will make a mental note that it doesn’t fill people with warm fuzzies and I won’t incorporate it into my vocab.
Comment by: Julie Marie
12irony irony irony, that an atheist should model the virtues we christians aspire to….
Comment by: Eliza
13I guess I prefer to think of them as human virtues, not owned by any one particular group…!
Comment by: Julie Marie
14indeed.
Comment by: Helen
15I used to sign off with things like “in Jesus’ love” because I felt like it was important to show my Christian-ness to other Christians that way. Not to show off but just as a way of connecting with them.
Once I became uncomfortable using that I started using ‘take care’ instead. I probably always used that with people who weren’t Christians but now I use it with Christians as well because using more Christian sign-offs such as “in Jesus’ love” would make me feel like I was misrepresenting myself.
Comment by: Doreen
16The one that always puzzles me is used frequently by certain professors at seminary:
The Christian Family
I just don’t see Christians as a family. Not because of the dysfunction, because every family has that. Maybe I need to think of it more like your chosen family, not your birth family?
Comment by: Julie Marie
17that is probably a more rational interpretation of the phrase than mine. The context was – this was the friend who just knew I was terribly bound by satan.
as I look back on my former beliefs, I am occasionally shocked. And when my friends who still have those beliefs start talking freely, I am just stunned into silence. I can’t tell you how glad I am that my husband never got around to learning those parts of the belief system….
Comment by: Helen
18Julie Marie – yes, I’m glad your husband didn’t draw you further into what you’re now trying to distance yourself from. That would have made this time much more difficult for you.
Doreen – yes, I think Christians do mean that the Christian family is your chosen family. The idea is that Christians can be the brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles, grandparents or even parents you always longed for. That’s the theory, anyway ;)
And this new family is supposed to complement, not overwrite, the old – unless the old is non-existent or too abusive to be part of a person’s current life.
Comment by: Bruce
19I’m intrigued by the whole concept of “insider” language and its effect. What’s interesting to me is that Christians say that they want to be helpful, communicative, and influential toward the unchurched, YET, they/we use language that is vague and requires special knowledge.
We’ve asked people on our launch team to hold us accountable on this matter. Some of them are not “church” people, so it makes them uniquely suited and qualified to weigh in on this matter. I highly value their opinions and think it will take empowering folks like them to stay on the track of being clear in language to everyone.
A final thought. It is the nature of organizations to become jargonized. Academic institutions, news agencies, churches, businesses, and other institutions have language that is only understood by those within the respective institutions. I don’t think it is unique to churches. Still, if churches want to be in the marketplace, they must speak in a more generally understood language.
Comment by: Eliza
20One comment on jargon – it seems to me that the other examples usually have their own unique words and terms, which may be acronyms or fancy scientific or Latin words/terms, forming the majority of their jargon. Christian-ese seems different, to me, in that those words and terms are superficially the same as used in every-day secular conversation, but have different meanings in Christianese. (“Justification” seems like an example of a word that may be used far more in Christian-speak than in every day English – but many of the others we are talking about are very basic English words, like love, bread, body, birth, even “in” – as in, “Yours in Christ” as a closing for letters.)
Comment by: Karen
21One other thing I recalled on this topic. The pastor of the last church I attended was very attuned to this problem of Christianese and he was concerned about making visitors feel welcome at church.
So, when he was first hired, he insisted on changing “churchy” words like “narthex” “bulletin” and “9 a.m. hour” to “lobby” “worship folder” and “worship service,” respectively.
There were a whole bunch of other insider terms that he changed too, including the name of the church! This pastor got a whole lot of flak for doing this, but to his credit he stuck by his principle and made the church much more user-friendly (to use computer jargon that’s now migrated to the mainstream). ;-)
Unfortunately, some of his other “radical” ideas got him into trouble over the years and he was fired a year ago (actually, he got a no-confidence vote and resigned). Very sad. :-(
Comment by: Rachel
22I heard a pastor speak on this topic a few years ago. He pointed out that the phrase “accepted Jesus as my personal Saviour” is a term of relatively recent usage. (It is certainly is not found anywhere in the Bible.) He said that 100 or so years ago in the South, it was common for Christians to refer to themselves as “seized by a powerful affection.”
I have this whole picture in my head to go with that phrase of this Southern preacher in a tent revival meeting shouting, “I’ve been seeeeeeeeized by a powwwwwwerful affection! Oh, hallelujah! Brothers and sisters, will you be seeeeeeized tonight?” And all these people sitting in chairs, fanning themselves and shouting, “Amen, preacher!” :-)
Comment by: Rachel
23I’ve also heard religious terms referred as a sort of boundary marker – a way of determining who is in and who is out. Use of certain terms signifies membership in the group. President Bush has been very adept at using certain words or phrases that evangelicals identify with, thus communicating that he is “one of us/them.” As a result, many evangelicals have supported the President and his policies with little or no examination or critique.
Personally, I strongly dislike “Christianese.” After a while, the words and phrases begin to lose their meaning because they are repeated again and again without any thought to what is truly being conveyed – a sort of intellectual shortcut.
I appreciate the effort within the emerging church to take a fresh look at the language of faith and to communicate with more clarity, variety and genuine meaning. When I visited an emerging church in Portland (Evergreen – a church in a pub), the pastor referred to the mission of the group as “following the Way of Jesus in community.” I thought that was really beautiful.
In the last few years, I have worked at removing “Christianese” from my vocabulary and at communicating more intentionally when discussing faith. I have found it very clarifying, as I actually have to think about what I truly believe and what I want to convey. I particularly enjoy phrasing things in different way when communicating with other Christians. I like to see them struggle and squirm a little because what I am saying or how I am saying it doesn’t fit inside their box.
Comment by: Dan
24Hi Rachel,
I did paraphrase N.T. Wright a little. I got this from his, “Scripture and the Authority of God”, and he’s actually talking specifically about theological terms such as “atonement” etc. I agree with him that these short cuts provide a useful function but can also be distracting and/or confusing at times. I guess I feel similarly about some religious jargon although as a rule I try to avoid using too much of it, especially when talking to the un-initiated!
I agree with you about the President Bush thing. I’ve just started reading “God’s Politics” by Jim Wallis (which so far I’m very impressed with) and he’s equally unhappy about the way Bush has (to a large extent) co-opted the religious agenda.
I’ve often been impressed, when reading the Bible, by the creativity often exercised by those who communicated on God’s behalf – e.g. Jesus, the early disciples, the ancient Hebrew prophets etc. They always spoke within the language and context their hearers were used to and were always looking for fresh, dynamic and effective ways to express what they needed to say. Christian-ese, when used unthinkingly, can be the complete opposite to this – dead, lifeless, meaningless and confusing.
Comment by: NCxian
25I have found that when I try to use other words for spiritual concepts, it comes out sounding New Agey. So, for instance, when I talk about God (you all have seen it) I say “God, or transcendence, or an Other, or metaphysical reality . . .”
Sometimes it aggravates more staid Christians–they think I am actually talking about something entirely different just because I am trying to “unpack” the words. As others have said, the traditional words are often over-used to the point of meaningless–or worse, are used to exclude “outsiders” who don’t know understand the traditional meaning. My favorite? Probably “personal relationship with Jesus Christ”. “Son of God” is a fun one to work over with somebody–either an interesting thoughtful person (like all you guys) or a jargon-monger who needs their consciousness raised!
Comment by: Rachel
26Excellent point, Dan! I recently read McLaren’s “Secret Message of Jesus” and he talks a lot about how Jesus used images from 1st century everyday life to describe the Kingdom of God. McLaren also talks about how even the phrase “Kingdom of God” can have a negative meaning for people today because we think of “kingdom” as implying force and domination. But to a 1st century hearer, they had no concept of rule outside a king and a kingdom, so their focus would have been on the promise of a good, loving king and a peaceable kingdom. Desmond Tutu uses the phrase “the dream of God” and talks about choosing to participate in making that dream a reality.
In the writings and accounts of Paul, there are dramatic differences in how he presented his message, depending upon the audience he was addressing. His speech in the Jewish synagogue compared with his speech before the philosophers of Athens is a good example. And Paul battled hard against some of the other early church leaders to insist that the message of Jesus must not be culture bound.
Comment by: Helen
27Dan wrote:
I agree.
It seems a shame that some Christians today are so afraid of speaking heresy that they cling to a few tired old ways of saying things. Which have lost their impact among ‘insiders’ and confuse ‘outsiders’.
And as NCxian points out, when we do try to say things in new ways, that often arouses suspicion and causes other Christians to think we’ve become some sort of heretic (because why else would we not be fine to use the same old same old words? ;))
Rachel: the “dream of God” – I like it! Yes, Paul seemed good at adapting what he said to his audience. As you mentioned, on Mars Hill his message was quite different from some others. It’s interesting to look at the Mars Hill speech and see how little ‘Jewish-eze’ he used.
Comment by: Rachel
28And there is that word again – “personal” – “personal” relationship with Jesus or Jesus as my “personal” Saviour. Those phrases are not found in the Bible and are relatively new in their usage. So why the emphasis on personal? What does this tell us about modern Western Christianity?
Comment by: NCxian
29Here is what Brian McLaren says:
(footnote # 46, A Generous Orthodoxy).
Comment by: Ian
30“relationship” has replaced religion. Since the 1960s religion got a bad rap some very clever christians found a different word to use. Christians who tell me that it is a “relationship and not a religion” have fallen for a marketing slogan of the ages . If you have a book that has a set of rules/guidelines you live by. If you go to a building where you and your fellow believers gather…it is a religion.
The one I find so very offensive : “pre-christian”. That one is so very arrogant.
Comment by: Dan
31Is that the same as, “not-yet-christian”? Eliza – I thought maybe that’s what you were reacting against with “never-Christian” at the start of this topic!
I’m interested in the negative reaction here to “personal relationship with Jesus”. I understand there’s a danger in over-personalising the faith – i.e. it can become all about me and sod the rest of the world, but I still do believe that God is interested in us personally and he wants to have a relationship with me. Although that relationship isn’t quite the same as the relationship I have with my friends, to me it is still a relationship and I think I would say it is the most personal relationship I have.
Comments?
Comment by: Helen
32Thanks for your comments, Dan. I made the ones about a personal relationship with Jesus into a new blog entry:
My most personal relationship is with Jesus
Everyone: please post responses to Dan’s comments about a personal relationship with Jesus on the new blog entry. Thanks!
Comment by: Rachel
33I see what you mean, Ian. I’m sure Christians wouldn’t like if Atheists started calling them “pre-Atheists”!
Comment by: Theresa
34Lucky for me I speak both christianese and never-christian! I was a born-again christian for about 20 years and was even a pastor’s wife, so I really know the christianese. About 10 years ago I dropped out of the church, then christianity and eventually belief in God. Now I talk like never-christian, most of the time. Sometimes, like when talking to my christian family or co-worker I find it is so easy to slip into. Not that I believe any differently, but it seems easier for me to just let them talk how they want to and agree with them in their language. Especially to my mom, I feel like I am sparing her feelings even though she knows I don’t believe anymore.
Comment by: Eliza
35Theresa- that must be a comfort to your mom and the others!
I sometimes try to come up with a short phrase that I think sounds reasonably “Christian” – when I think it might help support a patient who has just told me they’ve been praying about something, or feel they’ve had a sign about something. (On the other hand, I don’t want to mislead them further into thinking I’m Christian – what a quandry!) I have no idea whether it sounds “right” to them – but, noone has ever done a double-take and questioned me on it, so maybe it’s not too far off.
Maybe some of the folks here who “walk in both worlds” could put together a “Christianese – Secular English” two-way dictionary to help those of us who have difficulty understanding – or speaking – the other language!
Comment by: Helen
36Theresa wrote:
Theresa I know exactly how you feel. I’m not as good at not-Christianese as Christianese. It’s weird – the words of Christianese come to me more easily still than not-Christianese but on the inside Christianese makes me feel uncomfortable because it’s not a true reflection of where I’m at these days.
Christianese connects so much better with some Christians than not-Christianese that it’s hard to think “I’m not going to speak this on principle”. And I’m not sure it really helps because if I’m not connecting with someone my honesty is probably wasted on them.
Comment by: Mike O
37OK, here’s a throwback to the 1970′s, but this SOOO reminds me of a line from the Movie, Airplane, where Barbara Billingsly (she played Beavers mom on Leave it to Beaver) says to a flight attendant who was having difficulty with two black gentlemen, “Excuse me. I speak jive.” And then slipped into this whole street-lingo routine. It was priceless!
Comment by: Eliza
38Oh, yeah, that was a sidesplitter!
Comment by: JG
39At http://conversationattheedge.com/2006/08/21/the-jesus-following-life/#comment-1499 Rachel said:
I must confess that I have a problem with the whole notion of “Christianese”. I would rather stick with words in the existing language rather than make up new ones where the true meaning is less clear.
What is wrong with using phrases such as “jargon” or “cliche” rather than making up a new word “Christianese”? What does the new word add? Instead why not just say “Christian jargon” or “Christian cliche”?
I agree that jargon and cliches are unhelpful and that we need to avoid them wherever possible.
In one of my posts I commented (somewhat tongue in cheek) on “humanese” – it seems to me that any words used by humans could be described as humanese in the same way that any words used by Christians are being described as christianese but I’m not sure how helpful it is to do so. Whereas if we refer to jargon or cliche we are being far more specific and clear. Without meaning to be flippant, “christianese” comes across to me as a cliche.
Dealing specifically with the word “transformed” I’m not aware of over use of the word within the church here in the UK – it maybe different in the states. I can’t speak for anyone else but when I use it, I do so in the ordinary sense of the word. Oxford English Dictionary says:
“Change the form or appearance or character …” In this context I am clearly referring to character rather than form or appearance.
I would regard the change in the disciples from the time they abandoned Jesus at the time of his arrest to the leaders of the early church as a transformation. Paul from Acts 9:1 to the character we see in the rest of Acts – again a radical transformation. Zacchaeus in Luke 19:8. Romans 12:2 talks of being transformed.
But my particular emphasis is best illustrated by Isaiah 61:1 and 3 as previously mentioned. I see tremendous hurt and pain in the world. I do believe in God and believe he can and does transform peoples’ lives by bringing healing and peace. But I think this happens primarily through bringing people into caring communities. I believe much of the church is a pale shadow of what it ought to be. I don’t think there is too much talk of transformation, I feel there is too little. But I am not interested in just talking about it – if it was just talk then it would be a cliche. I want to see it actually happening. Too often I see people being hurt by church rather than helped and that is a subject I feel passionate about. For me, if peoples’ lives are NOT being transformed through being within or in contact with a Christian community then I would question what that Christian community is doing. I would compare it to a bus service that is failing to stop to pick up passengers.
Comment by: Rachel
40“Jargon” and “cliche” are good descriptions also. I think with the word “Christianese” we are just trying to insert a little humor into the discussion. It’s good for us Christians to poke fun at ourselves from time to time. :)
I don’t see it as being particularly overused – just another bit of Christian jargon so it is beneficial for us to dig deeper and think about what it really means to us. I like your examples of Paul and Zaccheus – definitely radical transformations! They both made a 180 degree turn from positions of power and privilege to lives of sacrifice and service.
I agree, JG!
Comment by: Eliza
41“Transformation” is definitely one of those words with a secular meaning, and also a Christian usage which doesn’t obviously mean the same thing to someone listening from outside of Christianity. In the examples of Paul and Zaccheus, I can see the meaning I know. Elsewhere in Christian discussions, I don’t understand what it means.
I tried a little experiment – used Google to search “transformation” and “Christian” (trying a few variations to see what came up) – and up came several documents in what seemed to me pretty impenetrable Christian jargon. This one came up when I searched those terms plus “definition” – it talks about a recent change in the meaning of “transformation”, from individual to church. Here are a few sections from that article:
I’m glad they said it might sound like mish-mash, because to me it does!
Are there other words Christians use that might have different meanings in one group than another, or for which the definition has changed in recent times?
Comment by: Rachel
42Eliza, I visited the site you referenced and I think I can “decode” what they are saying. :) The authors of the article you quoted are “fundamentalists” and the group they are criticizing are “evangelicals” (or “neo-evangelicals” as the authors call them). Many people think that fundamentalism and evangelicalism are the same thing – due in part to the popular media’s melding of the two labels. But they are actually two distinct and separate groups.
The fundamentalist movement emerged in the 1920s as a response to the perceived threats posed by modern science, especially the theory of evolution, and by theological liberalism and higher criticism. Fundamentalists emphasized certain “fundamentals” of the Christian faith, such as the inerrancy of Scripture, the virgin birth of Christ and the literal resurrection of Christ. They also emphasized personal holiness and withdrawal from the larger culture, which was perceived as evil and polluting.
Evangelicalism actually emerged beginning in the 1940s as an alternative to fundamentalism. It was seen as a “middle way” or “third way” between fundamentalism and theological liberalism. Evangelicals also emphasized basic Christian doctrines such as salvation through Christ but wanted to engage with the larger culture and promoted ecumenism within the church. The preaching of Billy Graham, the formation of Christian humanitarian organizations like World Vision, and the creation of the magazine “Christianity Today” all came out of this period.
True fundamentalists (such as the authors of the article) were not and still are not happy with this development. And now they see the emergence of yet another group they are calling “neo-evangelicals” – who could also possibly be labeled “emerging church” or “progressive evangelicals.” This new movement places a greater emphasis on social justice, societal transformation, interfaith dialogue, etc.
The authors find this “neo-evangelical” movement disturbing and a further shift away from the fundamentalism they embrace and defend. They do not agree with a growing Christian emphasis on the need for social and societal transformation. Notice their statement: Biblical transformation, then, applies to an individual believer’s progress in sanctification. Back to the whole concept of personal faith that we were discussing on the other thread – the authors feel that spiritual transformation applies only to one’s personal morals and private behavior, not to working for reformation of unjust structures.
They object to a faith understanding that teaches we should work for justice in the society at large. The reason they called the Tom White definition of transformation “mish-mash” is because they object to his mention of “radical correction of social ills” etc. The article you referenced is their attempt to identify and root out what they perceive as heresy.
As fundamentalists, they continue to emphasize withdrawal from the larger culture, which they view as evil beyond redemption. Their primary goal in regards to the larger culture would be to “snatch brands from the fire” ie. convert others to their brand of Christianity and encourage them to withdraw as well. Notice the advertisements surrounding the article: ads for books on the evils of modern medicine, vaccination, environmentalism, taxes & “threats to liberty” and an ad for a company that sells gold and silver (popular way to convert your money to withdraw from the system).
Comment by: Dan
43Wow Rachel – that’s a pretty astute (and from my limited knowledge I would say spot on) analysis!
I guess I don’t often separate fundamentalism from evangelicalism and it is complicated by the different ways in which people use those 2 words and also by the fact that I think they sometimes overlap to some extent, but I think you’ve captured the distinction brilliantly!
Comment by: Eliza
44Ahhhh! She sheds light!!! Thanks, Rachel.
But the sad thing is, I actually found their first discussion of transformation more clear than most of the other sites & sermons I came across – that’s why I picked this one. So….how would you define transformation, as Christians use that word? :)
Comment by: Dan
45I don’t think there is any universal Christian definition of the word “transformation”. J.G.’s definition from the Oxford dictionary makes sense to me – “Change the form or appearance or character …”
We can talk about “transformation” in the lives of individuals, or in societies, institutions or whatever we happen to want to transform at the time! I have to say I don’t see it as a Christian word, nor do I think there is a specific Christian version of it that is different to everybody else’s!
I guess when I use the word I’m normally talking about something I see as an improvement (technically I guess transformation could also be negative), and within a Christian context I’m usually talking about an improvement in line with what I believe to be Godly values – e.g. justice, personal and inter-personal wholeness, etc. Those are just examples though – it’s entirely context dependent I think. I think that’s a normal way to use language – I don’t think it’s particularly “Christian”?
Comment by: NCxian
46I don’t have much to add to this conversation except that in my denomination right now “transformational” is the a very popular buzzword. Transformational teaching, transformational preaching, transformational relationships, blah, blah, blah. If you add “authentic” and “transparent”, you’ve got the Hat Trick!
I don’t think the word has a meaning different from regular use, but in this context, it usually means something that helps people becoming more Christ-like.
Comment by: JG
47Interesting! I must confess to disliking “very popular buzzwords” so perhaps transform is a word to be avoided. If so, it is a pity because I believe the word is helpful and does accurately represent what I am looking for.
Comment by: Rachel
48Personally, I would simply define transformation as a process of change. For the Christian, that process of change should result in them becoming more like Christ – more humble, more loving and giving, more of a servant to others, less selfish and materialistic, more forgiving and accepting, more honest, self-controlled, etc.
I agree with Dan that transformation is a more general and subjective term without a clear “Christian” definition, unlike terms such as “justification” and “santification” which have defined theological meaning and are not used in secular or everyday conversation.
I think that what transformation constitutes depends a lot on the cultural context. What is the change that is needed when the present state of affairs is measured against the values of the Way of Jesus? Following a master who preached a gospel of “good news for the poor” has unique demands and challenges for those of us who are part of the world’s prosperous and powerful minority. The implications are quite different for the poor and oppressed (reference Latin American liberation theology).
Christian transformation also varies for the individual depending on the starting point. If I am a domineering, unloving, abusive jerk, then being transformed by Jesus should mean that I become more kind, caring and loving and show greater deference to others. If I am a passive, abused, mistreated person who feels like a total piece of crap, being transformed by Jesus should mean that I begin to feel loved, valued and treasured by God. It should result in me having the strength and courage (and support of the faith community) to walk away from my abusive situation and begin to envision for myself a future of hope, healing and dignity.