An Anomalous Belfry

6.22.2006

Looking for Some "-ese"y Answers

As I was working today, I found myself on a particularly nondescript piece of highway with a lot of time to think, so think I did. As I was thinking, I came up with a question (actually two questions) to which I had no real answer, so I thought that I'd throw them out there...

The questions of today are: What exactly is "Christianese" and what can we do about it?

First question: What exactly is "Christianese"?

In my past experience, I have had two different encounters where this coined term was used and they shaped how I think about this word.

The first was in a class in which I was taught about how to witness to other people who did not know Christ. In this evangelism class, we were told in no uncertain terms to not use any Christianese when speaking to non-Christians about our faith. Theological terms such as "sin", "salvation" and "redemption" are not usually ones that are in an average person's vocabulary and if they are, they rarely have the meaning or the weight that we want to imbue them with. So, the first time that I heard the term Christianese used, it was to refer to words that would confuse people and present to them a stumbling block in accepting the gospel.

The second experience that I had that shaped the way in which I view the concept of Christianese was within a chapel service at college (sorry for all you out there who are keeping score, I can't remember who spoke that message) and talked about the way in which we, as college students need to avoid the use of Christianese with other people outside the college in reference to the concepts and things that we were learning. To them, they would sound irrelevant and uninteresting and like a foreign language that they could not understand. It was no longer the words that sounded like Christianese, but the depth behind them that was to be avoided.

However, I can add a third phenomenon to this list, although it is ongoing and I cannot really nail down one piviotal event as of yet, so I will provide two.

Lately, this term has been used to describe things that are "air" within our Christian lingo. Terms such as "a double portion of blessing", "putting on the armor of God" or "sowing financially" that many Christians use in situations just to fill time when in actuality they have forgotten the origin, power and context of these sayings (if they even knew them in the first place). In these settings, Christianese is used to describe the "smoke screen" tactics that some places seem to use in order to sound spiritual and say little, if anything, at all.

Other times, this term of "Christianese" has been used to describe preaching and teaching that is "dumbed down" (not that we even know what the speaker's intent, or education level, is in saying these things) and using this term in a deragatory manner to describe what may have been a simple presentation of the gospel. It almost seems as if simple understanding is no longer a basis for higher contemplation and deeper reflection.

So, maybe a better question should be: Is there no longer a "golden mean" in Christianity where the basics of the faith can be preached upon and considered deeply without being labeled as "shallow" or "a smoke screen"?

I enjoy a good debate as much as the next intellectual guy and authors like C.S. Lewis, Dante Alehgehri, Lee Strobel and Issac Asimov (and I am looking to expand my author/genre list) all stimulate and encourage me. I enjoy looking back into history and reading opinions and theologies by the church fathers (something I miss about being out of college) and meditating on what they had to say. I just wonder if sometimes we go too far in our criticsm of the "mother's milk" that we have left behind, as if our joy regarding consumption of Biblical solid food is the equivalent of children who brag about finally having all their teeth.

I am not insulting the deeper contemplation of God's word, just our attitude towards those that are still in that stage (and may never leave...either by choice or education) and shamefully enough, the way we deal with the basics of the Christian faith.

Which brings me to question two...which I'm hoping y'all can help with.

Second Question: What can we do about [Christianese]?

- Is there a way in which to allow intellectual and new (or non-intellectual) Christians to co-exist in the same church with the same pastor and have them both feel fed and nurtured instead of ignored or starving?

- How do we avoid falling into "mere Christianese" ourselves?

Note: I *have* been to Leif's site lately (June 22, 2006) in which he deals with an issue similar to this. However, since I was already going to address this topic before I read his post, I am writing this anyways; maybe I can put a new spin on the issue at hand.

6.20.2006

Some Unfinished Business...

Wow...it's been a while...PSA's comin' at ya...

theDING would like to take time out to pay tribute to one of my inspirations for starting into the world of blogging in the first place who has just gone into retirement. Lady Raeh, I will miss your inspiring comments and spontaneous poetry and I wish you well. For some reason, I don't think that your retirement will be as long as you think right now, but no matter what happens, I will accept it. I'm keeping your link up for people to reflect on the content and as a "candle in the window"...waiting for you to return.

On the other end of the spectrum, I am glad to finally have tracked down the blog of one of my comrades and am now posting a link to his site post-haste. Leif is a guy that is always challenging to whomever he speaks to and is willing to speak whatever is necessary for the truth to get out because, along with openness and honesty, truth is a priority in what he does.

But alas, it is getting late and my post will have to wait...I've been dropping comments on others sites tonight...

6.08.2006

Reflections on Nomenclature

It's been more than a month since I graduated from FGBI/FGBC, or Eston College as we must now call it (according to doxasky's blog - entry from June 7, 2006). That's right; the school's name change finally came about, which means that the wait is over and the rumors have all finally been dispelled.

However, the way in which it was discussed and bantered about for so long, I expected something that would be a bit more original and creative than "Eston College", which simply names the place in which the college resides. I can see how the name would be less imposing and offensive on a transcript or resume when people are trying to get into a restricted access country for missions purposes (which was one of the reasons to change the name), but this name seems so bland - even to the point of seeming sterile and lifeless - something that is totally uncharacteristic of the FGBI that I have come to know and love.

But really, to borrow a phrase, "What's in a name?"

Despite the possibility that we could start calling red, thorny flowers by the term "dilapidated encephalitis", each one would still look the same and smell the same as they did when we called them roses. (With a name that long and hard to spell, we would probably go back to calling them roses pretty quickly anyways.) Dogs would still smell wierd, water would still be wet and arsenic would still kill you, no matter how hard we called them "perfume", "sawdust" and "Al's Herbal Life Boosters".

OK, so that works for flowers and other inanimate objects, but how does the name for a group of people affect the dynamics of those are called by its name or associated with it?

As a case in point, the names of sports teams. Usually, they are a reference to something powerful for the purpose of psychologically pumping up the players and the fans. Names like the Flames, Roughnecks, Storm, Cowboys and the Nemesi are all classic examples of this. Other times, name of a team will refer to something or someone inspiring. Examples of this are "the 76ers" (named after the American Revolution in 1776) or the myriad of European soccer teams that are named after political movements or events (go to the March 9th entry).

It's just not that often that you hear of a guy's rugby team that is called "the exfoliating sponges" or a hockey team calling itself "the shower heads". There's just something missing about those names.

Heck, we even call ourselves "Christians", which according to what I remember from New Testament Survey class literally means "little anointed ones" (or more loosely translated, followers or children of the anointed one, referring to Jesus Christ). Knowing that whenever we call ourselves Christians, we know and identify ourselves as followers of Christ (even if those that we talk to do not understand what that really means) definitely has an impact on the way in which we view ourselves and conduct our lives. Once we give meaning to what it means to be a Christian (or, more specifically, when we begin to understand what the Bible tells us what it means to be a Christian) the name means something to us.

So, I think that the name Eston College has accomplished what it set out to do in the area of giving the college a name that is less forward in proclaiming itself as Christian, instead hoping that the people will be the difference. However, I think that by merely referring to the college as "Eston College", people will immediately ask "What's an Eston?" or "Where's that?" and at that very point in time the first words out of the mouth of the person on the recieving end of the conversation will shape how the perception unfolds. Most people are not a big fan of small towns (heck, even Nathanael asked if anything good could come from one in John 1:46) and that alone will make a world of difference because they may automatically think that the school lacks any credibility whatsoever. By reducing the name to a place, there is less control and stability about what is projected by the school because it now becomes a reflection of the town.

I think that the new name of the school should have been tied to something that is a bit more unchanging and consistent (not saying that the "Full Gospel" moniker always did us a lot of favors either...) instead of tying ourselves to another group of people. It may have seemed like a good idea at the time, but it will be interesting to see what time does to Eston.

Either way, I still support the school because I know what it is like and will continue to recommend it to others. However, there is definitely a a lot of PR work and vision casting that needs to be done in order for any of this to fly because, in my opinion, this change just stumbles out of the gate.

And we will see what happens...

I hope that I am wrong about all this, but only time will tell.

5.30.2006

Walking on the Stand

theDING would like to apologize both for the lack of blogging as of late and the confusion that the previous entry may have caused to the reading audience that have come to expect a certain quality of work. However, I will move forward, undaunted by the mediocrity of the previous effort (my opinion, not that of others) and update again. Hopefully, content will be made available here on a more frequent basis in the near future. Now, to carry through on a promise made to my local reading audience, here is my new post.

Over the last while, I have been going through transition and quite frankly, have been finding it to be a rather difficult time, yet one that has been full of growth and self-discovery. Even though it can be irritating to go through this process, I know that good things will come out of it in the end.

One of the things that I have been doing during this transition time is dedicating more of my thought processes and time with God to meditationa nd contemplation. I have found it to be a very peaceful way of getting in touch with God and having Him teach me, no matter where I am.

One of the subjects that I have been pondering lately is that of the Christian as a witness. Throughout the Bible, we are calle dto be witnesses for Christ and teven going back as far as Abraham, we see people who are blessed by God and were willing to be a witness for Him to the inhabitants of this world which was created by God and has since fallen into sin.

Now, some of you out there are probably cringing at the porspect that I might whip out some amazing, "fail-proof" plan for wintessing to your neighbors and family so that the whole world will be saved within the next year and that being done, we can finally start the process of living in all of eternity instead of being "stuck" on "this boring, imperfect planet".

But have no fear, I am not going to talk about the topic of evangelism, nor am I going to expound on my current topic in what I precieve to be an exhaustive treatise on the subject, but to share some of my ponderings in hopes that I might make you think.

Musing #1: A witness has to have experienced something in order to be a witness in the first place.

Now, this may seem ridiculously obvious, but the fact that a witness has to have expereinecd something (whether through one of our five senses or in the metaphysical sense), this is an extremely foundational bit of fact. It is impossible for someone to give an accurate account on a person that they have not seen, talked to or smelled or, well...you get the idea, as a complete and total stranger.

In the same way, we as Christians need to have experienced Christ at some point. These experiences come in all shapes, sizes and magnitudes, but without a personal experience, the best you can do in your witness is depending on second-hand inoformation. It is about as good as videotaping a TV show by pointing a video camera at the screen; the content may be there on the recording, but the picture will be shaky and at some points be out of focus.

Musing #2: The actions of a witness will be affected by their experience, either for the short term or long.

Whenever we experience something through any of our senses, there will almost always be an instant response and responses to the event that build up over the long term, even if they are only in our subconscious. For example, a person that witnesses a car accident and its aftermath may initially recoil in horror and over the long term make efforts to ensure that everyone in their vehicle is wearing a seatbelt, lest anyone become badly injured.

Similarily, we as Christians will be affected in many ways by the moment (and process) of salvation that we will never be able to comprehend because there is no way of turning back the clock and changing a particular choice in life (despite what The Butterfly Effect may tell us). Any other experiences that we have with our Savior after salvation will affect us as well, changing our view of the world and the decisions that we make.

Musing #3: A witness has a choice regarding whether or not they want to tell anyone about their experience.

When a person witnesses a crime and they have some connection to the offender (whether it be socially or familial), they may choose not to testify against them in court for fear of retribution (whether or not the person is actually convicted). This can make convicting a suspect very difficult, but not completely impossible, as the police investigators and the prosecuting attorney often have more than just the eyewitness evidence at their disposal with which to close their case.

Christians have a similar choice to make when they are called on by Christ to testify about him in either word or deed in the court of public opinion or even the land of everyday life. Seeing that we are all human, there is definitely a social (and familial, if you want to go that far back...) connection to those that may observe or hear our witness. We may fear persecution, whether real or imagined, a loss of dignity or any number of other things that can cause us to fear our fellow human beings. Whatever the reason, people that are Christians have the option to ignore the teachings of Christ and their conscience (although some would argue that they were not Christians in the first place) and choose not to testify in any given situation.

These three musings bring me to the main question that I am still pondering, one that is brought up as each new life situation presents itself. I wonder what it means to be a witness in every situation of life. I wonder how I should approach others and how I should act in the myriad of split-second circumstances that I find myself in with each new day. I find myself reflecting on my actions and determining that there are (and always will be) situations in which, as a witness of Christ's actions in this world and in my life, can testify to others.

I am just glad that the Holy Spirit is always there to help.

But that's a musing for another day...

I hope that these musings have made you think and I am aware that all my examples break down at some point and that there are better ones that I would/could have chosen, but I am aiming to make people think about being a witness and testifying and if I have done that, then I consider this post worth my time.

5.10.2006

"The Dean", "theDING" and "The Chap-man"

Well, it has been a long time since I've written, but that's because I really didn't feel like that there was much to write about. Life has been really nuts lately and it feels kind of wierd that I'm not at college any more, but there's this time of life that we call "transition" that makes us stop, think and even act really confused.

But I've been assurred that it's only natural to be that way.

All this broo-hah-hah has got me to tihnknig about the way in which I live and more specifically, it hearkens me back ot a chapel service that we had during this school year that was hosted by our illustrious Dean of Students. This particular chapel service was designed to encourage us to continue living a Chrisitan life; one that is truly different from the way in which we normally live life.

The centerpiece of the night was a song by Steven Curtis Chapman called "The Change". Just in case you haven't heard the song before, here's the chorus so that you have some context:

What about the change
What about the difference
What about the grace
What about forgiveness
What about a life that's showing
I'm undergoing the change

This song seems to codify what I've been thinking about for the last while during my transition in life. I feel that the question "What about the change?" can be looked at from two different perspectives in my current situation; both of which are valuable and need to be considered.

Perspective #1:

The first way of looking at this question is a perspective that focuses on the event that we call change. Essentially, with this perspective, we are asking ourselves "What about the change?!?!" This is the way that people often feel when they are initially thrust into a life-changing situation for the first time and they are unsure how to deal with it. By questioning their environment, they hope that they can begin to make sense of it and carry on from there.

And a healthy dose of environment-questioning can be a good thing, as long as we are willing to look at the situation and then take action on it. If we just sit around pondering and obsessing over a seemingly overwhelming situation, then we go "nowhere fast". It's like treading in wet concrete; you may be able to keep your head where there is air, but given time, you'll get more and more stuck.

So, I will question the change so that I decide how to act and most importantly, actually do it.

Perspective #2:

The other perspective on this is to look at the change in one's self and say "What about the change?" Essentially, we need to question whether or not there really is a change happening in our lives. The effect of this question is more of a reality check than anything else. This part is all about follow-through. We need to chack and see if what we are actually committing to is actually happening and more importantly, if it has any lasting effects.

What happens as a result of this reality check is totally up to you.

So, whenever I hear or think about this song...that's where my mind goes and that's what I'm going to do.

Hope you guys are encouraged; I miss you all.

4.16.2006

He Is Risen!

Today is definitely resurrection Sunday and it honestly makes my heart sing to realize that our Saviour finished his work on earth when he rose from the dead and saved us from sin for all time!

However, it gets me to thinking, like it was said in church this morning that the entire Christian faith rises and falls on the thruth of the resurrection of Christ.

The part that got me thinkning was the way that we often present ourselves to the world is as an option; basically a group of people saying "Why not us?" in the religious realm. If it comes down to the fact that I believe in a faith that rests on the returning of a perfect man from the grave, then why do I believe in it?

Seriously, I asked myself today, "Why am I not a Buddhist, a humanist, a New Ager or even a Scientologist?" I have often thought that if I didn't believe in Christ that the first faith that I would default to would be humanism because I can still believe in right and wrong, don't have to follow it all the time and it makes sense in a logical way.

Now, I'm not saying that I have lost my faith or anything, but out of curiosity...

What made you decide to follow Christ?

I'm not looking for a "serious", "theological" discussion, but just simply an idea of why people chose Christ among all the other options out there. It can be an encouragement to the community of believers when we sit back and realize just what God has done for us. I know that every Christian out there has a story or one thing that "clinched" it for them and I'd like to hear about it!

So "hop" to it...

4.11.2006

Hello?

I'm still here...just kind of hermatizting...sorry.