Some "language" changes literally killing me
Language changes. As culture shifts, so do the words we use. Thanks to technology and the proliferation of ways in which to communicate, our language is changing faster than ever before.
I do not quibble with this basic notion that the meaning of words is not static, but ebbs and flows with time. On the other hand, as a word makes a transition from one meaning to another, or from a literal understanding to a figurative one, meaning becomes murky. And so the question becomes: “Is the word being used incorrectly or has the word’s meaning changed and the correct usage expanded?”
That’s all a rather long-winded way to say: the incorrect usage of following words or phrases really pisses me off and I need to know whether to just get over it or make a fuss. A few examples that really raise my hackles:
- literally – as I understand it, literally used to mean, “word for word, actually, exactly” as in “Jimmy was literally counting his pennies so he could afford the candy bar.” Or, “The race was literally too close to call.” In each of these circumstances, literally describes the situation exactly. If the writer intended otherwise, the word “virtually” or “figuratively” could have been used. To take the latter example, if at the end of the race no racer was deemed the winner then the race was “literally” too close to call. If it was just a close race but a winner was obvious, it was just “virtually” or “figuratively” too close to call. But it seems that this old definition of literally has practically flown the coop. I wonder even if editors even note the virtual usage of “literally” anymore. Do I just need to figuratively get over it?
- “use” of “quotes” — this annoyance isn’t actually a word at all, but the excessive use of quotation marks around words. Has anybody else noticed quotation marks beginning to be used when a writer seeks to emphasize the words in quotes? So instead of underline or bold text, writers use “quotes” instead. I won’t name names, but every week I receive at least one email in which the writer employs quotation marks simply to “emphasize” an “important” point. It’s annoying as all get up if you ask me.
- decimate — my granny always says, “Decimate comes from the Latin meaning ‘ten’ so to decimate means to deplete by 10%.” Maybe the rest of the world has moved on from this one, but thanks to my grandmother, I always wince when I hear “decimate” used simply to mean “destroy a large number.” I admit, I probably should just move on, but even so, please refrain from saying something like, “My M&Ms were decimated by half.” I just can’t take the inner turmoil.
I’ll stop there for now, but I may post again on other language annoyances. I just hope I’m not turning into my grandmother, bless her heart.
The "E" Word
I’ve never been much of an evangelist. Actually, I’m quite against most traditional forms of evangelism. So it’s been interesting for me to participate in the Thompson Scholar seminar at Columbia Seminary this week entitled, “Evangelism for the Rest of Us.” I’ve quite enjoyed the conversation thus far.
To guide our conversation, we were to read Martha Grace Reese’s book, “Unbinding the Gospel.” I also read Brian McLaren’s, “A New Kind of Christianity,” George Hunter III’s “A Celtic Way of Evangelism” and skimmed Bill Hybel’s “Just Walk Across the Room.” I may review some of these in the future — actually, I know I’ll review McLaren.
The evangelism discussion is still very much in-process for me at the moment, but I wanted to put out a few bullet points and see if the blogosphere had some comments:
- Christendom churches just expect people will come to their church if it is attractive enough, but this model just isn’t true anymore (if it ever was).
- Though Evangelism Committees keep coming up in discussion at the seminary — usually because they’re quite problematic, actually — this makes me consider the committee structure in our congregation. There is no committee that focuses on issues not directly related to those who attend worship often. This is a problem, but I also think we have too many committees!
- A primary question to answer for yourself is: what difference does it make if people are Christians?
- Prayer is a good way to start pretty much anything, especially evangelism or “sharing the good news.” I know I could totally work on my personal prayer life, and I bet I’m not the only one in our congregation.
- I wonder if the life cycle of some congregations, if a focus on evangelism could actually be a bad idea. If the body isn’t comfortable in its own skin, it might not be time to invite more folks in to rock the boat. Of course, this can be a catch 22.
- Also, I have a million questions on evangelism in rural communities. What of sheep stealing from other churches? How things are interpreted in the community is huge and would need to be an integral part of the conversation.
More later, for certain. But there’s a few bullets for thought for now.
The Growing Tech Divide
I played with my first iPad this week. After wiping the drool off my chin, I was able to walk away without assistance. But, yes, I want. Or, more honestly: I lust.
On Sunday morning at church, the high schoolers are often seen at their own table at coffee hour, playing on their iPods. I take some blame — or praise — for this predicament as I gave them the password for the church wireless (with some ground rules). Now, even when they go to church, they are connected.
I got an HTC Droid Incredible last week. (Translation: an awesome touch-screen phone, Google’s answer to the iPhone.) It’s amazing. I can now stream NPR on long runs while charting my time and pace, I can access info like you wouldn’t believe, maintain my Foursquare mayoral status as several Grand Forks and Hallock hot spots, and tweet away.
But with all this awesome technology I wonder: is there a growing technology divide in our culture, and in the church?
I know someone, a very high-functioning retiree, who almost daily feels frustrated and challenged-to-the-breaking-point by his lack of computer skills. He wants to join in on the tech fun, but just doesn’t have the skill set.
I know other folks, even younger ones, that despise email and wouldn’t use an iPad if they were given one for each room in the house.
I know a youth who takes pride in not having a facebook account. I know people who despise electronic books — though they have certainly never read one. I know many people who see technology and know, just as instinctively as some know how to work an iPad, that it’s not for them.
And — no happy conclusion here — I just wonder what to make of all this. Will the tech divide become a real cultural barrier? Will there be a Tech Party movement to rival the Tea Party crowd? If changing technology is just in the water of the 21st century, what happens to those who can’t bring themselves to drink?
image by channah
Language and Cancer: What to say, what not to say
“If some metaphors can lock you in enemy territory, others can be a key to help understand what is happening to you. They can be both oppressive and transformative.” So ends an essay by Neil Small, “After the Battle, Journeys with Cancer: Changing Metaphors of Illness”
A few months ago, I went down to the county courthouse and watched a CCTV event hosted by the Hospice Foundation of America entitled, “Living with Grief: Cancer and End-of-Life Care.” It was a good few hours, and I learned a lot.
A book of the same name was published in conjunction with the event. Neil Small’s article on the metaphors we use when speaking of cancer was probably the most immediately helpful. Neil draws significantly on Susan Sontag’s book “Illness as Metaphor” in which she apparently argues against metaphoric thinking when dealing with disease. But as Neil and Sontag acknowledge, metaphors are all over our disease speak like white on rice.
Sorry. Seriously, though, here’s two takeaways from the article.
1. Though use of battle language can be helpful for some patients and families, it might be difficult even harmful for others. For example, if someone’s cancer is incurable, then speaking in terms of “winning the battle” or “fight” or “war” is just not helpful. In fact, it totally misrepresents the situation. This is not to say that battle language might be helpful for some in some circumstances, but to be aware of its inherent danger.
2. An alternative, and perhaps more helpful metaphor, is that of journey or walk. It is a metaphor that can incorporate the ups and downs of cancer treatment, and is able to be used by patient and family alike. As a pastor, I found it a helpful metaphor as it allows me to speak of heaven and death as an arrival, a destination, rather than something to avoid at all costs.
The article is much more complex than this, but those are the takeaways: battle language can be quite problematic, journey language is more likely helpful.
Presby 101 Class Reflection
I’ve led a Presbyterian 101: Reformed and Always Reforming sunday school class over the past four weeks. This won’t seem unusual for many of you, but from what I know of our history here, pastors haven’t taught much in the past few years. So the class was my first real teaching opportunity in my 9 months as a pastor in Hallock. In short: I enjoyed it, I think some others did too, and it still has me thinking.
I’ve been wondering:
- What the heck does Presbyterian identity mean in Minnesota anyway? I mean, we’re surrounded by Lutherans, and we share huge swaths of theology with them. Is it worth it to point out a few of the distinctive PC(USA) traits?
- We briefly touched on predestination on the theology day; it didn’t sit too well with folks. Will Presbyterians ever be able to move past the major misinterpretations of predestination (as fate or determinism, as scary rather than joyful)?
- We spent most of the class time talking about “what we believe” or “what some presbyterians historically have believed” and very little time talking about what class members believed. Did I contribute to the tendency for us to be scared to share our personal beliefs? Do I have any idea what members of our congregation actually believe?
- During the class on worship, several members commented that they had visited presbyterian churches around the nation and even those had a presbyterian feel — described as open, friendly, a similar order of worship and style. Honestly, this surprised me but was interesting.
- In this congregation, we don’t offer much teaching between high school and the “adult bible school” class which is a self-led bible study with the average student age of around 70, I’m guessing (it’s awesome, I’m just being descriptive). Are we dropping the ball on other opportunities, or is that how small churches should work?
- What opportunities are there to continue some teaching through sermons or sermon series? A friend of mind preached on predestination recently (in a “hard issues” sermon series or something) and it was well received. Considering a sermon series of sorts later this summer…
Sermon: Hope for Resolution, Acts 16
Adam J. Copeland
FPC Hallock
May 16, 2010
Hope for Resolution
Acts 16:16-34
This morning we held the last session of our four-week Presbyterian 101 class. Over the last few weeks, twenty or so of us have gathered on Sunday mornings to explore Presbyterian history, theology, polity, and worship. One of the reasons we held the class was because I — and many of you — sensed that it was a good time for us to consider again what it means to be Presbyterian. For some, our Presbyterian identity goes back many generations. For others, being Presbyterian is less historic — maybe it arose out of family compromise, or convenience, or for any number of reasons.
There’s at least two ways to approach a course like Presbyterian 101. You can teach things by saying, “All those other denominations are wrong. Here’s the right answer, the Presbyterian one.” Or you can say: “Here’s what some Presbyterians think, or have thought. So…what do you think today? Without being judgmental: how is God speaking to you at this moment?”
I bet it’s no surprise that I took that second approach. … Continue Reading
Censoring the Bible
(Apologies for more of a church nerd post, but it does speak to broader issues.)
The second reading from the Revised Common Lectionary (the Bible readings for worship used by churches around the world) for this Sunday comes from the book of Revelation. For a few weeks now, we’ve been working our way through Revelation and have now arrived at chapter 22. The assigned reading, though, is Rev. 22:12-14, 16-17, 20-21. On first glance, it sure looks to me like we’re censoring the Bible.
The assigned reading picks the lovely-dovey smooth feeling sections of chapter 22, and skips of the darker passages.
Included in this Sunday’s passage:
See, I am coming soon; my reward is with me, to repay according to everyone’s work. 13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.” 14 Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they will have the right to the tree of life and may enter the city by the gates….And let everyone who is thirsty come. Let anyone who wishes take the water of life as a gift….
Excluded from this Sunday’s passage:
Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and fornicators and murderers and idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood….I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this book; if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away that person’s share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.
Yes, Revelation is a really difficult book and comes with a lot of cultural baggage. Yes, most people in mainline churches these days don’t know the Bible like they used to. Yes, it’s difficult to read passages like that in worship.
But, really, isn’t this censorship plain and simple? And isn’t it ironic we censor the exact verse that says, “ if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away that person’s share in the tree of life”? What are the implications here? Seems to me like we’re dumbing down worship, the faith, and the Bible for reasons of comfort and convenience.
Connect Online
