Speaking Christianese

I've had a lot of time to think about the issues raised at Publishing University but very little time to write until now. As an editor, obviously I'm interested in how we use language to communicate effectively, and as an editor in a Christian publishing company, I'm especially interested in how we can communicate the truths of God's Word with clarity and integrity. It's not surprising that one of the recurrent issues that comes up for editors at Publishing University is how to communicate in such a way that we reach audiences that are typically difficult to reach. Three audiences tend to be the focus: Generation X, the emergent church, and those outside of the church.

I find in all of this conversation some trends that concern me, some underlying assumptions that would tend to drive us away from the source of truth, Scripture, as we devise "fresh, new ways" of communicating the gospel to each of these groups.

Assumption 1: We should avoid using the language of Scripture (disparagingly called Christianese) because it does not reach people in their context.

I'm currently editing a book about the benedictions of the Bible by Dr. Warren Wiersbe, longtime pastor and Bible teacher. He makes an interesting point about what is termed Christianese: "Paul wrote this letter [1 Thessalonians] to young Christian believers and dared to use a theological word like 'sanctify.' It disturbs me when I'm confronted with teachers, preachers, and writers who try to 'dumb down' the Christian vocabulary and turn the Bible into a first-grade primer. If students of chemistry and physics can learn scientific vocabularies and if young children can understand the instructions for using computers and other electronic devices, why can't people learn the inspired Christian vocabulary that tells them how to live godly lives?"

At Publishing U, we editors were discouraged from using jargon like "baptism," "grace," and "redemption," concepts and terms frequently occurring in Scripture, because we can't assume that readers will understand. And yet as Dr. Wiersbe points out, we would expect those studying to be doctors to learn the language of medicine, those who want to become IT professionals should learn the language of IT, and a carpenter would certainly be expected to learn the language of the trade. Certainly we should expect no less of those who would be Christians, followers of Christ and His Word.

Assumption #2: The language of Scripture is no longer contemporary, relevant, or authentic. We need to use fresh new metaphors to attract people to the gospel.

There are so many things wrong with this sort of thinking that it is difficult to know where to begin. First, if we believe that the Bible is the divinely inspired Word of God, then we believe that God has created all things, including people. And since the point of His giving us His Word is that we can come to know Him, then it would seem that He would be the best determiner of how to convey His truth to us. When we start to talk about making Scripture relevant and fresher and more authentic, we forget that God Himself defines what is relevant. He does not need our help with fresh metaphors and authentic language (whatever that is). There is nothing more relevant or authentic than what He communicates to us in Scripture, and while I do believe that obviously we need to reach out to the lost with His Word in a way in a way that is understandable, I don't think we need to create new metaphors, such as comparing our spiritual life to the mating habits of penguins. Such an approach trivializes God's Word. God is out of touch with what we twenty-first-century people want to hear, so let's help Him out. And twenty-first-century humans are a different breed from the humans of the previous twenty centuries and require special means of communicating truth. God's truths are eternal, and they are just as relevant, authentic, and understandable to us today as they were to the recipients of the apostles' letters in the early years of the church.

Assumption #3: The gospel communicated as it is in Scripture is off-putting. We need to find a way to make it more appealing so that people will be drawn to it.

The first part of assumption #3 is actually true. To those who are disobedient, Peter tells us, Christ is "a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense" (1 Peter 2:8). Some of the initial things we need to understand about the gospel are not pretty--Paul begins the book of Romans by discussing God's wrath against sinners, His righteous judgment, and the fact that no one is righteous before he finally reaches the good news of 3:21: "But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law." And if we believe that Paul's approach was inspired by the Holy Spirit, we really can't criticize him for his harshness, for not taking a fresher, more seeker-sensitive approach. Paul tells God's truth in the way that God wants us to hear it. If we present something kinder and gentler, we present another gospel, one that is untrue. And so we sigh and think, "Alas, but no one wants to hear such a hard gospel, one that offends and accuses." And of course, no one does. But the good news for those of us whose task it is to communicate the gospel is that the Word is living and powerful, and it isn't up to us who will receive it and believe. We don't need to strategize, be more creative, and do market studies on how to make the gospel reach people. As our pastor pointed out so well in his morning sermon last Sunday, God's grace is irresistible, and the truth of the gospel will reach and convict those He has called, not because we have presented it in a clever, appealing way, but because the gospel is "the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes" (Romans 1:16).

Effective, clear, and carefully crafted writing that explains the truths of Scripture should always be the goal. But we must never forget that the Author of truth has defined relevancy and has certain expectations for how we ought to understand His truth. To suggest that we can somehow improve upon His method is to become our own source of truth, which really is neither a fresh or new approach.