Language is a story as old as Babel. Everyone’s got some new term to define, slang they’ve invented, pejorative to unleash on an unsuspecting opponent. Some have called the postmodern age a bunch of idiots obsessed with the latest fad in vocabulary – maybe it was me. There is no group more obsessed than the authors of the ‘emergent’ movement within mainline Christianity. Did you just see it? Did you? Did you see how ridiculous that last sentence was? What the heck is mean to be emergent? Too late, I never had time to find out. Apparently they now want to be labeled ‘emerging’ to distinguish themselves from those other guys. What other guys? For that matter what is mainline? In the late 1990s the Christian trend word was ‘seeker-sensitive’, then it was ‘conversation’, then it was ‘discussion’, now it’s ‘missional’. Missional isn’t even a word according to my spell check. So what is this nonsense? The other day my sister questioned me on language, she said, ‘words aren’t absolute, so we can’t find truth in them’. I didn’t respond, it was late and didn’t feel like getting into it. But then I thought, ‘wait a minute you just committed a contradiction, you’re telling me words aren’t absolute, we can’t find truth in them, yet you just made an absolute statement with words to convey a truth?’ Something is amiss. They’re all liars, those people who tell you it’s all about language, what one word means to one person may mean something to someone else. Yet I go into a store, say hello, talk to the cashier about how Manning is the superior Quarter Back and he knows what I’m talking about, or if he doesn’t agree, knows enough to reject what I’ve just said. You want to know what crack-pot linguistic thinking in Christian circles has brought us as the apex of their work: Word on the Street. Next thing I know Jesus is going be dropping N-bombs and calling us Mofos. Let’s get real. Language evolves, but meaning stays fixed. Love may have a dozen or so different conventions but depending on the context you’ll understand what I mean, and if not I’ll clear it up. Thank God the bible was written in Greek and Hebrew, those Einsteins had enough common sense to create words for each meaning of a singular expression. If there’s confusion talk about it, don’t hide behind words. P.S. Donald Miller Blue Like Jazz doesn’t even make sense? Stop trying to be artsy. I shouldn’t expect much from a writer who criticizes Western individualism yet – without any hint of irony – uses the term “I” like a drunken pirate.
Tags: bible, blue like jazz, Christianity, donald miller, emergent, emerging, Language, Linguistics, mainline Christianity, missional, postmodern, postmodernity, Theism, theology
thelisteningpost.wordpress.com 
December 9, 2009 at 9:03 pm |
Strange note to throw Donald Miller’s work under the bus.
Of course its not exactly logical… its blue… like jazz… hehe
December 10, 2009 at 12:33 am |
Well I wasn’t picking apart his work in general…the correlation is that Donald Miller is a man who uses linguistics without applying any stability to the framework in which he uses it. But I suppose this demonstrates my point. Does he mean blue as in depressed, or blue the colour? If it’s the former it doesn’t inform the potential reader to the narrative of his book all that accurately. And by “under the bus” do you mean I’ve slipped it into the article as a completely unrelated ad hominem or like I throw his work out the window? If you mean the latter then I’d object and say that I merely questioned one aspect of his book, while I still hold hope that on the main, he had some interesting, edifying things to say.
December 11, 2009 at 12:12 pm
Yeh your intension makes sense but your placement and writing are not clear enough. Or at least I didn’t hear it off hand.
I would say that on “blue” it isn’t vague but its a jazz term. Its a descriptor.
December 12, 2009 at 2:37 am |
I liked the post until you went all crazy on Miller. Pat is quite right to say that it’s blue like jazz, and you have to feel it Dave, you can’t just pin it down and say that it doesn’t make sense. It’s art. I’m [mostly] kidding.
Also, he says what he means by blue like jazz in the book, Blue Like Jazz. David, have you even read it? Or have you simply read one Philosophy professors critique? Oh, burn.
December 12, 2009 at 5:22 am |
Chris Lewis, wise and intelligent. Yes, I have read it. As a part of my epistemology and post-modern theology ‘directed’ reading. As I pointed out earlier, I have no qualm with Miller personally and have not bashed his book. Simply asked a question I was still unclear of by the end of the reading. More specifically I mentioned an inconstancy in his argumentation. Contrary to popular belief, I am capable of developing thoughts without the assistance of philosophy profs – none of which have mentioned Miller in class beyond a random mention. Blue Like Jazz is a decent read – and I will say again since people believe I’m bashing it – that there are good – even needed – things noted in it. However, theologically, it’s not very solid. I too enjoy reading artsy books. I enjoy reading not so well-written books (Di Vinci Code). Admittedly, tt was unfair of me to randomly use Miller at the end. So I suppose it’s kind of a burn.
December 14, 2009 at 8:26 pm |
Also, it isn’t a theological text, but simply a memoir written by a non-theologian. People may be deriving theology from the text, but that is not the intent of the other, nor is it his fault that people are doing so.
Also, simmer down Dave! We’re just riling you up!