Annoying Phrases in Christianese and What They Really Mean

I wanted to do a semi-lighthearted post this week, as the comp exam experience has now been documented.  In the course of my own journey of faith, I have seen it all - I was converted and baptized in a Southern Baptist church when I was 16, and in my early 20's I was involved with the Foursquare Gospel denomination as a budding lay minister.  I later, via the Anglican tradition, was incorporated into the Roman Catholic Church where I currently am now as a catechist and lay leader.  In the course of that experience, I have gotten to know many diverse people and also have seen all spectrums of the American religious experience - the good, the bad, and the ugly.  The one thing you begin to pay attention to though, especially in American Protestant Evangelical circles, is the lingo that is used.  Evangelicals generally subscribe to a high-test faith, and many of them would never directly say or do anything contrary to their faith, but when it comes to indirect expressions though I have learned that "saintly" things can mean sinful thoughts!  Many of these expressions have been a sort of pet-peeve of mine over the years too - I heard them ad nauseum, and to be honest when I hear someone say this stuff a part of me wants to do the unChristian thing and slap them upside the head.  As an observer of Evangelical culture in particular though, there are a number of phrases I want to focus on here that embody some of the worst expressions and cliches, and I am sure others who hear them would agree as well. 

1.  "I'm praying for your salvation"

This one tops the list as it is one that I hear a lot.  The most recent incident of this happened last year in a disagreement with my brother-in-law, who professes to be a Baptist.  There are a couple of observations about this phrase I want to make now, as they reveal what it really means when someone  invokes it.  For one, usually the person who is saying this really means "I hate your guts," but since "hate" is not a Christian virtue, they of course cannot really use that word.  So, as it is inconceivable for them to spend eternity with anyone as offensive to them as you, they tell you they are "praying for your salvation" as a justification of their real feelings.  Usually too, it is the occasion of which such a statement is evoked as well that is significant - they don't know how to counter your argument with them, so it ticks them off and they evoke this because they are really despising you for calling them on something.  It means essentially too, as a positive, that you have the upper hand in the discussion with them as well.  But, for the person evoking it, there are some problems it poses.

A person who arbitrarily dismisses your own Christian walk because they personally don't like you is what is called an "arbiter of salvation."  They are trying to play the Holy Spirit's role, which is shaky to begin with.  They fail to realize that they also by doing so are dangerously close to blasphemy, as they are placing themselves as God.  Fortunately for us, they are not, and therefore because God is in control of our conversion and walk of faith, it is ultimately HE who has the say-so as to who is saved or not, and not our professed enemies.

A second problem this poses for a person who invokes this against an enemy is this - if the person is Calvinistic theologically, a dilemma happens with their whole "once saved always saved" scheme of things.  When they liked you, you were "saved" in their eyes, but when they hate you, then you all of a sudden "fall from grace."  That is a little Arminian-minded for a Calvinist, is it not?  It simply means that people are acting on their emotions and are not really thinking things through.  For the Catholic Christian, this is not really a problem - salvation is based for the Catholic on supernatural grace, and no one is in a position to determine who is "saved" or not, and that includes even clergy.  Only God Himself determines that, and that is how it should be.

2.  "In the natural"

This is one of those phrases you hear a lot especially among Charismatics and Pentecostals, and I could never really make sense of it except that it was one of those phrases that just sort of grated on me when I heard it.  A synonymous phrase also used interchangeably with this is "in the flesh."  I am going to give the benefit of the doubt here and assume that people who invoke this phrase in the course of conversation are ignorant of the heretical consequence it entails, and that is what I want to discuss.

If you read the first chapter of Genesis, everything that God created He Himself declared as good.  As we move to Job 40, and the enigmatic creature God is admiring with Job called a behemoth (which I believe was an Apatosaurus)  we see that God is essentially crowing over this magnificent creature - He is proud of and loves His creation!  In Thomistic philosophy (and subsequentially classic Catholic theology) there are what are called transcendental properties of being, or more succintly, just transcendentals.  Fr. Norris Clarke, in his book The One and the Many, defines this as "a positive attribute that can be predicated of every real being, so that it is convertible with being itself." (W. Norris Clarke, SJ.  The One and the Many.  Notre Dame, IN:  University of Notre Dame Press, 2001.  p. 290-291).  What that means is that as God is the Creator and ultimate source of all being, then He Himself is the source of these transcendentals, which include truth, beauty, and goodness.  Although the Fall corrupted that somewhat, everything as being qua being is still fundamentally good in its being, although its nature may be corrupted.  God created all of this good, in other words - by real extension, that even means that Satan, as far as his being as God's creation, was good, although his nature is intrinsically evil.  For us, it is sacramental grace that heals, elevates, and perfects our nature to be what God intended, but it also means that there is still good to work with in most cases.  So, it is not a sin to enjoy life and the beauty of nature, as God created it for us. 

That being said, when a Pentecostal in particular rejects something good because it is "in the natural," they are in essence not realizing what they say.  As a matter of fact, the only people that would agree with them was a heretical sect at the dawn of the Church called the Gnostics, who were so radically dualistic that they thought all matter was "evil" and only the "spirit" was good.  To reject something "in the natural" as "evil" is to slap God in the face and insult His creation, in other words, and it is the height of arrogance and ingratitude.  Therefore, some Pentecostal folks who like invoking this terminology would do themselves a great service if they read St. Peter's account in Acts 10 - the sheet descending with "unclean" animals, at which when Peter rejected God's invite to have some bacon for breakfast, God rebukes him and says "do NOT call unclean what I have sanctified!"  In other words, we need to be careful what cliches we use. 

3.  The terms "Brother" and "Sister"

Evangelicals in particular love to call each other "Brother This" and "Sister That," and oftentimes it is so routine that it can easily be taken for granted.  There are problems with the context of these terms though, and that is what I want to address.

A person who uses overly religious and flowery language, calling everyone "Brother" or "Sister," often has a serious issue with over-compensation.  In my experience (although there are exceptions of godly people who do this too) some who over-indulge in using these titles are often insincere and are trying to "act" Christian rather than be Christian.  Personally, when I hear someone using such terms, I cringe, because generally the person is full of crap honestly.  In real life, with biological siblings, you don't necessarily call them "Brother" or "Sister," and at times some of the names some do call their siblings ain't that nice honestly!  While we are definitely "brethren in faith," we don't have to preface addressing everyone in the church with a "brother" or "sister."  We should already know that without announcing it. 

Years ago, I recall in my undergraduate studies at Southeastern University in Lakeland, FL,  how many of my classmates used to even call the professors "Brother" or "Sister," which honestly I never could do. One professor in particular, the late Dr. Michael Dusing, mused on this by saying to his students that he would prefer that they call him "Professor" or "Dr." because he was not a monk!  His good-natured observation of that was amusing, but he had a point.  While it is acceptable to call a member of a religious order "Brother" or "Sister," it is not necessary to call the average fellow believer in our churches that.  Ironically, the same people who insist on saying "Brother This" or "Sister That" will often bristle at a Catholic referring to their priest as "Father," even invoking the Scripture in Matthew 23:9 to justify their indignation.  For one thing, such are taking this passage out of context anyway, and if they were really reading what it actually says, they would think twice about flippantly using the "Brother" and "Sister" labels then, as they are actually the ones disobeying Scripture.  That would definitely be some food for thought.

4. "You have to have heart knowledge instead of head knowledge."

This is one of those cliched statements you often hear from smaller, rock-ribbed Pentecostal and Fundamentalist churches who are intimidated by snubbery shown them by people who are more affluent or educated, and although to a degree I can sympathize with the sentiment, there is still a major problem with that statement. 

The justification that many who invoke this one have is that when they hear a person who can recite Scripture or maybe speak eloquently yet not reflect what they believe the Christian lifestyle is.  In other words, it is all talk and no substance to them.  However, the extreme to this, although a valid concern, is that often the same people will reject all educated people as being "in the natural" and not "spiritual."  Note how this one ties into some of the other cliches discussed - by rejecting God-given intelligence in favor of some "spiritual" insight, these people are rejecting individuals as God created them to be - while not everyone is called to be an Ivy-League scholar or a master theologian, some do have an inclination toward those vocations and the Church needs them.  The problem though is the stigma attached - some who have pursued higher academic pursuits have by their own reasoning forgotten their faith, and when they do so, it doesn't present a good picture to the ones who are faithful churchgoers.  The problem with the faithful churchgoer though is that they judge all smart people based on that stereotype fostered by a negative experience.  And, that is the problem.

In II Timothy 2:15, we are exhorted by the Apostle St. Paul to "study to show ourselves approved," and that we are to know our faith in such a way as to articulate it to others.  In that regard, the Church has historically seen human reason as a gift of God that is to be combined with Scripture and Tradition to embody the fulness of the faith we have been entrusted with.  Therefore, instead of reason being rejected, it should be embraced and utilized to discipleship and growth of our own spirituality. 

5.  "Don't judge lest you be judged!"

This is a cliche which in recent years has been lifted straight out of Scripture (Matthew 7:1-3) but has often been misapplied to justify bad behavior and other ills.  I want to share a personal example of this and then elaborate more on it.

Some years back, one of my sisters-in-law went through a very nasty divorce, and as a result she was pretty broken over it.  A couple of my other in-laws profess Christianity, and they are Evangelical Protestants to the core, but in this situation they exhibited some of the most cruel, anti-Christian behavior that to this day still leaves me in shock as to its severity.  The professing Christian sister essentially embarked on a smear campaign against her sister by broadcasting intimate details of her whole life to people the other sister didn't even know, slandering her character.  All of this as a "prayer concern," but in reality it was malicious gossip and slander.  The offending sister, ironically, went to one of those trendy "seeker" megachurches in the Chicago area, and when concerns about inappropriate music, etc., within that church were brought to her attention, she liked to invoke the "judge not" argument on that.  Yet, she wrongly judged and condemned her own sister, and to this day the other sister is still stinging from the damage wrought by the whole thing, whereas the offending sister never sought to restitute herself.  In reviewing that story, it seems as if the offending sister was more concerned with rock bands in the church than she was with the brokenness of her own sister, and while invoking Matthew 7 and the whole "judge not" thing with the "worship bands," she blatantly disobeyed the real application of that verse when it came to her own flesh and blood.  Unfortunately, I have seen that many other times as well, and it is sickening really - it is one reason why Evangelical Christianity is often more like secular entertainment instead of a life-changing relationship, and that needs to really be addressed and dealt with in their community.  Again, it is important to understand that the passage in Matthew 7 was not meant to rightly judge what is appropriate for Christian worship, but rather it was meant to safeguard fellow Christians against gossip and slander within the Church, and thus is tied into the commandment about "not bearing false witness."  It is time more teaching be made available to correct this as well.

6.  "I don't have religion, I have a relationship!"

When this is invoked, it often is in an iconoclastic context against Catholics and others who may worship more formally and in a liturgical context by more free-church Evangelicals and Pentecostals.  A whole other teaching could be derived just from this, but for brevity we will focus on a few items in particular.

In general, when someone says this statement, they have a problem with "Tradition," which to them is almost a cussword.  They maybe have been turned off by a comatose nominalism they perceived in a more formal or traditional church, and therefore they have branded all such worship without really understanding it with the word "religion."  What they fail to realize though is that religion itself is not necessarily a bad word, and that they follow one themselves whether they admit it or not!  Many of them too, in rejecting "tradition," have in essence erected a new "tradition of men" called anti-traditionalism.  The tradition of anti-traditionalism goes back to the Reformation itself, and is largely embodied in the thinking of Ulrich Zwingli in particular, who due to the faulty reasoning of Sola Scriptura supposedly rejected anything he couldn't find explicitly stated in Scripture.  In time, it became more a reality that people who thought like this were not truly believing sola Scriptura, but their own interpretations of what Scripture said - so, if they didn't like what Scripture said, they conveniently allegorized it.  That too created some problems, and resulted in more denominations today than one could shake a proverbial stick at.  So, therefore, by rejecting what they perceive as "religion" and "tradition," they set up their own as an often insufficient substitute for the real thing.

Conclusions

There are probably many, many more of these statements and flippant invocations I could document, but you get the general idea.  Many people say stupid things a lot of times that they don't even understand themselves - it is often a product of either bad experience or faulty indoctrination, and many say these things ignorantly without knowing what they truly imply.  The job of a catechist, apologist, or even theologian a lot of times is to articulate proper discipleship for people so that they can understand what they say better and maybe rethink some attitudes in light of true evidence.  And, that is one of the main purposes of my sharing these today as well.  As Christians, we need to watch what we say, as often we can sound like either idiots or we can hurt someone by saying something so flippantly that we don't even think about implications.  If this brief study inspires contemplation on that level, then my objective is accomplished.   God bless until next time.