“Objective consideration of contemporary phenomena compels the conclusion that success or failure in competitive activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity, but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account.” – Ecclesiastes 9:11
The other night I was listening to the radio and I happened upon a talk show that caught my interest. The host of the show was interviewing a man who assists companies and politicians in choosing words which portray the meaning they desire. In this interview this man mentioned an article that George Orwell wrote called An Essay on Politics and the English Language.
In this essay, Orwell discusses the importance of words. When he wrote this article in 1946, he foresaw the downfall of the English language because of the misuses and abuses taken by the users of it. Orwell points out several types of mistakes people use when speaking/writing.
First, he brings our attention to “dying metaphors.” Dying metaphors are metaphors that have lost their meaning. He cites and example of “the hammer and the anvil, now always used with the implication that the anvil gets the worst of it. In real life it is always the anvil that breaks the hammer, never the other way about: a writer who stopped to think what he was saying would be aware of this, and would avoid perverting the original phrase.”
Second, he discusses “Operators, or verbal false limbs.” These are phrases used to replace a simple verb for a general-purpose verb and adjective/noun combination. Examples include “render inoperative, militate against, prove unacceptable.” He also points out that “the passive voice is wherever possible used in preference to the active, and noun constructions are used instead of gerunds (by examination of instead of by examining).”
Third, he discusses “Pretentious diction.” These are words used to puff up sentences. They are words like scientific jargon (phenomenon, categorical, utilize), political jargon (epoch-making, historic, triumphant), war jargon (realm, throne, buckler), and foreign words – to give an aire of culture and elegance – (cul de sac, status quo, ancien régime). Orwell explains, “It is often easier to make up words of this kind (deregionalize, impermissible, extramarital, non-fragmentary and so forth) than to think up the English words that will cover one’s meaning. The result, in general, is an increase in slovenliness and vagueness. “
Fourth, he discusses “Meaningless words.” Here he talks about some writing which has long passages almost completely lacking meaning. He explains that these words are meaningless because they “not only do not point to any discoverable object, but are hardly even expected to do so by the reader.” He goes on to say:
In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of régime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using the word if it were tied down to any one meaning. Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different.
At the beginning of this blog I posted an odd translation Ecclesiastes 9:11. It is a parody given by Orwell, to explain what happens to writers when they fall prey to the four areas listed above. Obviously an exaggeration but one that he claims is not a “gross one.”
At the end of his essay he gives six simple tips for any user of English:
- Never use a metaphor, simile or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
- Never use a long word where a short one will do.
- If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
- Never use the passive where you can use the active.
- Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
- Break any of these rules sooner than say anything barbarous.
These tips could be very helpful to any of us who want to speak more directly and precisely.
I leave you with this question: When we use words found in the bible, are we using them the way the bible uses them or the way our traditions have used them? (i.e. church, worship, service, preaching, teaching, etc.)
Again, a good and thought-provoking post. Your question is a good one and one that I have been pondering for a few weeks now.
I even am wondering if our English Bible translations use the wrong words to convey the Greek and Hebrew meanings. For instance, I have been reading through Matthew and this week my readings have included chapters 16 and 18. Two times in these chapters,in the English translation, Jesus uses the word “church”, which was translated from the Greek “ekklesia”.
What was Jesus actually referring to in these 2 verses? Was he referring to what we now know as the “institutional church”? And how did we get the word “church” from “ekklesia” … from tradition? Perhaps it is the proper translation, perhaps not. I have no idea, so I am not putting forth any answer in my question (LOL) … maybe the Greek Geek (AKA Alan) will jump in and provide some insight :-)
I say all that to say that I think that we do use jargon (I like this definition: “language that is characterized by uncommon or pretentious vocabulary and convoluted syntax and is often vague in meaning.”) and in that the Scriptures have lost their meaning to us.
Thanks (I think — see my latest post — LOL) for provoking more thought within me.
Heather,
Actually, Lew is a “Greek Geek” as well.
Our word “church” did not come directly from the Greek word ekklesia. “Church” came from the Greek word “kuriakon”, meaning “belonging to the Lord”.
Lew,
Great post! You know how I feel about words and language associated with the church. Keep up the good work.
-Alan
Heather and Alan,
I wandered on over to dictionary.com to find out if they had anything on the etymology of the word “church.” I had thought the word “church” came from the Latin – apparently Alan was correct (not that I doubted you). Anyways they have an interesting article from the Easton’s 1897 Bible Dictionary:
Derived probably from the Greek kuriakon (i.e., “the Lord’s house”), which was used by ancient authors for the place of worship. In the New Testament it is the translation of the Greek word ecclesia, which is synonymous with the Hebrew _kahal_ of the Old Testament, both words meaning simply an assembly, the character of which can only be known from the connection in which the word is found. There is no clear instance of its being used for a place of meeting or of worship, although in post-apostolic times it early received this meaning. Nor is this word ever used to denote the inhabitants of a country united in the same profession, as when we say the “Church of England,” the “Church of Scotland,” etc. We find the word ecclesia used in the following senses in the New Testament:
(1.) It is translated “assembly” in the ordinary classical sense (Acts 19:32, 39, 41).
(2.) It denotes the whole body of the redeemed, all those whom the Father has given to Christ, the invisible catholic church (Eph. 5:23, 25, 27, 29; Heb. 12:23).
(3.) A few Christians associated together in observing the ordinances of the gospel are an ecclesia (Rom. 16:5; Col. 4:15).
(4.) All the Christians in a particular city, whether they assembled together in one place or in several places for religious worship, were an ecclesia….
(5.) The whole body of professing Christians throughout the world (1 Cor. 15:9; Gal. 1:13; Matt. 16:18) are the church of Christ….
———————————–
Lew
Lew –
Thanks for the explanation. In these 2 verses in Matthew 16 and 18 the Greek word is “ekklesia” and so I just wondering how we got “church” in the English translations of those verses.
So my question remains: do our English translations sometimes use the wrong words to convey the Hebrew and Greek meanings? What do you think? Perhaps this is the reason why tradition seems to trump Scripture in many churches?
How often do we use words with no idea of their real meaning, or their etymology or how to use them correctly?
Just thinking out loud here …
Heather,
I think it is probably safe to say that our English translations do, sometimes, use the wrong words. A perfect (and more obvious) example would be the word Baptize. Baptize is a transliteration of the Greek word baptizo (βαπτίξω). As you are probably aware the Greek word βαπτίξω actually means “to immerse.” From what I have been taught, the reason why we even have the verb baptize instead of using immerse is because of the translators of the KJV. They saw that this word meant “to immerse” and realized that they had not been immersing people. Instead they were pouring. They couldn’t very well ruin a thousand years of tradition by translating the word as “immerse” so they transliterated it as baptize. Then they were free to allow baptize to be defined as the practice they were performing.
The same thing has probably happened with the word Church (although probably not in a deceitful way). As some know, I have often wondered whether or not we should even use the word church. Perhaps we should just call ourselves the assembly (perhaps the Assembly of God). I also think we misuse the word worship, service, teach, preach, and probably more that I have not thought about yet.
Lew
P.S. I talked to a Sunday School class about the word church and someone asked what we would call ourselves. Someone said, “Why not Assembly of God?” and another quickly responded, “WE ARE A BAPTIST CHURCH – THERE IS NO WAY WE ARE GOING TO PUT ASSEMBLY OF GOD ON OUR SIGN THAT IS A TOTALLY DIFFERENT DENOMINATION.” That tickled me a little.
Lew,
As you and Alan are aware, I too have struggled with understanding the nature of language and the way that language works. We have tossed around the question of whether or not words have intrinsic meaning many times over the years. In regard to your question, “[A]re we using [words found in the Bible] the way the bible uses them or the way our traditions have used them,” the primary question that I have is this: How do you know how the writers of Scripture used their words?
I doubt that there are many dedicated Christians who would say, “Well, we are as certain as it is possible for man to be (e.g. as certain as we are that the earth is round) that Paul used word X in Romans to mean Y. We reject that meaning, however, and choose instead to use meaning Z.” It is my contention that the very problem at hand seems to be 2000 years of separation and our struggle to understand exactly what was meant by any particular term. Context is king, but it is not foolproof. I struggle with communicating my ideas to the people around me who are part of my culture. Consider how many times you and I have debated only to realize at some point that we had not clearly communicated our positions and were talking right past one another’s face. What hope do I have when it comes to documents that are 2000 years removed from my cultural context, especially when quite often I only have one side of the conversation?
Gary