The Death and Birth of English

photo from Grammarly

A friend of mine recently posted the photo from Grammarly featuring the quote from Conan O’Brien. The most surprising thing about it is that it is almost a year old and still making the rounds. I have previously mentioned various words of the year as named by various groups. Each so-named word-of-the-year generates the usual pitiful wails from the language purists who remain convinced that Shakespeare, or Dickens, or (insert favorite English author) had the language in its perfect form and we are fools for changing it.

To those purists who have nothing better to do than grouse about the perversion of our language based on societal change I say, “Get over it! English ain't Latin." (Like it or not even spell check knows ain’t is a word.)

Some argue the words selected are too silly or represent a fad. Often they do. Not!* The truthiness** of the Occupy*** movement was challenged by some, but not if they had a subprime**** mortgage. The rise of words expressing the dynamic of society generate the energy that keeps English alive. Rather than killing the language, these words represent the continual birth found in any living language.

Truthfully, those decrying the various words of the year are not attacking the word so much as they disagree with the circumstances that promoted the word to prominence. That is not a question for the linguists who study trends in language but for the society that allowed “selfie” to become a thing. Why are people so preoccupied with taking photos of themselves? I would argue that in a world where everything is social, it’s a cry for attention, “Hey, look at me,” and when the world does not, the selfie offers the illusion of attention, “I’m looking at me.”

Maybe selfie is not so silly.

People, look beyond yourself.

No. Really. Pay attention to the background! No one wants to see your dirty underwear or any of the other embarrassing things captured in that moment of self-affirmation.

In November the various organizations that compile the lists of influential words will again offer their collections. At this point in the year I am at a loss to predict what words will be selected, but I know there will again be the usual uproar predicting the death of our diseased dialects. If it is the typical year, my voice will rise with the others - with the understanding that those cries do not draw us to the funeral parlor, but to the nursery, where we view the continuing birth of English.

*1992, **2005, ***2011, ****2007 words of the year. We may not use them as much, but we still know what they mean.

From Welcoming to Winning to Welcoming

Recently I participated in a discussion with a group of theologians who participated in an event hosted by an organization that works for full inclusion of all people in all churches. One person made a comment, meant to be encouraging at the time, that with changes in society and stories in the press, we had won. The idea, and language, of “winning church” stuck with me for the rest of the day as it bulldozed its way through my thinking and most of my individual conversations the rest of the day.

Wouldn’t we all be very happy if everyone else’s theology came into perfect alignment with our own? I have never met anyone who did not like the idea of winning, and “winning church” probably ranks as the biggest.

Deep inside, I think we all desire an end to conflict between the faiths so that the most contentious argument in Church is whether to serve regular, whole-wheat, or gluten-free communion wafers. Sadly, within major religions such as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam most of the divisions, denominations, or sects agree on the big concepts of the religion. The minutia and practice around those concepts, though create schisms large enough to dwarf the Grand Canyon. To cement the “rightness” of each point, they become so enshrined in ritual across generations that if the Torah/Bible/Koran did not say it, it should have.

Truthfully, though, I do not want another denomination or, for that matter, another individual to come into sync with my personal theology: it would diminish my personal, individual, relationship with God. I came to where I am in faith through my life experiences and my encounters with God. They are uniquely mine and have shaped nuances of faith no one else can have. The big ideas align to my faith tradition but have been buffed and polished by my experiences with God. The biggest idea in Christianity is having a personal relationship with God.

Similarly, congregational experience grows the same way through corporate worship and shared experiences. Each congregation develops its its history and tradition around those experiences. Some use the history as a guide for future work. Some get stuck in the history.

While it the idea of winning sounds nice, it does not support the value of welcoming all in the church. For someone to win, someone else loses - becoming disenfranchised and feeling unwelcome in the church. The welcoming and affirming movements within the different denominations have to recognize that we have not been successful until every child of God is welcome in every congregation. As more congregations and religious organizations adjust rules and statements of faith the more we will encounter individuals and groups who opposed those changes. They are as worthy or our love and gracious welcome as the previously excluded populations.

Welcoming is not a value extended only toward historically marginalized individuals and groups. Welcoming is a value extended to everyone. Christ left no ambiguity about who could be his follower. He traveled amongst the sinners and unclean while engaging the religious elite. He welcomed everyone.

Society may proclaim winners and losers on various issues, but we who seek justice for all cannot let ourselves adapt this kind of thinking. We have long worked to develop a kingdom view of people that welcomes everyone and affirms their value.

I admit that I am encouraged by the increase in congregations and organizations who are recognizing that Christ welcomed and affirmed all people and are seeking to become more Christlike by following his example. Meanwhile other congregations reinforce their theology that defines who can worship with them. As long as the dichotomy exists there are no winners. The best we can do is to practice grace and demonstrate the love of God.

Lost - or Gained - in Translation

Last week as the anniversary of the takeover of the American Embassy in Tehran approached, some groups in Iran were marking the day with celebrations, calling it a “Great Day of Death to America.” The political me wants to get mad at them and be insulted, but the linguistic me thinks it just sounds like too much fun! They have the naming business down!

I want to go! Where can I get tickets for this “great day”?

I cannot even say it without my voice naturally taking an optimistic lilt. Maybe something was gained in translation. I could not help but think about each time I heard some news report mentioning the activities of the day: it sounds so great.

“Death to America” has been a standard translation for anti-American sentiments since the uprising in Iran surrounding the takeover of the embassy and holding the staff hostage for 444 days. It was one of the first great slogans I heard in my life.

Sadly, our politicians learned from the effective sloganeering. Now so much of what we hear is the message condensed to a soundbite - a news show teaser version of Twitter: lacking content, but catchy. The more media fragmentation allows everyone to selectively gather news, the better messengers have been able to shape their content. All manner of hatred has been couched in the most benign phrases.

Bigotry disguised by wholesome language is still bigotry. Labeling of the “others” separates. Demonizing anyone who disagrees becomes easy when hidden behind the latest motivational phrase. Name calling at the SAT level.

All sides are equally adept at manipulating language for their cause. If they were not, at this point, they would not be a side.

As strongly as I feel about certain issues, I intentionally follow sources who feel differently so I can maintain some perspective on the issue. When I feel strongly about an idea, it is because I have information and experience to support those beliefs and drive my actions accordingly. Others have different experiences that alter the way they react to the issue. As long as they have some kind of legitimate knowledge base and experiential case for their beliefs, we can discuss the issue somewhat rationally. When they have no legitimate knowledge base or experience to support their belief and are only relying on what a few talking head thought leaders are saying, there is no way to have a discussion.

Logic cannot debate emotion because emotion does not understand reason. Both are powerful tools at motivating people on issues, but logically approaching an emotional argument will not affect the position of the other any more than an emotional argument will not sway someone guided by logic. Both parties leave the encounter feeling the other as even more utterly wrong than upon entering the encounter.

As a word person, I find myself frustrated at each side’s use of generally innocuous phrases to convey a divisive idea. Whenever challenged about the idea motivating the phrase, the user immediately Shirley Temples some, “golly! How could you ever think that from what I said?” Meanwhile, racism, sexism, and religious bigotry exist openly more freely than in the last several decades.

Until we, in mass, stop letting a handful of “thought leaders” from each political spectrum dictate policy stances, we will continue function from the poles. Fortunately we always have the government we deserve. Despite the rhetoric, I continue to believe we are better than we have acted in the last decade and we deserve a government that is better than we have now.