Talk:Christianese/Archive 1

Archive 1

Differing Views and Citations

I'm not knowledgable about this topic, but the lack of specific citations bothered me. I also disliked "some Christians realized" because "realize" implies "coming to know the truth." I changed to the more neutral "some Christians hold." Also I'd like to see some pro-Christianese, for lack of a better term, arguments listed here. My own opinion is that EVERY group, religious or not, develops specialized jargon to describe concepts unique to that group. Christianity is not solely about converting people, but also about edifying those already converted. When I'm talking with another Catholic, it's much shorter to say "I didn't go because it's an occasion of sin," than "I didn't go to the party because there are likely to be people, items or events that correlate or cause sinful actions on my part, for example being around serving alcohol when one is an alcoholic." I could go on, but this is all opinion and original research and not appropriate for Wikipedia. People with more knowledge than I should go through and cite, cite, cite. joye 01:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

This needs a lot of work

I really don't know where to begin. The topic is certainly interesting and deserves an article, but this one seems a bit condescending, sometimes offensive, sometimes a parody... And the spelling is terrible. I'm going to work on it but I'd like a Christian wikipedian to double-check the article for POVness. --Pablo D. Flores 15:07, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Took a stab at it. I'm currently non-Christian but I have some background in Christianity. IMHO, the article was actually a little too POV in favor of Christianity. Also, "Made right with God" as an definition of "Redeemed" is in itself almost hilariously Christanese. Ditched the whole "Godspeak" because a little Google research led me to believe that an attempt to create a simplified Christanese and to call it "Godspeak" is a highly localized phenomenon; i.e. none of the links (535 in total) that I checked had anything to do with that. I'd like to see a more scholarly person locate the Biblical roots of the phrases and list 'em. BTW, had my first Wiki-headspin experience here - while Googling to research, one of the top 20 hits was to a blog that linked back to the Wikipedia article on Christianese! First reaction: "Cooooool." Second reaction: "No! Wait! Stop! Don't link here! I'm not finished!" :-) Soundguy99 06:33, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi all, I'm the original author of this article and I've just made a few changes to the changes a few other people have made a I wanted to explain (though for some reason the system didn't log me as the editor even thoough I was logged in). Firstly, let me thank whoever fixed up my spelling (I'm a chronic misspeller) and whoever added and changed some of the Christianese definitions. I wasn't totally happy with the stuff I found on the sites I searched but couldn't really think of anything better. So, on to my revisions. I deleted the statement in the introduction that stated that Christianese terms were rooted mainly in Pentacostal theology. While Pentacostals are some of the biggest users of Christianese, I wouldn't say that the terms themselves are in any way specific to them. In the definitions sections, I changed "pre-Christians" back to "non-Christians" (or "pre-Christians") as "non-Christians" is still the most commonly used term in most parts of the world. Moving on, though it saddened me to see that the "Godspeak" section has been removed, I understand why it was. I should explain, the whole "Godspeak" thing is a theory held by several people at my Bible college (including myself). I suppose the reason there's no web mateiral on it is because none of us have written it yet (which is kind of what I was trying to do but there you go). I've added a line at the end of the 'form' section to alude to the issue in the hope of at least attracting peoples attention to the way we react to Christianese. Finally, I've added a section on Christianese in popular culture because I wanted to be able to point to material and say, 'this is what I'm talking about'. I know I'm bordering very close to the relam of literary criticism but I think its justified. Just one final note so everyone interested in this article knows where I'm coming from, I am a committed Christian who is educated in the areas of minitsry and theology, and I have spent most of my life in the area of Christian communication (especially in engaging popular culture). Hopefully, I'm not just making this stuff up but am actaully coming from the position of someone who knows a thing or two about these issues, both theoretically and practically. Marleysghost 05:40, 25 April 2005 (UTC)

The word "anointed" should be here too, as in "Pastor Bob is a really anointed leader". I've heard that a lot. I think this is a really interesting article. I'm not sure how much this applies to *Evangelical* Chistians though (I see a distinction between evangelical and pentacostal, but maybe I'm wrong). Just so you know, I'm a committed Christian who is quite sceptical of the Pentacostal/Charismatic movements. --155.232.250.51 09:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I took the liberty of adding a definition for "anointed" (ripping off the above "Pastor Bob" example). I also went ahead and alphabetized the lexicon, just because I'm anal-retentive. Also, the definition of "redeemed" is inaccurate; I'm working on a suitable replacement which doesn't employ its own Christianese. Chris Pratt 04:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The "non-Christian"/"pre-Christian" Issue

Hi again. This is the second time I've changed a reference to read "non-Christian" (or "pre-Christian") after someone has changed it to simply read "pre-Christian" so I thought I should quickly address the issue. The term "pre-Christian" is pretty much localised to the United States or Western churches with very strong US influences. The term "non-Christian" is far more common internationally and in the everyday speaking of Christianese. It is not meant as a negative statement (which 'non' may suggest) but is more of a 'for-lack-of-a-better-term' type reference. The term "pre-Christian" reflects a philosopical bent which is not found in the majority of Christians and as such, the term does not widely occur in everyday Christianese. It should be noted that in practise the two terms mean the same thing, someone who is not a Christian. The term "non-Christian" is in no way related to term "anti-Christian", which suggests a more active opposition to Christianity (though, needless to say, those who are anti-Christian are generally non-Christian as well). Marleysghost 14:44 April 25th 2005 (UTC)

Aww, nuts. I've just realized that my discussion post about why I restored it to only "pre-Christian" never got saved on this page. Very sorry. I was probably trying to do three things at once and it got lost in the shuffle. My reasoning was that "non-Christian" isn't really "jargon", per se; saying someone is a "non-Christian" is understandable to anyone, whether they have much knowledge of Christianity or not. Having said that, your point above makes perfect sense, and I was kind of nit-picking anyway. So we'll just leave it as is and I'll delete your "see talk page" sentence. No need to notify the casual reader of a very minor debate. Soundguy99 14:58, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Christianese in archaic speech

It might be worthwhile to note in this article that espescially older European literature is riddled with Christian terminology or ideas, as this formed, until 20th century, a common cultural background even for those who were not active members of congregations. This is not as easy to note as the Pentecostal Christianese, which I, as a European Christian find sometimes hilarious, sometimes disgusting, sometimes respect-inspiring. However, the all-pervasiveness of Christianity in traditional European culture meant that a person might routinely cite Bible or other spiritual literature in a temporal matter and be quite well understood. This is especially important when reading radical literature from the 19th and 20th century, as they may include numerous biblical or spiritual references, often used to raise controversy. A reader without the right background fails to understand the actual shock-value of the wording.--81.197.78.73 19:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Origin of the term 'Christianese'?

I don't think this article needs especially more work than any other Wikipedia article at this point, so I've removed the {{attention}} tag. But I am curious about whether the term "Christianese" is in wide use. I don't think I've ever heard it before I saw this entry -- if we can find a source for the word I think it would improve the article a bit. Good work, everyone! Tim Pierce 01:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Ironically, I think "Christianese" is itself Christianese. I have heard it before, but only from other Christians. I doubt anyone outside of Christianity would know what it means. Chris Pratt 03:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The first section states that "The term "Christianese" is an informal and sometimes pejorative exonym from secular culture..." I would like to see that verified, because I think it's wrong. My own experience with the term has always been hearing it used by Christians as a term of humorous self-deprecation or as a challenge to communicate more effectively to the secular culture. If the origin of the word can be researched, I'd be willing to bet it was invented by Christians for Christians.

I think the concept itself goes back as least as far as Bonhoeffer's "Letters and Papers from Prison," where he said, "What is bothering me incessantly is the question what Christianity really is, or indeed who Christ really is, for us today. The time when people could be told everything by means of words, whether theological or pious, is over, and so is the time of inwardness and conscience – and that means the time of religion in general. We are moving towards a completely religionless time; people as they are now simply cannot be religious any more." Don't know as he got that completely right. He did make the same point the term "Christianese" is making: that communicating in words understood only in a Christian context does not benefit anybody outside it, and probably does not benefit anybody inside it very much, either. Alfarero (talk) 01:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Announcement concerning slang glossary policy discussion

As you are probably aware, there are many slang glossaries on Wikipedia with widespread acceptance, yet virutally all of them violate the following policy:

Wikipedia is not a dictionary

Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a usage or jargon guide. Wikipedia articles are not:

1. Dictionary definitions. Because Wikipedia is not a dictionary, please do not create an entry merely to define a term. An article should usually begin with a good definition; if you come across an article that is nothing more than a definition, see if there is information you can add that would be appropriate for an encyclopedia. An exception to this rule is for articles about the cultural meanings of individual numbers.
2. Lists of such definitions. There are, however, disambiguation pages consisting of pointers to other pages; these are used to clarify differing meanings of a word. Wikipedia also includes glossary pages for various specialized fields.
3. A usage guide or slang and idiom guide. Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, etc. should be used. We aren't teaching people how to talk like a Cockney chimney-sweep. However, it may be important in the context of an encyclopedia article to describe just how a word is used to distinguish among similar, easily confused ideas, as in nation or freedom. In some special cases an article about an essential piece of slang may be appropriate.

---

This has created a situation where policy-enforcing zealots frequently nominate such glossaries for deletion, with most of the glossaries surviving the process with a consensus of Keep or No concensus. This ongoing battle has been raging on with respect to slang glossaries for at least the past two years. Yet the glossaries have survived, and more continue to be created. Based on the results of the majority of the Article for Deletion (AfD) discussions, the general concensus seems to be that slang glossaries should have a place on Wikipedia. The relevant policy is no longer consistent with general consensus, and this schism has resulted in a large number of pointless AfD discussions which serve only to waste the time and effort of those involved. When the majority of Wikipedians defy a policy, it is time to reevaluate the policy.

Therefore, I have started a discussion on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Slang glossaries to discuss the fate of slang glossaries (such as this one) and to discuss whether or not the policy should be ammended to reflect the defacto acceptance of slang glossaries on Wikipedia. They are here, and based on the results of AfD discussions, they seem to be here to stay. So shouldn't the policy be updated? If the policy was changed to allow slang glossaries or changed to provide for their speedy deletion, either of these solutions would save a lot of time and effort wasted on fruitless AfDs. You are welcome to join the discussion. --List Expert 10:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Look, I appreciate what you're trying to do here, and looking at the autologged version I agree that the list of Christianese terms was much too long; however, as the article currently stands it doesn't make much sense without any examples. We should restore a handful of these to restore the article's comprehensibility.JSoules (talk) 03:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Missing word

This article is missing the most hilarious Christianese of all: testify! Surely someone can testify as to what the hell the flock think they mean by the word testify so that we might all be saved any confusion. --61.214.155.14 05:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Truth

"...suggest that it is possible to express all Christian truth in neutral language..."

Could someone explain to me what "Christian truth" is please? As far as I was aware, there is very little substantive fact in Christian teachings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.157.52.65 (talk) 16:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

--CopyToWiktionaryBot 09:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

To the Christian commentators who state it, teachings of Christianity may be truth. But it's funny and ironic that the term "Christian truth" is used while explaining the need for neutral language. Should we change it to "Christian teachings" or leave it for laughs? -Bikinibomb (talk) 19:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

still needs a lot of help

So, I see from the rest of this page that I am not the first to notice how shaky this article is. The main problem is that this is a fairly long article, yet the only sources are a wordspy entry and a book about the Simpsons. This would seem to qualify about 95% of this article as original research. If this jargon is in such widespread use, somebody must have written more than one definition on wordspy, which I suspect is not really a source we should be using on Wikipedia anyway. I guess we can leave the whole "slang dictionary" aspect lie until the greater debate on that subject is finished. The overall tone and style of writing needs some editing for clarity, and some of the definitions aren't really definitions at all, just references to the Bible. Persons who don't know much about Christianity would have a hard time understanding this article. I think it can be saved, but it badly needs additional citations and substantial editing for clarity. Beeblbrox (talk) 04:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC) oh yeah, it also has some pretty bad POV issues. Beeblbrox (talk) 04:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

ok, since the whole article is over at wiktionary now, I got rid of the "lexicon" section, the article seems less confused now.Beeblbrox (talk) 01:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Offensive

I find this article very offensive to christianity. It is as if people are trying to say christians speak a different language. This page is nothing but a list of english words that christians use more often than other people, and is about the most pointless and rude page I've seen in a while. Ringwall (talk) 18:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

There has been previous controversy here, about the notability of this "language" and how widespread some of the terms are, and it may be time to look at those issues again, however Wikipedia is not censored , so the fact that this offends you is not going to be considered a valid argument. If you can find problems with the factual accuracy, point of view, etc, those are considered valid arguments. Beeblbrox (talk) 20:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Most every religion has it's own terminology and I'll bet one can find an article somewhere in every religion's literature that complains jargon gets in the way of the religion's mission. Yet we don't have articles on Mormonese or Judaese or Islamese, etc. The comments on OR in the previous section still apply. Much of the article is about popular culture, yet the examples given hardly make a case, e.g. "It's a miracle. The Lord has drowned the wicked and spared the righteous!" It's a religious viewpoint, but hardly Christianese. Is someone prepared to make a proper article out of this, maybe with a less POV title, or is it AfD time?--agr (talk) 00:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This is one of the most truly stupid and unencyclopedic articles I have seen (and there are a lot out there). Apparently Homer Simpson is its one reliable source. It should be deleted. The word is a neologism and, at best, it might be suitable for a dictionary definition in Wiktionary.Mamalujo (talk) 19:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, there is no need to delete. We can just redirect this article to Glossary of Christian terms. I'd like to wait a few days to see if someone wants to defend this article.--agr (talk) 19:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge with Glossary of Christian terms?

Per discussion above, I have added a merge tag proposing to merge redirect this article with Glossary of Christian terms. I think whatever useful content there is in the current page could be distilled to an introductory paragraph for the Glossary.--agr (talk) 16:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• I couldn't agree more, go for it. Beeblbrox (talk) 20:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Ok, since I seem to be the only person left in this conversation, I decided to be bold, finally, and do the merge, only to discover that the destination article has a "hidden" criteria, visible when editing, that specifies only terms with their own article. I did it anyway but someone might decide to undo it and we'll have to start this whole conversation over again. Beeblbrox (talk) 04:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Christianese. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041125030315/http://www.christianrecovery.com/vb/archive/index.php/t-17.html to http://www.christianrecovery.com/vb/archive/index.php/t-17.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080113063713/http://dougaddison.com/shop/product.php?productid=16184&cat=248&page=1 to http://dougaddison.com/shop/product.php?productid=16184&cat=248&page=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:45, 6 August 2017 (UTC)