Sunday, July 31, 2005

Clarifying the Freedom Fighter post

The people who I'm calling freedom fighters are the people who percieve that there's a mass movement telling them not to use religious language.

Again, I recognize that outside of the blogsphere, there probably are people saying "Don't use it at all." Heck, I ran into one lady who gave me crap about a word I used in a lay sermon one time. She gave me static, I argued back, then we went for chinese food. (Sigh. That was a great church.)

But as far as the folks on the blogosphere are concerned, I feel like for the past week the conversation has been more like:

Religious Language fans: People should be able to use whatever term they think will work the best.

CC: Exactly, but sometimes religious language won't be the best term. I think Sinkford was wrong to try to market Christian language as something that's really going to resonate with people and that using it have this huge effect. I don't think it will work.

Religious language fan: Boy, I really hate it how people are trying to BAN religious language and tell Sinkford he can't use it!

CC: Not that I think anybody's listening any more, but for the record, that's not what I said.


I don't think Jeff and I and anyone else on the negative side of the debate has actually said "Don't use it." I think Jeff and I and anyone else have been pretty consistent on the "It just won't work" point.

But over and over I keep hearing "people are trying to tell Sinkford how to talk" or "people are trying to ban religious language." Maybe that's appropriate in a medium where people are actually saying this.

But as far as the debate here goes, this is a straw man.

CC

7 comments:

PeaceBang said...

CC, can you link to where the hot-and-heaviest conversation is going on about this, or is it just in general, like a trend you've been seeing over past months/years?

Because I feel like I haven't seen anything really energetic about it lately. But then, I have a memory like a sieve.

Chalicechick said...

Most recently toward the end of the 100 post plus Coffeehour discussion.

CC

Oversoul said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Chalicechick said...

Gee, O-soul, if by interpreting "to object to Sinkford or others using them on the grounds that they are Christian, is irrational." To mean you think that the people you are talking to means something other than you think that people "to object to Sinkford or others using them on the grounds that they are Christian," please fill me in on how I'm misinterpreting.

Is it possible that PB and others who put things more mildly get more agreement because this issue is so black and white with you? I mean your attitude really seems to be "talk in a way that I think is reverent or you're a social club." And there isn't much room for a conversation there.

CC

Chalicechick said...

Ok, I see the post I was repsonding to is gone, but for the sake of clarity, let's try paragraph 1 again.

What I meant to write was:

Gee, O-soul, if by interpreting "to object to Sinkford or others using them on the grounds that they are Christian, is irrational" to mean you think that the people you are talking "object to Sinkford or others using them on the grounds that they are Christian" is wrong, please fill me in on how I'm misinterpreting.


CC

Oversoul said...

I was abundantly clear on the blog, in response to Nancy's original complaint, and to those who subsequently ignored the facts that I presented chosing instead to join the "Sinkford's talk is too Christian" crowd.

No where did I say people have to use one set of language over another, neither did I say anything about having to use a particlar vocabulary to be "reverent".

All I did was point out that in the big wide world of religion, many of the terms that caused some people to flee (per Nancy) are also used in by non-Christian traditions, thus making them more than just Christian in their usage. If Sinkford says "salvation" unless he specifically makes it clear he means the salvation provided by Jesus' vicarious atonement, I don't think one can accuse him of engaging in Christian-talk.

Chalicechick said...

I thought Jeff's answer to your comment on the Christian-centric nature of religious language was pretty good:

I don't agree that concepts like salvation etc. don't carry specifically Christian baggage with them. To the extent that non-Christians such as myself use them, it is because that's what non-mainstream groups are forced to do whenever they participate with a dominant group. But when there's no Christians around, salvation, gospel, etc. never come up. It's a strained language that often doesn't accurately get at the crucial ideas that other religions seek to convey. The same goes in other directions too--I doubt the Buddhist terms I'm familiar and comfortable with would do such a great job at conveying essentially Christian concepts.


And your only response to that was to tell him/us we were really looking for a social group.

I feel like Jeff answered you just fine and you were pointlessly rude to him, yet when I gently asked if we could remain respectful, you respond as if you don't think we understood you.

And I wasn't even talking so much about Sinkford as I was that this entire debate has been far more about Christian language than the language of other faiths. (Which isn't even my major point.)

Personally, I don't care if you use Zoroastrian language, just changing the language is not going to have all the effects people think it will.

CC