—Ben Arbour
[Editor’s Note: In the midst of writing a book on the same topic, Ben Arbour has agreed to offer us a series, Pastors and Practice, arguing that Christ is our true model for pastoral ministry. Throughout this series, Ben will explain how Christ’s example should affect the governing of the church and the ministry of pastors.]
Suppose that you asked Joe Christian, “When were you justified?” Now suppose that the person you asked responded with something like the following:
“Well, I see justification as an on-going part of my life, not a onetime thing that happened in the past. Instead, I like to think about justification as my continually being conformed into the image of Christ as I grow in Christian maturity and fight against sin. One day, this process of justification will culminate in glorification. So, I guess I’d answer your question this way—I am continually being justified.”
Perhaps you’d be inclined to respond, “It sounds to me like you are confusing justification with sanctification.” After all, if you simply substitute “sanctification” in the answer above with “justification,” it seems to make sense.1
No one, not even Roman Catholics, would be comfortable with the view of justification our friend Joe offers. Now, if we were to introduce him to distinctions between justification and sanctification, what would you think if he responded, “Yeah, I get the distinction, and that’s what I meant. I just call sanctification justification, and sometimes the other way around, too”?
Chances are, if you’re reading this, you’d have a hard time sitting back and saying, “Sure thing, Joe. That’s fine with me.” In fact, you’re likely to stress the importance of using biblical terms the way the Bible defines them. You’d probably carefully search the Scriptures with Joe to help him better appreciate the importance of distinguishing between justification and sanctification. And you’d also go on to remind Joe that the Bible, rather than our culture or our personal preferences, should shape our theology and even our theological vocabulary.
Why, then, have we become so comfortable using the label “pastor” in such an unbiblical manner? After all, isn’t ecclesiology an area of theology? Shouldn’t the Bible, and not our culture, shape our understanding of ecclesiology?
I find it quite tragic that many of the same people who are nearly militant when it comes to the vocabulary of salvation are so wishy-washy when it comes to matters of polity. In fact, the more that I’ve been able to discuss my understanding of the biblical office of elder/pastor/overseer with others, the more I’ve been barraged with responses like, “Well, when I say ‘pastor,’ I mean the guy who preaches on Sunday mornings. And at our church, that’s “________” (fill in the blank here).”
Why have Evangelicals, who generally insist on fidelity to the Bible and especially the New Testament, so thoroughly jettisoned the biblical teachings on local church leadership? Do we, or do we not, believe that the New Testament doctrine of the church is normative for us? If not, this discussion likely doesn’t matter to you a hill of beans. But as I mentioned at the outset of this series, I am a Baptist. As a Baptist, I care about biblical ecclesiology, believing it to be normative as much for us today as in the earliest days of Christianity. If you, like me, believe we should be “people of the book,” I urge you to conform your vocabulary and practices to the Bible rather than the other way around.
1Of course, some don’t hold to the progressive sanctification schema this might include (especially Lutherans), but I want to ignore that; my point is quite simple.
10 comments:
Actually, I don't have a problem saying "Sure thing, Joe. That's fine with me." Maybe that's just a personal thing though.
A major part of the issue is that the authors of scripture never ONCE wrote the terms "justification" or "sanctification". In fact, it is entirely possible that many early Christians wouldn't even know what those terms mean. Those terms, "justification" and "sanctification" are English, a language that didn't exist at that point in time. It is at best a bit of a rephrasing of their word.
As it stands, I just don't see the point.
1) We'll never be able to use the Bible's language as long as we speak English. After all, languages aren't just different spellings of the same word, but rather languages are systems of thought and representation, and each word is really a part of those overall systems. The nature of this is such that it can significantly alter our way of approaching the world and thinking about reality, as found in a number of studies. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703467304575383131592767868.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEADNewsCollection , http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2010/06/22/new-nicaraguan-sign-language-shows-how-language-affects-thought/
2) Words are kind of arbitrary. They're a tool for expressing ideas, but they aren't Platonic, transcendent, magical incantations. Rather, we've seen languages develop and change over time, and sometimes particular words can change significantly, or even new terms emerge. The issue is that language is a representation system, it isn't actually reality. (I had a literature professor who made that a major theme in the class)
3) To anticipate a rebuttal, yes, it is less than ideal that Joe confuses two different things, and this is because he might actually be stunting his own theology. The issue is that this behavior on Joe's part could partially just be a problem in finding the right words, like, for instance, my grandmother's problem finding and using my name. As it stands, while this may distort thinking, it really seems that ignorance is both more pervasive and worse, and that the problems in use are really less important than perhaps the root source, which may be a lack of mindfulness. As it stands though, it seems that y'know, things like love are more important than proper word use. Maybe I am thinking of the wrong book though, and I need to start reading the dictionary with the swastika on it.
(Note: I do recognize that this might actually get into a larger debate here, and that I am TOTALLY OFF TRACK what you are trying to get at, but the issue is that obsession with "the right words" is common, however, it is also kind of silly, and too much time is wasted everywhere by everyone about trying to talk about the "true meaning" of a word, a task as petty and empty as it was in that old story about the campers asking "Does the man go round the squirrel or not?")
Getting back to the ultimate concern here, even though I don't follow the question of word use, one can derive inconsistency from it to that target audience. However, the term is kind of irrelevant to me. I mean, it is logically possible(not likely though) that in 50 years that the proper word for such men isn't "pastor", but rather "preacher DUDE" or some other appellation.
Btw, I apologize if I am too off-track or even perceived as too belligerent. I had to write this out twice, and well... carrying a rhetorical hammer is sometimes... useful. That being said, I am going to go back to arguing that the words "let Jesus into your heart" deny the heart of the Gospel and corrupt minds.
-Ryan
Ryan,
I appreciate (some of) your points. Overall, I don't think you're being too belligerent. I do resent the comment about love being set up as an alternative to being a Nazi. Isn't it at least logically possible that the loving thing to do is help people develop theologically by pointing them to the right verbiage? Must it be an either/or? I think not...
Regarding the first set of points concerning language, I won't go into the merits of translating the "dikaios" word group as "justified/justification" in English. I don't need to. My point is that what the Greek word(s) refer to in the NT is not what our imaginary friend Joe was discussing. Hence, his vocabulary is not in keeping with biblical theology. If sudden cultural shifts left entire communities using "justification" language to mean sanctification, that would be another thing entirely. Fortunately, we're not dealing with that problem this day in age--we're dealing with intellectual laziness. So, from my vantage point, you're not actually interacting with the problems I'm presenting here, but are pointing out other problems that are off topic.
Secondly, you point out another thing that is exactly the problem, yet you seem to have missed my point. You wrote: "Rather, we've seen languages develop and change over time, and sometimes particular words can change significantly, or even new terms emerge." Later you (rightly) noted that in 50 years our language might evolve to the point of calling pastors "preacher dudes." But what are we to do when it isn't the verbiage that changes, but the role? My point isn't that the language has changed. In fact, the English term "pastor" has been employed as the choice translation of the "poimena" word group for some time. Sadly, our conception of what that word means has changed. The word is the same; the definition has shifted. As I see things, that is the exact opposite of what you've discussed.
Last, I understand that language isn't static, and it doesn't point to Platonic forms. I also get that any translation--even communication in general--suffers from a certain sense of analogicality. However, in order to maintain faithfulness to the Scripture, isn't it the goal of a translator to strive for as univocal language as possible between, say, Greek/Hebrew and the reception language, including English? After all, if we grant that equivocal language is all we have, then it seems that any translation of the Bible is automatically not Scripture, but merely an interpretation. That is the Islamic position--it has NEVER been the position of the Church (Protestant or Catholic). A translation, insofar as it faithfully represents the original texts, is the Word of God, at least for those upholding orthodox bibliologies.
Finally, I want to return to the theme of love. If you ask those who know me, this series isn't just about what's right, what's true, and what's biblical. It's about people, who often get hurt when we take matters into our own hands instead of doing things God's way. Sure, some people miss the forest for the trees and get hung up on minutia, but I don't think this project is about that, and neither do my close friends with whom I've discussed it. Pastoral ecclesiology is about making sure that people are loved instead of ignored by the very ones who are called to love them. For too long we've ignored the biblical definitions of words. Sadly, in many cases, new definitions have been employed as justification for a lack of love. Hopefully, a correction of terminology will result not only in an ecclesiology that is more faithful to the NT. It is my prayer that it points forward to the more excellent way.
I was listening to the Bible this morning and I came across something which I found moderately relevant to this discussion. I am mostly sharing because of the good timing:
"Even in the case of lifeless things that make sounds, such as the flute or harp, how will anyone know what tune is being played unless there is a distinction in the notes? Again, if the trumpet does not sound a clear call, who will get ready for battle? So it is with you. Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air. Undoubtedly there are all sorts of languages in the world, yet none of them is without meaning. If then I do not grasp the meaning of what someone is saying, I am a foreigner to the speaker, and he is a foreigner to me. So it is with you." (1 Corinthians 14:7-12)
"I do resent the comment about love being set up as an alternative to being a Nazi."
Well, the issue is just that "Nazi" is just the common term for being perceived as too uptight for something. Most frequently we have "grammar nazi", but frankly, I am just looking forward to the day that we belittle the Holocaust and the term Nazi to the point that we call anything that upsets us in the slightest to be "fascist". Maybe some day people will talk about how they had a "kind of Nazi day, but they'll get over it" Hopefully my use here is a small bit of progress in that direction. :P
Ben, Joe's only problem is that he conflates words. That doesn't mean that he is theologically ignorant, only that he has a problem distinguishing between different words. Now, this issue can have many sources, some reasonable, others less so.
Ben, I also do not miss your point. I state: "Getting back to the ultimate concern here, even though I don't follow the question of word use, one can derive inconsistency from it to that target audience." This means that I accept your position as valid, I just tend to dissent heavily from the linguistic argument for it. As for my discussion being the opposite of yours, the issue is that both cases are ones of language evolution, I picked meanings switching words, but, the other isn't inconsistent with my own digressions. Either one is sufficient for my point, which is that language doesn't establish a real normativity, which you have to assume it does in order to make the argument. I still think your point is valid though, because the people you are addressing believe in that normativity, and because even if language isn't normative, the concepts expressed can be.
As for the goal of a translator? Yes, the goal is to express the ideas as clearly as possible in other languages, and they disagree on how this should ideally be done to some extent. Now, the issue with your claim about Christian views of what it means to be "God's word" is that unless you are arguing that every interpretation has plenary verbal inspiration from God (which leaves you big issues given the variance between translations), we are still left with the stand that it isn't God's word in that sense, in that the words aren't God's so much as a good interpretation of God's word. Now, to me, this doesn't prevent the Bible from being called "God's word" any more than any other interpretation still being ascribed to the original author, however, it does prevent it from being considered "God's word" in the notion of inspired word-choice, which I think is necessary for any argument about the normativity of the word usage of the Bible. It also can still mean that there can still be a mild interpretive gap between the Bible in the translated language and the original language. Really though, if you deny the "Platonicity" of language, then it seems to me that you also have to deny the existence of objective lines that tell us what is proper for a language group. We might be able to do that in practice, because of the need for language to express understanding, but there is no metaphysical basis. Because of this, there is really no metaphysical basis to distinguish between "Joe, the guy who misspeaks English", or "Joe, the member of the very very small linguistic community that does not recognize the distinction between justification and sanctification", and if we lack that distinction, a Bible from Joe's community, which uses sanctification and justification interchangeably is still God's inspired word, and well... if it *could be* God's inspired word, then when does the interpretation make it God's inspired word? How large does the community have to be? I mean, I think the case ends up falling flat. (at least in as far as I interpret you correctly)
- Ryan (continued)
In order to defend the normativity of word use, you have to defend the normativity of a language, and in order to do that, you have to have clear distinctions on what language is what, and the issue is that if languages evolve, then there is no basis for clear distinction anywhere, as any label we give to language is really just pragmatic and not an absolute, and if that, then how can you enforce something based upon something that you just think is useful, there is nothing that commands any agreement, but rather rejection can be equally rational.
(As for distinguishing between the Christian historical view and the Islamic view, the issue there is reasoning, as we both likely hold that historical opinions are only correct in as much as they are on valid grounds, otherwise one could appeal to the "historical workings of the Catholic church" to attack Protestants. And of course, there are likely huge epistemological issues that can become involved here.)
Ok, but Ben, I think that your entire point about definition is based upon a philosophy of language that is flawed. The fact that you recognize that language is not static and then continue, I think shows an issue, either in my thinking or yours. I don't think your point holds up though, because if you say that there is a group of people who consistently use the word "pastor" in a particular manner, who says whether they are mistaken or whether the current interpretation of the Bible has become outdated for the modern language? I don't see a single person who can make that call in an objective sense(after all how many words have to be interpreted differently to make the call? how many people have to hold to the new interpretation? etc), but we both know that a Bible can become outdated due to the evolution of language. As such, I don't see your case that the use of the word "pastor" by these people is wrong, so much as their ecclesiology is not organized around proper concepts. Now, concepts are something that we use words to bring us to, but they aren't the same as those words, and given that concepts seem to be the real matter of importance, the emphasis on words seems rooted in a deep error. You actually aren't concerned with words, because your problem is that people aren't getting the meanings, but the issue is that you've already accepted that the words representing the meanings can be ANYTHING, so... how can you say that there are wrong words, AND accept that any word can potentially be the right word? And if you can't accept that any word can potentially be the right word, then how can that be consistent with the notion that languages evolve which entails that words can disappear either through a process of alteration, or disuse?
-Ryan (sorry for being overly wordy)
Ryan:
If we can grant that (1) "pastor" generally does not mean in common usage what "elder" or "overseer" meant in Biblical language and (2) we are seeking to conform to a Biblical pattern in our understanding, then (3) we should likewise conform our speech to Biblical patterns. The issue is not really these issues of linguistics but simply whether we should talk about the church and its offices the way the Bible does. No one is arguing about whether "pastor" is the wrong word, but rather what pastors should do—and whether the way we usually use the word matches what pastors, Biblically speaking, are called to do.
In short, your posts thus far have been a giant exercise in missing the point.
Ryan,
Chris is right. You've missed the point. I'm not talking about the word "pastor" so much as the concept that this word ("poimena") in Greek refers to. This is absent in most evangelical churches, and it should be recovered. We can discuss Kripke and Grice all day long, along with Austin and others. I'm well versed in contemporary discussions re: phil of language. I'm not committing the errors you charge me with; instead, you've misinterpreted the point(s) I'm driving at.
If the Bible contains an ecclesiology that is normative for us today, we should seek to emulate that, or abandon claims of biblical faithfulness. The titles are irrelevant--but the concepts aren't. If we want to call a "poimena" a "preacher dude" I'm fine with that, so long as the referent concept of "preacher dude" is the same as "poimena." Sadly, the current vernacular isn't "preacher dude" but is "pastor." Most people who use this term believe (wrongly) that this term refers to the concept expressed in the NT with the "poimena" word group. This is incorrect. I'm striving to bring about a correction to this. It doesn't necessarily involve keeping the word "pastor," but it does involve showing that what most people think they mean when they use this term is something very different than what the Apostles spoke of.
End of discussion, at least for me, for now.
Peace.
Chris, my posts were the entire way through just a digression and I already made that explicit. If I am digressing, then there is a problem with your inference.
Part of the issue is that I am rejecting your project because of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. If each language implicitly upholds ideas on scripture relevant issues, (like responsibility as pointed out in the WSJ article) then the notion of conforming to the full and total expression of the original text may not really be likely or possible. I believe this issue was rebutted by Ben by stating that each language was the Word of God, rather than only the original text. The issue is that if my original point involving the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is correct, then this commits the Word of God to be different things in different languages to at least some degree. That is that the concepts in the Word of God could actually be somewhat relative.
Now, I am really fine with the notion that you want concepts to be normative. The issue is that it *was* implied that words were normative, as noted in the situation with Joe. Joe confused words, but seemed to know the concepts, as noted with Joe's ability to say what sanctification is, and his ability to recognize the distinction, but his tendency to confuse the words. This is why I started off saying that I'd actually say that to Joe. Note though, even though I do admit that I think the example of Joe is wrong, I do admit that the analogy has weight for someone that concerned.
Ben, if words can't directly translate between languages (which seems a given if we accept any variant of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which argues that the structure of language fundamentally changes thought), then how can we have anything but an approximation of "poimena" in English? By committing to that, you seem to me to be committing to the idea that the English Bible is just a derivative of the Greek and Hebrew versions, which is the other notion you deny.
I mean, here are the three premises:
1) The Greek meanings are central to God's word.
2) The English Bible is equally The Bible, as much as any other Bible.
3) Languages cannot directly translate.
I don't think they are compatible, but I think premise 3 would follow from the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.
That being said, I know, you are trying to correct a gross error, however, I am disputing the example of Joe.
-Ryan (once again, Chris, I know this is all a digression)
Ryan,
You're arguing for the sake of arguing. It's stupid. Stop. Nobody was making an argument about linguistics here. The point of Ben's hypothetical conversation with Joe is to show that, at least in our interactions with others, words matter. Nobody said anything about 100% correspondence, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, or Platonic forms; the point is entirely conversational.
Future comments of this sort will be deleted. You're absolutely welcome to discuss the issues here, but future digressions of this sort will not be tolerated. It's off topic, and it's pointless. Consider this conversation closed.
Post a Comment
We welcome your comments—whether you agree or disagree with us—as long as they are polite, kind, and thoughtful. Please supply your name, and if you have a website, provide a link!
Personal attacks, trolling, spam and anonymous posts will be deleted. See our full comments policy for details and clarification.
If you are writing a particularly long comment, you may want to check it against the 4000-character limit.