Talk:Christianese
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 14 August 2006. The result of the discussion was No Consensus. |
Contents |
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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 speller) 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 2007-02-1 Automated pywikipediabot message
--CopyToWiktionaryBot 09:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
