MORE
THAN MEETS THE EAR: VERNACULAR JARGON’S CONTRIBUTION TO THE ETHOS OF WORSHIP
The
ethos of the modern church, particularly in western society, seemingly involves
a catering to the culture for a plurality of underlying reasons. The strong
belief in the use of vernacular language stemming from the Reformation era has
drastically changed in its purpose. Where Reformers desired for communities of
God’s people to possess the ability to worship in their own language and, thus,
experience a greater effect in life-change, the tendency of modern churches’
use of vernacular language appears to be founded upon the desires of people
(lost or saved) rather than the worship of God.
I
will discuss vernacular jargon, specifically lingo, and its contribution to the
ethos of worship in modern society. Worship leaders often see themselves as
indirect theologians and theological teachers when instead the view should foster
teaching in a direct manner, i.e. worship leaders should be intentional and
purposeful with the lingo they choose to use. Lingo teaches ideas, concepts,
and even theologies whether realized or not. One can certainly say, “Well, they
know what I mean.” I would, however, respond with, “Do they?” When worship
leaders use terms such as stage and setlist, many people’s minds automatically
create an association with worship. Since a worship leader’s context is the
local church (not a concert setting), jargon such as stage and setlist is
naturally associated with worship, although it should not be, which is why
leaders should be careful to be intentional, pointed, and clear with the lingo
used. Every single word used in the context of corporate worship (quite
literally) has an either intended or unintended implication.
I
suggest here that lingo has become one of the most neglected aspects of
corporate worship. Even Reformation era theologians, in their desire to
cultivate communities of worship through understandable language,[1] had, at the center, a
desire to worship God rather than to cater to societal norms. Lingo then is
more than meets the ear. In fact, what is heard is surface level; what is
experienced and internalized both mentally and emotionally is at the root of
the issue. Lingo should not be neglected. We should not shift back to language
which is difficult to understand; yet, those who lead the church in worship
should take seriously their call to cultivate worshipers of God, not merely congregants
who understand theological concepts, albeit in an inaccurate frame. Lingo,
therefore, should not be neglected, negated, or de-emphasized but rather
intentional.
Lingo Has Unintentional Implications that Should
Be Intentional
The underpinning of the issue is not necessarily lingo
itself but the lack of intentionality behind it. I have personally had worship
leaders tell me that they are not theological teachers. Realize it or not,
worship leaders teach theology. Many people think of theology as deep and
profound topics about God; yet, theology can be simple. When someone tells a
child that Jesus loves him or her and the Bible says so, they are teaching
theology. Similarly, when a worship leader sings, “Hallelujah! All I have is
Christ,” they are teaching theology. Theological teaching happens week in and
week out, day in and day out, often without realizing it. The issue, however,
is that we should realize it.
Throughout church history, much theology has been derived
from congregational music, particularly in eras and societies where illiteracy
was rampant. Music then became not only a mode of worship but also a tool for
theological instruction. Western society is largely literate; nevertheless, the
music and lingo used in worship teach believers theological concepts and ideas,
right or wrong. Worship leaders should realize this aspect of ministry and
strive then for intentionality.
The copout argument is that much of what people criticize
is semantics. I usually push back on such a suggestion, however, because of an
intentional attitude geared toward proper teaching. Even the most miniscule difference
in language can have a profound impact. For example, one has a choice to teach
that people either receive Christ or accept Christ. I do not intend to argue
for one or the other here (although I have an opinion on this phrase) but
rather to point to the difference between the two. Depending on your
theological persuasion, you should likely choose one word or the other. A
semantics argument would suggest that the two words possess the same meaning;
deliberation, however, would realize that there is not only a subtle but a vast
difference.
Many
worship leaders do not understand the effect lingo has on those to whom they
minister. The effect, however, is present whether intended or not; it is inevitable.
A semantics argument often lends itself to apathetic lingo. Scripture commands
Christians to constantly be prepared to give a defense of the faith (1 Pet
3:25). Additionally, we are commanded to do all to the glory of God (1 Cor
10:31). If the glory of God is the pointed goal of all we do, why would we not
strive for excellence in all areas of life and especially in the lingo used in
corporate worship? To write off lingo is to effectively write off our call to
excellence as believers.
A
lackadaisical attitude has yielded an overarching neglect of lingo in the
church. Certainly, lingo should be understandable, accessible, and contextual;
nonetheless, lingo should not be unintentional. Upon the basis of the
unescapable effect of lingo, worship leaders have a choice to either steer that
effect with intentionality or risk improper teaching with unintentionality. To
be faithful to the call is to be faithful to the message and treat it with utmost
respect and reverence.
Lingo Matters Because Scripture Matters
God was pointed and intentional in inspiring the text of
Scripture. Original language texts are intentional; scribal editions are
intentional; and modern vernacular translations are intentional. Why then would
we not be intentional with the lingo we use in corporate worship? We should not
dare say that the text of the Bible is comprised of merely semantics-based
concepts. Either Scripture is the inspired word of God or it is not. If the
Bible is truly inspired by triune God, then every word matters. Worship leaders
should teach the same truths as presented in the Bible. Since every single word
of Scripture should be scrutinized and treated with greatest care, why should
we not manage lingo with the same care? Lingo is a tool to teach the
authoritative message of the gospel found in Scripture. Therefore, lingo
matters because Scripture matters.
Throughout the centuries, scribes, translators,
ministers, and teachers have been diligent to reverently and carefully submit
the gospel message of the Bible to the church. Feeble attempts to stamp out Christianity have been made
throughout history. Persecution in the early church simply allowed Christianity
to disperse to other parts of the world. Before Constantine (306-336 AD),
Diocletian (244-312 AD), tried to rid the world of the Bible even decreeing
that if someone was found with one copy of the word of God, they would be
killed. When Constantine became a Christian, he offered a financial reward for
copies of the Bible, and within a day, fifty copies were brought to him, thus
the word of God continued.[2]
Voltaire,
the noted French infidel, who died in 1778, made his attempt to destroy the
Bible. He boldly made the prediction that within one hundred years the Bible
and Christianity would have been swept from existence into oblivion. But
Voltaire's efforts and his bold prophecy failed as miserably as did those of
his unbelieving predecessors. In fact, within 100 years, the very printing
press upon which Voltaire used…was being used to print copies of the Bible. And
afterward, the very house in which the boasting Voltaire had lived, was
literally stacked with Bibles prepared by the Geneva Bible Society. Voltaire…had
miserably failed.[3]
If Scripture matters this much, why
should our methods of teaching Scripture not matter as much? The Bible is not
just semantics; why then would the lingo we use be merely semantics? If the
gospel message matters, lingo matters; if Scripture matters, lingo matters.
To Declare the Full Counsel of God, Even
Vernacular Lingo Must Be Accurate
Worship leaders must remember the underlying reason for
vernacular language: so that the full counsel of God might be declared and
understood in the church. Vernacular language and lingo should not exist for
the sole purpose of colloquial understanding, appearing to be in touch with
modern society, or even only relating to current trends. Vernacular language
exists for the purpose of worship. The gospel message should be declared and
understood by the people of God; thus, the message should be accurate. While
vernacular (and even colloquial) lingo can be a vital tool to proclaim God’s
story, accuracy should be prioritized.
Vernacular language is not the issue. In fact, vernacular
language helps everyone in a congregation understand the gospel better; yet,
the full counsel of God should be understood rather than a partial counsel of
God. While many believers might be tempted to write off the idioms used in
corporate worship, what is said is vital to an accurate message. If one chooses
to approach lingo as if it is not important, the risk is taken of submitting a
false gospel.
One
could teach that God helps those who help themselves without realizing that
such a concept is nowhere in the Bible. It sounds spiritual to many people and
could be considered biblical truth, but it is not. Even upon discovering its
absence from the Bible, one could argue, “Well, you know what I mean,” or, “It
is not a big deal.” Moreover, one could argue that such a concept could be true
depending on the perspective. The overwhelming truth, however, is that the
concept is not true irrespective of the perspective. Thus, to teach the concept
is truth is to not only neglect the full counsel of God but to also teach a
false gospel.
While
my final statement here may seem drastic, it is the necessary approach of one
who takes the gospel message seriously. Surely, believers can and should use
understandable lingo and jargon; yet, jargon’s contribution to the ethos of corporate
worship exists naturally. One’s theological beliefs and ideas are often
embedded through the lingo of corporate worship. A starting point would be for
Christians to move beyond embedded theology into deliberative theology. The
proper mindset should also be continued, however, with worship leaders’
purposeful efforts to proclaim the full (and accurate) counsel of God in
corporate worship, which could likely require a change in some of the lingo
used. Lingo is often neglected in corporate worship; yet, to declare the full
counsel of God, even vernacular communication must be accurate.
Lingo Matters Because Worship Is about God, Not
Humanity
The purpose of Christ’s incarnation is frequently understood
in the context of a vertical relationship between Jesus Christ and his bride,
the church. The proper relational understanding, however, should first and
foremost be as a triune love relationship between Father, Son, and Spirit and
secondarily as a love relationship between Christ and the church. Out of love
for the Son, the Father has gifted a people, namely the church; out of love for
the Father, the Son is incarnate word and has given his life for the people
whom he has been given and loves yet primarily out of love for the Father;[4] and out
of love for both the Father and the Son, the Spirit calls, convicts, and guides
the people of God. The vertical relationship between God and his people then is
subsequent to and derived from the horizontal and triune love relationship
between Father, Son, and Spirit. In this way, lingo matters because worship is
about God, not humanity.
The lingo employed in corporate worship should serve the
purpose of worship, namely glorifying God. If it does not, i.e. if it exists to
make people feel better, the point is missed. Lingo should not be random,
unintentional, or undirect no matter how sincere we might consider a lack of
preparation to be. Most people would usually not approach a judge or someone
else of noble position and prestige without a plan. Language would not flippant
but would rather be as clear and precise as possible. Why would we approach the
creator differently (except that we approach him in an even more reverent
manner)? While we should strive for understandability, we should also strive
for accuracy.
When God’s people realize that worship is not about them
but about triune God, the perspective drastically changes. Human desires,
understandings, and feelings become secondary or even negated when God’s
pleasure becomes the goal of corporate worship. If worship leaders approach
lingo in this manner, while understandability is still vital, precision is also
important; thus, every word is not seen as semantical but rather as a crucial
tool for proclaiming God’s story. Lingo then should be used yet never
neglected.
The Issue Is Apathy
Worship-related lingo did not become neglected overnight.
Rather, where we are as the church has resulted from years of apathy, which I
submit is the issue at large. Where pre-Reformation era clergymen regularly
exercised legalistic language in such a way that the layperson rarely
understood it and, thus, was not able to participate in corporate worship,
modern churches have become lazy in their approach to lingo, i.e. it is common
for ministers and laypersons alike to write off and criticize an intentional
effort to theological precision in lingo. I will reemphasize the fact that
understandable lingo is vital to the corporate worship experience. This is why
we worship in the vernacular rather than another language such as Latin. I do
not believe, however, that the Reformers’ intended trajectory of vernacular
language was apathy but far from it. We can reasonably conclude that the church
has veered off course.
Faithful Christians have likely experienced apathetic
lingo, although those who hold a high view of the language used in worship
likely notice it more. Irreverent prayers that address triune God as Daddy[5] or the
big guy in the sky might seem personal and sincere; yet, they are
(unintentionally perhaps) discourteous at best. God is unquestionably a
personal God to his people as both individuals and as a covenanted body; he is
also, however, indisputably, sovereign, holy, and larger than a friend we can
carry in our pockets like a small pet. Irreverent and thoughtless lingo should
not be accepted by Christians, especially those in worship leadership.
I recall a recent moment in corporate worship when I
heard someone pray, “Father, thank you for dying for our sins.” On the surface,
such a statement might seemingly make sense to many people. To many believers,
it seems like a good thing to give thanks to the Father for dying for the sins
of the church except for one neglected but vitally important fact; the Father
did not die for anyone’s sins; that was the Son. A common response might be,
“Well, they are both God,” or (again), “Well, you know what is meant.” Again,
however, do I? A greater question would be this: does the one praying such a
phrase understand what they are saying or understand trinitarian theology at
all? This is thoughtless lingo. Years upon years of apathy have led us to where
we are: a place of theological neglect in the lingo we use. We are here; now,
in the power of the Holy Spirit, we must fix it.
The Solution Is Intentionality
I do not intend to solely offer criticisms here but also
solutions. The solution for neglected lingo then is intentionality. There is
nothing inherently wrong with using the term, stage, instead of platform or to
speak of the music during corporate worship as a setlist; it is not sinful. I
would suggest, however, that such terms are reckless and exude unintended
associations among believers and further contribute to the false equation of
music and worship. Worship leaders should strive to cut such ties and teach the
church that music is not equal to worship. This is one example of many; the
point I submit, nonetheless, is that intentionality is fundamental. Each and
every word used of the lingo used in the context of worship possesses meaning
and furnishes either intended or unintended implications. Intentionality looks
disparate between various worshiping contexts; yet, it is vital in each. A
progressive free church holds the same responsibility of intentionality as a
strict liturgical church. Leaders of worship should examine every word spoken
in worship. If that means over-planning, then over-plan; if that means
scripting, then script. Whatever it takes, may God’s people be faithful to his
call, his glory, and the gospel message, God’s story, declared clearly and
accurately in understandable lingo.
[1] Prior to the Protestant Reformation, liturgies were
conducted and almost solely in Latin, a language that many laypeople could not
fully understand. Thus, a transition to the vernacular was necessary and allow
congregants to not only worship in their own language but to also understand
the gospel message and story being proclaimed in corporate worship.
[2] Cecil Willis, “The Indestructability of the Bible,” Truth Magazine XIX 31, accessed April
25, 2017, http://www.truthmagazine.com/archives/volume19/TM019211.html.
[3] Ibid.
[4] In the Garden of Gethsemane (among other places in
Scripture), Jesus selflessly prays, “…not my will, but yours, be done.” (Luke
22:42)
[5] While Abba
was certainly a term employed by children to refer to their fathers in ancient
Hebrew culture, it was also a term used by adults and, therefore, not
equivalent of the English word, Daddy.
