My pastor recently made a statement about the criticisms he receives, some of which makes the claim that he should be speaking more biblically in his sermons. Honestly I’m a little taken back by this statement. I think we are talking about the use of biblically soaked allegorical language to establish authority when preaching. Scott has never had to use 'bible-speak' to persuade the seeker that he is holy enough to be talking about God. His talent as a speaker is truly a gift in its ability to be genuine.
In my opinion, the over use of this language does not prove your holiness, nor does it prove that your theological approach to scriptures is correct. I find 'churchy' language is too often used as an exclusionary Christian practice to determine who is part of the 'in crowd.' Jesus spoke in a very high context language to a high context society. We live in a low context society, one that demands broad illustrations in place of allegorical references.
Ultimately what defines you as a Christian is your spiritual life, not the way you speak. There is no doubt that what you speak is important, but more along the lines of agreeing with biblical teachings. Perhaps I'm overreacting and some are feel moved by the spirit to speak in allegories. But when it becomes a means to cast judgment towards others, then I have to question the fruits of its usage.
I wonder if some will stand before God expecting to hear, “good job, you warned them! You preached a gospel of fear through righteous anger, and you condemned those who didn't fall in line with your religious doctrine, making my job easier up here.” When I believe it will be more like, “You as a Christ disciple were told to do unto others, to love others, and to bring the lost back to God. For what, so you could condemn the ones who needed the most help? You cannot hide your sin with your outward holiness thinking you can escape the return of what you have done to others. You condemned the places where my Spirit was most at work, and you uprooted my authority for self serving spirituality, hypocrite.”
Musings:
I once believed in Brickworld's defense of a rigid faiths, but after much thought I don’t find Brickworld faith to be much of a cognitive reality, not as much as it is a starting point to understand the inner working of how one defines faith. The authorities residing over Fundamentalist doctrines must have tired of constantly re-stacking the bricks. At some point the fundamentalists started using mortar, making it almost pointless to argue with them because the bricks won't budge.
I think the counterpart to brickworld is a form of image assembly. The fundamentalists may apply graffiti over the top of the brick wall faith to make it more appealing, but in more fluid cases it has become more than just a wall; it is a laid out image that people paint with theology, and colored in public through the poetic use of God-speak.
I think we have a finite number of colored puzzle pieces that we use to assemble our image of God. It is true that some images are more complete than others; as some use more pieces than others. Sometimes we even change the brightness of the color, and other times we change the contrast. We tend to gaze at the most complete images and marvel at the creation, much like a great work of art. Our faith in God can become a subscription for continued renewal of the re-beautification of the image. Hence the falling away tends to come when the colors become tainted or blurred. I found a big problem occurs when we create an idol of God to worship in religion through an attempt to assemble pieces into a comprehensive portrait, because then I think we disconnect from the true formless God that doesn’t want to be idolized.
I don’t think we were ever meant to try and paint a finished image; that’s extremely vain in the extension of our capabilities through language. I do think we are supposed to have an idea of what the image should look like, and our lives should be reflecting that image. Not with words, and not by trusting man made religious governances that promise to be a comprehensive path to salvation.
If it is as simple as Jesus Creed once you understand Christian doctrine, and then you’re looking at very basic image. Compiling an image based off a literal 'to the letter' scriptural interpretation wouldn’t account for all the metaphors in the text and the parables used to give explanations. The non-biased theological approach is quite impressive when truth is sought after, but this gives way to looking at a very abstract painting. Unfortunately the more open theological approach renders a kind of painting that few will be able to understand. We find this unappealing because we deem Christianity to be for everyone, yet this is not the whole truth. Christ is for anyone that seeks, and for the mustard see that takes root. Doesn't it say that the Kingdom of Heaven will be opened to those who can see and hear in their own accord through God? It is a complete turning to God, and being born from above. I really feel that our spirituality is what moves other people to God, so they can learn to see and hear by letting their own faith grow, nurtured by the faith of others, but not forever living through the faith and words of others.
Working out what it means to be Christian has been very difficult, but now I’m really leaning toward Jesus Creed. Making yourself a vessel for the Holy Spirit requires so much more than belief; which is the infant state of faith, but to grow in the love of God takes work and trust.
