It’s a funny question…but one I find myself asking more and more as the days go by: “do words mean anything?” I mean this sincerely; really, I’m not trying to be smug. I really want to know if words have any meaning or if we’re all, really, truly, just playing Wittgensteinian word games. Because, more and more, I feel like, within Evangelicalism (whatever that means!) words actually don’t have meaning and we are, indeed, just playing word games.
Let me give you a great recent example.
This is the text of a facebook post from Jen Hatmaker:
With a deep, deep bow, I honor this absolute legend. She blazed the very trails we walk on today. I cannot say this with more sincerity:
Well done, good and faithful servant. You fought the good fight, and you finished your race. Enter into your rest, dear sister.
What a profound use of her earthly days until the very end. This was a true public servant the likes of which we rarely see. May we take the baton and we run our leg of the race with half the grit and faithfulness.
#RBG
K…………………………Ummmmmmmmmmmmmm…I have a question or 10. First, when did Justice Ginsberg get saved? I mean, praise God that she did, but like, when did it happen? Because, from the words that Jen Hatmaker has chosen to use, it would certainly seem as though Justice Ginsberg was not a pro-abortion secularist with little to no interest in the Living and True God. Instead, from Hatmaker’s words, we would think that Amy Carmichael or Fanny Crosby just died. You would think that the woman who died was someone who actually loved Jesus.
Hatmaker, who purports to be a Christian public figure, just called Ginsberg a “dear sister” and quoted the parable of the Talents (or Minas) as well as Paul’s valedictory of Christian vindication to Timothy. And also Hebrews 4 for good measure. And that seems…odd.
Now, I’ll admit, that while it’s preposterous to divorce the parable of the Talents from Christian faith, there’s nothing in the immediate context that precludes you from so doing – except common sense and the ability to read critically…but whatevs. So, maybe, possibly, you could almost pretend to say that Hatmaker’s reference to the Talents was kosher (it wasn’t, but for sake of argument, knowaddamean?)
But what about Paul’s words…let’s check ‘em out:
2 Timothy 4:1-8
1 In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge: 2 Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. 3 For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. 5 But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry.
6 For I am already being poured out like a drink offering, and the time for my departure is near. 7 I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. 8 Now there is in store for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day—and not only to me, but also to all who have longed for his appearing. (NIV)
So, yeah. This one is pretty Jesusy. In fact, you can’t really use this one in reference to a non-Christian and not look utterly ridiculous. What about Hebrews 4? Let’s read all of chapter 4 and…ya know what? No. Read chapter 4 yourself, and you’ll see that trying to talk about entering into Jesus’ rest for an unbeliever is literally, exactly what the writer to the Hebrews (cough…Paul…cough) says is impossible! The whole chapter is about not refusing the grace of God offered in Christ Jesus!
Using these verses in reference to Justice Ginsberg is utterly ridiculous. I mean that literally. It should be ridiculed.
But this points out a much bigger problem. The problem is that Jen Hatmaker REALLY BELIEVES that she’s using the Bible appropriately. Liberal Evangelicalism and Conservative Evangelicalism are so different, so dissonant, that we have, really, nothing in common. At least nothing that would be substantial enough for us to claim we belong to the same theological species… or genus… or family…or order…or class…or phylum. Maybe we’re in the same taxonomical kingdom, I mean we both believe in God (sometimes)…so maybe not even kingdom.
And this is where that weirdo Wittgenstein gets important, because even though Conservative and Liberal Evangelicalism share really nothing of significance, we do share a common “vocabulary”. But it’s only common in the sense that we make (largely) the same sounds come out of our face-holes when talking religion. Also, we, generally, spell these words samely. But they don’t mean the same thing. In fact, it’s a case of Polysemy. These words are homograms and homonyms and homophones. They look, and sound the same, and they have the same etymological root – but they mean different, and often opposite things.
Conservative and Liberal Christianity have completely dissonant understandings of salvation, and sin, and anthropology, and epistemology, and the bible, and preaching, and righteousness, and justice, and holiness, and Hell, and judgment, and eternity, and God Himself! Any word of significance means something different to a Liberal as to a Conservative. And so, when Jen Hatmaker calls an unbeliever “sister” with a straight face, she’s not been ironic. She really believes it. And moreover, when you say, “ummm, but she didn’t believe in Jesus, so she’s not my sister”, Jenny just wants to pat you on your little rube, fundy head and educate you. She wants you to do better.
And so, it appears that Wittgenstein was right. Words have no meaning – it’s just language games.
Except not really. Because words do have meaning, within a language. I mean, Wittgenstein isn’t totally wrong. Yes, there is, obviously a phenomenon like what he’s describing. Humans use words as we’ve been conditioned to do in our social context. But that doesn’t mean that words don’t actually refer to something in real life – an ontic referent.
See, while we can get all philological up in here, it’s important to remember that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person, who actually lived, and actually said things that the NT says He said, and He actually died for sin and rose again from the grave. He actually ascended into Heaven. He actually sent the Holy Spirit. He will actually come and bring his saints to be with Him. He will actually judge the living and the dead. Sin is an actual phenomenon. The word “sin” refers to something in reality. So does “death”. So does “Hell”. These words have meaning – and the meanings can be discovered. There is, of course, a difference between connotation and denotation. But the existence and importance of connotation doesn’t negate the existence and cruciality of denotation.
Liberal Christianity is just a massive exercise in the Equivocation Fallacy. It’s using Christian terms that have a fixed and historical meaning to mean something else. And so, when I see posts like Jen Hatmaker’s making the rounds on book-face, I can’t help but think, that I and Liberal Christians, that we’ve got nothin’ in common. And, also, I hated Breakfast at Tiffany’s.