Sticks & Stones & Technology

PC speak can be infuriatingly pedantic and more than a little bit irritating, while I have some sympathy with the end I do sometimes find the means more of a hindrance than a help at times. instead of giving another take on the truth it can often end up fudging or in some cases erasing it altogether. That said it can also raise a smile, for example in a paper back dictionary of PC speak I came across the following entries. Failure = a negative success ; Criminal = ethically challenged ; Dead = living impaired.

As the Church we are called to be involved in the business of communication and to do this in a world shaped by the new dynamics of instant global electronic information technologies. The technologies that enable, e-mail, blogging, podcasting and texting are rapidly changing the context of our communication. Our church has recently ventured into the world of podcasting our Sunday messages. The experience has made me very much aware that the technology that opens the world to us also opens us, and our words to the world. It has forced me to examine both my own attitudes and language. In such an 'open world' we can no longer maintain a dichotomy between what we say 'in house' and what we say to the world. The willingness to 'put our words out there' carries with it the assumption that the world, will read or hear whatever we say to our own. It begs the question, " Are we willing not to use language behind the back of unbelievers concerning their culture and location that we would not use face to face in sharing the message and love of Christ? "

I have in the past been part of a church culture that often used certain metaphors and words as motivational tools, especially in the context of missions. As a missionary and as a preacher I have used words like “army”, “advance”, “attack,” “battle”, “commandos”, “enemy”, “foe,” “forces,” “marching orders,” “mobilize”, “target”, “victory,” “weapons,”. I now appreciate how these 'in house' words in the 'open world' of global communications could easily be misunderstood and cause unnecessary offense to onlookers and listeners. They are not the words I would use in a face to face conversation with an interested seeker and if that is the case should I use them in any context?

Our language can be used to build bridges or barriers and we do well to remember that barriers built with words are the most difficult to dismantle.