Everyday language

Grandpa or granddad? Grandma or granny? Almost every family has its own names for grandparents. These special expressions belong to the family. It is expressed intimacy. The same goes for pet names. We connect emotionality with words, and with the help of words we enclose people in our hearts and in a closer circle. This shapes community or expresses closeness.

These different expressions also show that identity is associated with words. What and who we are is captured in words. This is how we communicate. That is the task of language.

Equally, of course, this also happens in our everyday professional life. Each profession knows its own technical terms. Those who are not familiar with this profession do not know the special expressions. If you join them as an outsider, you can only guess what this or that means – which is not always successful. In the same way, it is relaxing for many men to “talk shop” with colleagues. That is the common language. You have the same experiences, talk about familiar things and can use words that have no meaning elsewhere. This brings people together and creates friendships.

Language connects.

Language and identity

As a Dutchman, I have lived in Switzerland for over 30 years. My mother tongue is Dutch. German is a foreign language for me. Swiss German is … We’ll get to that in a moment. Again and again I have encounters with people of different origins, in which people introduce themselves to each other. This is done in such a way that everyone gives their name, which country they come from and since when (or for how long) they have lived here. Swiss people often mention in such a round that they come “from this or that canton”, i.e. that they “immigrated” from there. When I first experienced this, I thought it was very funny – you stayed in your own country, right? You’re just Swiss, aren’t you? Not at all!

I suspect today that it has something to do with identity and language. Swiss German is not a language proper, but a collection of dialects, belonging to Alemannic. Every city, almost every village, has its own character. I can certainly understand that some see a change of location or change of canton as “emigration” and “immigration” – even if you have not left the country. One changes the language (the dialect) and with it the culture and identity of the environment, even if one lives perhaps only 10 km further.

There is something to be learned from this. When we form language groups, it is because of a common identity. Recognizing this can help us to value and thus better understand the Christian “secret languages”.

Language creates identity.

Language as a demarcation

There is an interesting story in the Old Testament. The book of Judges reads as follows:

“And Jephthah gathered all the men of Gilead and fought with Ephraim. And the men of Gilead smote Ephraim: for they had said, Fugitives from Ephraim are ye! Gilead ⟨liesdoch⟩ in the midst of Ephraim, in the midst of Manasseh! And Gilead took Ephraim the fords of Jordan. And it came to pass, when Ephraimite fugitives said, Let me pass over; then said the men of Gilead unto him, Art thou an Ephraimite? And if he said, Nay; they said unto him, Say, Shibboleth. And he said, Sibboleth, and could not bring himself to speak, and they took him, and slew him at the fords of Jordan. So in that time from Ephraim fell 42,000 ⟨Mann⟩.”
Ri 12,4-6

So here we see a battle between the people of the Gilead area against the people of the Ephraim area. Gilead won the battle and the Ephraimites fled back across the Jordan River. At the fords of Jordan the men of Gilead waited for the refugees. How could the men of Ephraim be recognized? On the language!

Someone who came to the fords had to say the word “Schibolet” (hb. current). The men of Ephraim could not do just that. The pronunciation was changed to “Sibbolet”. However, by doing so, they had betrayed their origins and were killed.

It’s a heavy story and you should definitely read it in context. However, the language test described here is unique. If you speak like us, you may live; if you do not speak like us, we will kill you.

Language delimits.

The language of Canaan

In some Christian circles, a language of their own is cultivated. It’s about certain words, phrases, expressions. The phenomenon is sometimes described as “the language of Canaan” (cf. Isa 19:18). It is a language for insiders. One is only among one’s peers and uses a certain mode of expression as a characteristic. If you speak it, you belong to it. If you don’t speak them, you are a stranger. For quite a few people, however, this language of Canaan evokes bad memories, because rigid and confining experiences and views are associated with it.

The “language of Canaan” is recognized by the use of expressions that are not understood anywhere else. Christians, for example, speak of “flesh and spirit” and many more words – and link ideas to them that are unknown to others. These words may have an appropriate meaning within their own group, but to most people it’s just muddled stuff. When I try to explain something to someone on the street with these words, the words often have no meaning or a completely different meaning. On the Wikipedia page linked before, there is a whole series with expressions that belong to this “language of Canaan”.

This secret language is not only about a certain “language”, but there are different “dialects of being pious”. Someone from a strict Calvinist church in Holland sounds different than a free church person in Germany or Switzerland. Each “dialect” seems to be an expression of a religious understanding (see also the article: “Faith and Religiosity”). In other words, language focuses religious behavior; what to say, how to say it, how to behave, express, what hierarchy applies, and many more of these things are mapped through language.

All this is quite without judgment, because everyone tries to “be pious” in his own way. The best intentions are evident. I am not concerned here with this or that species, but with the peculiarity of each variant. Each variant has its own dialect, which is almost incomprehensible to outsiders. There lies a problem and you can become aware of it.

Wikipedia writes about “Language of Canaan”:

“Language of Canaan is a self-critical ironizing term for a Christian group language (jargon) that is often used – usually unconsciously – in the meetings of free church and pietist circles.”
Wikipedia

As I can say from my experience in Calvinist churches in Holland: It is by far not only free church and pietistic circles that have their own “secret language”.

This secret language – however it is coined – often uses terms or ideas from the Bible. A term like “going over the Jordan” even has several meanings. On the one hand, the people of Israel once crossed the Jordan River to take possession of the Promised Land. In this context, whether someone has “gone over the Jordan” means something like “have you already come to faith?” On the other hand, “going over the Jordan” is also synonymous with dying, for Moses was told shortly before he died that he could no longer go over the Jordan with the people (Deut. 31:2). He was only allowed to see the land from a distance (Deut. 32:48-52). So here the biblical reference is “muddled” by an inaccuracy, should this link be true. Perhaps it is also a reference to the story of Elijah and Elisha. Elijah was sent “over the Jordan” to “die” there (2Kings 2). He went to heaven in a fiery chariot, making him one of two people in the Bible of whom it is written that they “disappeared from this life without being explicitly said to die” (Moses would be the second person).

A common language creates community.

Other Christian secret languages

A “secret language” also exists among theologians. In order for a theologian to become suitable for everyday life, it often requires a change of language, away from an academic language to an everyday language, because the audience can usually do little with a purely theological language. It must be remembered that Jesus and the 12 apostles were not theologians either. Paul was a rabbi, however, he did not write theology, but wrote congregational letters and addressed people from his circle of relationships in personal letters.

Then there are communities that rely very heavily on the Bible and in which, as far as possible, people speak only in Bible words. This also sounds like a secret language. This is unworldly, but again, it is done with the best of intentions. You want to get as close as possible to the words of God. It is a proper internalization of the biblical statements. One may not only constantly speak of “brothers and sisters,” but also, for example, pray the prayers of the Bible verbatim.

I did the last one myself and still do it all the time. I feel that this is a great richness. It is a good antidote to verbosity and superficiality. Also, you learn to pay attention to how prayers are said in the Bible. Of course, it remains problematic that quoting biblical prayers (for example, from Paul, Eph 1:15-23) is hardly comprehensible to people outside one’s own circle. I’m self-critical and opposed to the same approach. How can I invite someone into a circle who speaks a secret language? That makes it difficult. My concern: I want to align my thinking close to the Bible, but not get caught up in a subculture.

What I say and how I say it should, in my opinion, have less to do with my knowledge, tradition, or customs than with what will most serve my counterpart so that he or she can grow toward Christ (analogous to Eph. 4:15-16). Living faith focuses on God’s love, as the Gospel writes about it, and how it reaches the other person. The language of Canaan, on the other hand, is only an expression of (very human) religious behavior and therefore serves only “to satisfy one’s own flesh” (Col 2:20-23), as the apostle Paul describes it.

Language expresses religious feelings.

Deconstruction or reconstruction?

Of course, attempts have been made for a very long time to translate the Bible into the current language, to build bridges to today’s culture, as well as to pay attention to the language of today. However, this is not easy. Many an evangelical fears that this will cause the essence of the Bible to be lost (this can be well understood, for example, in this video by Prof. Harald Seubert, “Truth Cannot Be Deconstructed: Criticism of Postevangelicalism”). We will not be able to avoid taking the Bible seriously, weighing the words, while at the same time the words must have meaning for the listeners. Through these efforts, the writing does not become meaningless, but the meaning is tracked down. Platitudes of any views, however, have no force.

Platitudes have no power.

Here is an example: When Paul is in the market in Athens, he talks to many people. Paul declared to you “Jesus and the resurrection” and preached this combination as the gospel (Acts 17:18). Paul was then called a “babbler”. Various philosophers invite him to explain the Gospel in more detail. Paul does this at the Areopagus. He explains the Gospel, yet the apostle continually refers to the world of the Greeks so that he can find a point of connection somewhere. We read this story in Acts 17:16-34). (More on this in the article: “Culture references”).

As a result of his speech we read:

“But when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some scoffed and others said, “About these things we want to hear you again.” So Paul departed from among them.”
Acts 17:32-33

Talk of a “resurrection of the dead” has tilted the mood, as already in the market. Not everyone agreed with Paul. This is still the reality today. But some believed:

“Some men who joined him came to believe. Among them was Dionysius the Areopagite, a woman named Damaris, and still others with them.”
Acts 17:34

Crucial to the topic of this paper is that Paul took great pains to speak intelligibly to the Athenians. In doing so, he made references to the current culture in Athens, but just as clearly pointing to the actual Good News. Paul did not deconstruct anything.

Deconstruction does not always concern the Bible itself-as many evangelicals fear-but rather the assumptions made about the Bible, for example, by evangelical ideologies. Positive reconstruction can take place if we take the Bible seriously, but are equally critical and self-critical of the language of Canaan and the ideological approaches embedded in it. The goal is not a deconstruction, but a reconstruction without empty phrases – so that I can understand the word again and enter into a conversation with you and me. No longer thinking in terms of black and white, but perceiving colors is the goal.

Deepening

• Do you know examples of this language of Canaan?
• Why do many people not understand the Christian secret language?
• Evangelism brochures often try to make their own secret language understandable to others (sin is … judgment is … grace is …). Could it be done differently?
• How can we avoid the language of Canaan? This is not possible without self-reflection, just as it is not possible without an examination of one’s own “phrases”. An example: In the beginning, the term “sin” was mentioned. This word is extremely loaded with all kinds of ideas that are foreign to the Bible. In particular, the word was and is associated with sexuality. Biblical reflection, for example, can reveal that the word has most to do with “missing the mark.” This is a good, neutral and, above all, biblically based way of thinking about the term. This is how bridges can be built.