A conversation between Carmen Fowler LaBerge and Debbie Berkley, Ph.D.
Carmen: Debbie, you’re a linguist, help me understand something. In the discussions at the General Assembly meeting of the Presbyterian Church (USA) in Detroit there was objection to using the term “non-Christian” during discussion and debate about the denomination’s “Interreligious Stance.” The word “non-Christian” was ultimately edited out of the document approved by the assembly because, it was argued, to refer to someone as “non-Christian” in some way lessened the humanity of the people to whom the term was applied.
Let’s talk about the word “Christian” and the word “non-Christian” from a linguistic perspective.
Debbie: The people arguing against the application of the term non-Christian to people who are professing to believe in something other than Christianity are using the term “Christian” as a fundamental term that accords humanity, in some sense, to a person. This reveals a cultural bias in these people that they may not even realize they possess. This is particularly interesting since these are likely the same people who would be advocating for equal status among religions in the world, and who would never consciously say that Christianity is better than any other religion. But those advocating that all religions are equal are definitely not OK with the term “non-Christian.”
Carmen: Agreed, to say that non-Christian is pejorative and somehow suggests someone is less human is not at all what the joyful proclamation of the good news of the Gospel of Jesus is all about. The assumption being made here may be as much about the view of evangelism as the way people who are not Christians feel about being referred to as non-Christian. I am not Muslim and to be described as non-Muslim does not offend me. I am not many things and being described in the negative helps others understand me, it does diminish who I am.
Debbie: In linguistics there’s a concept called “markedness.” Linguists are aware that language very often divides words, phrases, and ideas into unmarked and marked classes. The unmarked ones are the ones that are basic, normal, and familiar; the marked ones are the ones that are different, unusual, or irregular. For example, words without prefixes, such as happy, are unmarked; words with prefixes, such as unhappy, are marked. Or you can have semantic markedness: normal, typical birds, such as a sparrow, are unmarked; unusual birds, such as ostriches, are marked.
Carmen: You lost me on semantic markedness but I think I get the idea of sorting words and ideas into marked and unmarked classes. What is marked and what is unmarked depends heavily on the context and the culture.
Debbie: Right, it appears to me that for the people who object to the term “non-Christian”, subconsciously, the term “Christian” is unmarked. It is the basic way for a person to be. But the term “non-Christian” is marked, and it means the person labeled with it isn’t really one of the gang (of humanity.) They don’t want anyone to be left out of the group, because they are all about one big happy family, so they can’t bear to label anyone in a marked way.
Carmen: So, there’s a chance that what we’re really talking about is not an interreligious stance but a non-religious stance – a theology that says being a Christian or not being a Christian is irrelevant. Everyone has their sincerely held beliefs and to suggest that one religion is actually True and One Lord, namely Jesus is the One Way to salvation … well that’s Christian exceptionalism and we can’t have that.
Debbie: It would be interesting to know how people of other faiths actually felt about all this. I wonder if the offense being alleged by Presbyterians is imagined or if there is any actual offense to person who is not a Christian in being called “non-Christian.”
Carmen: If we’re genuinely talking about interreligious dialogue, then are we not talking about engaging with people of faith who do not share our understanding of nor faith in Jesus Christ? Certainly when engaging individually or with one differentiated group at a time, direct reference to their particular faith is the appropriate way to go, but when you’re talking about every person and every group that is not Christian, how is categorizing that as non-Christian an express offense?
The interreligious stance of the PCUSA might be easier for all to understand if the denomination were somewhat less ashamed of the Gospel that is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes. But that implies conversion from a life that is presently non-Christian, a term now disavowed by the PCUSA.
Your thoughts? Comment here or on Twitter @preslayman #markedChristian
Deborah Milam Berkley has been a pastor’s wife for 39 years, a Ph.D. in linguistics from Northwestern University, worked as a linguist at Microsoft for 11 years, and is now serving as the administrator for Music and Worship at Bellevue Presbyterian Church (WA).
6 Comments. Leave new
Carmen, what you’ve related here is very important–and it is deeply telling. This is not merely some Presbyterians putting their intellectual silliness on display, this is the body of commissioners putting their “foundational” lack of a foundation on display. The foolish man may build his house upon the sand–but the PCUSA is greedily staking its claim on quicksand.
Philosophically, the flight from all “labels” or “judgments” or “distinctions” is the death of any ability to think consistently. In itself, this effort to avoid judging contradicts itself–for the anti-judgers seem always prone to dislike and antagonize those who think that good and just judgment is an important gift of God. The non-judgers are, in fact, the anti-judgers of all who seek good judgment.
No promoted clearer discernment and right judgment than Jesus of Nazareth. Ultimately, the Word is a two-edged sword. Practically, He taught us to pray for our “enemies.” To pray for my enemy, however, I obviously must first identify someone as an enemy. Does Jesus tell us to identify enemies? Of course, just read the Sermon on the Mount–for he insists that we must recognize a tree by its fruit, that we should be wary of false prophets, and that we must not “throw” holy things–our most valued things–to the “pigs” or to the “dogs.”
The Good News of Jesus was heralded by the bad news with which John the Baptist sought to jolt the people back to consciousness of those unchanging categories by which they stood guilty before God. The Great Physician, then, did not tell everyone that they all were already healthy and happy. He diagnosed them–and brought the ultimate cure, along with the call to embrace it.
All of the other errors and sins of the PCUSA are of the fundamental fabric here exposed. At the foundations, the PCUSA is increasingly committed to LABELLING what is good as ‘bad’ and what is bad as ‘good.’ For, in calling all labels and categories ‘bad,’ they are making even the possibility of good judgments impossible. Simultaneously, they are praising, as ‘good,’ the deep evil of their spreading of darkness and chaos.
The commissioners are posturing as culturally “with-it” or “hip.” But note how utterly clueless they are about the current cultural valuing of the name, ‘Christian.’ While the society has grown increasingly judgmental against all things “Christian,” the commissioners are silly enough to think that non-Christians will feel complimented by not being called ‘non-Christians.’ In this deep morass, the commissioners are stiff-arming real Christians and probably gaining just about nothing. Like the Pharisees that Jesus confronted and the bands of religious peddlers that Paul confronted, the leadership of the PCUSA has become a sort of mutual admiration society. Each measures him- or herself according to the others–and they all congratulate each other on their “purity” of devotion to the undefined terms of “unity” and “love.”
Quickly now, we must redouble our commitment and readiness to Christ–taking up both our cross and His armor. Christians must love NONCHRISTIANS enough to share of that one true Light by which the natural man sees not only that he is not good–but sees that he is a sinner fully destined for death, if his rescue is not forthcoming. The PCUSA is on fire with the chaos of the age. Brothers and sisters, we are called to be “snatching from the fire” (Jude, v. 23) those who are unaware.
Having been at the GA when the overture that this column refers to came up. I was astonished when the chair of the committee asked all commissioners to recite “An Affirmation of Interreligious Committment”, that most of the commissioners kept reciting this drivel after the first three lines:
“We confess that the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has sought to live up to its commitment to love people of other religious traditions, but many times we have not; with God’s help we resolve to do better;
that self-serving theologies and goals and triumphalistic attitudes pull us apart; with God’s help we resolve to do better;
that some of our confessions and the dated perspectives of our religious heritage have resulted in patterns of unhealthy relationships with people of other religions; with God’s help we resolve to do better.”
The last two lines basically say that we’re sorry that Christianity proclaims Jesus as LORD, and that Scripture and the Confessions proclaim that to all the world.
I am not ashamed to be Christian, I am ashamed to be in the PC(USA) right now.
This is a revealing article. If someone labeled a Frenchman a “non-American”, it implies a distance and a bias. Get a clue. Carmen you may not be offended by being labeled a “non-Muslim” but this indicates a level of obliviousness.
The term-complement of any categorical term, ‘X’, is ‘non-X.’ ‘Non-X’ is simply a shortened form of ‘Things that are not X.” In order to think clearly, we have to be able to distinguish (and articulate) between the members of a category and those things that are not members of that category.
Clearly, terms (and term-complements) also have connotations–and some of those are loaded (and are best avoided or replaced, as possible). Further, if we’re simply introducing persons, for instance, then we should typically note those things that are positively the case about those persons. But, if we are distinguishing between two sets of beings (of whatever sort), those that are X and those that are not X, then those in the second group are rightly regarded as non-X. So, while I would not introduce myself as a non-criminal, I much prefer that the Department of Justice classify me precisely in this way.
The intellectual flight from clear categories of thought is an ongoing disaster. Fear of binary terms–of judging or evaluating almost anything–has gripped far too much of the academic and the popular culture. Hence, we get the repeated ripping loose of Matthew 7:1 from 7:5-6. We also observe the repeated spectacles of those supposedly loving “tolerators” who contradict themselves in even the earliest moments of substantive disagreements with others.
“Having been at the GA when the overture that this column refers to came up. I was astonished when the chair of the committee asked all commissioners to recite “An Affirmation of Interreligious Committment”, that most of the commissioners kept reciting this drivel after the first three lines”
thanks for this information. i’ve been researching many of the Catholic saints and prophecies for about ten years, many thousands of pages of documents. in some of the locutions reportedly received from Jesus he talks about an oath of allegiance to a one world religion. this sounds exactly like what he described. the messages from Jesus say anyone who recites it is in serious trouble, to put it nicely; it is in effect an oath of allegiance to the antichrist/Satan. very interesting that it’s happening so soon, i wasn’t expecting to see this for at least a couple more years.
“The word “non-Christian” was ultimately edited out of the document approved by the assembly because, it was argued, to refer to someone as “non-Christian” in some way lessened the humanity of the people to whom the term was applied.”
this is a classic example of secular humanism, more proof that PCUSA is “non-Christian” as well at this point. what next, take the words Jesus and Christ out of the hymnals in the public pews?