When the apostles wrote the New Testament books, they chose to use not the older, complex dialect of Classical (Attic) Greek but the plain language of the common people (Koine). It was imperative that the gospel of the kingdom be preached to unholy Gentiles and unjustified sinners. But they didn’t use sentences that came across as “It was imperative that the gospel of the kingdom be preached to unholy Gentiles and unjustified sinners.” No, they wrote in sentences that would have sounded more like: “We must tell those who are far from God the good news about what Jesus has done to make us members of his new community.”
Sure, they made up words from time to time (such as Paul’s “hyper-conquerors” in Rom 8:37). But what they manifestly did not do was speak in a special code or theologically technical jargon, despite how the generations since their time has made use of their language.
For this reason, it is fully appropriate for later generations to revise the terminology of earlier generations. Not to sneakily alter the substance of what’s being said, but to make that substance more clear to a new generation of men and women who need to hear it. So a few centuries ago, Christians commonly spoke about things like charity, affections, and conversation. Since those same words have far different usage now than they had back then, our generation now uses the updated but corresponding terms love, attitude or will, and behavior.
The use of contemporary language is not the same thing as “dumbing down” the Scriptures. Nor is it a capitulation to anti-intellectualism. It is primarily an attempt to be clear and persuasive. As sociologist Rodney Stark wrote in his introduction to Discovering God, “I have tried to write everything in plain English. I do not concede that this in any way compromises sophistication. What it does do is prevent me from hiding incomprehension behind a screen of academic jargon.”
Along these lines, I heard Australian preacher Phillip Jensen about 8 years ago, begging pastors and Bible translators to stop using the word “faith,” on the ground that the word no longer means what it used to mean. To the average speaker of English today, “faith” comes with presumptions of blindness, jumping to conclusions, and irresponsible religious assertions. Jensen proposed we begin using the word “trust” instead, which means something much closer to what the Bible is getting at.
And ever since, I have largely taken Jensen up on this counsel. I’ve done what I could to make best use of the word “trust”—in place of “faith”—in ordinary conversation with ordinary people. I confess that “justification by trust” doesn’t have the same ring to it as “justification by faith,” but perhaps “justification” is another one of those big Bible words that could be made plainer.
Earlier this month, Greg Koukl made the same point I heard Phillip Jensen make 8 years ago. In his article “It’s Time to Forget ‘Faith,'” Koukl argues that:
It’s virtually impossible nowadays to use the word without people subconsciously adding “blind” or “leap of” as modifiers. Indeed, some find it impossible to understand faith in any other way since, in their minds, irrationality is central to any definition of religious faith. For example:
- “Faith is the purposeful suspension of critical thinking.”
- “Faith is convincing yourself to believe something with absolutely no evidence.”
- “Faith is complete confidence in someone or something despite the absence of proof.”
- “If there were evidence for faith, why would you need to call it faith? We use the word ‘faith’ when there isn’t any evidence.”
- “This is why religions are called ‘faiths,’ because you believe something in the absence of evidence.”
- “If you feel you have to prove yourself, you don’t have faith.”
- “Asking for proof is a sin because it shows we don’t have faith.”
These are the understandings of faith advanced by such notables as Bill Maher, Richard Dawkins, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and a host of others. If you persist in using “faith” to describe your own spiritual convictions, that’s the confusion you’re up against.
That’s what they mean when they talk about religious faith. Is this what you mean when you use that word? I hope not, since that isn’t what the biblical authors meant.
Koukl’s terrific article is worth your consideration. How can we use plain language that makes sense to people today to proclaim the same message the apostles handed down to us?
