Christianese 101

In the Cap'n's most recent post, she put in a little box with a bit of Christianese 101. Somehow that just charmed me! I love this format, with a brief but snarky definition that can be inserted anywhere that's appropriate. I thought a thread for these was in order, so if the Captain does that again, we can collect them all in one place for easy reference.

So here's the first one I saw. If anyone else has spotted any others in similar handy boxes, copy them here?

Captain Cassidy’s Christianese 101:​

TRUE CHRISTIAN™: a gatekeeping, wagon-circling attempt deployed by tribalistic, un-self-aware Christians to make themselves look and feel like the prettiest princesses of Christendom. They use this term and others (real Christians, convictional Christians) to mean someone just like themselves, who:

• believes roughly the same doctrines as the judging Christian does
• hasn’t ever gotten caught doing anything the judging Christian thinks is completely and absolutely off-limits
• dies with both of the previous conditions being true

Obviously, this definition knocks all ex-Christians out of the running for that coveted title. Alas, it also kinda knocks out all the judges, too, but let’s not tell them and wreck the fun.

Also, bear in mind that one judge’s TRUE CHRISTIAN™ is another’s Hell-bound heretic. (See also: Doctrinal yardstick measuring contests.)

 

[LeekSoup]

Are we allowed to add our own?

ITEMS FOR PRAYER - personal information about other people shared about them so that other believers can specifically pray for the person experiencing sexual dysfunction, marital conflict, infidelity, mental health issues, physical health issues, strained familial relationships, money worries, business failure, bankruptcy, legal problems, addiction, arrests and detention by law enforcement etc. Etc. ITEMS FOR PRAYER are most definitely not gossip, oh no.

 

[jonmorgan]

Are we allowed to add our own?

ITEMS FOR PRAYER - personal information about other people shared about them so that other believers can specifically pray for the person experiencing sexual dysfunction, marital conflict, infidelity, mental health issues, physical health issues, strained familial relationships, money worries, business failure, bankruptcy, legal problems, addiction, arrests and detention by law enforcement etc. Etc. ITEMS FOR PRAYER are most definitely not gossip, oh no.

 

[LynnV]

Are we allowed to add our own?

ITEMS FOR PRAYER - personal information about other people shared about them so that other believers can specifically pray for the person experiencing sexual dysfunction, marital conflict, infidelity, mental health issues, physical health issues, strained familial relationships, money worries, business failure, bankruptcy, legal problems, addiction, arrests and detention by law enforcement etc. Etc. ITEMS FOR PRAYER are most definitely not gossip, oh no.

OMF GAWD, I remember these. My mom regularly contributed to this list whenever my sister or I got sick, sharing the most embarrassing symptoms you can imagine, up to and including chronic diarrhea and yeast infections. These would be printed up on freaking mimeographed PRAYER LISTS and distributed at the beginning of every Wednesday Night Prayer Meeting. It was humiliating as all get-out, but she would not budge on this, no matter how much I begged and pleaded -- she hand-waved away my pleas that I had to endure getting riffed about it at school for the next few days...."oh don't be such a baby!"

By the time I was an adolescent, I was consuming various vitamin tablets by the handful in an effort to stave off any illnesses, and hiding illnesses when I did get sick, self-treating with whatever cough syrups and other remedies I could find in the medicine cabinet. Didn't always work, but not for lack of trying. Ah, the good ole days....

PRAYER LISTS - Printed lists of names of those suffering illnesses, along with descriptions of said illnesses, symptoms, and other "afflictions." When this list includes teens and pre-teens, it is a source of rampant speculation about which ones are truly ill and which ones are actually on drugs or pregnant. So people can pray for them, of course.

AFFLICTION - A physical handicap (blindness, missing limb, etc.) seen as a detriment to spiritual growth if the person so afflicted does not constantly speak of it in an uber-Pollyanna-ish way about it "bringing them closer to God," or, on the flip side, an inspiration to spiritual growth for that person or others if the person does "rejoice in their infirmity." Aiy-yi-yi-yi-yi....
Also, a permanent or semi-permanent condition (arthritis, etc.), to which the above applies.
Also, any and all mental illness.
Also, an illness for which a person has refused to release details, which causes just a whiff of suspicion among the flock (what's he/she hiding?) -- occurs to absolutely nobody it might just be a desire for privacy, and opens the door for all kinds of speculation. Cuz we want to pray for them specifically, dontcha know.

 

[Clancy]

"Please pray for our daughter, who has had amenorrhea since that ski trip with her boyfriend."

 

[Jasen777]

Captain Cassidy’s Christianese 101: Discernment​

In Christianese, discernment simply means being able to tell if something is divine, earthly, or demonic in nature. The “something” can be a factual claim or assertion, but it can be anything, like a situation or something in media. Christians use discernment in the place of real critical thinking skills, for reasons that will become abundantly clear in a few moments.

If you’re wondering what processes go into discernment, don’t. There really aren’t any. Feelings and comparisons to Bible verses are about as far as processes go. As a result, discernment is an entirely subjective method of assessment. As such, it produces predictably disastrous results when used in the place of real critical thinking skills.

Often, Christians do possess real critical thinking skills, at least to some extent. They just don’t tend to use them on claims relating to their beliefs. (Where’d be the fun in that? It’d just show that their beliefs aren’t based in reality!)

Captain Cassidy’s Christianese 101: The Holy Spirit​

We’re about to cover Francis’ advice regarding the Holy Spirit, so let me run through a definition of it beforehand.

In Christianese, the Holy Spirit is one part of a triune god. The other two parts are the Father and the Son. (So yes, this is Trinitarian heresy, which Oneness Pentecostals reject. But they still use the term as an aspect of their conceptualization of Yahweh.) Christians reckon the Holy Spirit as a manifestation of their god’s power. As such, the Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost is sort of the gettin-shit-done side of Yahweh. It’s the part of Yahweh that made the earliest Christians begin speaking in unknown languages during the Feast of Weeks in Acts 2, exactly 50 days after Easter in Jerusalem. It is also the part of Yahweh that fills believers when they first convert, thus making them “born again of the Spirit.”

Christians always capitalize the words Holy Spirit. Sometimes, they just say “the Spirit.” They don’t tend to use “Holy Ghost” like they used to, but it means exactly the same thing. They never say “the Ghost.” But it’d be funny if they did.

When Christians talk about fruits of the Spirit, they refer to the visible behavior of a Christian. The Holy Spirit is supposed to make Christians behave in demonstrably better ways than heathens. So they should bring forth visible fruit like kindness, honesty, and loving behavior. Fruit like racism, cruelty, and dishonesty point to a completely different spirit filling them. Sometimes, you’ll hear evangelicals call themselves “fruit inspectors.”

Christians often characterize the Holy Spirit as a dove descending from the sky, which is where they think Heaven generally is.

 

[Ubi Dubium]

Thanks for posting that!

 

[Jasen777]

Captain Cassidy’s Christianese 101: Testimonies and ex-timonies​

A testimony is a Christian’s elevator speech about their conversion. It is always told with an eye toward either recruitment or in-group virtue signaling. Entire books, websites, and seminar series exist to help Christians craft their testimonies. Christian leaders constantly stress that a good testimony gets heathens’ attention and helps massively with recruitment. I have found no evidence supporting this claim, especially in recent years as more and more people catch on to just how dishonest Christians’ testimonies truly are. (My series The Cult of Before Stories concerns that dishonesty and why it persists.)

Typically, testimonies comprise three acts. In Act One, the Christian describes their life before conversion. It might be miserable or joyous, poor or rich, filled with friends or lonely, but at all points the Christian must stress that something was missing from their life. Act Two describes the moment of conversion. It may or may not involve miracle claims. Act Three describes post-conversion life, almost always as a reversal of the circumstances from Act One.

Interestingly, testimonies also chase trends by creating a narrative around the tribe’s biggest current enemies. Back in the 1980s and 1990s, the Satanic Panic led to countless breathlessly-told testimonies about real honest-to-goodness witchcraft and Satanic Ritual Abuse done to children. Nowadays, ex-atheist testimonies are way more popular, at least with Protestants. Catholics, meanwhile, are trying to restart the Satanic Panic.

An ex-timony is an account of a Christian’s departure from Christianity. It may also take the form of three acts, but it functions very differently from a testimony. It doesn’t seek to sell anything or follow trends. Often, the person telling it uses it as part of introducing themselves to a new group, or as a contradiction to a Christian’s claims.

 

[Jasen777]

Captain Cassidy’s Christianese 101: Catholic Edition​

Communion/Eucharist: A big honking deal to Catholics. Communion is one of their major rituals, which they call sacraments. In the Bible, during the Last Supper, Jesus commanded his followers to celebrate his upcoming death on the Cross by eating bread and wine to symbolize his body and blood. Ever since then, Christians have celebrated the occasion. Some do it weekly (like Catholics), while others do it annually or seasonally.

Communion consists, usually, of a flat unleavened flour wafer and a sip of red wine. (But check out this very festive variation.)

If someone can’t receive or take Communion (a process also called celebrating the Eucharist), Catholics think that person will have a rough(er) time getting to Heaven.

Catholics call their church services Mass.

Excommunicated people can’t receive any of the sacraments until they apologize to their Catholic leader’s satisfaction. Abortion, incidentally, officially merits automatic excommunication.

Protestants also take Communion, though they don’t tend to call it the Eucharist. However, Protestants believe this ritual is really just symbolic. By contrast, Catholics think that the wafer and wine magically actually turn into Jesus’ flesh and blood in a process called transubstantiation. The result is not like literal meat and blood, but kinda it really is in a way.

(See also: thought stoppers.)

Also, to simplify a very muddled order of procession, priests report to bishops, who in turn report to archbishops. A bishop’s domain is a diocese, while an archbishop commands an archdiocese. If you’re curious, the next level up is called a cardinal. Finally, the highest rank in Catholicism is the pope.

 

[Jasen777]

Captain Cassidy’s Christianese 101: Burdens​

In Christianese, a burden is a very Jesus-flavored motivation to do something specific. Christians think Jesus himself hands out burdens, making them marching orders straight from their god. Once given a burden, Christians must carry it out. Any person or force getting in the way of a burden is, obviously, opposing Jesus and his ineffable plan. Often but not always, a burden relates to ministry or evangelism from the personal level to the institutional.

Usage varies, but the example in the Christianity Today article is quite characteristic: “I still had a burden on my heart to acknowledge [the abuse report].” Others include:

• 1974, from Watchman Nee’s Testimony: “By the end of 1922 I had a burden to publish a magazine. . .”
• Unknown date, regarding a 10-year-old boy: “I have such a burden for Sylas today.”
• Probably 2020, from Cru’s advice on figuring out your burden: “Use the following questions to discover your unique burden—that thing or cause or people group that God wants you to focus on in ministry.”
• 2022, from a Creationist: “I had a burden to help people understand that Genesis is the foundation of all doctrine. . .”
• 2022, from a pastor’s review of Turning Red: “And we [Christians] ignore [offensive stuff], and that’s really why I felt a burden to put the word out about this movie.”

The term apparently derives from a Hebrew word used in the Bible. That said, I had no idea, when I was Christian myself, why Christians used it. I doubt many Christians today understand why, either, nor that it’s been used since the early-mid 1800s to mean a Jesus-flavored motivation, as seen here in 1828. (“Felt a burden” became popular a bit later.)

See also: having a heart for X. This is like a burden, but not as onerous. Christians might say that someone has a heart for children to explain that person’s desire to volunteer with Sunday School, or having a heart for missions to explain why someone gives so much money to missionaries. That opinion is still thought to come from Jesus, of course.

 

[Jasen777]

This one wasn't in a box, but I think it counts?

Captain Cassidy’s Christianese 101: Literalism edition​

A hermeneutic is simply one’s outlook when considering what Bible stories mean. One seminary asserts that there are four major hermeneutics. Literalism is only one of them. Others include seeing the Bible as a moral source, as an allegory, or as something called an anagogical hermeneutic. That last bit mostly means figuring out its various codes for prophecies.

Biblical literalists believe that the Bible is 100% objectively accurate and true in every single way. Creationists are the obvious illustration here, but many others exist.

Closely associated with literalism is inerrancy. That’s the notion that the Bible is correct in all ways and cannot contain a single error. The literalists we’re talking about today tend also to be inerrantists, but this isn’t always the case.

Biblical prescriptivism vs descriptivism: When the Bible asserts something, it can either be prescriptive, meaning it’s something Christians should obey now, or descriptive, meaning it was just what Jews or Christians were doing at the time. Descriptive stuff is more cultural- and context-specific. You can probably guess which side literalists tend to take.

 

[Jasen777]

Captain Cassidy’s Christianese 101: TRUE CHRISTIANS™​

TRUE CHRISTIANS™ fit this exact definition:

1. They believe mostly the same package of nonsense that the judging Christian believes.
2. They haven’t gotten caught doing anything the judging Christian thinks is totally off-limits.
3. And they die in the traces, still believing and Jesus-ing the same.

The first plank neatly knocks out all Christians with different beliefs. For example, evangelicals don’t tend to think that mainline Christians or Catholics are going to Heaven. Meanwhile, the second knocks out all embarrassing scandal-causers. They just weren’t the real deal, don’t ya know. Obviously, they did something terrible. That’s why.

Obviously, that third plank knocks out all ex-Christians and exvangelicals. They were never TRUE CHRISTIANS™ at all, even if they were positive they were at the time and even if they believed exactly what the judging Christian currently believes. However, it also knocks out all existing current Christians, since they aren’t dead yet. (Don’t tell them. It’ll spoil everything.)

The judging Christians themselves are their own ur-example of TRUE CHRISTIANITY™. Obviously, they believe all the right things, haven’t been caught committing any dealbreakers, and intend to die in the traces. Obviously, that’s why they haven’t left the religion yet: they found the one true flavor amid the millions of competing flavors.

Sometimes, judging Christians will refer to their definition as being “real Christians,” “genuine Christians,” or something like that. You get a lot of bonus points in ChristianSpotting (n.b.: not a real game) for catching one using the phrase that pays.

 

[Ubi Dubium]

This wasn't in a box, or labeled Christianese, but I think it belongs here:

I’ve talked before about what an absolute fucking joke evangelical pastor restoration is. Basically, here’s how it works:

1. A popular, high-earning pastor gets caught doing something utterly off-limits.
2. The crony network still thinks he might be useful to them, so they close ranks around him.
3. They put him through a song-and-dance of fake counseling and busy-work penance for a short time.
4. After most of the outrage has died down and the pew-warmers have stopped paying so much attention to the scandal, the crony network declares that this pastor has been restored by Jesus. He has been cleared to return to active duty. Jesus loves him again, and the flocks can trust him again.
5. The pastor returns to a (much-)diminished ministry, but at least he can hope to build it up again. He’ll owe his “restorers” quite a debt, of course, and it’s one they intend to collect in time.
6. I can only guess the last step involves them telling the newly-restored pastor that if he doesn’t clean up his act for real, then they’re never again going to stick their necks out for him.

 

[LeekSoup]

Even as we mock the way utter scumsacks are given a way back into Christian grifting, if they play it right, they can gain an audience. Some false humility "I know what it means to repent, to need forgiveness" etc can easily be mistaken for authenticity by people who feel they haven't been good Christians and want to start over. It's deeply manipulative.

 

[LeekSoup]

From the article about Bart Barber the new King of Baptist County.

(Christianese 101: “Preaching the Bible” just means giving sermons that completely confirm and agree with the judging Christian’s take on Christianity. “Expository preaching” indicates a sermon that incorporates lots of Bible verses and Christianese to “preach the Bible.” For the most part, this is evangelical lingo. Literally any Christian stance or doctrine can be supported in exactly these ways, but evangelicals have never been able to deal with that fact. They take as obvious that “expository preaching” and “preaching the Bible” can’t possibly support anything they reject.)

 

[Jasen777]

Captain Cassidy’s Christianese 101: What those mean in terms of SBC politics​

Social justice means all the stuff Pretend Progressives say they support. It is very much an Old Guard snarl term. They uniformly oppose all forms of social justice. If Christians want to do something about racism, sexism, or sex abuse, they just need to Jesus harder, because that fixes literally everything.

Discipleship is more of an evangelical-wide idea. It means strictly enforced parent-child style relationships between experienced church members and newer ones. New converts are typically all for the idea until they realize just how far their faux-parents’ control really goes.

In discipleship, the parent in the relationship takes charge of the child. Parents dictate how their faux-children engage with the church. Sanchez tries to claim that “teaching, modeling, and even correcting” runs in both directions in discipling, but I can absolutely guarantee you that the faux-parents bristle mightily at being on the receiving end of this process. They’re authoritarians to the bone, and discipleship was designed for them to flex power.

To help his listeners learn about discipleship, Sanchez recommends “a little book by Mark Dever called ‘Discipling.'” Dever was one of the bellierent anti-COVID precaution crowd at the start of the pandemic. Whatever he has to say about discipling, it’s going to make the faux-children in these relationships massively vulnerable to abusers and predators.

Evangelicals think that if they immediately disciple new converts, then it’s much harder for those converts to leave. I don’t know either way, but I suspect the opposite is increasingly true.

Expositional preaching is just preaching using lots and lots of Bible verses that are all understood in a literally-true, always-prescriptive way. This approach is called biblical literalism. Hardline evangelicals have this idea that somehow, tons of Christian preachers don’t ever refer to the Bible in their sermons.

When you hear praise for expositional preaching, you won’t be amiss in assuming the speaker is one of the worst-of-the-worst control-hungry evangelical culture warriors. As it is, the Calvinist hardliners who now infest the SBC used biblical literalism as their route to winning the denomination’s last schism, the Conservative Resurgence of the 1980s-1990s.

Literalism is the engine that allows the worst-of-the-worst evangelicals to gain so much power and why they just keep getting worse and worse.

OnlySky

Welcome to OnlySky! Exploring possible futures since 2024.

onlysky.media

 

[Jasen777]

In a box, but not labelled Christianese:

Captain Cassidy’s Guide to Christian Honesty​

In studies measuring religious dedication and fervor, researchers depend on their respondents’ honesty and forthrightness. Unfortunately, Americans have a fine and longstanding tradition of lying our unholy heathen asses off about religion. We happily embellish every single aspect of our religious lives, from lying about church attendance to exaggerating prayer habits.

Ultimately, all these studies capture is what their respondents want researchers to think about their religious lives. Atheist or non-practicing Christian respondents might want researchers to think they’re fervent Christians due to fully justifiable fears about being discovered and outed. Meanwhile, even fervent Christians often answer in aspirational ways by describing how they totally would behave in an ideal world free of all constraints.

(Religious researchers try so hard to get Christians out of that aspirational mindset, too. Read their questions about, say, church attendance, and you’ll see how hard they’re trying to stress that they want actual, real, honest-to-goodness attendance reports here. It’s a fool’s quest, though. As one Christian site discovered, Christians still overwhelmingly say they regularly attend church in numbers that would likely challenge actual church buildings to contain them all.)

Thus, it is entirely possible that the data obtained by the State of the Bible folks is just Americans being a bit more honest about their religious lives, rather than Americans’ religious lives actually changing overmuch.

Of course even by itself, that’s still big and important news!

Labelled but not in a box:

Starting in 2010, they began publishing State of the Bible reports. In them, Christian researchers seek to measure “Scripture engagement.”

(Scripture or the Scriptures is Christianese. It’s just a fancy way to say “the Bible.” In today’s context, Scripture engagement measures a Christian’s dedication to Bible study, fervor, and adherence to Christianity’s rules. In the real world, we know that they’re not connected at all. But the notion is taken for granted as truth in the Christ-o-sphere.)

Sorta labeled, not in a box:

In years past, evangelicals used terms like the 4-14 window to indicate the crushing necessity of getting children indoctrinated before it was too late. That term in particular means that if children aren’t indoctrinated very thoroughly between the ages of 4-14, their chances of becoming lifelong Christians is very low indeed.

OnlySky

Welcome to OnlySky! Exploring possible futures since 2024.

onlysky.media

 

[Ubi Dubium]

Again, not in a box, but worth adding here:

...“bitterness” is just Christianese for anger that a judgy Christian thinks has lasted too long, has an inappropriate target, is stronger than the judge thinks is necessary, or fails to resolve the way the judge thinks best.

 

[Ubi Dubium]

Christianese 101: Kingdom work​

The demand that fundigelicals obey their superiors by getting out into the “mission field,” wherever it happens to be for them, and SELL SELL SELL WITHOUT MERCY. That they find every possible opportunity to hit others with sales pitches. And through pressure from the leaders to shell out for instructional materials, workshops, and mission trips is ultimately a vehicle for making money at the twilight end of evangelicals’ decline."

OK, here's my summary of this one from the recent long post on the subject. Any suggested revisions welcome.

 

[Ubi Dubium]

Christianese 101: Reversals as part of Christian mythology​

In the New Testament, writers often play around with reversals. Here are just a few attributed to Jesus, courtesy of Knowing Jesus:

But many who are first will be last, and the last, first. (Mark 10:31)

He has brought down rulers from their thrones, and has exalted those who were humble. (Luke 1:52)

Woe to you who are well-fed now, for you shall be hungry. Woe to you who laugh now, for you shall mourn and weep. (Luke 6:25)

Even more than that, Jesus himself is a reversal in many ways: A divine god-man who arranged his own birth in an animal's manger and to poor parents; the god of the entire universe who humbled himself to live as a human; humanity's savior, but he was rejected by his own people and died a criminal's ignominious death. He was a king, but this world was not his kingdom. Likewise, he promised his followers that they'd have difficult lives because of their worship of him. Sure, he'd give them literally anything they wanted if they asked for it in prayer (and really, really, rillyrillyrilly believed they'd get it). For all that, though, they sure wouldn't be living life on easy mode.