Doing a little research earlier led me to the surprisingly interesting Wikipedia page of the week, Semantic Change.
Semantic change, also known as semantic shift or semantic progression describes the evolution of word usage — usually to the point that the modern meaning is radically different from the original usage. [...] Every word has a variety of senses and connotations which can be added, removed, or altered over time, often to the extent that cognates across space and time have very different meanings.
Language is fascinating isn't it. Check out some of the word examples they use:
Awful - Originally meant "inspiring wonder (or fear)". It is a portmanteau of the words "awe" and "full", used originally as a shortening for "full of awe". In contemporary usage the word has taken on an entirely negative meaning.
Egregious - Originally described something that was remarkably good. The word is from the Latinegregius (outstanding) which is from e-, ex- (out of) + greg- or grex (flock). Now it means something that is remarkably bad or flagrant.
Guy - Guido (Guy) Fawkes was the alleged leader of a plot to blow up the EnglishHouses of Parliament on 5 November 1605. The burning on 5 November of a grotesque effigy of Fawkes, known as a "guy," led to the use of the word "guy" as a term for any "person of grotesque appearance" and then to a general reference for a man, as in "some guy called for you." In the 20th century, under the influence of American popular culture, "guy" has been gradually replacing "fellow," "bloke," "chap" and other such words throughout the English-speaking world, and, in the plural, can refer to a mixture of genders (e.g., "Come on, you guys!" could be directed to a group of men and women).
I knew about Aweful, Egregious threw me for a loop, and Guy is actually kind of funny. Then they go on to describe more than a dozen different types of semantic shift and potentially hundreds of reasons for it.
I like language, I find words interesting, semantics can be fun but they can also be pretty frustrating. Like trying to have a discussion with someone in which they continued to reference the "original definition" of a word to make their point.
The word was liturgy; liturgy means ritual. However, the original definition has little bearing on a conversation focused on what liturgy has come to mean. Liturgy is ritual, but it's much more than that. The context of our conversation called for a word to describe the specific ritual, steeped in history and significance, practiced by the Catholic church for hundreds of years. "Ritual" doesn't quite cut it.
The other side can be frustrating too as evidenced by my current hostility towards the use of "epic" to describe clearly less than epic situations.
The above clip is from an episode of The West Wing called "The Crackpots and These Women" from the first season, it get's good around the 2:00 minute mark.
I don't watch a lot of tv. Actually, outside of sporting events I watch zero tv, but there is one show I keep going back to - The West Wing. The show had quite a run in it's 7 years, winning dozens of awards including multiple Emmy's and Golden Globes. An espisode centered around a nuclear accident was even referenced recently by multiple news outlets as a great way to understand the implications of the tragedy in Japan. The acting is very good and the show is often inspirational, but the writing is what's phenomenal - especially the first four seasons.
It's a show about how life always takes the unexpected turn and because of that we're all tasked with our response. I think our lives are probably largely defined by how we repond to the unexpected turn and lessons might not be such a bad idea. For lessons on responding to the unexpected turn, as well as lessons on leadership, teamwork, writing, friendship, responsibility, life, and the list keeps going on; The West Wing is a classroom that I keep returning to.
What inspires you? What constitutes your classroom?
A wise mentor once told me: "When you're younger, think less and do more; when you're older, do less and think more." I see a lot of (especially young) people get frozen by the paralysis of indecision. Just start making stuff until something catches. Once you've tried a number of things, it will be easier to see which ones have a future. Another bit of encouraging advice I like very much is what Ira Glass has to say about taste. Here are a few other insights that may be useful as well.
Evangelicals believe in the conversion of individuals, but Walls began to see that conversion refers also to nations and communities. Did not the Great Commission command the discipling of the nations? "Conversion to Christ does not isolate the convert from his or her community," Walls says. "It begins the conversion of that community. … [D]iscipling is a long process—it takes generations. Christian proclamation is for the children and grandchildren of the people who hear it."
The spread of the gospel is often presented as inexorable progress outward, like an inkblot, but Walls saw that time and again the real story was of ebb and flow. The loss of Christian territory happened not just on the periphery but at the heartland. Jerusalem was the first heartland until the Romans leveled it, and the Jewish church all but ceased to exist. Then came Rome, until the northern Vandals sacked it; Constantinople, until Islam overran it; northern Europe, before Enlightenment skepticism cut its heart out. At each turning point, the gospel made a great escape, crossing over into an unknown culture just before disaster struck. History suggested that Christianity lives by this pilgrim principle.
Each culture asks different questions of the gospel, and as new answers to those questions are unearthed, they enrich our understanding of the greatness of Christ. The second-century church asked philosophical questions that would never have occurred to Jews in Jerusalem. One result was the fourth-century Nicene Creed. Africa asks questions about witchcraft that children of the Enlightenment can't answer. Perhaps a new understanding of Jesus' victory over evil is in the works.
All this is to say that the gospel never stands outside our lives; it must enter human culture and be translated into the local language. It is not static or impersonal, because it is always in the process of being more fully discovered. Mission is not so much a matter of contextualizing the gospel as learning its truth through an entirely new way of life and thought.
