Today, however, I would like to focus on the unspoken and unappreciated issue that lies behind many of these discussions: the nature of language. Do words have meaning? Here is a recent discussion:
(My activist friend)
Chaplain:
After our lunchtime discussion the other day about the
question, "What makes one 'devout'?", I read the two attached
articles and thought they were relevant.
One of the pieces covers an interfaith group of clergy who met at a
Unitarian church in Hawaii to sign a resolution supporting the legalization of
same-sex civil marriage in that state; the other story concerns a Jewish
community center hosting an event devoted to the topic of same-sex civil
marriage.
Two quotes jumped out at me. First, the Hawaii Unitarian minister
expressing his support for same-sex civil marriage: "It's all about
standing on the right side of history [. . .].
We will keep doing it until we're all prayed out"; and second, a
quote from a Jewish leader in the second piece: "We embrace the
opportunity to celebrate the lives of those fighting for equal rights and
gender equality [. . .]. Fighting for
justice is one of the highest Jewish values that there is."
I would not hesitate to describe either of these folks as
"devout," even though each one's concept of religious authority is
certainly quite different from that of a Protestant Christian social
conservative, a doctrinally conservative Roman Catholic, or a doctrinally
conservative Latter-day Saint. Food for
thought! : )
(My future chaplain friend)
Good morning gentlemen,
The word
"devout" is a term that is very relative. What one may consider
devout another may not. Being devoted to one's religion does not inherently
disqualify them from being devoted to their fellow man's equality or civil
liberties. Religious leaders have been historically committed to some of the
most monumental changes in our society. Sadly, however, often time they are
also responsible for some of the most horrific atrocities carried out in
civilization.
Being devout (to
me) means being devoted whole-heartedly to one's God. This means that the
devotion is to the faith and not the doctrine. Obviously, for Christians, faith
is exuded through their everyday actions, but ultimately they recognize that it
is the romance within the heart with God that determines one's level of grace.
People have the
right to serve and worship or not to serve or worship any God they chose.
Religious people who accept that God-given right for all of humanity ultimately
achieve greater effectiveness through their transformational leadership.
(Me)
Greetings, Friends.
I would agree more with [my chaplain friend] in his second paragraph
than in his first (minus, "to me"). A point I will continually make is that
words have concrete, objective meanings. This is the essence of the
multi-millennial debate between realists (those who believe words are anchored
in concrete reality) and nominalists (who believe that words display little
connection to their described correlates). A turtle is not just a turtle
because we call it a turtle. We recognize a distinctive "turtleness"
about him--otherwise, we might call him a dog, but we know a dog to be
something entirely different.
The only reason why "devout" might be
considered relative is because of the linguistic relativism (or nominalist's
revenge) that we see in our culture today. The term might have a more narrow
and broader meaning (as I'll get to in a moment), but it has a meaning. I would
firmly assert, as ever before, that societal and individual discourse is
ultimately rendered impossible by linguistic relativism. If we don't have a commonly
defined vocabulary, then it will be impossible to communicate. Even now, the
deterioration of language means that we must have lengthy discussions like this
simply to define our terms before we can engage in the discussions we intended
from the outset.
Dictionary.com provides the following as the primary
definition of devout: "devoted to divine worship or service; pious;
religious." There are certainly divine and authoritative tones to this
definition. It implies submission and accountability to a transcendent force
beyond oneself. That said, there is then a tertiary definition provided:
"earnest or sincere; hearty." This seems to simply imply commitment.
This gets to the heart of our discussion yesterday. I
wanted to know whether it was appropriate to call an environmentalist, for
example, "devout." Using the broader definition, that person or the
civic-minded Unitarian-Universalist or Reform Jew could be considered devout. But that must be
properly sealed up from "devout" in its more narrow and explicitly
religious sense, where it describes those "devoted to divine worship or
service." Those who live simply according to the dictates of their
conscience or by their own values cannot properly, in the narrow sense, be
called devout.
The same distinction (referring to the same website)
applies to the term "Christian." The primary definition is
"pertaining to, or derived from, Jesus Christ and his teachings." A
follow on definition speaks of "pertaining to...the religion based on the
teachings of Jesus Christ" (i.e. Spain is a "Christian"
country). From the definition, narrowly defined, Spain is by no means a
"Christian" country, but it can claim the broader label for cultural
reasons. Ultimately, we only know of Jesus Christ and His teachings from His Word,
and thus Christianity implies submission to Christ's Lordship through His Word.
Someone who settles for an authority beyond His Word is ultimately guided by
personal autonomy and thus cannot properly claim the term of Christian, except
as a form of describing his/her culture.
We can follow this logic ad nauseum as well. What is
justice? Rights? Equality? Marriage? At the bare minimum, friends, I am
thankful that we can engage in such an important (though admittedly, sometimes
tedious) discussion. This is why our conversations are marked by civility and
understanding, for which I am thankful.
