The FaithX Project

Strategic Missional Consulting

When “Perfection” is the Opposite of “Perfect”

by Ken Howard

A while back I was challenged on my assertions that the goal of Christian community was not to achieve and maintain perfection, and that neither Jesus Christ nor the Apostle Paul ever intended to start a religion called “Christianity.”

So I’d like to comment briefly here on the concepts of “perfection” and “religion.”

If we in the present day are not careful in our use of terms, we run the risk of overlaying the original meanings of the words of Scripture with our own connotations.

For example, we tend to think of perfection in the absolute sense, as in entirely without error, wholly without defect, as something or someone having achieved a state of being which is complete in-and-of itself.  When we hear Jesus say, “You are to be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect,” we view it as reaching a state of perfection exactly like God’s state of perfection. However, the writers of the New Testament used the term in a more nuanced way. Our sense of perfect is close to the Greek “aortist” tense, which connotes an act that is complete and permanent. But in all the places where we are being asked to be “perfect,” the tense is not aortist, as in completed once-and-for-all, but “imperfect,” as in an ongoing process. Paul implies as much when he says “not that I have already become perfect” (Phil. 3:12) and when he says that God “will perfect” a good work in us “until the day of Christ Jesus” (Phil. 1:6).

[Read more…]

Divided by a Common Language: A Philosophical Reflection

Darren Slade, research director for FaithX and general editor of our sponsored journal, Socio-Historical Exploration of Religion and Ministry, regularly writes articles for the FaithXperimental blog, primarily curating relevant research as it is published and contributing articles for our FaithXperimental Spotlight series. 

However, in this blog Darren offers a different kind of article: philosophical reflection on how language itself can contribute to incivility in communication. His thesis: un-nuanced and lazy thinking — that words that so clearly carry one meaning for us must therefore carry the same meaning for others — makes it easy for us to condemn those who disagree with us without truly understanding the meaning they attach to what they are saying. He also offers some possible ways to avoid allowing our assumptions about our common language to divide us.

There is a deep divide in our country, and in many parts of the world, that continues unabated. As a civilization, we have become so polarized and so entrenched in our tribal ways of thinking that finding common ground (or even civility in dialogue) appears near impossible. But what if part of the problem has to do with our use of the English language? Is it possible that our method of speaking is, in fact, causing much of the divide in our culture? Here’s what I mean:  

I’d like you to take a moment and try a quick and easy “armchair” experiment. First, find a chair and sit down. Then, ask yourself a question: What is a “chair?” Yes, I’m serious, and no dictionaries allowed. Now, sit down and define a “chair.”

If you think about it long enough, you will begin to realize this simple task is actually very difficult to accomplish. For every definition you can think of, you  can find hundreds of examples that contradict it. For example, defining a chair as “something to sit on” would seem to suggest that a floor also qualifies as a chair. But that’s not right. A floor is not a chair, even if you can sit on it.

So you get more specific and define a chair as “something you sit on that has four legs.” But that’s not accurate, either. There are some chairs with only three legs. Bean bags can be chairs, and they have no legs at all. A dog has four legs, and you could sit on your dog (if your dog was big enough, that is), but that doesn’t make your dog a chair.

So why is it so difficult to define a chair!?! We all know what one is, right?

[Read more…]

Subscribe