The Language of “Solid”
February 28, 2004
Language, language, language. What power do our words really carry? Will we ever know? I’m pondering the use of the phrase “solid Christian” or “solid believer” or…, just “solid.” I myself use the term sometimes when I’m describing someone; “oh, they are a solid Christian…” Whatever “solid Christian” means, we mean it as a good thing. Depending on what circles you’re in, the term solid=conservative evangelical.
Was speaking with a pastor today during lunch at our Presbytery meeting. We were talking about Princeton Theological Seminary and how their President is retiring this year. President Gillespie has been there for 20-some years and is definitely conservative theologically. So the question is will they go for someone more liberal after having a conservative President for so many years (and there are many faculty who are probably hoping and praying (yes, I think liberals still pray) for a more liberal President). This pastor described Gillespie as “solid” (of course, meaning conservative, Evangelical, etc.).
I’m not really sure where this is going…People want “solid” pastors, “solid” Inquirers. Am I solid? What if I’m a wandering, questioning doubter? That’s definitely not solid. But is that bad? When we describe the conservative evangelicals as “solid” - what term then do we use for those who are not conservative evangelicals? Weak? Flaky? Frail? Half-assed Christians?
Again, we do like to label people. We like to define them. Why do we want people to be “strong believers” — “solid Christians” — I don’t know if Yaconelli would have been a fan of that. We are a mess. We are weak. A friend of my good friend Josh calls people “strugglers.” I like that.
Struggler.
I’m not a strong Christian. I’m a Christian struggler.
Tags: Conservative-Christians, Liberals, Spirituality
Posted in Rants
Adam Walker Cleaveland: 
February 29th, 2004 at 2:30 am
Language is always a tough issue. For clarity’s sake I have often fallen into the “solid” trap, but recent happening in my life have dragged me toward the “struggling” camp. However, not struggling as defined by the “solid” camp, i.e. my faith is somehow lessened, defective, never challenged by anything, never questioning, but “struggling” as defined by Job or Jesus, i.e. the kind of struggling where your soul withers within you but your spirit is left stronger for it.
maybe Yac would like that kind of struggler?
February 29th, 2004 at 9:57 am
I don’t think the average person in the pew objects to fellow travelers as strugglers, Cleave. Where they are a little less tolerant is in that kind of expressed ambibuity in their leaders, and I’m afraid that if you want to preserve your ability to be publicly ambiguous, you have chosen the wrong profession. If you want to survive in that profession, you’d best suck it up and save that stuff for your peers in ministry.
I don’t want to hog your board here, so I will move this discussion over to my place.
February 29th, 2004 at 5:31 pm
first off, i want to say your profile pic is quite disturbing. ;-)
second, i just read rev. mike’s post and mike already mentioned something that i was going to say.
so nevermind…after deleting this comment 4 times now, i’ve decided just to comment on the mullet. sorry for the tangent.
February 29th, 2004 at 10:25 pm
Shouldn’t we distinguish between “solid” in doctrine and “solid” in your Christian life? I would suggest that anyone with “solid” doctrine can’t claim to be “solid” in Christian life, or she/he is no longer “solid” in doctrine. That is, if your count simul iustus et peccator as solid doctrine.