Translucent Transparency
Many churches today are using buzzwords to get people to attend, and/or perhaps to understand who they are/ought to be. The top five I hear are: relevant, authentic, missional, relational, and transparent. Much could be said (and may be in due time) about this issue, but that is not the telos of this post; this is more of a rabbit trail.
The other day, I was thinking about how churches are using the word "transparent." What do we mean when we say that we are transparent? I doubt that we mean that we have the property of transmitting light without appreciable scattering so that bodies lying beyond are seen clearly. I think we are trying to say that we are (I know this sounds old-fashioned) honest.
See, we want people to know that we are honest, but we don't want to come right out and say it. So let's use a word that is less precise, but which still gets the idea across in a much less prudish way. How about "transparent?"
Question: Does this mean that we are, in a sense, being dishonest in the way that we present our honesty?
The other day, I was thinking about how churches are using the word "transparent." What do we mean when we say that we are transparent? I doubt that we mean that we have the property of transmitting light without appreciable scattering so that bodies lying beyond are seen clearly. I think we are trying to say that we are (I know this sounds old-fashioned) honest.
See, we want people to know that we are honest, but we don't want to come right out and say it. So let's use a word that is less precise, but which still gets the idea across in a much less prudish way. How about "transparent?"
Question: Does this mean that we are, in a sense, being dishonest in the way that we present our honesty?
posted by DrewDog at 1:57 PM
15 Comments:
Excellent point.
It is either that or we want to seem both honest and trendy at the same time. Here is a basic equation to help you out:
transparent = honest + relevant (minus honest)
That's gooood.
Hmm...I really don't like all that boasting that those churches do. If they were more specific in HOW they are transparent, maybe people would believe them. "Transparent" is a misnomer. It really is supposed to mean "honest and forthright." You can be honest but not forthright. So "transparency" should explain that. But most churches that use that term are "non-denominational," which is not a very transparent name. Why don't they just be honest and forthright and say that they are Independent Baptist?
Thanks Mike, but I don't know if Independent Baptist would be appropriate. I have some good friends who are Baptist, but who would choose "honest" over "transparent" any day(and who are also, by the way, less dispensational than some "reformed" folk).
I also know of quite a few presbyterian and anglican churches that are using the term "transparent" as much as anyone else. In short, I think this is an issue that Christendom must deal with as opposed to any one group.
Part of my problem with this is that honesty should be a given attribute of any Christian church. "We're unique because we're committed to being transparent [honest]." Okay, well, if you didn't have that one down I wouldn't call you much of a church.
A church that is committed to building disciplined followers of Jesus Christ would by necessity be honest, and it would necessarily be relevant simply because the gospel itself is the most relevant truth to any culture at any time. But I'll save that last part for another post.
So, my question remains: are we being dishonest about being honest by using the term "transparent?" What do y'all think?
I say "Independent Baptist" because they are ecclesiastically independent as well as baptistic. I agree, though, that some Baptist churches are more covenantal in their soteriology.
But, Drew, what do you think about my definition of transparent being "honest and forthright?" Because, when a person is "transparent," you can "see right into them." There is nothing hidden.
Thanks for the clarification, Mike.
I don't disagree with your definition, and I'm sure that's what many people mean . Although, I always thought that transparent meant that you could see through it as opposed to into it.
My point is that it seems like we are trying to be elusive when we use the term. It's a way of being trendy, and distancing ourselves a bit, from the absoluteness of honesty and objective morality. Do you see what I'm getting at? I mean, do you see that at which I'm getting?
Interesting point, Aaron.
Let's take the case of the boy who stole a cookie. It seems to me that if you can easily see through his lie (it's transparent), you more easily can ascertain the truth. This is because his actions and his speech are speaking. The result is that his parents ascertain the truth from him.
My conclusion: he is being honest about his dishonesty.
So, when people use the word "transparent" they can be dishonest about their honesty, or honest about their dishonesty.
(I'm joking around a bit)
Interesting point, Aaron.
Let's take the case of the boy who stole a cookie. It seems to me that if you can easily see through his lie (it's transparent), you more easily can ascertain the truth. This is because his actions and his speech are speaking. The result is that his parents ascertain the truth from him.
My conclusion: he is being honest about his dishonesty.
So, when people use the word "transparent" they can be dishonest about their honesty, or honest about their dishonesty.
(I'm joking around a bit)
You said:
"The parents aren't ascertaining the truth from him they are ascertaining the truth from the inference that is drawn from the missing cookie and from the cookie crumbs on the boys mouth."
It seems to me that they can only draw this inference because the child has made it easy for them to draw it. His action/inaction has revealed his deed. Thus, he is being honest about his dishonesty. I'm not saying that he's trying to be honest in his actions, just that his action/inaction reveal the truth.
However, if he were to lie and cover it up, he would be consistently dishonest.
In sum, both the words and the deeds of the child speak honesty or dishonesty.
Somehow though, I think my rabbit trail now has another rabbit trail!
BTW, I probably shouldn't be trying to force transparency to be defined as honesty. Honestly, that wasn't my point. Rather, I believe that this is what many churches mean when they say that they are transparent, and if so, it seems that there is some dishonesty lurking around; which seemed ironic to me, and made me chuckle. Hopefully it made you chuckle too.
This post was also meant to be a bit tongue in cheek, so I doubt it will hold up to close scrutiny (as Aaron as apptly demonstrated).
Granted my premises (which I concede may be false), does it follow that this is a dishonest way of presenting honesty?
My late $0.02
Is transparency = honesty?
I think the churches who describe themselves as "transparent" are meaning to say that they allow more access to their lives, especially their shortcomings.
It seems that transparent = vulnerable,open,unreserved.
This is a bit different than honesty, and there could be merit in this type of "transparency."
Transparency is equivalent to the honest application of its very virtue and thus manifests its forthrightness and prudence; thereby juxtaposing the preliminary aspect of what truth really and emphatically is about. Transparency cannot, in itself, be translucent or beneficial to the very core of its nature, because it tends to modify the pedigree of its origin.
Did you follow that? If you didn’t it is probably because I completely made it up. I must have forgot to take my meds…:)
yes meds are good. i was just reading "future men" and i came to the part where douglas wilson talks about church buzzwords and how the word 'worldveiw' is in danger of going the way of "words that evoke a certain immediate response, but still remain nebulous and undefined." i think that "transparent" may already be there. the discussion falls under the heading of 'doctrinal integrity' in the book and it makes me wonder, can doctrinal integrity be preserved if we are continually shifting and rearanging the forms(words) and their meanings? if we aren't "transparent" with what our words mean how can we begin to be "transparent" in any other nebulous sense of the word. in other (more lucid?) words, if we don't say what we mean then what are we saying? i think it is very dangerous indeed.
Thanks, Paul. You da' man.
I agree with Paul, as well (but dont let it go to your head). But what word(s) do we use to replace it.
I dont mean to be overly transparent but I still dont know what it means.
Does it just mean being able to say "I could be wrong" or "I know I am not perfect?" if so, then it means humility, which is an easier word to say.
Post a Comment
<< Home