“Word Salad” and Statements of Faith
“Word Salad” is an unintelligible jumble of words and phrases. It is traditionally used to describe a symptom of neurological problems, such as aphasia.
However, in common usage now the term can mean, “Language that obscures its meaning.” As such, it is more akin to “Double Talk.” Double talk, according to Merriam-Webster has two meanings:
#1. Language that appears to be earnest and meaningful but in fact is a mixture of sense and nonsense.
#2. Inflated, involved, and often deliberately ambiguous language.
In both of the definitions, there is a real question of intent. Definition #2 says that double talk is often deliberate, but it doesn’t have to be. Definition #1 says it “appears to be earnest” but that does not speak to whether the person was actually earnest in his/her intent.
Double talk, or the common Internet use of the phrase “word salad,” then would be language that, often sounding impressive or even scholarly, obscures meaning, or perhaps is even nonsensical. However, the reason for it is unimportant.
I would like to suggest that a lot of times when people call something word salad, the issue is cultural or sub-cultural. The person is writing from a specific context to people of that same context. However, when people of a different context hear or read it, it sounds ambiguous, and a mixture of sense and nonsense.
The problem in this situation can come from jargon, metaphors, and implicit language.
An example of jargon and implicit language I like to use is the sentence:
“ECO the 4A16”
What does that mean? Well, first “ECO” is technical jargon for “Engineering Change Order,” which is, in turn, jargon for a form that is to modify a design blueprint. “4A16” is technical jargon for 16th printed wiring board associated with motherboard “A” in equipment component #4 of a certain radar system. Understanding the jargon helps, but there is also implicit language— linguistic short-hand that people within a specific context will understand but others would have it explained to them in detail. For the above expression, “ECO the 4A16,”
“Create an engineering change order for the 4A16 printed wiring board and route it through the required authorization stream, and then take to Design department where a designer will modify its blueprint according to the changes that are needed.”
Metaphoric or poetic language can also appear like word salad or double talk. Consider the following:
“I once was lost — a sheep without a shepherd— but now am found. The Good Shepherd found me stuck in the miry clay, lifted me up, and set my feet on solid ground. The Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world, has taken my place. Guilty but found innocent, adopted into a new family with a heavenly home. I am washed in the blood and now whiter than snow.”
The above statement is a long-winded way of saying that “I am now a faithful follower of Jesus Christ.” The language, however, is a mixture of Biblical metaphors, and Protestant revivalist oratory. For many people, this would be clear word salad. For others, this makes absolute sense. It depends on the culture. Within the culture context it makes sense even when there is an inherent contradiction. The first part has the individual as a sheep, and Jesus as the shepherd. In the second part, Jesus is the sheep and the individual is… well, we don’t really know… still a sheep? The last sentence speaks of a person washed in blood and changing color to white. Again, it takes a lot of cultural background to make all of that be understandable.
Watching a Youtube video by “Ready to Harvest,” the host Joshua Lindsey, he was reviewing some polls he had put online. He would take statements of faith, creeds, or such from different denominations and have a poll on what level of agreement or disagreement people have to them . In many of these polls, there are comments that the statement was “Word Salad.” As he went over some of these statements, I will admit that most of them were pretty clear to me. Some equivocated or used such vague language that it was not at all clear what they were really trying to say, but most of them I don’t think were Word Salad. At worst, most were vague, theologically dense/obscure, and culturally understandable.
That is, most of the statements would make sense to theologically informed insiders to the group, but not at all clear to outsiders.
There was one that I do think was double talk. There was one that talked about God as Love and stated that all experience God’s love— HOWEVER, the unredeemed experience God’s love as wrath. To me, if sending a person to hell (I don’t know if the particular denomination believes in ECT, eternal conscious torture, or not), is a direct application of God’s love, then one must wonder how love is defined by that denomination. Is wrathful killing one’s spouse an expression of one’s love? What about wrathful beating one’s children? Lindsey did explain how a certain theological perspective may help that statement make sense— but in my mind that would only move it from self-contradictory to extremely confusing. I am not a part of that denomination so— maybe the jargon is so different that it is clear and reasonable to insiders.
But here is where a problem comes up when we get to Creeds or Statements of faith of a denomination or a faith tradition. Who are they written for.
At first thought— they are written for insiders. A Calvinist group can affirm the belief in the “Total Depravity of Man” because they know that Man refers to all human beings, and that Depravity refers to the ability to please God by our own efforts. (At least that is what I think it means since I would not describe myself as a Calvinist.) So when a groups says that they affirm the Total Depravity of Man, it is clear that they believe that one cannot earn divine salvation. One cannot “be good enough” to be accepted by God by one’s own efforts. Further, the use of the old-timey phrase probably cues one in that the group affirms at least a four-point form of Calvinism, and perhaps five-point. There are many Christians, including myself who believe that we are completely unable to please God so as to earn our salvation, but would prefer not to use the expression “Total Depravity of Man” because it may lead to wrong inferences of our other beliefs.
There is a problem, however, with the expression. The most common meaning of Depraved or Depravity is VERY different— suggesting someone with no qualities or behaviors worthy of commendation. Even the worst human being who ever lived (and I certainly have no interest in speculating who that person is) had some admirable characteristics. This is another reason I don’t use the expression “Total Depravity of Man.” To outsiders, the phrase suggests something very different— to outsiders it misinforms. I would even suggest that to some extent it can misinform insiders. If one speaks to a person who affirms the Total Depravity of Man and says that everyone has some good things about them, some will seek to defend the doctrine by quoting the Bible, such as “There is none that doeth good… no not one. There is none that understandeth; there is not none that seeketh after God.” Essentially, they are taking the doctrine with technical language and trying to justify a normal language interpretation of the expression.
At second thought— should inform the poorly informed— regardless of whether they are insiders or outsiders. Many denominations will put their statement of faith prominently available on their website. This is to make it available to the public. We can’t even call this an “unintended audience.” Very often Creeds, Confessions, Statements of Faith, Doctrinal Statements, Catechisms, and the like have a proclamation or apologetic role to declare truth (as the group sees it) to a broad audience. If that language confuses, the language is bad. If it looks like word salad to some readers— in some ways that is exactly what it is.
I would suggest that statements should clear both to insider and outsider. If one is embarrassed by one’s own belief? Well, perhaps one should consider changing it. If one believes it true and good for others to believe as well, express it so that it is understandable. There is often room to explore it after. One can leave the technical language for the theologians (profession, ministerial, and lay theologians).
We need to be better at crossing cultural (and sub-cultural) gaps.
