When does a phrase become a catchphrase? When does a catchphrase become a cliché?  What does it demonstrate if clichés take over our lives? The other day I received a letter which, on the surface, appeared to be very “godly”. It was peppered with Bible quotes and was simply oozing with “religious” language. However, when I really considered the letter objectively, I realised that it was made up entirely of religious clichés from the first word to the last.

“What’s wrong with that?”, you may say. “So long as it’s biblical, why does it matter?” The problem is that it DOES matter, for a number of reasons:

First, clichés can often be used to cover up a lack of content. That was the overall impression I received on reading the letter I mentioned above. I realised that behind all the clichés, the letter actually said NOTHING! The writer, in fact, had nothing to say; but, because he felt he had to say something he used clichés. It would have been better if he had not written at all. And I suspect that his use of Bible quotes was far more “King Jamesical” rather than biblical! By that I mean that we can often quote Scripture out of a romantic habit rather than in a genuine contextual cause. (Think about that for a moment). In terms of lack of content, we can also be cliché-mongers in our prayers — especially our public prayers where, if we are not careful, they can consist almost entirely of clichés — especially if we are trying to impress those around us (a common pitfall in public prayer) rather than convey our heart-thoughts to God! Is it not the case that a cliché-ridden prayer could fall under “blubbering nonsensical repetitions” (Gospel of Matthew, chapter 6, verse 7)? A prayer full of clichés is a prayer devoid of real content. A prayer devoid of content is an insult in the face of God.

Second, the use of clichés can cause us to fail to communicate to the world in a language which will be universally understood. For example, if we become cliché-mongers in our evangelism and the way we convey our faith to those who do not yet share it, this could well work entirely against what we are trying to achieve and thereby alienate others. To proclaim, “The wrath of God is upon you, hellbound sinners! Repent and seek redemption from the Lord who will graciously receive you as His child, washing away your sins in His blood”, may sound impressive when we’re ‘preaching to the choir’, but such a string of words will be meaningless jargon to the average 21st century man or woman in the street, making us seem like a bunch of pompous, puffed-up prattlers. Our job is to be truth-telling, empathetic, authentic, diffusers of the fragrance of Christ (Second Letter to the Corinthians, chapter 2, verse 14) rather than tub-thumping pedlars of religious clichés .

Third, the use of clichés can often demonstrate a lack of concern, or, at the very least, it can convey that impression. Consider this fictitious letter to a bereaved person:

Dear Brother,  Greetings, in the precious name of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. I was utterly cast down to hear that your father has gone to be with the Lord. No doubt you also feel as if you have been put in the miry clay. But, as the Apostle said, he was “well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord”. Furthermore, in the midst of our sufferings the man of God rejoiceth in the fact that God worketh all things together for good. He is sovereign and His word cannot return to Him void. After all, we do not “sorrow as others who have no hope”. Therefore, console yourself with the fact that your father was a man who was greatly used of God and who hath now received his reward. May the Lord bless you richly in all your labours. Yours, etc.

Now, admittedly, this letter is something of a caricature; but it amply demonstrates how a letter consisting primarily of clichés is without genuine feeling and empathy. The very last thing a suffering soul requires is a string of clichés — no matter how devout they may sound. He or she needs real comfort, real connection, tailor-made to fit the unique circumstances rather than being given a bunch of worn-out, off-the-peg pietisms which can be applied universally to anyone. I recognise that sometimes, even when they are genuinely concerned, folk can resort to clichés because they feel unable to express themselves adequately. But what happens then is that the wrong impression is conveyed and we have lost an opportunity for a real meeting of hearts. If we are vigilant, this is a pitfall which can be avoided.

Fourth, the clever use of clichés can be a cloak for counterfeit ideas. We can be cliché-mongers in our sermons, using buzz phrases which simply tickle the ears of our hearers, appealing to their desire for familiarity. I have heard many sermons which consisted almost entirely of clichés. They were ‘orthodox’ sermons, but they lacked the hallmark of a message inspired by God. All one has to do is open up the bag of verbal tricks, make the right noises, and the congregation is eating out of your hand!  However, if people’s ears are tickled by the mere use of clichés into imagining that they have been filled with spiritual food, we are treading on the dangerous ground of manipulation, which is rife in so many churches today. For it is perfectly possible to preach a “message” subtly filled with false teaching but still fool people into accepting it by filling it with religious clichés — ‘buzz’ phrases which the hearers would automatically associate with ‘orthodoxy’ and therefore be satisfied.

Incidentally, it is not only in the CONTENT of our words that we can become the conveyors of clichés, but even in our STYLE we can become cliché-mongers. How many sermons have you heard which were really copies of another person’s style — complete with his inflections of the voice, use of language, phraseology, even body language? Such a preacher then becomes a walking cliché through his sheer unoriginality and effective plagiarism.

Fifth, the repeated use of clichés and glib phrases in a group environment creates a norm which is seen to conform to groupthink. This inevitably leads to a cultish vibe which to ‘outsiders’ seems like a caricature rather than having an aura of spiritual authenticity. It is bad enough that so many churches have become cultlike in so many other ways, but to ‘gild that lily’ with a welter of clichés implies lazy spirituality, a dearth of depth, and a lack of originality.

Sixth, a preponderance of clichés eventually dumbs down the use of language, quenches its beauty, denies its nuances, and overturns its richness of expression. I know that a lot of Christians (sadly) are not very concerned with aesthetics (about the significance of which I have written elsewhere), but this goes way beyond mere aesthetics. As Neil Postman showed in his very intelligent book, “Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in an Age of Showbusiness”, the dumbing down of the spoken word during the past century through an increasingly exclusive concentration on the visual image has decimated the thinking ability of the human mind, and rendered it unable to work through from a premise to a conclusion (which, of course, accounts for the recent demise of the powerfully spiritual pulpit sermon in the greater part of Christendom). One reviewer wrote of this book: “Postman illuminates something ominous: A society being rendered unfit to remember or to think, taking its ignorance as knowledge”. Surely, a contribution to that process occurs when the use of clichés begins to eclipse the necessity of genuine richness of content.

On this note, it is no coincidence that the destruction of language forms the backbone of Big Brother’s plan for his future society in George Orwell’s prophetic novel “1984”. I believe that many of its concepts are ominously close to the way that Western culture is developing today. Allow me to give an extended quote here from “1984” concerning the manipulation of language into what Orwell graphically called Newspeak. The speaker is a man called Syme who is a government philologist working on the compilation of the Eleventh Edition of the Newspeak Dictionary. He is describing and justifying this dastardly project to the chief protagonist of “1984”, Winston. Here Orwell writes:

We’re getting the language into its final shape — the shape it’s going to have when nobody speaks anything else. When we’ve finished with it, people like you will have to learn it all over again… We’re destroying words — scores of them, hundreds of them, every day. We’re cutting the language down to the bone… It’s a beautiful thing, the destruction of words. Of course the great wastage is in the verbs and adjectives, but there are hundreds of nouns that can be got rid of as well. It isn’t only the synonyms; there are also the antonyms. After all, what justification is there for a word which is simply the opposite of some other word? A word contains its opposite in itself. Take good, for instance. If you have a word like good, what need is there for a word like bad? Ungood will do just as well — better, because it’s an exact opposite, which the other is not. Or again, if you want a stronger version of good, what sense is there in having a whole string of vague useless words like excellent and splendid and all the rest of them? Plusgood covers the meaning; or doubleplusgood if you want something stronger still. Of course we use those forms already, but in the final version of Newspeak there’ll be nothing else. In the end the whole notion of goodness and badness will be covered by only six words — in reality, only one word. Don’t you see the beauty of that, Winston?  It was BB’s idea originally, of course, he added as an afterthought. A sort of vapid eagerness flitted across Winstons face at the mention of Big Brother. Nevertheless Syme immediately detected a certain lack of enthusiasm. You haven’t a real appreciation of Newspeak, Winston, he said, almost sadly. Even when you write it you’re still thinking in Oldspeak. I’ve read some of those pieces that you write in the Times occasionally. They’re good enough, but they’re translations. In your heart you’d prefer to stick to Oldspeak, with all its vagueness and its useless shades of meaning. You don’t grasp the beauty of the destruction of words. Do you know that Newspeak is the only language in the world whose vocabulary gets smaller every year? Winston did know that, of course. He smiled, sympathetically he hoped, not trusting himself to speak. Syme bit off another fragment of the dark-coloured bread, chewed it briefly, and went on: Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten. Already, in the Eleventh Edition of Newspeak, were not far from that point. But the process will still be continuing long after you and I are dead. Every year fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller. Even now, of course, there’s no reason or excuse for committing thoughtcrime. It’s merely a question of self-discipline, reality-control. But in the end there won’t be any need even for that. The Revolution will be complete when the language is perfect… Has it ever occurred to you, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?… By 2050 — earlier, probably — all real knowledge of Oldspeak will have disappeared. The whole literature of the past will have been destroyed. Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, Byron — they’ll exist only in Newspeak versions, not merely changed into something different, but actually changed into something contradictory of what they used to be. Even the literature of the Party will change. Even the slogans will change. How could you have a slogan like ‘freedom is slavery’ when the concept of freedom has been abolished? The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking — not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness [from George Orwell, 1984, Penguin, (the authoritative text of 1987), pp.51-56].

Now there’s a concept to conjure with: Orthodoxy means not thinking — not needing to think… Orthodoxy is unconsciousness!  I am not speaking here about orthodoxy as the fundamentals of the faith once delivered to the saints but orthodoxy as it has come to carved out by tradition and human habit. I would love to see a return to a more simple faithful life of discipleship, in which folks had less of a herd mentality, less of a slavishness to human tradition, and that they would develop an awareness which enabled them to cut out the ‘in-phrases’ and ‘churchy clichés’ and thereby became more empathic in the way they relate to those who have not yet submitted to the truths to which disciples have. Because that ‘Christian patois’ or ‘in-house’ cliché language creates an unnatural exclusivity and makes all those who come in think that they have to learn it to be “in”, which is only creating a false idea of what it means to be in the Ekklesia. It does not take long for clichés to become the lazy language of church and almost become identified as a kind of orthodoxy, a litmus test of piety (though it is all really just pietism).

We need to grasp the vital fact that the more one restricts language the more one narrows the breadth of consciousness. The more one narrows the breadth of consciousness, the more one stifles the individual’s ability to think rationally and logically — to think things through from a premise to a conclusion — to discern. And this process of the stiflement of reason and rationality has been endemic in the Christian scene throughout the past century and more, but especially accelerating during the past few decades. The influence of the Charismatic phenomenon, the burgeoning of the so-called “Toronto Blessing” hype, the widespread acceptance of mysticism and mystical ways of thinking, the proliferation of the aberration of ‘pietism’ in many “Christian” circles, the widespread singing of trite choruses — all these things are symptomatic of a much broader movement in the Christian scene: the stifling of mindful discernment through the triumph of sensual experience over Logos-based thought processes. This imitates the similar movement in the world at large, in which whatever remains of the mind to process truth and reason has become emasculated beyond belief.

So when we become cliché-mongers — no matter how much we may pride ourselves on our orthodoxy or our stand against the experience-based religion movement (and, ironically, the orthodox are often the very ones who both inhabit the world of the cliché AND stand against this experience-based religion movement) — we actually align ourselves with that subjective experience-based movement through the damage done to human thought and communication via our reliance on, and use of, clichés. (Think on that for a moment).

Language and its diversity is of more spiritual importance than we may imagine. Why do you think that we have such a thing as the Word of God?  Why has divine revelation been given to us in actual words and not in visionary experience? If language is not important, why should a massive divine judgement be deemed necessary on its use and communication at the Tower of Babel (Book of Genesis, chapter 11, verse 6-7)? Why does genuine communication with God involve prayer in meaningful words rather than the ‘blissed-out’ mystical meditation of counterfeit religion or the widespread Christian use of counterfeit “Tongues” in gibberish (when the biblical gift was actual ethnic languages)? Why does a person come to faith (and thereby receive an eternal reward) “through hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ” (Letter to the Romans, chapter 10, verse 17) rather than by some form of direct ethereal infusion? Why is the Holy Spirit completely unashamed of the fact that there are some things hard to understand in the pages of Scripture (Second Letter of Peter, chapter 3, verse 16), while the world (and apparently the visible church) is hell-bent on reducing everything to the Lowest Common Denominator for fear that people may actually have to persevere and study (horror of horrors!) in order to grasp spiritual truth? The questions could go on and on!

The richness and spontaneity of language are plainly of central importance to Gods cosmic plan. In fact, it is the Godhead who empowers our use of language in all its aspects. Father, Son and Holy Spirit are accredited in Scripture with this faculty, as we see from the following quotations:

“Please, Lord,” Moses replied, “I have never been eloquent, neither in the past nor since You have spoken to Your servant, for I am slow of speech and tongue.” And the LORD said to him, “Who gave man his mouth? Or who makes the mute or the deaf, the sighted or the blind? Is it not I, the LORD? Now go! I will help you as you speak, and I will teach you what to say” (Exodus 4:10-12).

“Then the LORD reached out His hand, touched my mouth, and said to me: “Behold, I have put My words in your mouth” (Jeremiah 1:9).

“But when they hand you over [to the authorities], do not worry about how to respond or what to say. In that hour you will be given what to say. For it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you” (Matthew 10:19-20).

“But before all this, they will seize you and persecute you. On account of My name they will deliver you to the synagogues and prisons, and they will bring you before kings and governors. This will be your opportunity to serve as witnesses. So make up your mind not to worry beforehand how to defend yourselves. For I will give you speech and wisdom that none of your adversaries will be able to resist or contradict” (Luke 21:12-15).

“They were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other languages as the Spirit enabled them” (Acts 2:4). [Incidentally, these were actual known ethnic languages which were heard and understood, proving this was not the pagan gibberish which practised in so many nutty churches today!].

“Pray also for me, that whenever I open my mouth, words may be given me so that I will boldly make known the mystery of the gospel, for which I am an ambassador in chains. Pray that I may proclaim it fearlessly, as I should” (Ephesians 6:19-20).

Yes, the richness and spontaneity of language are of central importance to Gods cosmic plan. And while we are quoting Scripture it should be said (as any student of Greek knows) that there are numerous nuances of language in the Greek New Testament, where one word has been especially preferred to another in different contexts of similar meaning. Surely, then, if language is of such central importance to God’s cosmic plan, the widespread Christian descent into the habitual use of clichés must be resisted at all costs. Obviously a certain amount of second-hand quotation is inevitable; and we should also recognise that some phrases often become clichés because they involve very quotable quotes. But when we use clichés in order to avoid using content, or use them publicly to such an extent that we become unintelligible to the man, woman or child in the street, or in such a way that it conveys a lack of genuine concern, or we are simply trying to pass ourselves off as being “godly” or “pious” (rightly known as “pietism”, pseudo-holiness) — in short, when any of us becomes a walking cliché — we begin to betray the cause of Christ who said Himself that even though heaven and earth would pass away, His words would never do so. After all, He is the LOGOS — the supreme Word, whose use of language never once descended into cliché. Therefore, rather than speaking predominantly in clichés, “Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone” (Letter to the Colossians 4:6).

.

.

.

© Copyright, Alan Morrison, 2023
[The copyright on my works is merely to protect them from any wanton plagiarism which could result in undesirable changes (as has actually happened!). Readers are free to reproduce my work, so long as it is in the same format and with the exact same content and its origin is acknowledged]