It's all in the wording

The Mrs. and I spent the afternoon in a lively debate regarding an occurrence at our Sunday School class this morning, so she suggested I include it in on the Canteen. According to her, I am simply too critical, pessimistic, and always looking for details to pick apart. I believe this is thinking for myself rather than blindly accepting what another has to say, even if they are saying it for the greater good. I also believe it is possible to agree in general with something, but to disagree on the finer points of the matter. Before I go on, I must explain that I agreed with 99.9% of what was taught this morning, but this one detail could have major implications to someone who took it at face value.

The topic in question arose while studying Romans Chapter 5, specifically verse 2. It reads, "...and rejoice in hope of glory of God." Our teacher explained that the word "rejoice" also meant "boast" in a Greek word study that they had done. They went on to say that, as Christians, we should be boastful of God's grace and His glory. This is the detail where my ears perked up.

I don't doubt the Greek word study that was done, but in today's English (which we were speaking) "boast" has a negative connotation that comes with it, it corresponds with pridefulness, bragging, and a sense of being better, or having something better, than others. The word "rejoice," as found in at least 4 different translations, simply means to be joyful about, none of these other negative meanings are associated with the word that is actually printed in the Bible(s) that we were all reading out of. Why then was it necessary to do a word study to find an alternate meaning? What more comes out of using the word "boast" in place of it?

When I questioned this point I was reminded that it was important to look at the root meanings of the words used in the Bible if one wanted to dig deep into the meanings, and that in the Greek language, the word "boast" did not have the negative connotations that it does today in English. Absolutely! That's why we're not reading Greek versions of the Bible today, it would make no sense to us. It's hard enough to keep up with our own language as the meaning of words change from time to time depending on the context they were used. Take for example "bad". There was a time when it clearly meant good, or better yet cool. 50 years ago nobody would bat an eye if I said I were feeling "gay," but today most people would choose a different word, even though "gay" would be gramatically correct.

But more importantly, I was especially sensitive to this mis-wording because of it's implication. Christians are often seen as prideful, boastful, and yes, as hypocrites. So to say that we should be boastful of God's grace really struck a nerve. I don't believe it does any good, at any time, to be boastful, especially concerning spirituality. This does not mean one shouldn't be proud and confident in their faith, just that Christians should be sensitive to how others may already view them, so to purposefully take a boastful approach to spreading the word stands the chance of doing more harm than good.

Christians who boastfully exclaim their faith (we all know the type) are looked upon with great scrutiny from those of no, or different, faith. Even the non-believers know the difference between right and wrong, so even the seemingly small sins (bragging, gossip, etc.) of the boastful Christian are magnified and used against them as reasons to not want to be a Christian. See Romans 2: 23-24.

I realized I've rambled on for quite some time now, but I see this as a major stumbling block in modern day Christianity. I'm curious as to your thoughts. Do you scrutinize Christians more than others, do you especially scrutinize "boastful" Christians? Do you use those individuals to reaffirm your spirituality, or lack there of? Does a prideful approach to spirituality turn you off, or make you wish for what they had? Is there a Christian person in your life that has had a major impact in your life, positive or negative, and if so, what was their approach?