Disregard for good usage in speaking and writing cheapens, if not at times negates, the efforts of ministers, writers, teachers, and Bible instructors to proclaim the third angel's message. The messenger of the Lord repeatedly stressed the necessity of speaking and writing one's mother tongue with purity, ease, and accuracy. God's message deserves being presented in a dignified form by the use of well-selected words and properly constructed sentences.
Embodying this idea, Mrs. White wrote: "He who knows how to use the English language fluently and correctly can exert a far greater influence than one who is unable to express his thoughts readily and clearly,"—Counsels to Teachers, p. 216. Ministers should continue studying, not merely the Bible, but also the language in which the message is to be presented.
"The men who now stand before the people as representatives of Christ have generally more ability than they have training, but they do not put their faculties to use, making the most of their time and opportunities. Nearly every minister in the field, had he exerted his God-given energies, might . . be proficient in reading, writing, and grammar. . . . They might have done tenfold more work intelligently had they cared to become intellectual giants. Their whole experience in their high calling is cheapened because they are content to remain where they are."—Testimonies to Ministers, p. 194.
The minister who says he has not time for such study admits that he has not organized his time properly, for again the testimony states : "They can master one branch of science after another, while they are engaged in the work of preaching the truth, if they will wisely employ their time."—p. 194.
By way of illustration, a few practices that offend good taste or usage in speaking and writing are herewith cited.
The repeated use of the personal pronoun I is offensive to people of refined tastes. And particularly displeasing is the sight of I at the beginning of all paragraphs in articles and letters. Expressing ideas in the third person achieves objectivity, compactness, and forcefulness, both in public address and on the printed page, that cannot usually be attained by the use of the first and second persons.
Some people think that refraining from slang is all that is necessary to produce good English. But not so. Cheap, trite, and hackneyed phraseology repels a cultured listener or reader fully as much. Expressions such as "watery grave," "like the leaves of autumn," "goodly number," and "ask an interest in your prayers," while good in themselves, have been so overworked that they have lost potency. It is refreshing to read an article or hear a sermon free from cliches and outworn phrases. The third angel's message deserves a new dress of diction, and it is gratifying to see a large number of Seventh-day Adventist workers making progress in that direction.
To present the same idei in the same words twice, for the sake of emphasis, is permissible, but to do so oftener frequently gives the impression that the speaker or writer has a paucity of ideas, as well as of vocabulary. The too-frequent employment of words such as "contact," "nice," "lovely," "splendid," should be shunned. And the term "effort" * as applied to a series of evangelistic meetings finds no sanction in Webster's Dictionary. According to that font of knowledge it implies an attempt, endeavor, trial, struggle, strain, labor, and toil. A religious assembly of many weeks' duration, conducted primarily for winning people to the faith, undoubtedly includes much labor and effort, but such nomenclature misses the essential meaning and therefore fails to carry the proper connotation. Some evangelists have suggested substituting the word "campaign," and it certainly would be more fitting, for Webster defines it as "a connected series of operations to bring about some desired result."
Some words in the English language, or in any other language for that matter, have certain connotations which make their use less desirable than would otherwise be the case, and that seems true, to some, of the term "matron" as applied to one who has charge of a dining hall. Although Webster's second definition of this word indicates one who has charge of the domestic economy of an institution, the root meaning is that of mother, one who has borne children, a staid, motherly woman. That some of our educational institutions, and particularly our colleges, do not subscribe to the term may be inferred from their resort to titles such as "director of cafeteria" and "director of boarding hall," which are more appropriate to designate young, unmarried women supervising the culinary departments of our institutions.
Because our secondary schools are called academies, the term "academic" is also frequently misused. Its original meaning pertained to classical or liberal studies as taught in Plato's academy in Athens, an institution following scholarly pursuits on college and graduate levels; and today the educational world understands the term "academic" as referring almost entirely to college, or scholarly, affairs. It is true that the early church-established secondary schools in the United States, particularly in the East, were known as academies, and some are to this day, but the accepted modern meaning of the term pertains to college and university attainments. The use of "secondary," "academy curriculum," or "academy studies" as applying to education, or courses of study, between the elementary and college level would, perhaps, be more appropriate.
Progress in denominational terminology has been made in the recent past. The substitution of the terms "dean of men" and "dean of women" for "preceptor" and "preceptress," and "Bible instructor" for "Bible worker" are examples of such growth. And when some other terms find proper alternatives, further advance will be recorded.
Another feature in which some writers and speakers offend is in employing too many adjectives. Such practice creates extravagant, sensational, and "purple" composition. Instead of provoking thought and meditation, it frequently produces laughter or disgust. On this subject Ellen G. White wrote, "Let no extravagant language be used."—Testimonies to 'Ministers, p. 210. And again, "I beseech you to weed out of your teachings every extravagant expression."—Id., p. 228. The best writers also refrain from using the forms of the verb "to be" too often. Not that one should never use "is" or "are," but their prevalence creates weak writing. On the other hand, transitive verbs, verbs with an object, produce strong, vibrant sentences.
Sentences should vary in kind and length. Simple sentences have their place, but the use of too many of them denotes juvenility. A well-arranged series of compound, complex, and simple sentences, periodic and loose—some beginning with phrases, others with clauses, and still others with the subject, some long and packed with meaning, and others short and to the point—adds variety and interest to any oral or written message.
Speakers and writers should also be exact in their use of titles for individuals. Good taste forbids that one use the title "professor" or "doctor" for those not entitled to them. On this point Webster's New International Dictionary, second edition, states: "The title 'professor' should be reserved for those who hold or have held professorial rank and not assigned to teachers indiscriminately."—Page 3014.
Since this is part of the accepted mores of good usage, it might be well for Seventh-day Adventists to desist calling all teachers and educational superintendents professors when they have not had that rank conferred upon them by a board of trustees of a college or a university. Educated and cultured teachers often cringe when they are addressed as professor, particularly in public, when they, as well as many in the audience, are only too well aware that the rank is a spurious one.
But something more needs to be said about those who deliberately call themselves professor or doctor when they have no right to either the rank or the title. Like the hypocrites whose lives deny godliness, yet whose clothing is that of the garments of church membership, those who disparage the achievements of professors and doctors of philosophy are frequently the first to parade themselves under the guise of these titles for the sake of greater public distinction. Such practice on the part of Seventh-day Adventist ministers is nothing short of reprehensible; it certainly flouts good taste and usage, and brings reproach upon the dignity and sanctity of the message they attempt to preach.
It is admittedly extremely difficult to acquire the mental discipline, the breadth of knowledge, and the scholarly procedure, apart from the program prescribed by high-ranking universities, for the doctor of philosophy degree; nonetheless, a worker in God's cause need not feel chagrined if he has not attained that degree. He need not, therefore, resort to deception to gain public acclaim and honor. The public will respect him without the degree, if he gives evidence of continuous organized study pertaining to all phases of his work. He should keep in mind that .God can use a John Bunyan as well as a John Milton; a Peter and a Matthew as well as a Paul.
To write for publication and to speak properly before an audience requires work of the hardest kind. But a determination to learn, combined with practice and the help of acceptable aids, will bring success. For the sake of the clarity, the accuracy, and the ease of speaking or writing which Mrs. White speaks of as desirable in all who preach and teach the message, everyone should have access to a standard dictionary, a thesaurus, and a handbook on composition whenever he writes an article for publication or prepares a sermon or other public address for delivery.
*The term "effort" has become accepted in denominational parlance, but it is not understood by non-Adventists,, and is perhaps not the most accurate expression. "Campaign" also has some unhappy implications. Who has a better term to suggest?—Editors.
