Sine Qua Non
“Without which, not”
It’s a convenient handle to talk about that thing that makes something what it is, and if it is lacking, the thing is not that thing. The sine qua non of being a husband is having a wife (ok, for the sake of the example, can you just give me this one? I know that the gay marriage questions is tweaking this, but lemme just roll with what I got). Our correct intuition is that calling someone a husband entails much more than that simple, thin definition, but we should at least say that if someone does not have a wife, he is not a husband. It is the sine qua non of being a husband.
Here’s why this matters; a major thrust of Evangelicalism has been the push toward a sine qua non of the word Christian. What is the essential component that, if it is lacking, makes an essential difference in whether or not someone is a Christian? Essentially, what is the “thin” definition of Christian. A major thrust of the emerging church movement seems to be headed in the other direction, not in reducing to a thin definition, but expanding to a thick definition of what it means to be a Christ follower.
Sine qua non can wreak havoc on our understanding of evangelism and discipleship. If we’re too focused in on the thin definition of Christian, we can get stuck trying to litmus test everyone to tell if they’re in or out. If they’re in, our job with them is done (who needs discipleship? They’re already in!). If they’re out, they become reduced to a potential conversion, and our interaction with them becomes a one-directional blast we ironically call “witnessing”. This kind of interaction quickly becomes vacuous; it neither fosters relationship, nor is it very effective at its goal. I don’t think anyone would say that this is a healthy understanding of evangelism or discipleship.
(coming next: the value of thick meanings)
0 Responses to “Sine qua non, pt. 1”
Leave a Reply