Some anniversaries slip past us without recognition, and yet one such forgotten recipient continues to smile regardless. The first emoticon, perhaps better known in the realm of online discourse as the smiley face, has been smiling for more than 30 years. Its creator, Carnegie Mellon University professor Scott Fahlman, suggested the symbol in 1982 in an online discussion about the limits of online humor. “I propose the following character sequence for joke markers: :-),” he wrote. “Read it sideways.”(1)

The rest is history. Fahlman’s smileys spread from his classroom to other classrooms, from universities to the corporate world, and eventually around the world. The emoticon aided what online communicators were all too aware was ailing. In the world of instantaneous communication, miscommunicating is sometimes more probable than communicating. Humor, sarcasm, and general human warmth can easily be sacrificed in this subculture of speed and technology. Words merely given in brief can be misperceived as terse or loaded. Comments meant to be taken lightly can be missed altogether. Many would argue that the invention of the emoticon has helped, though it certainly has not eradicated every obstacle.

Nonetheless, the quick embrace and subsequent explosion of emoticons suggests at least a subtle awareness that in the breakdown of language something human is in fact lost. High school and college professors readily lament the frequency with which “chat” language is creeping further into academic writing. Their greatest concern is that many students don’t even realize there is a difference. While it can be argued that email encourages a certain sloppiness in communicating, text messaging has forged the creation of an entirely new language—a language created with regard first for the technology as opposed to the speakers or the conversation itself.

In a publication on the topic of language, Ken Myers of Mars Hill Audio made the observation that words and language both shape and affect our humanity. He then added, “The corollary of this claim is the observation that cultural institutions and habits that corrupt or weaken our use of language are profoundly dehumanizing.”(2) When words are ransacked of meaning and replaced with concepts less distinct, we ourselves become something less distinct. Though technology is far from the only culprit, wherever the offense is committed, consequences are costly. In fact, it is said that one of the first steps to slavery is a loss of language.

Continue reading Ravi Zacharias Ministry – Words, Language, and Humanity →

All of us, at one time or another, have experienced the strange physiological reaction of zygomatic stimulation and subsequent larynx strain. This strain upsets the respiratory system, which results in deep, noisy gasps. The mouth opens and closes as the lungs struggle for oxygen. The struggle for oxygen causes the face to turn various shades of red and strange, unique noises emerge from deep within. What is this strange, physiological reaction I am describing? It is laughter!

We normally associate laughter with humor. But gelotology, the study of laughter, suggests another trigger for laughter that has been called ‘the incongruity theory.’ This theory suggests that laughter arises when logic and familiarity are replaced by things that don’t normally go together—when we expect one outcome and another happens. Generally speaking, our minds and bodies anticipate what’s going to happen and how it’s going to end based on logical thought, emotion, and our past experience. But when circumstances go in unexpected directions, our thoughts and emotions suddenly have to switch gears and laughter often emerges out of the tension between what we expect—and what actually happens.

Recently, I was struck by how the incongruity theory of laughter may shed light on the nature of faith, particularly as it relates to Sarah and her laughter at God’s promise of children in Genesis 18:11-15. In general, the account of her laughter at God’s promise that she would indeed bear a child is read as a lack of faith. Yet, the writer of the letter to the Hebrews counts Sarah among the faithful. Sarah, we’re told by the author, is one of the faithful witnesses because she “received the ability to conceive by faith, even beyond the proper time of life since she considered God faithful who had promised” (Hebrews 11:11).

It is not difficult to understand why many see a lack of faith as they read this story. For many have difficulty believing that faith can be found in the gap between what we expect and what actually happens. Or perhaps it is assumed that faith never doubts, nor questions, nor struggles with the seeming incongruities of life. Sadly, some cannot conceive of a faith that laughs!

But even if Sarah’s laughter indicates a level of disbelief who could blame her for being incredulous? Who wouldn’t laugh at the promise of a child to someone barren and long beyond the childbearing years? This is where the incongruity theory of laughter is so helpful. For Sarah’s laughter contains a glimmer of faith; faith that is really found in incongruity—holding together belief and disbelief in the face of incongruent circumstances and situations.

Continue reading Ravi Zacharias Ministry – Faith and Incongruity →