Her premise was this: “With new technologies, the way that we write and read (and search and data-mine) is changing, and so must spelling.”
In what is a truly fascinating (and short) read, Trubek points out, in her words, that “the notion that words can and should be spelled only one way is a fairly recent invention.” (You can read the article here.) She builds a pretty compelling case for embracing new spelling conventions. An excerpt:
“The most widely used American word in the world, OK, was invented during the age of the telegraph because it was concise. No one considers it, or abbreviations like ASAP and IOU, a sign of corruption. More recent textisms signal a similarly creative, bottom-up play with language: “won” becomes “1,” “later” becomes “l8r.” After all, new technology creates new inertia for change: The apostrophe requires an additional step on an iPhone, so we send text messages using “your” (or “UR”) instead of “you’re.” And it doesn’t matter—the messagee will still understand our message.”
Trubek points out that as new methods of communication continue to arise and rapidly develop, so must our standards of communicating. She closes the article with this:
“But the distinction between the oral and the written is only going to become more blurry, and the future isn’t autocorrect, it’s Siri. We need a new set of tools that recognize more variations instead of rigidly enforcing outdated dogma. Let’s make our own rules. It’s not like the English language has many good ones anyway.”
I’m a professional writer. An English major. An editor. I love the written word. This article rocked my world. And the jump to how we do discipleship was pretty easy for me to make.
So, it’s a very simple question:
What outdated discipleship approaches, structures, and methodology are you holding on to simply because they seem set in stone?
How might a more fluid approach to HOW you do discipleship actually make your discipleship more effective?