It’s Not A Church & The Subtleties Of Language
If you haven’t noticed I’ve been transitioning some of the language and terminology that I use. Well Eric finally called me on it last week, when he asked in the comments,
Is the reason that you use the phrase “an intentional community of people” instead of “church” because you associate a lot of baggage with the latter term, and you don’t want people to mistakenly assume you mean you’re thinking about joining a group that meets at a large brick building that generally has a big cross or steeple on it?
I’m probably just being a nerd and over thinking things as usual but here’s my 2 cents for why I’ve tweaked my language.
1) Eric is right on. There is a lot of baggage with certain terms. I believe that language is nothing more than metaphor and symbol. And behind every word is an image that is associated with it. Now I suppose I could be a big boy and just begin associating better images with certain words, but I think that robs of us the opportunity to ask larger questions. Plus, when I get in conversations with people who live disconnected (read non-Christians) from or are uninterested in the dreams of God for the world (read kingdom of God) I hate having to give 15,000 disclaimers about what my vision and values are for my life. This isn’t a cop out. It’s just I’m trying to be aware that when I say the word church that there are tons of people who would check out at that point. So I’m trying to use other words that are truer to what we are doing and want to do than a word that is as worn out as church.
2) When we start talking about playing a role in helping to create and shape a community of people, that is drastically different than your typical church. Let’s break it down.
Playing: Without being sacrilegious, I think church should be playful. And when we do decide to “start”, we will do our best not to take ourselves so seriously.
a role: A role. Not the role.
in helping to create and shape: We envision our role as that of a helper. Not the main force. Or even a catalyst-like force. Just some regular people who believe that the Spirit has gifted us to create and shape spaces conducive to realizing the way of Jesus. We will hopefully do this along with other people who are each helping one another as the Spirit helps us.
a community: A community is more like a family, not an organization.
of people: Too often people think of church as a gathering of Christians. Which is fine. You might even be able to convince me that the church is only for Christians when it gathers. But we envision a community where all kinds of people, at all different levels of relationship and awareness of God are able to feel comfortable and belong as family.
So that’s why I use phrases like playing a role in helping to create and shape a community of people. That says something drastically different to me than starting a church.
Plus I don’t think we start churches. But rather the church simply IS. When I’m hanging out with my friends watching LOST, there goes the church. When I’m having dinner with strangers, there goes the church. When I’m helping my neighbor move her car, there goes the church. The church IS whether or not it ever gathers under a roof.
So that’s also why I use words like a gathering, etc.
Anyway . . . any thoughts? Am I taking myself too seriously again?
Joe Kennedy also asked me a similar question in that same comment thread and I plan on answering his question tomorrow . . .
Over the last couple years I’ve read your complaints against the established church. I definitely feel ya on a lot of it. Anyway, since I’m going to be planting a church one of these days… what are some things you’d be drawn toward in a gathering of believers?
yea, this is one of the reasons I like the term “doing church” or thinking of church as a verb, not a subject.
well put. semantics are overlooked way too often…
I try to use the term church appropriately … it is difficult because of years of using it incorrectly. My son, however, calls that place where Christians meet the “church building.” I usually ask people where they fellowship or what fellowship they are a part of or something like that than “where do you go to church.”
I’m not that concerned with using the term “church” as long as it is in the right context. And sometimes keeping the word but helping correctly define it is more effective teaching than coming up with a whole new word and trying to get people to use that term. And sometimes language can be used to divide just as easily as anything else, so I’m careful not to use new terms and cause the very division I hope to avoid.
Peace.
I’m reading Pagan Christianity right now, and I’m really liking how they use the term ekklesia a lot when referring to a real church (people gathering as a community, building each other up, sharing with each other, loving each other) as opposed to just church, a term which is way to connected with the idea of an organization and a building to be of much good to us.
I’m all for changing the terminology. I’m on my way to thinking that it’s essential.
One thing, though, is that an ekklesia is not an ekklesia if it doesn’t gather together to fulfill the functions God has assigned to it. Gathering together regularly is most definitely essential. If it’s not intentional, it’s not an ekklesia.
Plus I don’t think we start churches. But rather the church simply IS. When I’m hanging out with my friends watching LOST, there goes the church. When I’m having dinner with strangers, there goes the church. When I’m helping my neighbor move her car, there goes the church. The church IS whether or not it ever gathers under a roof
I think Jesus would concur…”Where two or three are gathered together…” etc.
well said. i’m finding myself avoiding the word “church” these days simply because, by and large, it has become a glorified institution complicit with the status quo, which is very dangerous.
I’ve recently been using the word “church” as a gathering of others in “fellowship,” I’m working through a lot of the church baggage stuff right now too, so I have noticed it’s been an effort of mine to avoid using the word unless I’m making a point in my usage.
It is hard to make a change like that, and the baggage that goes along with terms like “church” can be entirely too much to handle sometimes. I think phrases such as “community of God” or similar ones could be extremely helpful.
In a theological sense, there is a lot of truth in changing from the word “church.” I just learned in the last year or so that the word “church” comes from another Greek word (kuriakon–”belonging to the Lord”)–not ekklesia. So, when the NT has the word “church,” it becomes a little strange, as the word is (all but twice) ekklesia.
With the meaning of “ekklesia,” I would have to agree with Derek, that for an ekklesia to be an ekklesia, it must at least gather for the purpose it was designed. Although, I think I could very much include God-glorifying fellowship as part of that.
Nice thoughts, though, Josh.
-Alan
good points everybody. i started thinking a lit bit more this afternoon about why i like community of god or fellowship or even family.
but specifically community of god. i think, for me at least, it conveys a carrying on of the past. when i say community of god, the image that comes to my mind (language is just a metaphor remember) is that of the old testament community of israel. that in many ways culturally and spiritually acted like a family. when i hear community of god, i immediately think of the nomadic, wandering israelites and the sense of family and fellowship that their wandering in the desert must have instilled in them. making them closer and stronger. i don’t know. just thought i’d add that.
On the subtleties of language…and the picture the title’s in. Hmmm…Lakewood Live covered by the title, “It’s not a church.”
I got the subtle message there, even if it was unintended.
haha. good point nate. i just typed in “megachurch” in google images and 5 of the 10 images were lakewood so i figured god must have written in stone in eternity past.
amen and amen
Only one piece of pushback Josh. I love that all of your writing has a sense of intentionality. I hear in your reflections that your attention to language is more than just a word game, but a deep desire to bring about the change necessary for the church to become a different kind of place. I wholeheartedly agree with that idea, and I am often drawn to those who find themselves outside the current invisible boundaries of professional church. My only pushback is this. Don’t discount the need to reform those who find themselves inside the circle as well. In other words, my encouragement would be that we don’t miss our calling to “redeem” the nature of church for those who find themselves inside and yet also captive to archaic definitions of the community of faith.
I appreciate the desire to speak language that more appropriately conveys our image of the community. Just don’t leave out the important task of reforming the current language in that process.
What I’ve done in my preaching/teaching (this is in the last year) is that I’ve stopped calling church something else and instead given my energy to inviting my congregation to reimagine what it means to be church in the first place.
david. you and derek make excellent points. my hang-up is less with the language and more with the actual image that it conveys. so when talking to someone who obviously has hang-ups with the idea of “church” as they have come to understand, i switch metaphors and use something feels more appropriate and at home. so it’s not throwing out all church or christian language. it’s just being slower to rush out our words and gives me a slight pause, long enough for me to find the right words that convey the meaning behind it.
to me the image or meaning behind the words are what is important. i want to convey that in my conversations.
i’m really interested to talk to my friend troy about this in a couple of weeks when he’s talking about reusing things from our tradition in the same way that many recycle now. which i think is an insightful thought. why just recycle and reuse in our consumptive worlds? why not also reuse and recycle what we can from our various traditions and histories.
here’s the synopsis of his talk that i think will be really interesting to say the least.
http://www.asustainablefaith.com/about/break-out-sessions/troy-bronsink.html
I agree - the language is a handicap. You have to be careful because assumptions are made based on the generally accepted definition of a word. It is very difficult to communicate the little nuances carefully - so someone understands the depth of what we mean.
I think you do an excellent job communicating - for the record.
thanks jewls.
Fantastic ideas. I like the way you go the step of describing why you use the terminology you do and creating bridges from the old to the new. A breath of fresh air.
Now just don’t start giving a lecture on “the dreams of God” in the middle of LOST, or you could get accused of taking yourself to seriously.
Not that object to discussing the dreams of God in the context of pop culture, of course
[...] On Thursday I said I would respond on Friday to the question that was asked of me, “What am I looking for in a church?” I got tied up on Friday doing some work and haven’t really been able to spend any time thinking and developing my thoughts. But while in the shower this morning I did spend some time thinking about another word that has been bothering me more and more. Fittingly enough (I say fittingly because I read the majority of Tony Jones’ book The New Christians while in the bath), I started thinking about this word because I was listening to Doug Pagitt’s podcast on church and preaching (from Scandinavia) while I was shaving. [...]
Josh, I’ve been travelling, so missed this until now. But I wanted to comment, because this is a topic I have pondered a bit.
I blogged a while ago about my experiences of growing up with (one of the more open-minded strands of) the Christian Brethren. The approach of those men and women (but mostly men, I have to admit) is so resonant with the current conversation.
Brethren, for example, didn’t talk of meeting as a church, but as an “assembly” or simply a “meeting”. They didn’t hold services, but meetings, or gatherings; those meetings typically had no set structure, and so on.
All this *does* help to avoid making category mistakes (church universal vs church local vs church building vs church as verb).
But after 150 years of using words in this alternative way, (a) most have given up, and gone back to using the same words as the rest of the Christian sub-culture; (b) even when the more careful choice of words has stuck (among the more conservative Meetings) they have just become substitutes for the words that folks were trying to avoid (hence why I capitalized Meetings; yes I have been asked “Are your parents in the Meeting?” to mean … do they belong to the (Brethren) church.
My point: yes, language matters hugely. But changing it does not necessarily mean changing hearts and minds, even if it gives that impression. Language changes, ebbs and flows, we intervene at our peril sometimes. But sometimes we ought to try