In the Land of Broken Words
A few months ago, I wrote a song called "In the land of broken toys", reminiscent of the rejects portrayed in the claymation film "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer".
A land of broken toys is a very plausible fiction for anyone who knows more than a few children personally. Children break toys. It's a fact. Maybe it's because they get so excited whenever they have a new one that they can't control their energy. Maybe it's because they lack the necessary motor skills and sense of caution and consequence. Maybe it's just because they're, well... immature.
I believe that same immaturity lurks in the halls of the Big House of Evangelism, creating a Land of Broken Words. Because I know I'm not the only one who's noticed the velocity with which words are coined and discarded in an evangelical sub-culture obsessed with progress and results.
Perhaps some of these broken words are, in fact, better off broken. But others are perfectly suited to their purposes, and get broken because of carelessness... too much use, too loudly, with too little love.
I myself have been criticized for replacing "Christian" with "Christ-follower" among other things. Sometimes I make the swap with a hint of sadness... in the above case knowing that the former word implies the state of being "in Christ", unlike the latter. But I received the word already badly beaten, nearly beyond repair. Hopefully it will make a strong comeback one day, but I've always been more of an inventor than a mechanic.
And there is literally no end to the types of words that have fallen victim to this fate. But I'm going to focus here on the words that refer to people who have not surrendered their lives to Jesus, for the purpose of entering into an ongoing relationship to him. I'll be diggin up a pretty wide array, so here we go:
"HEATHEN"
Scripture Context: I Thessalonians 4:5 - a dirty sinner with animal instincts
Modern Connotation: pure insult - "Us vs. Them"
Status: Dead or Antiquated
"LOST"
Scripture Context: Luke 15:6 - Jesus seeking out his lost sheep (who are apparently clueless)
Modern Connotation: Parental concern that borders on pity - belittling & patronizing
Status: Musty but still Common
"UNSAVED"
Scripture Context: All throughout NT - Those not (yet) rescued from danger/damnation
Modern Connotation: Negative, "Haves vs. Have-Nots"
Status: Common
"PRE-CHRISTIAN"
Scripture Context: Possibly 2 Peter 3:9, though we have no reason to believe that every Non-Christian is a "Pre-Christian".
Modern Connotation: Snarky, Presumptuous
Status: Contemporary, but Limited
"UNCHURCHED"
Scripture Context: Not sure if there is any (further explanation below)
Modern Connotation: Unrefined, Unpropagandized (further explanation below)
Status: Common and Gaining
There are a lot more I could hit, but this last one, "unchurched" is what I want to focus on. And as I do, keep in mind that I am mostly speaking on behalf of a post-modern generation, and not attempting serious journalism, so my perspective will be limited, yet I think crucial as well.
Post-modern culture tends to view the Church, and Christianity much the way it views any other large institution. Chock-full of self-serving agendas and schemes to brainwash entire generations into unquestioning submission. In post-modern eyes, a large corporation has achieved its goal when every last individual is walking around as if in a trance reminiscent of Dustin Hoffman's character from Rain Man: "Gotta go to K-Mart. Gotta go to K-Mart."
It has also not escaped their notice they way Missions has been conducted over the last several centuries... where it is just as important to westernize a populace as to evangelize it. They (we?) are convinced, and perhaps with good reason, that the Church is out to destroy all cultures but its own... that a modern Missions Director takes more queues from Alexander the Great than from Paul the Apostle.
Thus, to become "churched" is to become forcibly assimilated, to lose touch with one's own willpower and surrender to the Borg, since resistance is, indeed, futile. It is to fall victim to pervasive propaganda and slick marketing... to sell out.
Many Christians already hold this view toward mega-churches. The larger the church, the more resources available for marketing, and the more people will be accused of selling out when they finally break down and join "Six Flags over Jesus". This is not to be critical... but we close our eyes to the prevailing attitudes. And those belonging to small or medium churches should understand that the way they feel about the Great Conglomeration Congregation out on the highway is the way many people feel about the Church as a whole.
And we have to be aware of that when we use words like "Unchurched". We can't be surprised when people see it as adversarial... like the trash talk on the court that soundly predicts the fate of one's opponent.
But it's not just the talk. I believe that in many cases the mentality is consistent with the connotation. Evangelism-minded Christians often believe that they are in possession of a culture that should be spread like hellenism to the entire known world. So if this what the world hears us saying, perhaps it is not disingenuous at all. Perhaps we truly are communicating accurately with such a word.
And that's even worse. It's no real trouble to deport another sorry ex-patriot to the Land of Broken Words. To turn an attitude around is another thing entirely.
So ask yourself: "Am I more concerned about a population that is unchurched, or one that is unloved?" Did Jesus call me to go about "churching" people, or loving them? Because when you love a person like Jesus does, you're going to tell them the truth, even if it's hard. You're just far less likely to communicate it with a fake million-dollar bill.
One more thing: in addition to being concerned about those who are unloved, we need to take note of the undiscipled. For if there are two Jesus mandates that cannot be disputed, they are: to love people, and to disciple them. And often, the quest for the undiscipled can be conducted within the walls of the church, because sadly, it's like shooting fish in a bucket to find those still subsisting on the milk of the Word, having never cut their teeth on its meat.
I will wrap this up by recognizing that I am still hung up on these negative words that many people have tried to get away from. The fact is that the terms "unloved" and "undiscipled", however big an improvement they may be, are still not fit for public consumption. Believe me... I have tried and tried to find words that are.
But there are so many great words from the past that have been discarded due merely to becoming misused or worn out. Is it time to take a trip to the junkyard for some salvage work? Maybe it is.
So who's got a crowbar?
Posted at 1:14 PM
View 12 comments made so far
Add a comment
Links to this post
12 Comments:
Hey bro,
Very thought-provoking and heart-churning post. I'm currently in a Christian Mission course, and we are dealing with these very issues, critically. Some thoughts worth contributing, I think...
a) With regard to the terminology in general, I'm pretty confident that we will labor in futility to try and find a word which communicates a person's position who is "outside of Christ" and/or the consequences of that state of being, without offending to some degree the people to whom it refers. And maybe that's your point, that we ought not use any such vocabulary. If that is your point, then I'll gladly take that up for discussion with you once you clarify.
b) With regard to the perceptions of skeptics of Christianity in general and the Church in particular, I think you're dead on that those perceptions exist. I'm not going to attempt to build a case for her complete innocence (probably because one can't be made), but I will vouch that she has been uncritically (undiscerningly) judged. Certainly there are those individuals of significant influence who become control freaks that stop trusting God for results and try to systematize everything and everyone. But to levy the charge that even a small percentage of churches and their pastors are seeking out self-serving agendas is presumptuous and overly harsh, not to mention disobedient to God's command to build up His bride and not tear her down. To critique them for stifling the spirit may be legitimate, but again, it ought to be done with grace and without presumption and overstatement.
c) The whole notion of cultural imperialism is one that has been grossly misunderstood as it has been widely misconstrued. This is where understanding history is vital. When we are naive of the socio-cultural context of past events, we badly misjudge motives. When one studies both the history of mission and even some of the major contemporary issues of mission, one sees that a whole host of obstacles stand in the way of effectively bringing good news to "the people living in darkness", as Isaiah describes them. One of the obvious barriers is spoken and/or written language. But other barriers present equal challenges.
For instance, when evangelizing the 'two-thirds world', one is faced with the reality of unimaginable destitution and is compelled out of love to help these people. That leaves two options: (1) wait on the impoverished people hand and foot, day and night, year after year, providing them with all of their needs (which would be financially possible considering the tremendous wealth of the West), thus making them utterly dependent upon us; or (2) train the impoverished to implement self-sustaining initiatives, while providing them the necessary resources on an as-needed basis to gain and maintain momentum. The consensus is virtually unanimous that the second option is the most empowering.
Now stand back for a moment and ask yourself what is happening here. We westerners are sacrificially going to serve these people and help them--out of compassion--ideally toward a long-term solution that will benefit not only them, but their descendants. But wait... isn't this imperialism? It is! You see, we are unarguably saying to these people, "You have been unable to help yourselves via your own ideas, initiative, and resources, so we're here to help. Now here's how to improve things." And we help them put these initiatives into place. This is imperialism 101. But it is not self-seeking, not by a long shot. Somewhat culturally self-propagating, yes. But not for any selfish reasons whatsoever.
So we need to be quite a bit more nuanced when we address issues of imperialism. The Left, who ironically are supposedly (at least rhetorically) staunch advocates of socio-economic empowerment, are the ones who criticize evangelicals most ferociously when it comes to so-called imperialism. So it's a lose-lose with reference to them. But we ought not let ourselves be so burdened with what they're saying. Let's try to ignore them and continue to demonstrate by our good works of love for others that we are God's children for the glory of his name and the benefit of the world.
I have to admit, beloved, that's the first I've heard anyone put the concept of imperialism in that light. You have done well to "nuance" the issue. You would also do well to look for such nuances in many other issues where things, as of yet, seem very black-and-white to you. I think you can identify them yourself.
For the record, I'm not really accusing the Church, so much as I am trying to make the Church aware of the prevailing reactions to their ministry and rhetoric. I say so specifically when talking about mega-churches.
Although I understand what you're saying about the "left" I think you're wrong to suggest ignoring them. Part of understanding the nuances of the issues is making suer you don't ignore anyone's opinion. Perhaps some people's arguments will have to be "looked through" in order to see where their heart is really at, but it is counter-productive to ignore anyone.
Besides... what I was most concerned about with this post is not the anti-Christian naysayers, but rather the emotional affect our words have on those whom we're trying to reach. That, plus the fact that I believe many of us are guilty of trying to push our own culture in with the package of the gospel. I recognize that, to some degree, it's impossible not to, but we've got to do better in trying to understand, and speak, the cultural languages of those with whom we wish to communicate.
I guess ignore was a strong word. I meant it as "look past" or "don't get hung up over". We can spend endless amounts of energy defending ourselves against antagonists or we can move along and do the work God has called us to do, ministering to those who recognize first-hand what our ministry is all about. That was what I was trying to get at.
And I'm 100% with you about the cultural sensitivity thing. You know as well as anyone how important empathy and contextualization is to me.
As far as hurting people's feelings, I'm about 99% certain that one cannot be forgiven and redeemed by Christ without first 'getting their feelings hurt'. If you don't recognize, first, that you're hopeless with out Christ, and second, the reason why you're hopeless (that is, because of your rebellion against/disobedience to God), then you cannot be saved, born again, regenerated--whatever you want to call it. You can't come to know God with your ego in tact. And there are only two ways for that ego--that thing that most fundamentally comes between a person and God--to be ultimately confronted: 1) by Scripture itself, or 2) by an evangelist (i.e. you or I, should we be obedient to speak the truth in love as the Spirit compels us). And lest we think that our role is simply to be nice enough to people that they will perhaps decide to pick up a copy of the Bible and read it for themselves, we need to actually study what the New Testament teaches about evangelism, namely, that it's the job of messengers.
Certainly there are more culturally sensitive ways of telling someone they are dead in their sin and on the fast path to hell than calling them damned heathens (I shudder at the thought of speaking to someone in those terms!). But one way or another, if we love them, we will make it clear to them that the Bible calls them "lost", "condemned", "without hope", "enemies of God", "perishing", "dead in their sins", etc. They've got to understand the magnitude of their sin before they can ever bow before the cross in the broken humility that is prerequisite to salvation. The way you're talking, it sounds as if you doubt this. Please do clarify.
Again, I'm not saying you drop this on someone the first time you meet them, nor am I saying that our friendship toward them is contingent upon whether they surrender to Christ or even whether they are likely to. But I am saying that the Gospel message is woefully incomplete apart from proclaiming the reality of sin and its consequences. And a church that does not proclaim the full gospel is no church at all.
You're right about not coming to Christ with your ego intact. Feelings must be hurt.
But I also believe that no one ever truly surrendered his life to Christ after being made to feel 1) stupid, 2) patronized, 3) rejected, 4) belittled, or 5) inferior.
When we are called to speak the truth in love, we must remember that love speaks the hard truths, but in a way that leads people to conviction and heartache, not the 5 things above. If his heart is hard, he may avoid conviction, and react with anger, sarcasm or indifference, and often will misconstrue words of love for words of hate. But I think that, more often than not, we can communicate effectively, while steering clear of results 1-5.
That is the balance we called to attempt. Ultimately our responsibility is love. (Remember... tongues of men and angels, but without love...) Love will do its best to achieve that balance, but in the end we cannot be responsible for the way people receive us. I will certainly grant you that.
Oh, totally... the comparison game is awful. The last thing we want is to come across as condescending. If we can't preach the Gospel in a way that communicates our heart of servanthood, proving to people that it truly is a message of love, then we've distorted the Gospel and put a barrier between them and Christ. Amen to that. But I think we (critics of modernistic evangelism) confuse fervency with condescension at times and throw the baby out with the bath water. It's entirely untrue that people in Western culture on the whole perceive zeal as condescension by default. I could tack 10 qualifiers on there if I needed to, but I'm pretty sure we're on the same wavelength, so I'll spare you the verbosity. ;-)
For what it's worth, I've come across a great term that may very well fill the void. It comes from Earl Creps in his book, Off Road-Disciplines.
He likes to speak of the lost as 'sought.' Without getting to deep theologically, I think Creps inclination is right.
His main impetus is to put the focus back on God as the 'seeker' and the lost are His 'sought.'
I love this discussion. I've always wondered how better to talk about those who aren't Christ-followers yet in the context of corporate worship, when they very well could be in that setting. When we talk about evangelism and throw out these terms, it puts an us vs. them taint on the conversation.
My 2 cents...
Dude, my pastor preached an incredible sermon on this subject this morning, from Luke 15. Of the nine times the term "lost" is used to describe people who have not found Christ, five of them are in Luke 15. One cannot read these parables without getting the overwhelmingly clear picture of God's yearning for lost people to be found in Him. Just thinking about the story of the 99 found and the 1 lost brings me to tears. If you are reading this and you have not found Jesus as God, as the Lord of your life and the Savior of your eternal soul, ponder this for a moment. God and all the angels and saints in heaven celebrate extravagantly over ONE lost person who turns to Christ more than 99 'righteous' people. If you've never read the story, I encourage you to do so, thoughtfully and with openness to the fact that God really does love you more than the imaginations of all the minds in the world combined can comprehend.
That's so true, beloved.
Far be it from me to criticize the usage of the word "lost" since it is what Jesus uses.
But it's obvious that Jesus chose his words very carefully to communicate with the generation he lived in, and rather than modeling Jesus by using his methods and his words (Aramaic, anyone?) we should model his approach... his commitment to meeting people where they're at. This is not an argument... I don't think anyone involved in this conversation so far has been in disagreement on this point at all.
brad- I've read Creps' book, and I actually forgot about the word "sought". Now that I remember it, I recall not being that impressed at first. But as I think about it now, it just really seems perfect. It would just take a while for people to start understanding that that's what you mean when you use it. So perhaps we should get started. ;-)
I guess the problem I'm left with is that you can't communicate the gospel without being crystal clear that those without Christ are "condemned already" and on the wide road to hell, until they repent, confess Christ, and surrender to His lordship. How do you communicate the gravity of this while still trying to keep from ruffling people's feathers? You can certainly keep from being a blatant jerk and using terms like "heathen" which carry unbiblical and demeaning connotations. It seems that you're having a difficult time distinguishing between words that carry demeaning connotations and words that are not demeaning but nevertheless offend people's pride. What's your criteria for deciding what word to use? Is it to be so "nice" that people don't get their feelings hurt? I'm honestly curious how you can be true to the full gospel and do that.
Based on what you say, I can't argue with the word "lost".
The main reason I am stepping so lightly on this issue is the frequency with which we refer to "the lost" in third person when, many times, they are right there to hear it. Sermons, blogs, books, whatever.
When we talk TO them, we should communicate the gravity of the situation. But you should always be extra careful how you refer to someone when you are talking ABOUT them, instead of TO them.
A case in point: Back when I was selling musical instruments, if a friend of mine came in, I'd say, "Hey dude, what's up?" When talking to him, I would feel comfortable calling him "dude" or "bro" or "buddy". But if he tells me that he needs his guitar fixed, and I take him into the repair shop to help him communicate his problem to the technician, in the interest of professionalism I will say, "This gentleman needs his guitar re-fretted." When talking ABOUT people, we must always use more courtesy and caution then when we are talking TO them.
Does that make sense?
Compelling anecdote and thought-provoking distinction at the end. I'll have to take some time to think about that.
Off the top of my head, I was thinking rather that you wouldn't say to someone face-to-face "You're lost" but rather "The Bible says that people who have not been born-again through faith in Jesus Christ are lost".
I think sermons are a whole different ballgame in and of themselves. But as a general rule, people respond to the Gospel in astronomically larger numbers when it is proclaimed boldly and bluntly, such as is the case with someone like Driscoll or my pastor, James MacDonald. People come to Christ by the hundreds in my church, and 40% of the Mars Hill, Seattle congregation are new converts. When we look at the famous "Mars Hill" passage in Acts, where Paul preached Christ as "the unknown God which you worship", the shocking fact to those of us who think contextually is that this message resulted in a minute number of conversions, whereas when he proclaimed the Gospel boldly without appeal to the philosophies of mankind, people received Christ by the thousands. This is a startling truth that I only recently discovered, and honestly, it confounds me. But perhaps that's God's intention, that the "foolishness" of God would confound the "wisdom" of mankind.
Very thoughtful discussion, bro. Stay sharp. ;-)
Hey man. Just found your blog through blog rush. Good stuff here! I'll look forward to stopping by here often.
Feel free to come pay me a visit at www.awaitingrain.typepad.com
Blessings!
bill
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home