Comments on: A Visitor’s Perspective: Watch your Language!

By: James M.

James M. — Tue, 25 Oct 2011 23:20:51 +0000

I have known our Lord Jesus for over thirty years and I am so glad of that.
I also am soooo glad that I have a dictionary on my computer. Let’s give newcomers to the faith a break and speak the language we speak in our everyday lives, that is if we want them to stay.
Amen…..let’s hear it, I said Amen.

By: Megan

Megan — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 10:37:29 +0000

I can share from the experience of our church. My pastor has purposely set the direction of our church NOT to be traditionally “seeker-driven” in the sense that David means. We don’t simplify the language of the Bible (though we do use the NIV translation, and not the KJV), and our service is explicitly geared toward equipping believers and calling to those who are hungry for the Lord. We are an eleven-year-old church (as of this last weekend) and have about a thousand regular members. We’ve had hundreds of people commit their lives to Christ this year. The Lord is really working in our midst. I think it’s a good indicator that if the Spirit of God is present, that will speak to hearts and draw those who are hungry — even if there are some things they don’t understand.
If you look at Jesus’ teachings, he sure didn’t speak plainly most of the time. Many of the things he said and taught left his disciples scratching their heads and asking each other questions about what on earth he meant. But they stuck around, because they saw the power of God at work in and through him. They knew that, even if they didn’t understand it all right now, Jesus had the words of life. Do we?
I’m in complete agreement that we need to ensure we’re not putting unnecessary stumbling blocks in the way of those who are genuinely seeking. But I also think that if our vocabulary is our primary strategy in attracting the world to Christ, we’re missing something. They ought to be coming because they see the power of God displayed and the Spirit of God at work in his people. That will keep them around through the inevitable misunderstandings that will come up as they seek to understand a God who confounds and transcends the wisdom of the world.

By: David

David — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 10:57:05 +0000

The question about whether the worship service is for believers or not is perhaps the most important one. I don’t remember if I make this comment in a future article or not (they’ve already been written- sorry to spill the beans, Kevin) but I like to make a distinction between “seeker-sensitive” and “seeker-driven.”
Because we want non-believers coming to our church and seeing what we see about Jesus, we should always be “seeker-senstive” and avoid “verbose nomenclature” that only seeks to create an us-them diachotomy.
On the other hand I don’t think we should be letting the seekers drive what we are doing in our worship service. Inheritly there is something they will never “get” about our worship because they don’t believe (didn’t Augustine say “believing leads to seeing”?). The best example of this is worship itself- something entirely useless and a waste of time to an un-believer no matter how we explain it or how sensitive we might be to them.

By: onesam

onesam — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 02:08:19 +0000

There are a lot of words that even regular attenders don’t understand. A few weeks ago a guy visited our church and asked a mate of mine what “Zion” was. It had appeared in a song we had sung. My friend didn’t know and turned to me, and I have to confess I didn’t know how to explain it in the context of the song we had sung. And it was probably a song we had sung a hundred times before.
Communion is always an interesting time. Drinking the blood of Jesus and eating his flesh? How well do we explain that when we share this sacrament. What’s a sacrament anyway?
Another friend who visited my church, which I consider to be quite an accessible and relevant church, said it was like we were speaking a foreign language. Which was the point of this article. But I was particularly concerned as this was a guy who had been to church for most of his adult life and had stopped going a few years ago…

By: Jason McCoy

Jason McCoy — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 06:26:02 +0000

That was an interesting question Tim…one that folks involved with church run into a lot! (This, of course, gets into the debate of who is the worship service for — the believer or the unbeliever?)
But what if it isn’t about either? What if the service is about Jesus instead of about us? (I don’t mean FOR him, in the sense that we don’t have anything he needs…but targeted toward Him instead of toward us)
I don’t mean that in a smarmy way…and I am sincerely asking the question, as opposed to criticizing your post. So, all that to say, this is something I wrestle with persoanlly.
Is it possible that our services aren’t supposed to be for us? For example- when someone says “This church isn’t feeding me”…isn’t that kind of preposterous? Shouldn’t we be figuring out how to feed ourselves? I don’t think this negates the language usage question- or of having to think about how to be inclusive…but is it perhaps a setup to assume that the focus is either insider or outsider in terms of the purpose of our gatherings?

By: Tim Wall

Tim Wall — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 12:51:05 +0000

It’s a valid point, but with limitations, I think. Sure we need to keep terms familiar in general, but I think we should also not be afraid to teach truth, even though it might be unfamiliar.
Some might take the point to mean steering away from complex and difficult passages of scripture or study because it might seems “unfamiliar” to the guest. Or, possibly using songs in worship with dumbed down words instead of words from scripture … etc. I think that would be taking the point too far.
This, of course, gets into the debate of who is the worship service for — the believer or the unbeliever?

By: geoffreybrown

geoffreybrown — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 10:27:43 +0000

Pastor Chris must be talking to Episcopalians! I have to admit that we are the most notorious coiners of “our club” words:
Thurifer
Vestry
Aumbrey
Sacristy
Verger
Undercroft
…and these are just a few of them! (Interestingly, these all have plain English definitions and in most cases synonyms — but they just aren’t used in church!)

By: Pastor Chris

Pastor Chris — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 04:56:29 +0000

What's a narthex? What's a sexton? This week, I was asked "What's an evangelist?" and even "What's a pastor?" Pastor Chris EvangelismCoach.org

By: Jason McCoy

Jason McCoy — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 19:53:56 +0000

Revolution- you are correct!!
We work a lot too on getting rid of insider language…but you know, what Geoffrey said is also true. There are times we do equally alienating things in the effort to connect.
One time, I visited a church (for the first…and ONLY time) and went to the bathroom. A guy came in and started talking to me (man, he already broke the rules- “no talking in the bathroom”…so it can only get better right? RIGHT?)
And he says- “you ever wonder what 200 pounds of wet leather feels like on ya?” And while I said no, he awkwardly tried to explain that he was baptized in his leather motorcycle gear recently. Which is great and all, but I left. He didn’t even say hey…or hey, my name is, or hey have I seen you here before? It was right outta the gate with the “wet leather” talk.
I didn’t know WHAT was coming next and I wasn’t sticking around to find out.
WET LEATHER!
So I guess now I wonder what version of the wet leather line I have done to people??? Oh the shame…

By: revolutionfl

revolutionfl — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 17:59:08 +0000

i heard Darrin Patrick say this today on a podcast, "Churches that use "us and them" language usually do not have any of "them" in attendance. REVOLUTION