Words have meaning. Labels are powerful. Names matter. The language we use is important. We should not take it lightly.
Language and origins of language are power laden. If we do not consider the leverage language gives one person or or how it can work to de-power another, we are prone to either abusing or being abused. When we do not consider how power flows through what we do, then we will miss what is actually going on.
Consider this conversation (post and comments) as an example. It is a conversation about the name “church of Christ.” This conversation has hints of emergence in it as well as old-line power dynamics – with the Bible as its tool.
The hint of emergence is that the “true” church does not have to be a collection of like-minded, religious people who have a building where they gather regularly with the name “church of Christ” on it. The blogger states the following:
Must that great church that Christ established bear the name “church of Christ?” No, I do not believe it must. Now in some circles, that last statement would have branded me a heretic.
What is so striking about the risk this blogger is taking with the name of the church is that such minutia is so controversial. And yet, we must consider the power game behind the name of the church. The right name, the most Biblical name, is understood as an indicator of the most correct. Being the most correct means being the most faithful. Being the most faithful means being closest to God. Being right means winning a guaranteed spot in Heaven. And the naming of the church is part of that nearness to God.
So, having the right name is essential. Without it, there is the risk of disobedience, the risk of sin.
Yes, this church of Christ blogger who does not require the church he attends to have the name “church of Christ” on the sign (even though he prefers it) is taking a big risk. He is also showing, though it is itsy bitsy teeny tiny, a sign of emergence.
It also shows what compost emergents within churches of Christ must emerge through in order to emerge.
Tags: church of christ, emergence, Emergent, emergent church of christ, emerging church, restoration movement
June 4, 2008 at 2:16 am
I’m not taking any more a risk than Paul himself did. He only referred to the church as “churches of Christ” once in Romans 16:16. Other names include church of God, church of the firstborn, the Way, the church, and others. I’m not baptized into any name, I’m baptized into Christ.
June 4, 2008 at 4:06 am
Braden, welcome to the conversation.
June 4, 2008 at 6:10 am
I can’t tell if your serious or if your tongue is firmly planted into the side of your cheek.
Can you help me tell which?
June 4, 2008 at 12:35 pm
californiajason, thanks for asking and not assuming. I am not being sarcastic in this post. I was trying to affirm even the smallest of changes within the larger context of churches of Christ.
Is the church name conversation revolutionary? Not really. But is it revolutionary for someone who lives in a context in which they risk being tagged a heretic? Yes it is.
Similar to your women’s roles conversation. In many cricle this such an old conversation, but in churches of Christ, it is cutting edge and considered dangerous by many. Churches of Christ place themseves at great risk with the way the treat women – which is much more restrictive than even th Bible shows, the bible which was done being written 2000 year ago.
What I want to do is to show emergence in the context of churches of Christ or Restoration churches.
Again, thanks for asking.