Recently on twitter I read a tweet that said "you can't have a meaningful relationship with God without being relationally connected to a local church".
Now, to be clear, I agree 10 billion percent that to have a strong, growing, maturing, fostered relationship with God, you and I both need to be under the teaching and in the fellowship of a local church. No question about it, and no argument against it ever holds water. Ever.
However, as I read this tweet my eyes and my brain focused on 1 word.
"relationally"
Over and over I read that and thought "what in the world does that mean, "relationally"? I know this probably sounds just silly but I actually looked the word up. It means exactly what you'd think it would mean. It's an adverb that means "relating to" or having kinship or commonality with.
So, maybe it's just me but this seems like a horribly redundant thing to say since any Christian connected to a local church is already in kinship with and having commonality with the other members: that kinship being Christ as Lord. I can't imagine why else you'd be there if you had nothing in common with the other folks there. But maybe I'm totally wrong here and "relationally connected" means something different, better or deeper than just "connected". Is it possible that I'm not relationally connected myself and so I'm on the outside looking in to this kind of connectedness? I'm pretty sure I'm about as connected as I possibly can be to my local church, since I am in 100% agreement with the pastor and other members on our statement of faith, principles for godly living, godly parenting, service to the local church and community, etc.
I just have to wonder why people say things like this. In my own extremely subjective and limited experience, it seems this kind of language is fairly new among Christians, having first shown up among the wacky post-modernists calling themselves Christians and the extremist oddball emergent folks (and in some cases, the two were/are exactly the same). Hearing them speak and reading their writings always reminded me of the druggy beatnicks in the 50s who fancied themselves as these deep, philosophical thinkers when really... they just sounded like they were stoned and needed to sober up before they went off on another deep and profound tangent about spirituality, community and tangerine trees holding the mysteries of life. I would have been perfectly content to know that this kind of lingo was constrained among that crowd, but in the last few years I've heard and read more and more conservative, theologically solid people use it too.
I just wonder if folks that use this kind of language have this idea that using this flowery language conveys a message better. Or maybe they just think it sounds cool so they use it? Or maybe it makes them feel more spiritual to dress up a simple truth with flowers?
I wish I knew why it bothered me so much, but I really cannot put my finger on a definitive reason.
It's just a word that is popular now. I understand the sentiment. The person just means that it is difficult to grow spiritually apart from the local body of believers. It is like a lot of the jargon we use daily without a thought. Maybe they use the word because they can't think of a better one?
ReplyDeleteTwitter isn't exactly the place I'd go to see a diverse vocabulary demonstrated.
Perhaps they were trying to emphasize the importance of relationships within the local church?
ReplyDeleteFor example, I tend to keep to myself - I don't form meaningful relationships easily, I'm not outgoing, and honestly part of me likes it that way.
However, I serve in my church and a few different capacities, am there almost every week, and agree with 99% of what comes out of the pulpit and small groups.
So in one sense I am *connected*, but in a very different, profound way if I don't seek to fight against my natural tendencies I remain a stranger to the individuals that make up my local church and them to I. I can grow and learn, but having relationships within the Body helps me to grow even more and allows me to help others grow as well.
I know that it may seem redundant to word it like that, but for me (and hopefully I'm not the only one!) it is a good reminder that there is more to church and learning from the sermons.
Also, I agree with Kim about Twitter not being a place where you can readily explain yourself.
ReplyDeleteI agree Kim, it is a word that is popular right now and I just have to wonder why? Where did the trend begin? Language fascinates me, so I ask these questions. My own pet peeves also prove to be a challenge for me as well.
ReplyDeleteKristina, what you say makes great sense. Maybe the emphasis is on one-on-one relationships within the local church. I like the way you put that.
I don't think it matters that I read this on twitter though, as I've read it on countless blogs/sites besides twitter and the use of the flowery language is almost never explained.
What bothers me about that post is that it doesn't say directly what it wants to say.
ReplyDelete"you can't have a meaningful relationship with God without being relationally connected to a local church" should be "you can't have a relationship with God unless you're part of a church." The "relationally" doesn't do anything for the sentence. Some may argue that it enhances the type of connection, but any connection you have *has* a relationship, for good or bad. In other words, it's just a buzzword, and like most all buzzwords, there's an easier and more elegant way to put it.
Thanks blue, I knew I wasn't the only one who saw it that way. Although, if it was meant the way Kristina suggested then I can see how it made sense to the one who possibly intended it to mean that.
ReplyDeleteSo tell me blue, why do we feel compelled to use buzzwords? I'm sure I even use them more often than I think and without even realizing I'm doing it.
I don't think it matters that I read this on twitter though, as I've read it on countless blogs/sites besides twitter and the use of the flowery language is almost never explained.
ReplyDeleteOne of the phrases I hear the most these days is "I read it on the internet ..." and therein do I believe lies a lot of communication problems.
I may be way out in left field, but I think there is a difference between the language on the internet and language in other locations. Blogs, websites, Twitter and Facebook is all written with the full understanding (and sometimes it's the main motive) that someone is going to see it. It is the public persona. Sometimes, we choose words that are meant to generate a response, not the ones that are the most descriptive.
Sometimes, on-line social venues are just reasons to be somewhat of an attention-getting thing. I'm pretty certain someone out there thinks up Twitter verbiage for the sole purpose of getting a reaction. That is why I feel like the venue is open for examination. Having to write something that makes it past an editor or a publisher or a board of directors, etc. has to be subject to some kind of quality control mechanism. I equate Twitter with standing on the top of a big mountain and shouting out to whoever is listening.
Very good point Kim about the language used online to get attention. I wonder then, if that's the same reason people use (as blue called it) buzzwords when they're speaking as well? Either in a sermon, lecture or just every day conversation?
ReplyDeleteFor some people, it's just affectation and pride. The language reflects something that supposedly sets them apart from "mere church goers."
ReplyDeleteAnd if a thing can be said confusingly or clumsily on Twitter, it can almost certainly be said clearly or straightforwardly with the same number of characters.
3girlDad,
ReplyDeleteIf I can't say it clearly, I wont tweet it in the first place. Very good point.
Wouldn't one be ashamed to say that to a believer around the globe imprisoned or soon to give their life for their profession of faith in Christ...or dealing with chronic illness or job relocation or other variables perfectly orchestrated by God for a brief reason or extended season in which they have been separated from one fellowship and not forsaking it but yet to be led in His perfect timing to the next(though they be online privy to distance fellowship in the interim)...or maybe a believer young in the faith soon to be taken to be with the Lord? To say God can't or doesn't grow folks by leaps and bounds in grace, wisdom, ,understanding, and love in those times is elevating something or someone above God, the Word, and the Holy Spirit.
ReplyDeleteSince when did Twitter become the repository or measure of truth though it sure is one of a plethora of places online where some measure and compare "themselves with themselves"? Maybe it bothers you as much as it bothers me because it is a broad-brush statement oft used by "what a good boy or girl am I" or "head counting" vampires/manipulators that just doesn't hold water for all of the people all of the time. Which would make it not Biblical.
Why do we feel compelled to use buzzwords? I once came across a quote that I can't exactly remember, but the gist of it was that what sets many professions apart from the 'average' person is a conspiracy of language. That is, the use of jargon sets us apart: we think it makes us sound more intelligent, more sophisticated, more professional. But I keep on thinking of Piper's book, *Brothers, We Are Not Professionals*.
ReplyDeleteIndeed Joyce that would be most profoundly ignorant thing to say to a believer in prison, or one that was a shut-in and incapable of being "plugged in" as they say with a local church (more buzzwords).
ReplyDeleteI'm pretty sure the author of that quote was just trying to relay the importance of being a part of a local church, however, and not putting it out there as a blanket statement.
blue - since I was a kid I've always heard "people who use big words are just trying to impress you". I'm pretty sure that is the case, much of the time.
One has to consider the settings or personal circumstances of readers including those that don't comment or that do and are guarded for a myriad of reasons online...something caught while on MSNBC and Healthy Awareness forums moons ago. The intent of the heart, too, isn't always the perception. Was the snippet with "you" a generalization or was there a specific person "you" named in a conversation? If it wasn't person and circumstances specific...that "can't" word, with or without "relationally" is problematic.
ReplyDelete"big words"?...as a youngin I oft pretended schoolteacher and librarian with a Roget in hands and remember being sooo amazed at words previously unseen/heard(and OH! those spelling lists of ABeka and BJU!) so tend to welcome the vocab/brain stretch. :-) color. me. ;-)
Joyce