Dissing "Church"
I've spoken about the helpfulness of the term "church" here before (click here to read), but today I was reminded of the questions which surround it...

I was in the pub with my friend John and we were talking about the future. On Wednesdays we have a two hour gap between trusts lectures, so we often end up having good discussions, or shooting some pool. (John - if your read this and I get anything that you say wrong just let me know).

Anyhow, Lindsey asked me if I had any idea what I want to do after uni and I replied that I know it will involve (jargon alert) "Church planting," and that as such it'd be good to find a job that would pay enough that I could work part time.

So John pipes up "I thought you were kind of anti-organized-religion, I'm surprised you use the term 'church' to describe what you do...surely that's misleading and gives people the wrong impression?"

I realised that he's absolutely right. I've fallen into the trap of using a phrase that, to my listener describes something other than what I mean. The result is that the only people who end up understanding what I mean are the ones who I've known for a while and who've had a chance to watch (like John).

I explained that in the Bible the word for 'Church' is actually 'Ecclesia' meaning 'those called out', whereas the word we use (Church) is actually derived from the German word for cathedral (and we wonder why 'Church' is a place!) and then asked John what he would call what we do?

Things like 'forum' and sharing of ideas and values came up, but in the end he said "why don't you just be - why do you need a name?" To be honest I completely agree.

What we're doing, whatever you call it, is a living thing - perhaps we shouldn't imprison it with language.