The Power of Words

Our church is currently embarking on a study of the book of James, and over the next week, we will be covering James 3:1-12 in our bible study groups on taming the tongue. It's not too difficult a passage to understand, but one that provides us with a massive challenge into an area of our lives which is quite often unwatched and not much attention given to.


The following quotation on the power of words is worth chewing on...


It sometimes seems to me that our days are poisoned with too many words. Words said and not meant. Words said and meant. Words divorced from feeling. Wounding words. Words that conceal. Words that reduce. Dead words.
If only words were a kind of fluid that collects in the ears, if only they turned into the visible chemical equivalent of their true value, an acid, or something curative - then we might be more careful. Words do collect in us anyway. They collect in the blood, in the soul, and either transform or poison people's lives. Bitter or thoughtless words poured into the ears of the young have blighted many lives in advance. We all know people whose unhappy lives twist on a set of words uttered to them on a certain unforgotten day at school, in childhood, or at university.
We seem to think that words aren't things. A bump on the head may pass away, but a cutting remark grows with the mind. But then it is possible that we know all too well the awesome power of words - which is why we use them with such deadly and accurate cruelty.
We are all wounded inside in some way or other. We all carry unhappiness within us for some reason or other. Which is why we need a little gentleness and healing from one another. Healing in words, and healing beyond words. Like gestures. Warm gestures. Like friendship, which will always be a mystery. Like a smile, which someone described as the shortest distance between two people.

(From Okri, B. Birds of Heaven (London: Phoenix, 1996), 3-5 quoted in Bauckham, R. James (London: Routledge, 1999), 205)

The Placement of ‘Community’ within the Doctrine of Church – Reflections of the Definition of Church and review of Total Church Part 2

Recently, I’ve been asking myself what is ‘church’ – what forms the central definition of church? Part of it has been triggered by my reading of Total Church (see earlier post on part 1 of the review), which has led me to look into the definition, and alongside with it, the placement of the idea of ‘community’ within the doctrine of the Church.

For starters, the Greek word for church - 'ekklesia' – really simply means ‘congregation’, ‘assembly’, or ‘gathering’. In another words, based on word meaning, the church really means God’s gathering, or God’s mob (as what one of my former doctrine lecturers liked to term it). The idea of coming together, of assembling together is central to the idea of church. This concept is seen in the writings of Australian theologian Broughton Knox. I quote him (at length):

"[...] the Old Testament assembly or church was a physical gathering of all the people of God, in the presence of God, first at Mount Sinai, and then later at Jerusalem. In the New Testament, [...] the idea is spiritualized. Jesus builds his church as he said, but it is a spiritual gathering around himself in the spiritual world of heaven. [...] We are participants in the group or gathering around God’s throne which Christ is forming in the presence of God. This is the basic use in the New Testament of the word ‘church’. It describes a spiritual relationship which is a spiritual experience. Now being in a gathering means being in fellowship together for the purpose for which gathering is formed. [...] Fellowship, if it is to be expressed between ourselves while we still remain in the body in this physical world, must involve meeting. [...] So that being in the heavenly church, that is to say, being in fellowship with God and one another through the gospel, involves being in fellowship with one another in a physical visible assembly or meeting." (From ‘The Church’ in D. Broughton Knox Selected Works: Volume II – Church and Ministry (ed. Kirsten Birkett; Kingsford: Matthias Media, 2003), 19-22)


For Dr. Knox, as much as the idea of gathering has been ‘spiritualized’ in the New Testament to refer to the spiritual gathering of believers around God’s throne, such a gathering must still express itself in local, physical geographical assemblies or gatherings.

Another theologian who follows suit in holding onto this idea of assembly or gathering as a key defining factor of church is Miroslav Volf. After a helpful chapter discussing on the definition of ecclesiology, he states:

"Every congregation that assembles around the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord in order to profess faith in him publicly in pluriform fashion, including through baptism and the Lord’s Supper, and which is open to all churches of God and to all human beings, is a church in the full sense of the word, since Christ promised to be present in it through his Spirit as the first fruits of the gathering of the whole people of God in the eschatological reign of God." (From After our Likeness: The Church as the Image of the Trinity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 158)

John Webster also has a place for assembly and gathering in the definition of church, but nuances his argument slightly to ground ecclesiology in the divine perfection of God – the perfection of life which first and foremost exists within the Godhead in Himself, but which is ‘turned out’ towards his creatures. He defines church as ‘the communion of saints, the assembly of those whom God has consecrated for fellowship with himself through his works of election, reconciliation and consummation’ (‘The Church and the Perfection of God’ in The Community of the Word: Toward an Evangelical Ecclesiology (Ed. Mark Husbands & Daniel Treier; Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2005), 78). In another words, Webster seeks to explicate the doctrine of church through the twin notions of election and holiness. “What is gained in this way is the retention of a sense of God’s perfection, and thus of the distinction of the church from God, a distinction which is the primary condition for fellowship.” (Ibid., 89)

To summarise – my investigation so far has led me down the path of seeing the central definition of church as a gathering of God’s people by God himself according to His purposes of election of us and holiness for us. This gathering happens as a spiritual reality which is expressed through the physical and local gathering of congregations.

So far so good. The next question is – what is the place of ‘community’ in all this (‘community’ here referring to the network of relationships that happen within the different members of the congregation or gathering)? And here is where my biggest (and in fact only) concern about Total Church comes in. In their dual emphasis on ‘gospel’ and ‘community’ as the two key principles for how we ‘do church’, it almost comes across that ‘community’ lies as a central factor in the definition of church. For starters, a formal definition of ‘church’ is missing in the book – it seems like Tim and Steve assume that the readers knows what church is. The danger of missing such a formal definition is that it pretty much leaves the definition to be filled out by the contents of the book – regardless of whether that is how Tim and Steve meant for church to be defined. At certain points in the book, it almost comes across that the identity of the Christian is bound up in the identity of the church – or more precisely – in the Christian’s identification with the church in its community life.

In fact, I’m not the first to have raised these issues. Tony Payne, alongside with Simon Flinders, and Steve Timmis have had an extended discussion over email on this question (See http://matthiasmedia.com.au/briefing/library/5219). More than anything else, we can thank Tony, Simon, and Steve for showing us how a charitable discussion over issues should be conducted. I will not rehearse the arguments here. My own conclusion is that while ‘community’ should be kept out of the definition of church, and in that sense, the definition of church should focus on the concept of gathering through the electing and sanctifying work of God; community, nevertheless, is an important, central and necessary implication of that gathering. In another words, community is not accidental to the church but incidental. In another words, there is a distinction – though a fine one. The main reason for me stating things this way is pastoral: Suppose one pastors a church where there isn’t really a vibrant community within that gathering or assembly, i.e. the people in the church tend to see themselves more as ‘individuals’ rather than as ‘individuals-in-community’. With a definition of church where community is central, I might be tempted to think that this assembly might not really be ‘church’. But with the definition where community is not part of the definition of church but a necessary implication of the idea of church, I can still be assured that this assembly is still a church – it’s still God’s gathering of His people. It’s still Him electing and sanctifying His people. But with me understanding ‘community’ as a central and necessary implication of church or this gathering, at the same time, I will be encouraged to challenge the members on our community life – and here, in this aspect, we have much to thank Tim and Steve for the many stimulating ideas they have provided us with.

Overall, while this post might come across to some as being overly pedantic, I hope more than anything else, it has showed us the importance of definitions – how we define something will in turn influence how we see things on the ground. By remembering that God’s electing and sanctifying work expressed through the gathering of His people stands at the center of definition of church, it will help us to rightly focus our eyes on God even as we belong to our different congregations and gatherings. But by remembering that community is a necessary and central implication of such a gathering, it might spur us on in our love for one another, such that the world might look at us and say, “See... how much they love one another!”

(Photos are taken from 25 years at 25 Adam Road, and are used purely for aesthetical purposes only)

The Power of Community - review of Tim Chester and Steve Timmis' Total Church (Part 1)

This is part 1 of a two-part post...


I have just finished reading Tim Chester and Steve Timmis’ Total Church (Nottingham: Inter-Varsity Press, 2007), a book I’ve always wanted to read during college days, but never had the chance.

In Total Church, Tim and Steve get us to rethink the way we ‘do church’, advocating that two key principles should govern our thinking: gospel and community. “What we do is always defined by the gospel, and the context is always our belonging in the church” (p.16). Being gospel-centred in turn would mean that we will be both word-centred and mission-centred (see chapter 1 where they flash out this concept more, mainly flowing from their twin convictions that Christianity is word-centred because God rules through his gospel word, and Christianity is mission-centred because God extends his rule through his gospel). As for community, Tim and Steve argue for the case that the Christian community is central to Christian identity, and following from that, the Christian community is central to Christian mission (chapter 2). Overall, both Tim and Steve are trying to walk the ‘middle road’ between conservative evangelicals (who are strong on gospel but weak on community) and the emerging church (who are strong on community often at the expense of truth) (p.16-17).

After outlining these two key principles driving their convictions, Tim and Steve proceed to show us how these dual principles are played out in every aspect of church activity and church life, from evangelism to social involvement to world mission to discipleship and training to pastoral care to spirituality. The pattern emerges after a while, and one sees how for Tim and Steve, these dual principles of gospel and community really saturate and impact the way they think about these activities. Yet, it is not just mere repetition of their convictions, but a genuine adaptation of these two principles to the various topics discussed.

Overall, I’ve enjoyed reading the book. Though I still have some minor quibbles over their placement and linkage of community with the definition of church (see part 2 of this post), their emphasis on community is one that nonetheless should be heeded, especially in today’s postmodern climate, where people find their identities closely linked and defined by their communities. What I found really enjoyable is the refreshing ideas that are often presented on how the community could play in crucial role in the many activities and life of the church. To name a few of my personal ‘favourites’:

Evangelism. Tim and Steve encourage us to think of evangelism as a ‘community project’. They state: “[…] evangelism is best done out of the context of a gospel community whose corporate life demonstrates the reality of the word that gave her life” (p.56)… “We need to be communities of love. And we need to be seen to be communities of love. People need to encounter the church as a network of relationships rather than a meeting you attend or a place you enter.” (Ibid.) Tim and Steve think of evangelism as a rope with three intertwining strands – Building relationships; Sharing the gospel; and Introducing people to community (p.58). Overall, Tim and Steve want us to think of evangelism as mainly relationships, rather than events. And such evangelism comes forth as we deliberately live our ordinary lives with gospel intentionality (p.60); and more than that (a sense I get from reading the book), as we invite the outsider to join in and experience this life which is lived in community. I find myself resounding with Tim and Steve on a lot of what they have said. So often, we tend to think of evangelism solely or mainly as a body of truth/good news to be conveyed across; and even any relationship we build is to lead in to the opportunity to invite our friend to some event so that they can hear the gospel. While there is truth is the above (afterall, evangelism is the proclamation of the ‘evangel’ or good news, and without proclamation, there is no evangelism), Tim and Steve have done us a great service by reminding us of the power of community in creating the relational context in which the outsider comes to hear this gospel message – a relational context not only between my friend and I, but one that is between my friend and the community of my bible study group or church group. As my friend hears the gospel, he will hopefully find that very gospel authenticated in the lives of this community of believers he has been introduced to. I remember an occasion in Sydney where I was chatting with my neighbour, who had been through a lot and who was going through life pretty much alone. I found myself speechless at the end of our conversation, and the thing I really wanted to say was, “I know you’ve been through a lot and you’re still going through a lot, but would you ever be open to the church community coming alongside you and journeying through life together with you?” But before me or anybody could say that, we need to ask ourselves if our church communities can stand up to this love test – a question which very often leads to an ouch!… conclusion.

Social involvement. Once again, Tim and Steve try to walk the middle road between those who consider any social work or social involvement a pure waste of time and resources, and those who hold onto a ‘social gospel’ kind of mindset. Their threefold assertion of the relationship between evangelism and social action is useful – evangelism and social action are distinct activities; proclamation (of the gospel) is central; and Evangelism and social action are inseparable (p.76). Their impetus for social involvement flows partially from their observation that ‘evangelicalism has become a largely middle-class, professional phenomenon’ (p.74), an observation I agree with and an issue worth discussing further in a separate post sometime. But the point that really stuck with me is their statement that ‘[the poor] do not want to participate in projects. They want to participate in community’ (p.78)… Further on, they state, “The best thing we can do for the poor is offer them a place of welcome and community. Our first priority in social involvement is to be the church, a community of welcome to, and inclusion of, the marginalised.” (p.79) The power of community is seen again in this area of social involvement – simply by being a welcoming community that welcomes and embraces the marginalised.

Church Planting and World Mission. Here is one topic which I found myself struggling to be convinced a bit more. Don’t hear me wrong… it’s not that I’m not for church planting or world mission. But rather, what I struggle with is Tim and Steve’s main idea flowing from the logic of their argument in this chapter – Mission is at the heart of the Christian community, Christian community is at the heart of mission, and (hence) church planting is the best way to do mission. It’s an argument which I feel needs to be filled out fuller at certain points. Each point of their logic has been discussed at greater depth among theologians (e.g. is ‘mission’ or ‘worship’ at the heart of the Christian community God has gathered to Himself in His Son? Tim and Steve favour ‘mission’. Does God see mission more from the perspective of the ‘individual’ or ‘community’, or some mixture of both? Tim and Steve favour ‘community’), and their failure to address deeper some of these issues leaves me not totally convinced of their conclusion. But the good thing is Tim and Steve are firm but gentle in their presentation of their convictions, without in any sense condemning those who might take a different approach from church-planting to their missions involvement.

Discipleship and Training. And also Theology. Tim and Steve advocate a ‘teaching and training along the road’ philosophy. Two quotes capture the essence of their philosophy well:

"Being word-centred is more than how you teach and disciple people. It means governing church life by God’s word. It means every decision, formal or informal, is explored through explicit reference to God’s word. We ask, and re-ask, what God’s word teaches about the issues and problems we face (p.113)."

"Let us make a bold statement: truth cannot be taught effectively outside of close relationships. The reason is that truth is not primarily formal; it is dynamic. The truth of the gospel becomes compelling as we see it transforming lives in the rub of daily, messy relationships (p.115)"

Once again, I appreciate Tim and Steve’s emphasis on community living as the relational context in which truth is not only learnt but assimilated into our lives. My only slight concern is their advocating of ‘a community hermeneutic’ in their section on community-centred theology (p.153) could run the risk of almost sounding like it is the practices of the community that determines the meaning of doctrine or theology, an emphasis seen in the movement of post-liberal theology. The recent ‘reconnection’, and to a certain degree ‘assimilation’, of practice into theology as seen in recent movements is a good thing to be welcomed, but in doing so, the order remains highly important – Theology informs practice, rather than practice interpreting theology.

Spirituality. Tim and Steve advocate against a mystical type of spirituality, and instead promote a spirituality grounded in the gospel, in gospel mission, and in gospel community.

Apologetics. Tim and Steve warn us against over-valuing apologetics in having the wrong expectations of what it can do. Afterall, as sinners, we do not so much have an understanding problem, but more of a heart problem. Our problem is not so much with our reason (while that is true), but also with our affections. “The role of rational apologetics is to demonstrate that unbelief is a problem of the heart rather a problem of the head. […] It is to strip away the excuses and expose rebellious hearts.” (p.167). In this context, relational apologetics comes in. As Tim and Steve state, “we have a better story than any of the alternatives. We need to awaken a desire for God. We need to make people want Christianity to be true. Then we might be able to persuade them that it is true.” (p.174). As they look in on us, it is Christians in relationship in community that make outsiders want Christianity to be true.

Overall, Total Church is a highly enjoyable and edifying read, reminding us of the power of community once again in the life of the church in this day and age. And as Ian Coffey writes in the foreword, while we may not agree with all their arguments and conclusions (for that, wait for part 2 of this post), we need to thank Tim Chester and Steve Timmis for their relevant, provocative and honest writing.