"If you want to know what water is, don't ask a fish." I love this ancient Chinese proverb. Fact is, fish don't even know they're wet even though they're immersed in water and need it to stay alive. They have no clue what water is. They're obvious to it because it's such a big part of their lives.
People are the same way. Believe it or not, we can exist in the midst of a Christian subculture and not even be aware of it. We have become so much a part of it we have become oblivious of what it's doing to us. Before long, we think like everyone else in the culture. It's called groupthink. We fit into it without even being aware of our conformity. I see this happening all the time, not least in the way we are so caught up in traditional language. May I offer a couple of examples?
1. We use the title "senior pastor" when we could be using the title "servant pastor." "But," you say, "every organization has to have someone at the top." That's very true. I'm not saying that the church doesn't have a senior pastor. I'm just saying he's not us. In fact, according to 1 Pet. 5:4, his name is Jesus Christ. "But," you continue, "I believe in primus inter pares, first among equals." Well, then, may I ask you a question? How did our Lord define "first"? The answer is: last. Not just last. Dead last ("slave of all.")
In the 6th century there lived a church leader named Gregory I. He served as pope from 590-604. He insisted on calling himself servus servorum Dei, or "servant of the servants of God." He did this as a symbol of humility to contrast with the prideful title "bishop" used by other patriarchs of his day. Why can't we restore that kind of title today?
2. We use "church" when we could use "community." A New Testament ekklēsia is nothing other than a community of people who aren't just fans of Jesus but his followers. Hence a title like "Nelson Community Church" is redundant. It's like saying "Nelson Community Community." Why not just say "Nelson Christian Community"?
3. We use "the ministry" when we could use "the pastorate." When you say, "God called me into the ministry" your language is ambiguous. All believers are called to ministry. I love how John Stott puts this in his book The Living Church (p. 24):
"We do a great disservice to the church whenever we refer to the pastorate as 'the' ministry. For if we use the definite article, we give the impression that the pastorate is the only ministry there is. I repented of this decades ago, and invite my readers to join me in penitence today. If someone says in my presence nowadays that so and so is 'going into the ministry,' I try to look innocent and respond 'Oh really? Which ministry do you mean?' To which my interlocuter usually replies, 'the pastoral ministry' -- to which I reply 'Why did you not say so?'"
4. We use "trinity" when we could use "triunity." "Trinity" is not a bad word but it's a bit lopsided. It rightly emphasizes the threeness of God, but it underemphasizes the oneness of the Godhead. A better term might be "triunity" -- "Three-and-Oneness." This actually works in other language such as Korean and German. I recall on one of my teaching trips to Korea asking my students what the Korean word for trinity was. "Sam-wi-il-che," they replied: "Three-and-Oneness." The term can even be used in a completely secular context to refer to a group of three people working together as one.
As for German, I've heard both "Dreifaltigkeit" and "Dreieinigkeit." The former term means "Three-Foldness," while the latter term means "Three-Oneness." "Dreieinigkeit" works perfectly, thank you very much!
5. Finally (for now), we use Weltanschauung and Sitz im Leben when we could use "world view" and "setting in life." Yes, I realize that German has always been a dominant language in the sciences. And yes, some German words convey meanings or concepts that do not have direct English equivalents. (I challenge anyone to come up with a precise English equivalent for Gemütlichkeit.) But folks, you can't assume your audience has a background in German, especially in fields like philosophy, literature, or theology.
Sadly, scholars often speak over the heads of their audiences because they assume a level of knowledge the audience doesn't possess. This leads to a disconnect, making it difficult for people to engage with the content. Indeed, did you know that during their doctoral studies scholars are not trained in how to communicate complex ideas to non-experts? My suggestion? Simplify your language (without being simplistic, of course). Avoid jargon. And use relational examples to explain concepts (like the illustration from fish and water at the start of this blog post). In short, use the "5 Cs" of effective communication: clarity, conciseness, concreteness, coherence, and courtesy.
Remember: tradition is a guide, not a jailer.
Have a wonderful day!