The contemporary use of the word community has troubled me for some time. I could not put my finger on it until today. It came to me during a drive across the vast wasteland that is Nevada.
People routinely speak about the “online community” or the “this community” or the “that community” when what they really mean is “this faction” or “that interest group.” They do not mean community at all. The emphasis on this use of community to mean “faction” or “interest group” is not on community but upon what distinguishes one set of interests from another. In philosophical terms, the emphasis in this use of community is upon the many or the particular, not the one or unity.
I realize that there is a sense in which “this community” or “that community” is a sort of community, but it is interesting that, according to the Oxford American Dictionary anyway, the first definition of community is
A group of people living together in one place . . . all the people living in a particular area or place: local communities.
-
- A particular area or place considered together with its inhabitants.
- A rural community.
The primary definition, which reflects the older usage, speaks of things that are not fundamentally voluntary. The last three definitions (which, for space, I have not given here) do speak of various sorts of associations that are primarily voluntary—that is, those based on vocation or hobby or social or political agendas.
I realize also that there is now (though it has not always been this way) a voluntary aspect to location (place). People now choose where they live in greater numbers than in previous generations. Mobility of both literal and metaphorical sorts exists in a way that folk in earlier generations never considered.
Nevertheless, what troubles me about the dominant contemporary usage of community as a voluntary association is that the will (choice) has trumped all, including nature or humanity. The older dominant use of community to describe a place in common to different sorts of folk is that it was defined by nature or “givenness.” It spoke of our common humanity. In a community, folk with different interests, different backgrounds, and different convictions find a way to live together on the basis of creation, on the basis of their status as image-bearers, even if they are not conscious of doing so. Often it just happens.
Part of what bothers me about the new predominant use of community is that it seems artificial like the use of the word discussion to mean “debate” or “argument.” We are not allowed to have an argument or even a fight any longer. We “discuss.” Rubbish. When people do not agree and when they give considered arguments in defense of different points of view, that is an argument. If it gets nasty, well, that is a fight. I am not defending ugliness, but when two groups or individuals are having a fight, they are being more honest than when they paper it over with the euphemism “discussion” or even worse, “conversation.”
Stop me if you have heard this before, but “conversations” occur between two friends or at least two friendly parties. The Oxford American Dictionary gives the first definition as “an informal exchange of ideas.” Fine. I do not think it is unduly pugnacious to say that there is not a “conversation” occurring between the moralists and the confessionalists on justification. That is an argument over the nature of the gospel, grace, the decree, faith, and the sacraments. I doubt that “conversation” or “discussion” is the best way to characterize what happens between Arminians and Calvinists. These are arguments or, if it is heated, then perhaps they are controversies. An argument does not have to be heated to be an argument.
Behind all this is a concern that, increasingly, we are not allowed to speak the truth about what is really happening; there is a concern that there is an unhealthy desire to suppress important arguments that need to be aired fully and considered thoroughly because there are important truths at stake.
If you want more on this, there is an essay in the Nicotine Theological Journal 9.4 (2005): 6-8.
©R. Scott Clark. All Rights Reserved.
Editor’s Note: This article was originally published on the Heidelblog in 2009.
RESOURCES
- Subscribe To The Heidelblog!
- Download the HeidelApp on Apple App Store or Google Play
- Browse the Heidelshop!
- The Heidelblog Resource Page
- Heidelmedia Resources
- The Ecumenical Creeds
- The Reformed Confessions
- The Heidelberg Catechism
- The Heidelberg Catechism: A Historical, Theological, & Pastoral Commentary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2025)
- Recovering the Reformed Confession (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2008)
- Why I Am A Christian
- What Must A Christian Believe?
- Heidelblog Contributors
- Support Heidelmedia: use the donate button or send a check to
Heidelberg Reformation Association
1637 E. Valley Parkway #391
Escondido CA 92027
USA
The HRA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization
R. Scott Clark
R.Scott Clark is the President of the Heidelberg Reformation Association, the author and editor of, and contributor to several books and the author of many articles. He has taught church history and historical theology since 1997 at Westminster Seminary California. He has also taught at Wheaton College, Reformed Theological Seminary, and Concordia University. He has hosted the Heidelblog since 2007.
More by R. Scott Clark ›
Great piece.
I think that the evaporation of community in the standard (OED) sense facilitates the evils of anonymity and unaccountability. When people lived in communities, it was near impossible to achieve either. But while the motivation was no doubt largely economic, flight to the cities, especially in the Industrial Age, accelerated the erosion of communities and their social fabric. The e-age has only put this trend in hyper-drive.
Since it is strictly voluntary and easily backed out of, the fluid, non-local special interest community is no easy substitute. Point and click, and you’re out. This criticism aside from the relativist cast they have nowadays, as this author helpfully points out.
I don’t think it is unduly pugnacious to say that there is not a “conversation” occurring between the moralists and the confessionalists on justification. … I doubt that “conversation” or “discussion” is the best way to characterize what happens between between Arminians and Calvinists.
Nor when Catholics try to have a “friendly” “discussion” to “foster understanding and unity” with their “separated” Reformed brethren.
Thank you for having the courage to point this out Scott.
No change, as far as I know. I did fiddle with the settings a bit but once you have a comment approved (as always) you can comment freely (within the bounds of Christian morality)
Quick question: Why the change to a moderated blog?
I am curious: What does the Oxford American Dictionary “communion” have to say about the sense of the word “communion”.
Since the monster pics were mentioned somewhere on this blog, death to them. I tried to correct the problem by signing up for a Word press account, figuring I was probably going to do so anyway. The other picture I had in mind to use was way more amiable, but I was having problems in the crop etc. for WordPress. So here’s my mug, if it posts.