Changing the Language--It Matters!

One of the comments that I heard repeated often when I was teaching in Inner Mongolia, ROC, was "when the Chinese wanted to take over Mongolia, and make it Chinese, they outlawed the language of Mongolia, and made Mandarin the official language." In culture after culture, when cultural change was desired, a change in language was necessary. In the US, some would argue that immigrants can never fully embrace the United States culture without speaking English (which is problematic, since the actual "original languageS of the United States were Cherokee, Choctaw, Iroquois, Seminole, Miwok...). But, I digress: I would like to see the culture change to elminate the use of the following words:
1. Nonprofit. First, most people spell it with a HYPHEN, which, it does NOT have. Nonprofit is the term used to describe what an organization does NOT do, not what an organization DOES. It's like calling a hospital a Nondisease facility, instead of a hospital. Or, calling a school a Non-ignorance facility. It just doesn't work that way. I would suggest (along with an army of other professionals in the field...) that we substitute the term COMMUNITY-BENEFIT organization. CBO for short, which could be confused with Community-Based organization, which is OK, too--but, Community Benefit Organization tells the story much better, and even draws curiosity, which is not a bad thing. The IRS coined the phrase nonprofit, and, it's been assumed by the sector, but, since when does the IRS get to create language? Should they not be doing audits, collecting taxes or something?
Word 2: VOLUNTEER. Yep, I hate the word. I try not to use it. It is usually defined as a person who performs a service or a task without getting paid for the performance of the service or task. But, there are many "paid volunteers," such as VISTA, Americorps, RSVP, etc. In the church, the term doesn't make any sense at all. We would do better to refer to people as paid or unpaid, but, that leads one to think that the compensation is the only thing that matters in the equation. In church, people who serve should be referred to as ministers, aka servants. Pay is not the issue: calling and gifting IS. Churches do a theological and Biblical disservice to people who serve without pay in $$ by calling them the V. word. Jesus did NOT seek volunteers, he called people that he knew were gifted, created specifically for the service, and who really had not choice but to follow. It's true still: those who serve in community-based organizations and churches are not volunteers, as is commonly used, but, are the designated, the called, and you could not PAY them enough--ever, to do what they do. Pay is NOT a matter of justice, and paying them for doing repetitive work, or work that other staff do not want to do is a misuse of the gifts of those who show up and are willing to serve. No organization has EVER gotten better service from a person because they paid them$--but, quite the contrary. Bill Hybels is incorrect in his assumption that "volunteers should be paid to do the repetitive work..." But, then again, Bill Hybels and WillowCreek is about 15 years (maybe 20+) behind in their thinking about unpaid service, equipping and engaging people to do amazing service. In the recent "Defining Moments" on "volunteerism" the only thing that was defining was that Charlene and Vernon Armitage knew a heck of alot more about engaging people in service--to the church AND the community, that Hybels has ever known. In this area, he's out of touch with the research, language and current best practices of engaging people. Of course, I have not found him (or others like him) to be open to learning about the profession or the sector, because they assume that since they have been able to build a big church, they must be doing it right. I'm not confused by the "crowd syndrome." Volunteer needs to go away as a noun--but, we need to understand the term better as a verb.
Word 3: Recruit. We recruit to have people do things that they would not choose to do on their own. The military recruits. Athletic teams recruit. The church and community benefit organizations should stop recruiting and learn to do what Jesus did: INVITE and ENGAGE.
There is something wrong with the recruitment mindset: it says that the task is more important that the person. It says "I've got to get this done, and it doesn't matter WHO does it, or what happens to them in the process: the TASK matter! Recruitment is about getting things done. Inviting is about getting People done.
Today, I was thinking that if we believe that Jesus recruited, he did it more like a coach, and not like a colonel. He identified who he wanted, he saw them trained, he knew what was in them, THEN, he approached them and invited them: like Pat Hill watches a high school player, goes to his games, talks to his parents, THEN, makes an offer--
a colonel (or a military recruiter) takes whoever walks in--THEN puts them through the paces, basic training, and if they don't cut it, they are done...and find a job elsewhere. Not what I see as a grace-filled way to engage people. But, then again: what is the end goal? The task, or the person?
When I refer to female students at Fresno State, I am careful to refer to them as women, not as girls. How I use the language shapes how I view them. They are women, and that matters.
I do not teach "colored" students, Orientals, or other ethnic terms: how I define people shapes my view of them, and the view of themselves.
Community Benefit organizations.
Unpaid staff.
Invite/Engage.
Older adult.
Women.
"I once called you slaves, but now I call you Friends..." Jesus.