Pejorative terms: the poll
- Thread starter turmeric
- Start date
- Status
TimV
Puritanboard Botanist
The PCA church I went to paid Chad Thomas to speak about that, and he said that nothing bad about homosexuals should be said, because homosexuals already know that we Christians think they are sinning. Rather we shouldn't use those sorts of word, and instead hug them and take them to movies.
Guido's Brother
Puritan Board Junior
Why would we need to be fixated on sexual sins in evangelism?
Pilgrim
Puritanboard Commissioner
This is basically my position as well. I haven't given a lot of consideration to this, but I don't think you have to be Joseph Fletcher (situational ethics) to take the position that some behaviors, words and modes of expression are going to be more helpful in some situations than others.
blhowes
Puritan Board Professor
Hug them and take them to the movies?
ColdSilverMoon
Puritan Board Senior
We should always endeavor to speak the truth according to Scripture, but there's no need to use culturally offensive terms. For example, when He encountered the woman at the well in John 4, Christ didn't call her a whore, but He didn't dance around the fact that she was sinning. He told her she was sinning and commanded her to stop, but didn't use a harsh word like whore. I think we should follow the same pattern with those struggling with adultery, homosexuality, pride, anger, etc. 
-----Added 1/2/2009 at 06:46:42 EST-----
I wouldn't take them to a movie necessarily, but didn't Christ dine with tax collectors and sinners? He didn't hesitate to point out their sin, but didn't avoid interaction with them either.
-----Added 1/2/2009 at 06:46:42 EST-----
Hug them and take them to the movies?
I wouldn't take them to a movie necessarily, but didn't Christ dine with tax collectors and sinners? He didn't hesitate to point out their sin, but didn't avoid interaction with them either.
larryjf
Puritan Board Senior
I try not to limit my vocabulary before i can discern the actual situation that i am going to speak to.
A Buddhist friend of mine asked me where they were going when they died and i boldly told them how and why they were going to Hell. The only reason i did it as boldly as i did was because i discerned that my friend was testing my honesty with my convictions. They ended up respecting what i said and how i said it...without soft-peddling it.
Other situations will call for more discretion.
It depends on who you are talking to, where they are at in their sin, and so many other variables.
A Buddhist friend of mine asked me where they were going when they died and i boldly told them how and why they were going to Hell. The only reason i did it as boldly as i did was because i discerned that my friend was testing my honesty with my convictions. They ended up respecting what i said and how i said it...without soft-peddling it.
Other situations will call for more discretion.
It depends on who you are talking to, where they are at in their sin, and so many other variables.
Just because we do not use the harshest of terms dealing with sinners does not mean we are going soft on sin. Another good example is calling someone struggling with sexual sin a whore. I suspect that we have drawn battle lines and are fighting the culture war AGAINST sinners rather than inviting them onto our side. Again, we are out to win people primarily and not just arguments. Our only offense should be the necessary one of the Cross.
blhowes
Puritan Board Professor
I think the gist of it is to treat them with respect, which I agree with. Don't avoid them like they're the plague, but use discernment in your interactions.
As far as calling them sodomites, I don't think I'd use the term most of the time. It just seems like an unnecessary barrior to raise when talking with somebody.
he beholds
Puritan Board Doctor
We should always endeavor to speak the truth according to Scripture, but there's no need to use culturally offensive terms. For example, when He encountered the woman at the well in John 4, Christ didn't call her a whore, but He didn't dance around the fact that she was sinning. He told her she was sinning and commanded her to stop, but didn't use a harsh word like whore. I think we should follow the same pattern with those struggling with adultery, homosexuality, pride, anger, etc.
Well, she wasn't a whore, as far as we know.
ColdSilverMoon
Puritan Board Senior
We should always endeavor to speak the truth according to Scripture, but there's no need to use culturally offensive terms. For example, when He encountered the woman at the well in John 4, Christ didn't call her a whore, but He didn't dance around the fact that she was sinning. He told her she was sinning and commanded her to stop, but didn't use a harsh word like whore. I think we should follow the same pattern with those struggling with adultery, homosexuality, pride, anger, etc.
Well, she wasn't a whore, as far as we know.
She was promiscuous. In modern lingo should could be termed a "whore" for sleeping with multiple men.
Zenas
Snow Miser
Sound advice. I'll be forming a movie outing with the campus LGBT group. (kidding)
I put that it can be useful. It's an extreme word in today's context and I wouldn't LEAD with it. However, after establishing myself in the conversation I think it's perfectly reasonable to drive home the point; not to be used to label the specific person as a "Sodomite" because that just degenerates the conversation into name calling, but as part of an illustration that homosexuality is an ancient and perverse practice, specifically labeled and condemned in Scripture. There is some sort of strange notion circulating today that being "ok" with homosexuality makes you "modern" and "open-minded". I fail to see how endorsing an ancient sexual perversion makes one "modern".
TimV
Puritanboard Botanist
No, Jessi's right. You don't normally called divorced and remarried women whores if they don't charge. Christ said she was living in sin, and my understanding of the context leads me to believe He also said he'd divorced unlawfully, but those are different vices.
There are no shortage of harsh words for certain categories in the Bible. Things like worthless men, sluggards, evil beasts etc...
he beholds
Puritan Board Doctor
I think this is Christ calling her out on her sin. He may not have said the word "adulterer," or even, "sinner," but he did confront her with her specific sins. I think if we were evangelizing a gay person, it could be proper and beneficial to name his sin. I think we'd be following Christ's example and be showing the person just how desperate he is for the forgiveness of his sins.
Archlute
Puritan Board Senior
Sure, but before you can show grace to a soul you must first show them their sin (the very reason that grace is needed), their need of repentance and turning in faith to Christ, and the purpose and accomplishment of the cross. It is only then that grace will be truly understood.
Included in that would necessarily be a discussion of what the Holy Spirit speaking in Scripture terms an "abomination". I do not think that the terms used in the apostolic letters were any less offensive to the culture of that day than they are to ours. Sinners have always reacted against their sins being labeled and frowned upon, whether in ancient society or our own. The universal condition of the human heart tends to flatten out historical and cultural distance.
ColdSilverMoon
Puritan Board Senior
I agree with you, Tim. I was making the point, obviously not well, that Christ didn't use the harshest terminology when point out sin, except perhaps when it came to the Pharisees. Instead of whore, I should have said slut, or whatever the Aramaic equivalent is.
okinawabones
Puritan Board Freshman
I think if I'm willing to use such terms to evangelize others, then I should practice using them on myself at the same time. Keeping in mind that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and that none among us are righteous (nope, not even me), it's probably worth stating to a "sodomite" that you yourself are a liar, thief, adulterer, fill-in-the-blank. This does two things- first, it puts me and the sinner I'm evangelizing on the same level from his perspective (oddly enough, it's also the most accurate perspective); and second, it makes the matter of his salvation one of the heart- and not wrapped up in the singular act (no matter how often repeated) of sodomy. I guess the point I'm trying (not so succinctly) to make is that I'm far more apt to name a sin that doesn't apply to me than I am to label myself with anything other than "plain ole sinner"- and in the process, put myself a little higher on the righteousness ladder.
kalawine
Puritan Board Junior
You crack me up!-----Added 1/2/2009 at 09:19:00 EST-----
I voted "No, it creates un-necessary offense apart from the necessary offense of the Gospel."
All I'm trying to get a person to see when I'm evangalizing is that they are a sinner; not what "kind" they are. I always stress that we are all sinners.
Christusregnat
Puritan Board Professor
This is a false dichotomy. If the cross is the only offense, then why are unbelievers offended at so much else that Scripture says, or that Jesus says, or that Paul said, or that Peter said. This is a reduction of the bible's teaching to one point, and is not helpful. Jesus said that men would be offended at us because of "His words", and not just the ones in red talking about the cross.
Cheers,
Adam
Matthew1034
Puritan Board Freshman
Voted "That's so gay!" for fun.
Notthemama1984
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Here is another thought. Do pejorative terms push other Christians away? What I mean is calling people sodomites rub other Christians in such a way to cause strife among the breathren? I personally think so. I only hear pride when I hear the term.
I don't know. It seems to me that some people desire to make sure others understand how sinful they really are. It's not that Scripture fails to call sin what it is but it's in our attitude toward sinners that the use of terms is most telling.
Christ didn't have a problem telling sinners to sin no more but He did so knowing they were toast without Him. Meanwhile, the Pharisees were convinced that Christ spent far too much time hanging around them because, after all, wretchedness was not a quality they shared with sinners.
Who cares about terms, the real question is what we think about those who are perishing. Are we better than they?
Christ didn't have a problem telling sinners to sin no more but He did so knowing they were toast without Him. Meanwhile, the Pharisees were convinced that Christ spent far too much time hanging around them because, after all, wretchedness was not a quality they shared with sinners.
Who cares about terms, the real question is what we think about those who are perishing. Are we better than they?
turmeric
Megerator
Rich, you nailed it, as usual. I have to remember, when I'm talking to an unsaved person, that there but for the grace of God go I. Literally. I think if there's any advantage in not being saved until later in life, it's that it gets really clear that it's not a matter of being better than anyone. I try to put myself in the other person's place when I talk to him or her. If someone called me a prejorative name, even sinner, which is still an acurate description of me, I would not have listened to anything else they said.
What I'm really not understanding is what appears to be a lack of humility in people who insist that they have nothing to do with their salvation, that before salvation they are incapable of turning to Christ without the agency of the Holy Spirit, in short, how can someone believe the TULIP thing and still feel a need to be so deliberately offensive? I think it's reaction to the overdone p.c. thing, but we're talking to dead people - dead like we were. How can we get this angry with dead and doomed people? Rant off.
What I'm really not understanding is what appears to be a lack of humility in people who insist that they have nothing to do with their salvation, that before salvation they are incapable of turning to Christ without the agency of the Holy Spirit, in short, how can someone believe the TULIP thing and still feel a need to be so deliberately offensive? I think it's reaction to the overdone p.c. thing, but we're talking to dead people - dead like we were. How can we get this angry with dead and doomed people? Rant off.
JohnGill
Puritan Board Senior
If we sanitize sodomite...
Can we also sanitize the following terms:
murderer for people who commit murders
rapist for people who commit rape
pederast and pedophile for people who sexually molest children
adulterer/ess for those who commit adultery
liar for those that lie
thief for those that steal
fornicator for those that commit fornication
If we're going to allow sinners to determine what is acceptable and unacceptable with one word for one sin, why not every word? Just because some unlearned use a perfectly fine term as a pejorative does not mean we should stop using it. Murderers don't like being called murderers, adulterers don't like being called adulterers, but 'homosexuals' don't mind being called 'homosexuals.' However, they don't like being called sodomites. If we're going to get rid of sodomite let's get rid of them rest of the terms for consistencies sake.
Can we also sanitize the following terms:
murderer for people who commit murders
rapist for people who commit rape
pederast and pedophile for people who sexually molest children
adulterer/ess for those who commit adultery
liar for those that lie
thief for those that steal
fornicator for those that commit fornication
If we're going to allow sinners to determine what is acceptable and unacceptable with one word for one sin, why not every word? Just because some unlearned use a perfectly fine term as a pejorative does not mean we should stop using it. Murderers don't like being called murderers, adulterers don't like being called adulterers, but 'homosexuals' don't mind being called 'homosexuals.' However, they don't like being called sodomites. If we're going to get rid of sodomite let's get rid of them rest of the terms for consistencies sake.
By the Cross, I am meaning the basic Gospel message, which would include all those things you just wrote.
We are to speak the truth IN LOVE, and to be needlessly offensive is usually done to beat a person in an argument or belittle them, club them into the kingdom, instead of showing as much respect as possible to them.
Again, when Jesus dealt with struggling sinners, he wa very "nice" and gracious; He reserved his harsh replies for religious authorities and those in high places, and religious teachers
The non-Christian world thinks os Christians as narrow, harsh, critical and judgmental. We denounce things much more than we love people. We give them pleny of fodder. Returning to a meek servanthood is the answer whereby we treat all people with respect and we try to be winsome and win people through love rather than beat them over the head with verbally abusive eipthets, whatever those may be (what is offensive being defined by the person offended).
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
