# Pejorative terms



## Notthemama1984 (Jan 2, 2009)

So we briefly touched the subject, now let's hit it head on.


At what point does one cross the line in using pejorative terms?

When is one pointing out sin and when is one just being rude for the sake of being rude?

When does pride come into the equation?


I personally see that using the terms gay, homosexual, or any other version all have the same meaning, but some carry some nasty overtones. Sodomite is one of those nasty ones. I do not see the purpose of using the term. I can tell my homosexual friends that their lifestyle is wrong and that God does not approve of it without using derogatory terms. I do not think that referring to them as homosexual or gay is in anyway giving my approval for their lifestyle.


----------



## Christusregnat (Jan 2, 2009)

Chaplainintraining said:


> So we briefly touched the subject, now let's hit it head on.
> 
> 
> At what point does one cross the line in using pejorative terms?



Boliver,

The line is crossed when the person hearing the message does not get what they need. NOTE, not what they want, but what they need.

Among saints, we need edification, we need instruction, we need correction, exhortation and rebuke. Some times, we need someone to shock us by calling us a pejorative term.

Some unbelievers need to be shocked out of their whits. If this can be done without a pejorative term, great. But sometimes, people need to hear that they are children of the devil, hypocrites, vipers, etc. This takes wisdom to discern, but I would say that pejorative terms are very useful in their proper place, and glorify God when used rightly.

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 2, 2009)

Jesus was gentle to uninstructed sinners and very harsh to religious hypocrites. 

As someone else posted, Jesus did not say *Hey WHore* to the woman at the well.....

....but he did call Pharisees (ingrained religious errorists) Vipers. 

For gays, they are outside the fold. For gay priests and actively homosexual pastors, perhaps they fit into the Pharisee category.


----------



## Staphlobob (Jan 2, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> Jesus was gentle to uninstructed sinners.



Not true. He called Herod (who was not a Jew) a "fox." Certainly not an easy word to accept. At best it's a reference to a crafty liar and political shill. OTOH some think that because the word our Lord uses (alopex) is feminine in nature it therefore refers to a man who is under the thumb of a woman and her sexuality. A pretty good description of Herod. 

In fact, there's a very "un-pc" phrase available today to describe such a situation. So perhaps "fox" is a euphamism for what our Lord may really have said. 

Crossing the line is quite simple ... abandoning the Word in order to become likable to the world; to abandon the truth for the sake of political-correctness in order to please others and keep from offending them. At such a point we have replaced pleasing God with pleasing others.

Where I work it's occasionally said by some that the KJV, NKJV, and NIV are too difficult for the men to understand; that we ought to use simpler "bibles" like The Message or The Living Bible in order to reach them. Only afterwards could we "upgrade" them to other translations. I call this "spiritual ebonics." Therefore we don't go down to their level, but bring them up to ours. 

It's the same with the world. We don't take our cues from it, but from the Word, regardless of whether people like us, are offended, etc. The only thing is that Christians are to judge themselves first, and by a harsher standard, than by which we judge others. This keep us from either an arrogant self-righteousness, or the fearful need to water down the truth with less offensive words/teachings.


----------



## turmeric (Jan 2, 2009)

A poll! A poll!


----------



## toddpedlar (Jan 2, 2009)

Chaplainintraining said:


> So we briefly touched the subject, now let's hit it head on.
> 
> 
> At what point does one cross the line in using pejorative terms?
> ...



If you can use the word "sodomite" in conversation with a homosexual, while doing so without either an externally-visible or internally-real sneer, and proud attitude, then go ahead.

I have never met a man who could.


----------



## Staphlobob (Jan 2, 2009)

toddpedlar said:


> If you can use the word "sodomite" in conversation with a homosexual, while doing so without either an externally-visible or internally-real sneer, and proud attitude, then go ahead.
> 
> I have never met a man who could.



Obviously you never met me.


----------



## toddpedlar (Jan 2, 2009)

Staphlobob said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> > If you can use the word "sodomite" in conversation with a homosexual, while doing so without either an externally-visible or internally-real sneer, and proud attitude, then go ahead.
> ...



Well certainly I haven't, but whenever this topic comes up, it seems to be accompanied by a pride in the people claiming they should use the terms "because they're Biblical, and I don't care if the terms are offensive". The term "homosexual" is perfectly reasonable and is understood by everyone. Sodomite is an antiquated term, used in 17th century England, to be sure, but not today. I'm not sure it's useful in conversation except as a means to 'stick it to your listener' or to pridefully talk among heterosexual Christians about "those nasty sodomites". 

As I've said, if it can be used for no reason but to be descriptive, if there is not a hint of pride or judgmentalism in the usage of the term, I couldn't argue against its use (other than to say as I've already said there is no real need to use the word when there are equally descriptive terms today that are universally understood). The offense should come when you call out the behaviour as sin, not because you use a purposefully provocative word.


----------



## Christusregnat (Jan 2, 2009)

toddpedlar said:


> Sodomite is an antiquated term, used in 17th century England, to be sure, but not today.  I'm not sure it's useful in conversation except as a means to 'stick it to your listener' or to pridefully talk among heterosexual Christians about "those nasty sodomites".



This is to attack a thing by the abuse of a thing. Sodomy was the charge in Lawrence vs. Texas. What does that make Lawrence? If murder was committed by Lawrence, what would that make him? This is perhaps a rather uninformed opinion about the history of the crime of sodomy, which is still on the books, and was in force into the 21st Century.

Also, If you look at any of the earlier versions of the Webster's Dictionary, you will find that sodomy was the term for a "crime against nature". This was the definition in 1828, 200 years after the 17th Century. Even better, here's the free online dictionary which you may have done well to consult before the statement about the term being archane:

sodomite - definition of sodomite by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

It is not.

Also, I have had several sodomite coworkers with whom I have gotten along with very well. Two of whom told me that they trusted me, and felt that they could hold intelligent conversations with me. One (maybe both) knew that I believed that the capital penalty is the only just penalty for a man who commits sodomy. I don't think it ever made them dispise me as a self-righteous jerk. Rather, it made for interesting conversation.

So, sodomite is not an archaic term, and you can use the term without contempt.

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## Staphlobob (Jan 3, 2009)

toddpedlar said:


> Well certainly I haven't, but whenever this topic comes up, it seems to be accompanied by a pride in the people claiming they should use the terms "because they're Biblical, and I don't care if the terms are offensive". The term "homosexual" is perfectly reasonable and is understood by everyone.



Again the "judgmentalism" found in the phrase "it seems" as it is subjective.

When I use the term "sodomite" it's not with arrogance or pride. Just the opposite - it's with fear and anxiety. The use of the word is equivalent to "Nazi" today, so deliberately using it is to make oneself vulnerable to the scorn and rejection of the world. Doubtless there is a part of me (as with all of us) that longs to be liked and accepted by the world. Hence the anxiety. However dedication to truth and being approved of by God has to override such desire. 

"Sodomy" is a useful word for evangelism because of reformed theology's understanding of the origin of faith. I think it was C.S. Lewis who said something like, "The entire universe is claimed either by God or the devil." And he was right. And that includes our speech. The words we speak - and that means *all* of the words we speak - are either law (needed by antinomians) or gospel (needed by the anxious and desperate). To deliberately use "sodomite" is to stand upon the law and, if it's God's purpose, to ultimately bring a person to grace and repentance. 

"Homosexual" is, for many people, a non-offensive word that carries neither law nor gospel. Being merely descriptive in nature, it is as comfortable in the vocabulary of scientists as well as the Hollywood elites. That it is presently being viewed in a negative way by the pro-sodomite forces, one must wonder if those who presently hold to its use will bend the knee to social convention and change to something more acceptable by the world.

OTOH, "gay" is affirmative. Perhaps one might say it is the polar opposite of "sodomite." 

Furthermore, as a reformed pastor I am not to be concerned with whether my words are liked - or not liked - by the world because salvation is not up to me. While being deliberately obnoxious is not part of Christian ministry, neither is being concerned with how I'm viewed. What really matters is to be passionate about God's truth and purposes since faith is His gift and so doesn't depend upon my being acceptable to others. Romans 10:17 doesn't teach anything regarding whether or not an evangelist's words are acceptable to others.

OTOH, if I'm obsessed with how I speak, how I'm received, whether or not I'm accepted, then to that same extent someone's salvation will depend upon me. Arminians resort to marketing techniques as a way of trying to make themselves at ease with the world so that they will be thought of in a kindly (and hopefully respected) manner. Thus, if people are to decide for Christ such a decision is - in large part - based upon the likeability and rationality of the evangelist. So he'd better watch his language and make it non-offensive. He'd better impress the world.

Again, being deliberately detestible is not in the arsenal of Christian ministry. But then, neither is concern about it. So, in the end, I stick with the word sodomy.


----------



## BJClark (Jan 5, 2009)

As I have read over this thread and the polling thread it has caused me to wonder, if this in large part the very thing that has brought us where we are today in society.

Adultery is no longer called adultery it is called an "affair"
drunkard is no longer used, it is now an "alcoholic"

Does using a less offensive word, merely because it does not offend the senses help the lost soul realize they are sinners in the hands of an Angry God?

Someone mentioned the old fire and brimstone guilt induced sermons of old, what is wrong with those? Should we not feel guilt that we have sinned against The Almighty God of the Universe, where that guilt and shame brings about conviction and repentance and life to the dead? What is wrong with 'putting the fear of God' in them with such things?

I doubt ALL of Jesus' words were recorded for us to know, and God certainly gave us enough information to know what a sodomite is, and what an adulterer is, and what a drunkard is..

Why do we assume the one calling sin sin--is full of pride or even being obnoxious?
is it not possible that the hearer in hearing his offense against God recoils at those words and calls the speaker prideful or obnoxious-- as a way to deflect and continue to run towards their sin and away from God? And instead of facing the truth they deflect--by calling the other person names--

/rant on

I know I used to do that when called out on my sin, and I know of others who do that to this day..they want to turn the mirror around on to me or someone else--blaming someone else for THEIR sin.

Had my father not been a drunkard...Had I not been abused as a child..those are one's I used for years..the problem with those are that they are excuses..

Are you still living at your fathers house? No, so then what is the problem?

Is your father still abusing you? No, so then what is the problem?

For years I refused to take responsibility for MY SIN, and tried to excuse it away and blame my dad's sin..talk about being prideful and full of arrogance to blame him for MY sin--- I was merely lying to myself--but I could not lie to God.

People try to excuse their sins in many ways...if my wife would only (lose weight, have sex more often)..if my husband would only (spend more time talking to me, didn't drink/work so much)..I wouldn't have committed adultery..I wouldn't need to be a drunkard..I wouldn't need to lie them, I wouldn't need to watch p*rn, I wouldn't need to _________(fill in the blank) excuses and blame are plentiful in society--but calling sin sin, is not.

Even the sodomite and pedophile do the same..many of them even try to blame God or their parents for their giving into their sinful temptations. "If God hadn't made me this way"--"If my parents hadn't...." 

When they say "I was born this way" they would be telling the truth in part...they were, they were BORN SINNERS, just as we all are.."so how can it be a sin if I am prone to struggle with these temptations?" 

The same way it is a sin for a man or woman to commit adultery..even though they struggle with those temptations..

the same way the person prone to drunkenness struggles with the urge to drink..

Why not just give in to those temptations?? Because then, you are giving in to your sin.

So should we not use a word describing a particular sin, merely because some find the word offensive? to put it another way "Are we to tickle their ears, so as not to offend them?" 

Or even worse, are "we" the ones who desire to have our own ears tickled, so we refuse to use the names to which God has given sin, so that we are not offended??"

/rant off


----------



## okinawabones (Jan 7, 2009)

Personally, I'm not sure how Christ is honored by making someone want to punch me in my righteous mouth- unless, of course, a bloody nose has been added to the fruits of the spirit.  
Momma always said you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar.


----------



## Staphlobob (Jan 7, 2009)

okinawabones said:


> Personally, I'm not sure how Christ is honored by making someone want to punch me in my righteous mouth- unless, of course, a bloody nose has been added to the fruits of the spirit.
> Momma always said you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar.


 

The thing is ... who has a righteous mouth? We *all* deserve to be punched in the nose. 

Now as far as vinegar goes, one may have to speak with Jesus about His issues in John 6.


----------



## CDM (Jan 7, 2009)

okinawabones said:


> Personally, I'm not sure how Christ is honored by making someone want to punch me in my righteous mouth- unless, of course, a bloody nose has been added to the fruits of the spirit.
> Momma always said you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar.



I've had someone want to punch me for calling them a democrat.


----------



## Staphlobob (Jan 7, 2009)

BTW, A. Mohler has a good spot on "being nice."


----------



## BJClark (Jan 7, 2009)

okinawabones;



> Personally, I'm not sure how Christ is honored by making someone want to punch me in my righteous mouth- unless, of course, a bloody nose has been added to the fruits of the spirit.



I don't know, it seems like having someone desire to punch me in the nose is a small price to pay if it brings about their repentance and salvation, given Christ was beaten and killed for ours.


----------



## Cranmer1959 (Jan 7, 2009)

Chaplainintraining said:


> So we briefly touched the subject, now let's hit it head on.
> 
> 
> At what point does one cross the line in using pejorative terms?
> ...




I agree. However, we have to be careful to be specific in our language. In some Anglican circles it is popular to describe sin as "brokenness." I think this term downplays our guilty status before God. Brokenness has the connotation of, "I made a mistake." It also puts the emphasis on man rather than God. The real issue with sin is that it offends a holy God; it is not focused primarily on the consequences of sin, i.e. "brokenness," but it is rather focused on the fact that sin offends a holy God who cannot tolerate sin even a little bit.

God bless,


----------

