What Words in Popular Christianity Should Be Banned?

[Marrow Man]

Pertaining to worship in particular:

innovative
hip
relevant
fresh

Yep, "relevant" is definitely one that needs to be included on the list.

 

[Pergamum]

In reference to missionaries and churches, I get tired of the often-spoken-but-rarely defined terms, "Oversight," "accountability," and "under."

 

[Marrow Man]

About relevant: When are we ever to be irrelevant Perhpas a better term would be meaningful. But, the term relevant attempts to show that we are trying to reach the culture where they can be most easily reached. I.e. if a people-group or culture is very interested in the end of the world, we shouldn't stay away from preaching on eschatology in reaction against relevance. It is not wrong to see the felt-needs of a people and answer them on a biblical basis.

Okay, now I am waiting for someone to add the term "felt-needs" to the list.

Yes, "felt needs" needs to be on the list, I feel.

 

[APuritansMind]

Definitely, "felt-needs."

 

[Pergamum]

Ha, maybe we need to start a thread about the postives and negatives of "felt-needs." I certainly felt I needed a Saviour when I was awakened and first began to seek the Lord.

 

[danborvan]

"Meeting people where they are"
or the more popular, but grammatically incorrect - "Meeting people where they are AT"

Who meets people where they are not? This phrase if often used by those who want to hyper-contextualize.

 

[Pergamum]

Again, Paul says to be all things to all people and urges us to refain from eating meat if it hurts a weaker brother. This, popularly known, is "meeting people where they are at."

I suspect many of the reformed are not really "engaging the culture" at all but preaching to their own crowd.

This is not hyper-contextualization but biblical contextualization.

Now,

I'm just waiting for both the terms, "engaging the culture" and also "contextualization" to be added to this list!

 

[Zenas]

1. "Born-Again Christian"- I still don't understand this. It seems repetitive.

2. "Evangelical Christian"- Ever met a non-evangelical Christian? I haven't because anyone, including Mormons, get grouped under this label. It means nothing now.

3. "Emergent Church"- Remains undefined but heavily used by an amorphous group of people with no doctrinal stance other than they have no doctrinal stance which is, therefore, oxymoronic. Delete it for reasons of stupidity.

4. Missional. Nuff' said.

5. Josh Hicks. Come on, do we really need him?

 

[Pergamum]

How about Puritan?

 

[GTMOPC]

How about Puritan?

'Puritan' in a derogatory sense. I mean the sense that culture has stereotyped puritans as.

 

[Staphlobob]

Sodomites.

Call them homosexuals, sinners, unregenerate or something, but too many people (even some here) use the term sodomites in the same way many people call black people N*****.

in my opinion the only thing that term does is raise pride in the person saying it and anger in the person to whom it is being said.

I think sodomite is a solid biblical word that is accurate and to the point. It's also got some good historical backing to it. So I'll continue to use it.

However, I wouldn't mind getting rid of it if we could also stop using "gay" - or at least turn it back to its original usage. But I doubt that will ever happen.

 

[GTMOPC]

Sodomites.

Call them homosexuals, sinners, unregenerate or something, but too many people (even some here) use the term sodomites in the same way many people call black people N*****.

in my opinion the only thing that term does is raise pride in the person saying it and anger in the person to whom it is being said.

I think sodomite is a solid biblical word that is accurate and to the point. It's also got some good historical backing to it. So I'll continue to use it.

However, I wouldn't mind getting rid of it if we could also stop using "gay" - or at least turn it back to its original usage. But I doubt that will ever happen.

I agree. I think we should call it what it is. If there was a stigma that went along with such a perverse lifestyle maybe those who practiced it would see the shame and sinfulness in it. Calling sodomy 'gay' just white washes something inherently contradictory to God and nature.

I say keep sodomy/sodomite and get rid of 'gay'.

 

[Guido's Brother]

"I just wanna..."

 

[Marrow Man]

Now,

I'm just waiting for both the terms, "engaging the culture" and also "contextualization" to be added to this list!

Done!

I'm going to coin a phrase here, and I don't want anyone else to take credit for it: "We shouldn't engage the culture, because the next thing you know we'll be married to the culture."



Now, if I can get everyone to start using it, it'll be banned for 2010!!!

 

[Notthemama1984]

Sodomites.

Call them homosexuals, sinners, unregenerate or something, but too many people (even some here) use the term sodomites in the same way many people call black people N*****.

in my opinion the only thing that term does is raise pride in the person saying it and anger in the person to whom it is being said.

I think sodomite is a solid biblical word that is accurate and to the point. It's also got some good historical backing to it. So I'll continue to use it.

However, I wouldn't mind getting rid of it if we could also stop using "gay" - or at least turn it back to its original usage. But I doubt that will ever happen.

I agree. I think we should call it what it is. If there was a stigma that went along with such a perverse lifestyle maybe those who practiced it would see the shame and sinfulness in it. Calling sodomy 'gay' just white washes something inherently contradictory to God and nature.

I say keep sodomy/sodomite and get rid of 'gay'.

N***** was a neutral term derived from the Latin and Spanish nouns for black. Through times this word was used in a very negative way through racism. How is you being a homophobe any different? You are still speaking down on them for living the lifestyle they have. They are under the curse of sin just like you and I were before Christ's atoning blood. These people are no different liars or thieves. They are all sinners in need of a Savior. We should not be flipping our noses in the air when we are around them.

-----Added 12/31/2008 at 01:14:18 EST-----

Adding a stigma to their lifestyle will not change them. They are bound to sin. The only way to free them is through Christ.

 

[Pergamum]

I'm sure if your church's outreach was called, "Hellbound Homo Ministries" or "Disgusting AIDS-mongering Outreach" that your efforts would not be very successful. To be "politcally correct" often is the Biblical thing to do.

We are out to win people, not just arguments.

 

[SueS]

My current pick is the overuse of the phrase, "praise the Lord!" In some circles it is used so often that it becomes a verbal tic verging on a mantra. Think of a Christian Chatty Cathy doll constantly chirping, "Praise the Lord!" and you'll know what I mean.

 

[Ivan]

we are out to win people, not just arguments.

amen!!

 

[lwadkins]

Are we talking overuse in the sense that we are simply tired of hearing them, or overuse in the sense that they are in fact misused (placed in contexts that demonstrate misunderstanding of the term itself, or of its usage) and thus you see it used again and again outside of an appropriate context. (or both )

 

[christianyouth]

Pietistic. It's a convenient label that anti-nomians use on any sermon that is spiritually demanding.

 

[GTMOPC]

I think sodomite is a solid biblical word that is accurate and to the point. It's also got some good historical backing to it. So I'll continue to use it.

However, I wouldn't mind getting rid of it if we could also stop using "gay" - or at least turn it back to its original usage. But I doubt that will ever happen.

I agree. I think we should call it what it is. If there was a stigma that went along with such a perverse lifestyle maybe those who practiced it would see the shame and sinfulness in it. Calling sodomy 'gay' just white washes something inherently contradictory to God and nature.

I say keep sodomy/sodomite and get rid of 'gay'.

N***** was a neutral term derived from the Latin and Spanish nouns for black. Through times this word was used in a very negative way through racism. How is you being a homophobe any different? You are still speaking down on them for living the lifestyle they have. They are under the curse of sin just like you and I were before Christ's atoning blood. These people are no different liars or thieves. They are all sinners in need of a Savior. We should not be flipping our noses in the air when we are around them.

-----Added 12/31/2008 at 01:14:18 EST-----

Adding a stigma to their lifestyle will not change them. They are bound to sin. The only way to free them is through Christ.

You are right it won't change them. Only God can change them. I think by not stigmatizing it we make it acceptable. It's not being homophobic to call a sodomite a sodomite or a homosexual a homosexual.

If I were an adulterer it wouldn't be right to simply say I like other women as much as my wife. You would surely say I am an adulterer and a cheater. I would be guilty of transgressing a union ordained and effected by God. It would be ludicrous to downplay such a sin with a sinner friendly label.

In the context of this board, mature conversation, and biblical study I see no reason to call any sin by any other name than what it is. Is there a better approach to be used pastorally? Of course. Is there a better approach to be used in an evangalistic outreach? Of course. In both cases I think the truth must be balanced with Christ-like love and concern for the sinning party. But that doesn't mean compromising the truth.

This has went way off topic so I won't respond to this matter here again. if you want to, start a new thread and we'll talk more about it. Maybe some other PB'ers with a wiser viewpoint can chime in.

 

[Staphlobob]

"Sodomite" is no more a "homophobic" (another word that should be cancelled) than "sinner." It simply points to Scripture.

The color of one's skin is simply ontology. Sodomy is behavioral.

Could I be a sodomite if it were not for God's grace? Of course. I could be worse. In fact, all of us could. But the desire to get rid of the word is simply a politically-correct attempt to sanitize our language and, by default, our minds.

 

[GTMOPC]

...the desire to get rid of the word is simply a politically-correct attempt to sanitize our language and, by default, our minds.

Good point.

 

[Ex Nihilo]

You are right it won't change them. Only God can change them. I think by not stigmatizing it we make it acceptable. It's not being homophobic to call a sodomite a sodomite or a homosexual a homosexual.

I've never been particularly in favor of tossing around the term "sodomite," but one useful thing about the term is that it distinguishes those who practice homosexuality from those who simply have homosexual inclinations. By the grace of God, not all homosexuals remain sodomites.

 

[Gesetveemet]

.

"The originals"


My gotta go!

.

 

[Marrow Man]

I'm sure if your church's outreach was called, "Hellbound Homo Ministries" or "Disgusting AIDS-mongering Outreach" that your efforts would not be very successful. To be "politcally correct" often is the Biblical thing to do.

We are out to win people, not just arguments.

How about "Campus Crusade for Christ." I heard that several years ago they realized they were having problems reaching out to Muslims with that name. I wonder why...

 

[PresbyDane]

I vote:
Bibel-based
Seeker-sensitive
Progressing (in term of mission statements)

 

[Pergamum]

"Sodomite" is no more a "homophobic" (another word that should be cancelled) than "sinner." It simply points to Scripture.

The color of one's skin is simply ontology. Sodomy is behavioral.

Could I be a sodomite if it were not for God's grace? Of course. I could be worse. In fact, all of us could. But the desire to get rid of the word is simply a politically-correct attempt to sanitize our language and, by default, our minds.

If you would like, let's start another thread on the good and bad of political correctness.


Being careful about how we use words is to show love to others and to eliminate the ignorance of those who do not strive to think of others.

Do you favor using negro or black, sodomite or homosexual, jap or japanese, slant-eye or Chinese, spic or Hispanic, white or cracker, handicapped or crippled, mentally handicapped or retarded? Pepper your daily language with these terms and you'll see the impact for Christ you'll have.

How many Scriptures do we need to post to reinforce the idea that out of our mouths should come gentleness and that we try not to needlessly offend others.

 

[PastorTim]

Joel and Osteen and Joyce and Meyers, altar call, ask Jesus into your heart etc

 

[Stomata leontôn]

How about Puritan?

'Puritan' in a derogatory sense. I mean the sense that culture has stereotyped puritans as.

That's because historically, "puritan" was applied to covert anabaptists. In the 17th - 19th centuries, the term could mean either Reformed or anabaptist radical. Because in England the anabaptists were on the "no-fly" list, people who shared their beliefs just let others call them something else. So when you read about a "Puritan" in history, you have to do some digging to figure out if he were Reformed or really an anabaptist (sometimes he himself may not have not known where his beliefs fit).