What Words in Popular Christianity Should Be Banned?

[panta dokimazete]

We want only the cross to be an offense, not our own offensiveness in calling folks derogatory terms.

I think what he's trying to ask is where we would draw the line -- i.e. when does a statement move from the category of being offensive in a good way to offensive in a bad way?

When it becomes pejorative and inflammatory, instead of simply descriptive.

sodomite vs homosexual

FTR I am not a fan of "sodomite."

The mean, self-righteous, judgmental side of me is.

 

[Staphlobob]

When it becomes pejorative and inflammatory, instead of simply descriptive.

sodomite vs homosexual

When the Supreme Court was debating the issue (one of several times), the more conservative judges used the word "homosexual" while the more liberal employed "gay." It was later said by the pro-sodomite side that "homosexual" was a pejorative term and therefore offensive.

Hence the real agenda is not to have people be inoffensive (i.e., homosexual), but to force them to positively approve of the behavior. Another reason I stick with sodomite. It's not meant to be offensive (though it is), but merely biblical and accurate.

So once again, when have Christians stepped over the line and married the zeitgeist? But perhaps that's for another thread.

 

[Marrow Man]

I saw a story this morning about Lake Superior State University's annual list of words and phrases that are overused and should be banned from the English language in the coming new year. Here are some of the words that made the list this year:

• Green
• Carbon Footprint
• Maverick
• Bailout

If one were to compile a similar list for overused words in popular Christianity, what words do you think should make the list? I posted a poll with some suggestions at my blog here, so if you have time, I'd appreciate your vote/opinion there as well.

Words are not to be banned; they are to be used in their proper context, for the glory of God. "Proper context" could be satire, teaching, poetry, curses, blessings, etc. I know that the idea of the post wasn't to argue against that, but I figured it'd be fun to be a stick in the mud.

Cheers,

Adam

Just for that, I'm voting to ban "stick in the mud."

 

[Christusregnat]

Just for that, I'm voting to ban "stick in the mud."

You can't ban me!!!!

 

[Okinawamama]

Open Hearts. Open Minds. Open Doors.

 

[Pergamum]

Before we ban "stick in the mud" I'd love to hear the origin of that phrase and why sticks in mud are bad.

 

[Christusregnat]

Before we ban "stick in the mud" I'd love to hear the origin of that phrase and why sticks in mud are bad.

Uh Oh! The MacDaddy is gathering the rabble to tar and feather me! I guess I'm doomed!

By the way, I'm offended that your name on PB is the same as that used by pimps. What about the cross being your only offense!

 

[Okinawamama]

Before we ban "stick in the mud" I'd love to hear the origin of that phrase and why sticks in mud are bad.

According to word-detective.com:

When we call someone a "stick in the mud" today we usually mean a party-pooper, a no-fun homebody, the sort of sourpuss who never wants to go to the movies, cruise the mall, get drunk and throw toilet paper in the neighbors' trees or just generally have good old All-American fun. But "stick in the mud" didn't start out as a noun, a thing, a person. "Stick in the mud" is actually a short form of the verbal phrase "to stick in the mud," meaning to "stick," or stay, in an unpleasant or demeaning situation, rather than dragging oneself out of the metaphorical mud. "To stick in the mud" first appeared around 1620, and was a further development of earlier metaphors such as "to stick in the briers" (or clay, or mire) meaning simply "to be in difficult circumstances." Somewhere along the way, around the early 18th century to be specific, "stick in the mud" arose as a contemptuous term for someone who is not only "stuck in the mud," but actually seems to enjoy being there.

 

[okinawabones]

Outreach
On mission
End times

 

[Christusregnat]

Before we ban "stick in the mud" I'd love to hear the origin of that phrase and why sticks in mud are bad.

Sorry,

I was lacking in vocabulary before:

"Stick in the mud": noun, Archaic: 1. One whose missional carbon footprint needs to circle-back with the vision of the sodomite.

2. One whose visionary mission needs to come along side the sodomite's carbon footprint.

 

[No Longer A Libertine]

Puritanical, I hate people using puritanism as a pejorative.

Global Warming.

Hope.

Change.

Gay Rights.

Rickrolled.

 

[okinawabones]

Before we ban "stick in the mud" I'd love to hear the origin of that phrase and why sticks in mud are bad.

Sorry,

I was lacking in vocabulary before:

"Stick in the mud": noun, Archaic: 1. One whose missional carbon footprint needs to circle-back with the vision of the sodomite.

2. One whose visionary mission needs to come along side the sodomite's carbon footprint.

Hehehe...now THAT'S funny...

 

[JoelYrick]

Sorry if I'm repeating, but I'm sick of seeing Christian as an adjective. Christian night club, Christian coffee cups, Christian clothes, etc. I can think of some helpful exceptions like, "Christian Church," but I hear other uses far more often. I wonder if Christianity could be dropped as well.

 

[Zenas]

When it becomes pejorative and inflammatory, instead of simply descriptive.

sodomite vs homosexual

When the Supreme Court was debating the issue (one of several times), the more conservative judges used the word "homosexual" while the more liberal employed "gay." It was later said by the pro-sodomite side that "homosexual" was a pejorative term and therefore offensive.

Hence the real agenda is not to have people be inoffensive (i.e., homosexual), but to force them to positively approve of the behavior. Another reason I stick with sodomite. It's not meant to be offensive (though it is), but merely biblical and accurate.

So once again, when have Christians stepped over the line and married the zeitgeist? But perhaps that's for another thread.

Awesome. Redefine a term ex post facto and accuse the users of being derogatory.

 

[Pergamum]

When it becomes pejorative and inflammatory, instead of simply descriptive.

sodomite vs homosexual

When the Supreme Court was debating the issue (one of several times), the more conservative judges used the word "homosexual" while the more liberal employed "gay." It was later said by the pro-sodomite side that "homosexual" was a pejorative term and therefore offensive.

Hence the real agenda is not to have people be inoffensive (i.e., homosexual), but to force them to positively approve of the behavior. Another reason I stick with sodomite. It's not meant to be offensive (though it is), but merely biblical and accurate.

So once again, when have Christians stepped over the line and married the zeitgeist? But perhaps that's for another thread.

Awesome. Redefine a term ex post facto and accuse the users of being derogatory.

Acceptable social discourse changes over time. Next time to see a black mentally-handicapped person then, just call them a negro imbecile and see how many friends you make.

We really need to start a new thread on this; it is disturbing is Christians, given a range of terms, purposely choose the most offensive in the name of reaction against political correctness. It is lack of love.

 

[mvdm]

My 2009 resolution is to pray for the death of the term "contextualization".

 

[Staphlobob]

Doubtless social discourse changes (esp. regarding ontology). But Christian discourse does not. And certainly not Christian discourse regarding behavior.

Now, if someone wishes to start another thread to discuss the theology of our language that would certainly be a gay thing to have happen.

-----Added 1/2/2009 at 01:09:19 EST-----

We really need to start a new thread on this; it is disturbing is Christians, given a range of terms, purposely choose the most offensive in the name of reaction against political correctness. It is lack of love.

Actually political correctness is what truly lacks love as it redfines sin as "disease" and evil as "lack of self-esteem." PC-ism is offensive and refuses to face facts. E.g., it's no longer "he died" but "he passed."

As someone once noted, the Victorians had a fascination with death but refused to talk about sex. Today pc-ism loves to talk about sex but denies death. Weird.

So as a Christian I refuse to be loveless and harm people by being "pc" and so refusing to speak plainly. Sodomy it is.

 

[turmeric]

I can think of quite a few graphic terms for it, but this is a Christian (sorry) board. I don't mind calling it "gay", as long as we point out, in the proper context, that being "gay" is a sin. There are going to be people who don't know what "sodomite" means very shortly.

 

[Pergamum]

Doubtless social discourse changes (esp. regarding ontology). But Christian discourse does not. And certainly not Christian discourse regarding behavior.

Now, if someone wishes to start another thread to discuss the theology of our language that would certainly be a gay thing to have happen.

-----Added 1/2/2009 at 01:09:19 EST-----

We really need to start a new thread on this; it is disturbing is Christians, given a range of terms, purposely choose the most offensive in the name of reaction against political correctness. It is lack of love.

Actually political correctness is what truly lacks love as it redfines sin as "disease" and evil as "lack of self-esteem." PC-ism is offensive and refuses to face facts. E.g., it's no longer "he died" but "he passed."

As someone once noted, the Victorians had a fascination with death but refused to talk about sex. Today pc-ism loves to talk about sex but denies death. Weird.

So as a Christian I refuse to be loveless and harm people by being "pc" and so refusing to speak plainly. Sodomy it is.

There are plenty of Christians who do not use the terms sodomite or ****** when addressings gays and still do not cover-up the fact that it is sin or relegate it to disease. We do not have to become Fred Phelps in order to state that homosexuality is not disease, but is sin. There is needed harshness and unneeded harshness and I think many Christians hate gays and so use the most venomous terms available.

-----Added 1/2/2009 at 01:25:14 EST-----

ABOUT CONTEXTUALIZATION:

My 2009 resolution is to pray for the death of the term "contextualization".

This term is useful because it shows efforts to make the Gospel understandable in indigenous contexts. Translating the Bible is contextualization. What else should we call it? I use and I like contextualization because we are transmitting the Gospel, not Western culture to our target people.

 

[Romans922]

Authentic
Missional
Small Groups or Growth Groups (because these are called --> Families)
Seeker-Sensitive

 

[danborvan]

Community
Transparent
Worship - when it is restricted to singing and not the rest of the liturgy

 

[FenderPriest]

My word choice: "Just."

Christians should universally stop using the word "just" with reference to any form of Christian discipleship, counseling, mortification of sin, or alteration of thought and life. There is no such thing as "just do..." in the Christian life - it is all couched in, empowered by, prompted and sustained by the Holy Spirit in the Gospel.

 

[Confessor]

Can we quit banning words please? My vocabulary is running out.

 

[Pergamum]

reminds me of 1984...the dictionaries got smaller every year....down the memory hole...

 

[Staphlobob]

There are plenty of Christians who do not use the terms sodomite or ****** when addressings gays and still do not cover-up the fact that it is sin or relegate it to disease. We do not have to become Fred Phelps in order to state that homosexuality is not disease, but is sin. There is needed harshness and unneeded harshness and I think many Christians hate gays and so use the most venomous terms available.

Ah, the (God-given?) ability to read hearts justified by the phrase "I think." Would "judgmental" be one of those banned terms? After all it would be politically-correct to do so.

 

[he beholds]

"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.

Some of those words are offending a non-sinful attribute (colors of skin, shapes of eyes, ethnicity, handicapped-ness) whereas the sodomite/homosexual terms describe a person who sins in a specific way. I don't call people sodomites, but I would call them gay or homosexual. What else could they be called????? (For the record, I would also call someone who steals, a thief, and someone who lies, a liar. Are those terms acceptable?)

And is handicapped out? Or mentally retarded? I thought both were still in (and my step-brother is both handicapped and mentally retarded).

And, I call black people black. I'm only 27, but apparently I'm way out of the loop.

 

[Zeno333]

"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.

Some of those words are offending a non-sinful attribute (colors of skin, shapes of eyes, ethnicity, handicapped-ness) whereas the sodomite/homosexual terms describe a person who sins in a specific way. I don't call people sodomites, but I would call them gay or homosexual. What else could they be called????? (For the record, I would also call someone who steals, a thief, and someone who lies, a liar. Are those terms acceptable?)

And is handicapped out? Or mentally retarded? I thought both were still in (and my step-brother is both handicapped and mentally retarded).

And, I call black people black. I'm only 27, but apparently I'm way out of the loop.

I guess one day in the future, white people will be referred to as "Melanin Challenged"? Sorry, could not resist that one.

 

[Pergamum]

My dog back home is a canine-american.

 

[Confessor]

I honestly don't think the distinction between chosen attributes and unchosen ones is relevant. For instance, if I thought "sodomite" was a legitimate term to call a homosexual, and I called one that, and he was deeply offended, I would not respond, "Oh, well, you made that choice," but rather, "That shouldn't be offensive, just descriptive. That's what you are." In other words,, I would use the exact same defense for calling a black person black (rather than African-American) as for calling a homosexual a sodomite. The only relevant part of the discussion is whether or not "sodomite" (or "black") is descriptive or pejorative, as JD described.

This is a much harder issue to resolve than I thought it would, because it is evident that whether or not people take offense at something cannot be the sole criterion, yet it is significant. The fact that homosexuals disliked the descriptor "homosexual" is evident of this. There's no way that can be pejorative, but they still find it offensive apparently.

 

[Zenas]

When the Supreme Court was debating the issue (one of several times), the more conservative judges used the word "homosexual" while the more liberal employed "gay." It was later said by the pro-sodomite side that "homosexual" was a pejorative term and therefore offensive.

Hence the real agenda is not to have people be inoffensive (i.e., homosexual), but to force them to positively approve of the behavior. Another reason I stick with sodomite. It's not meant to be offensive (though it is), but merely biblical and accurate.

So once again, when have Christians stepped over the line and married the zeitgeist? But perhaps that's for another thread.

Awesome. Redefine a term ex post facto and accuse the users of being derogatory.

Acceptable social discourse changes over time. Next time to see a black mentally-handicapped person then, just call them a negro imbecile and see how many friends you make.

We really need to start a new thread on this; it is disturbing is Christians, given a range of terms, purposely choose the most offensive in the name of reaction against political correctness. It is lack of love.

The point was that they determined that the term was "bad" after the fact and then judged the users according to the new standard.