Community - means a location, not a philohophy, to most people outside the church

however, I think we are way overconcerned with the whole “language issue"… the example given in the article of using Latin is not the same thing as using a few terms that may have a different meaning to a new person. Read Rainer’s book called, “Surprising Insights of the Unchurched”. Rainer’s calls the concern about terms as one of the “myths” of reaching the unchurched. Several of those previously unchurched thought it was comical when the pastor tried to avoid using certain terms, or dumbed things down in any way. The surveys showed that the previously unchurched EXPECTED to not understand everything, and EXPECTED to learn something new!

I think the analogy of using Latin would only apply if you were going to a cross cultural setting where they literally used a different language than English.

I think people don’t care about what terms you use - they want to know - DOES IT MAKE A DIFFERENCE. “My life is changed” - that is easy to understand.

Didn’t a Christian research group do a poll that said those who are unchurched actually found “Christianese” to be an expected part of going to church, and that churches that didn’t use that sort of language were either boring or made them feel uncomfortable?  I think maybe tapdancing around words that might make people uncomfortable in our minds isn’t a good idea; a lot of times that’s the sort of stuff that gets people asking questions, gets them curious.

We had a woman receive Christ yesterday.  I am doing a new series on “How God Changes a Life” from Romans 8.  She was a first time guest, came with her teen who has been coming for the past month.  I spoke about condemnation, justification and sanctification.  Took time to paint pictures with these words because I am sure 95% or more of the people I spoke to Sunday did not use those words in the same way the Bible does any time in the last 30 days. 

I never “change” words to “accommodate” the unsaved.  I “choose” words to “communicate” with people who do not have the heritage or training in faith I have.  There are a lot of young believers in my church who just don’t know religious speak.  I do this because the most relevant message spoken in a different language is powerless. 

I suggest any of us take the list of word we compile, put them on an index card and then eavesdrop 3 or 4 conversations at the mall or a restaurant and see how many of these words appear in the context we use them.  On the flip side of your card write down words you hear that might have the same meaning.  I have done this in search for the “language of my culture.”

One reason we speak Christianese is many communicators/pastors work on the text but never work on their own skill past college or seminary.  Most pastors I know have no friends who do not have a friendship with God.  I read at least 2 books a year on communication and attend a seminar every other year, I just think this is what it means to fan to flame the gift.  My 2 cents

I agree with those who’ve said that the example in Latin doesn’t work.  The unchurched aren’t going to hear words that have absolutely no meaning, but may very well hear words that have to them a “different” meaning.  Ex: Leonard’s example of the word “intimacy” and Brian’s “community.” If I go to China as a missionary, I’m not going to speak in English and expect the natives to get it.  But in our churches, some words and phrases mean something different to us than to those in our culture but outside the church. This can actually be more problematic than a foreign language if we are blind to it.

I too loved Rainer’s book, but I think his point is that we shouldn’t fall all over ourselves to stop using words that the unchurched might not understand or would understand differently.  Rather, we should simply explain what words and terms that might otherwise be misunderstood, and could completely change the meaning of our message for the person who misunderstands.  If in the sermon the term intimacy with God is used, add a few sentences to explain what this means spiritually.  If we’re gonna sing “the blood, the blood, the wonderful blood” explain it before so an unchurched person doesn’t think we’re vampires . . . but rather has another opportunity to consider the depth of our need and the sacrifice made on our behalf.

My pet peeve is the term “accepted Jesus Christ as your PERSONAL savior” (emphasizing the part of this phase I most distain).  While one is completely unchurched, they have no idea what on earth that means.  Once they become saved, we’ve convinced them that their salvation (and their church involvement) is all about them; like a personal computer, personal digital assistant, or a personal home loan (ala McLaren).

Wendi

Dan Brewster:

What I believe my cousin Homer is referring to is the use of the word “saved” in such a way that there is no sign of grace attached to it. It is thrown around without explanation as to what it means as defined in the Bible. Or even more simply put, it comes across as arrogant and snobbish instead of a sincere sense of humbleness. If I am wrong in what he meant, he knows he is more than free to correct me.

“The truth of God’s Word needs to be preached more than ever before in its power and purity.” - I could not agree with this statement more.

Thank you for responding even if you do not agree with all that is discussed here.

Grace to you,
Camey

Regardless of whether or not Latin is a good example (I think it is an extreme example that makes a great point)… those of us who grew up in the church or may have tons of training in ‘church leadership’ kid ourselves if we think that the language we grew up with for the last 30 years in side the church; and the ‘christianese’ words and internal language of most churches will connect with those in our culture who don’t know Christ.

Again, I encourage the read of Brad’s book.  That will allow you to read his whole thesis and see his heart on this matter.

“saved”, but that is exactly what the Bible (KJV) says”

Actually the Bible (in Greek) uses the word ‘sozo’. It is tranlated 13 different ways. So, if you want to stay true to the Scriptures and speak the correct language, you should probably call people ‘sozo’ instead of saved, and then define the meaning, since it is used so many ways. Otherwise, you are using some interpreters “pet word"…

Again, let’s not jump to conclusions here.

No one has suggested that we skirt words or issues.  That, simply is wrong.

What is being advocated is to stop using words and terms that the people we communicate with don’t understand.

And what is being advocated is communicating God’s truth, God’s WHOLE truth, using words our culture will understand.  Yes, that includes things like sin and hell.

Let’s get the idea out of our head that using culturally relevent (and I’m getting to hate that term cause is it so misunderstood and misused) language does NOT equate to ‘watering down the gospel’.  At least not with most of us.

TOdd

Dan Brewster – I know that I happen to get saved “personally” through the redemptive work of Jesus.  But all of creation is groaning for its redemption, and all of creation is in need of redemption, and the cross must not be reduced to a personal transaction between me and God.  Sometimes, in an effort to tug at a person’s emotions, I hear well meaning Christians say “if you were the only person on earth, Jesus would have died for you alone.” Arrrrgh!!!!  HE DIDN’T DO THAT!!!  And I’m not the only person on earth, and I’ve been redeemed to become part of a redeemed people, called to become a redemptive influence in the world still desperately in need of redemption, as long as God sees fit to keep me walking around on planet earth.  It’s not about my personal salvation . . . and it never was!  That “personal” stuff is Christianeese which has damaged “our” thinking more than the thinking of the unchurched.

Someone kick the soapbox out from under me.

Wendi

Yes, Wendi.  He saved all of us and all of creation, but you, personally, have to accept Him.  That’s where the personal comes from in most circles (regardless of how it’s perceived).  It’s the job of the minister to clarify semantics; I feel there’s no need to change the way most of our churches speak today (unless it is to return to more biblical terms rather than junk made up in “seeker-sensitive” circles). 

What is relevance?  Speaking in a way that people understand?  Speaking their language?  Is that what we want?  Is your message reaching them because they understand or because it was said into their context?  These are things that we must tip-toe around.  What are these “words they don’t understand”?  If you’re a good preacher and if you’re speaking in a clear manner, it seems to me that there should be no confusion.  Sure, the word sanctification might seem a little scary, but what do you change it to that still captures the real meaning?  “Being saved and stuff”?

The Superfluity of Naughtiness is my next message.  It is in the KJV so I will be biblical and that is all that matters.  Afterwards we will raise our Ebenezer’s. 

Wendi, I suggest switching the order of the words.  I say have you personally invited Christ to forgive your sins and lead your life? 

I think the word sanctified should be used, but explained with an illustration.  I want someone reading their bible to come across some of these words and understand them, especially with a current meaning.

Jeremy, et al…

Here’s the point you need to consider. That word “personal” means “selfish” to so many, or “personal relationship with Christ” to many implies that a person is all “me and Jesus and no one else bother us"… Both are incorrect scripturally. So if you needed to find new words for the idea that a person needs to trust in Christ for salvation, would you be willing to do it.

Here’s an example of what I’m talking about, language-wise. If I tripped and fell backward and landed on my posterior end, in America, I could innocently say that I landed on my ______fill in the blank. One word we use very innocently in America rhymes with nanny but begins with a different letter. It’s innocent in America, it is a VERY naughty word in New Zealand. As soon as I found this out, it would be wrong for me not to change my word-choice when in that culture.

We need to choose our words for our culture, like Paul did, like Jesus did.

And, Jeremy, you wrote “unless it is to return to more biblical terms rather than junk made up in “seeker-sensitive” circles”. I take some exception to that statement. The words we often avoid using are not actually in the Bible, but rather are in the context of our American Western Christian Culture… Please keep it positive, that statement goes a little over the line, imho.