Unbelievers? Non-Christans?

[Josh]

Today we had some debate over the use by Christians of the terms "non-Christian" and /or "unbeliever". Appropriate terms? Offensive? Preferable alternatives? I'd be interested in continuing the discussion. Further thoughts?

[Josh]

I was arguing that I didn't like the terms "unbeliever" and to a lesser extent "non-Christian" because they are labels that define others by what they AREN'T.  I think it would be better to say something like "people who aren't Jesus followers", because that emphasizes first the humanity of the referent before the categorization.

Others disagreed, finding such terms inoffensive but merely short-hand classifications.  Apparently even the author of Disunity in Christ shares this view, despite her own demographics

I just think that it's pretty similar to an example from the political world.  Opponents of a position tend to characterize adherents to the opposite view as "anti"- e.g., people in support of abortion sometimes label their opposition "anti-choice" when people who hold a position against abortion would never describe themselves that way.  Or vice-versa.   

Or to take a cue from American history, Federalists labeled their opponents Anti-Federalists when they preferred to call themselves Republicans. 

That said, what I propose is more awkward linguistically/grammatically. 

Any more thoughts?

[stevekimes]

I don't mind the term non-Christian, as it is just a shorthand statement of fact, not necessarily intending offense.  It is a sociological reality that some are Christians and some are not and, at times, it is helpful to make this distinction.   However, like the term "Christian" I don't necessarily find it useful as a spiritual term.  Many people call themselves Christian and many would gladly classify themselves non-Christian, but that doesn't determine or even describe one's standing before God or Jesus.  I find them useful as a term to determine certain cultural and sociological traits, though.

I don't know if I told this story here before or not:

In one of my visits to Bangladesh, I was riding alone in a taxi with no windows.  As we were stopped at a light, a man approached me from the street asking me if I'd like a "girl".  I said, "No thanks, I'm a Christian."  He responded like the good salesman he was: "No problem, I can get you a Christian girl."  If I went back, I'd be safer because I have a large beard, which is the Muslim-recognized distinction of a "religious" person. 

Although in the U.S. we have a narrower definition of "Christian", the cultural definition isn't the same as Jesus' definition of one who receives the blessing of the kingdom.  Until that happens to be the case, I think that my use of the terms "Christian" and "non-Christian" will be strictly a sociological one.

[Watchermike]

Josh, How about "the lost". Anytime you pit the words believer or christian with a negative it will not make sense. Either they are or their not "bottom line".If they get save then they are so that's why it makes no sense.

[Josh]

Well, I think the term "lost" is bound to generate more "heat than light".  We're never going to attract someone to the gospel through a term, so why not make it as inoffensive as possible.  Most people without Christ don't designate themselves as "lost".  That's a feeling that often is only realized right before one chooses to be a Christ-follower.

[LadyAjax]

I think the most important thing is, that whatever term you use, it doesn't have a subtext of "bad", pitiable, morally bereft or "less than." Particularly if you are speaking TO or within hearing of one of "those" people.

I guess I see "non-christian" to be primarily descriptive. But descriptive to one is offensive to another.

It's interesting the deep emotional charge that we can give to words. My mother-in-law, who has had several strokes and is paralyzed on the left side and resides most of her day in a wheelchair, casually refers to herself as a "cripple." But this term is highly offensive to my step-dad who is paralyzed from the waist down and spends all his days in a wheelchair. He corrects her vehemently whenever she says it and declares that he is NOT a "cripple" - he's "handicapped." She considers "cripple" to be descriptive, he considers it to be pejorative.

So, when in Rome? If possible, find out how a person perceives/refers to themselves and then try to use that term when speaking to and about them?

[Josh]

Great post!

[Watchermike]

Why when defending God to an atheist is offending to an atheist because the very mention of God.When an atheist group tears down Christian walls by taking "prayer out of school",taking "the ten commandments out of court houses"and excepting gay marriages in society.Oh and don't let us forget taking Christ out of Christmas.Shouldn't we be offended too?So why should we feel bad to offend when the truth is the truth?This word offend happens on both sides of the coin.It's kind of off topic but non believer and believer is simply either you believe or you don't,nothing to get offended about.Maybe a non believe is offended because he or she is being condemned?
Just my thoughts for the day.
God bless 

[josie05]

Well,
   It's kind of like saying, that all people who do not practice Christianity by way of Religions of the world, don't believe in Christ. I can believe in Christ, but not practice the Christian Religion. I can believe in the Omniscient, and Omnipresent spirit of the universe, and practice religions, or combination of religions, or at least read religious texts, but not associate with the people of the religious background, and still be a believer. I feel that Non-believers are simply atheists, or people who don't believe in God as he is revealed in books. You can call a believer that believes in Christ, and other religions, Christain, just as someone who Submits to God a Muslim, even if they aren't Orthodox in their beliefs, or also choose to ascribe to the teachings of the Bhagavad Gita and call their God Krishna. Religion is great because God is ascertained differently by different people, because of their unique life experiences, and spirit. God affects all of our Bio-chemistry differently, so to say that someone is a non-believer, just because they don't believe what you believe, is blasphemy, against their Spirit.

[kevingodlovesyou]

CS Lewis addressed this issue in his book "Mere Christianity". Basically, they're christian if they accept that Jesus is God Himself. Several cults CLAIM to be christian but they twist scripture on the point of His deity, such as Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, even some catholics and Apostolic and various minor sects.

[Josh]

Dec 31, 2013 11:50:45 GMT -8 Watchermike said:

Why when defending God to an atheist is offending to an atheist because the very mention of God.When an atheist group tears down Christian walls by taking "prayer out of school",taking "the ten commandments out of court houses"and excepting gay marriages in society.Oh and don't let us forget taking Christ out of Christmas.Shouldn't we be offended too?So why should we feel bad to offend when the truth is the truth?This word offend happens on both sides of the coin.It's kind of off topic but non believer and believer is simply either you believe or you don't,nothing to get offended about.Maybe a non believe is offended because he or she is being condemned?
Just my thoughts for the day.
God bless 

My answer to this is that we don't repay evil for evil, so in a much narrower context, we ought not repay offense.  Peter says we are to witness with gentleness and respect.  If there is a specific reason in talking to someone to use a specfic term like "lost", then I can understand that sometimes that might be what the Holy Spirit wants you to say.  But I can just as easily see the Holy Spirit have us just call a seeker "friend" to avoid unnecessary offense before the gospel has even been explained.