Just a heads up. This is kind of long, but I think its one of the most important posts to me that I’ve written in a while.
On Thursday I said I would respond on Friday to the question that was asked of me, “What am I looking for in a church?” I got tied up on Friday doing some work and haven’t really been able to spend any time thinking and developing my thoughts. But while in the shower this morning I did spend some time thinking about another word that has been bothering me more and more. Fittingly enough (I say fittingly because I read the majority of Tony Jones’ book The New Christians while in the bath), I started thinking about this word because I was listening to Doug Pagitt’s podcast on church and preaching (from Scandinavia) while I was shaving.
A long setup in short, I do my best thinking when bathroom related activities are involved . . . long soaks in the tub, in the shower, and . . . well it involves a certain throne of mine.
So with that in mind, I was thinking about the term unbeliever. Or it’s red-headed stepsister, non-believer.
Quickly, let me again just reiterate that language and words are nothing more than metaphors or symbols. Words have no value in and of themselves without the meaning that we give to them. Words are not black and white. When I say the word food, each and every one of us immediately conjures (sub-consciously) up an image that is indicative of what we perceive food to be. For me, I think of sandwiches for some reason. You may think of chicken. Or pizza. Or a Twinkie.
Our experiences, culture, and history play an integral role in what images come to our mind when specific words are given. Many of us are beginning to realize just how subjective and relative our particular images are. And further, how they are incomplete by themselves. If I were to assume that sandwiches were what everyone else associated with food, I’d be doing myself and others a great disservice. So I’m trying to be more careful about the words that I use, knowing that they only tell one part or side of the story. I’m also realizing how limiting language is to define people. I don’t like the term unbeliever (explanation below) so I try to couch the idea that I’m trying to convey in words that are closer to the image of what I think and see. Have I lost you yet?
But as I’ve searched for “replacement words” for unbeliever, I’ve struggled greatly to do so because there just aren’t words that convey what I think about what most people refer to as unbelievers. So as I’m searching my vocabulary for something that would help me articulate my thoughts, I started to wonder why I am even in need of words to define someone else. And deep down, I think it helps us to be able to label people.
Truth be told, I don’t really need a word to describe a person. It doesn’t affect me whether Nick* is a believer or an unbeliever, a scientist or a teacher, a Hispanic or a white. I don’t know Nick by any of these terms. I know Nick because he’s a friend. My relationship to Nick is as friend and as human. Not as a white, hopeful skeptic, traveler, podcaster. Sure these adjectives are helpful in that they give strangers handles and frameworks for approaching people, but they are just words. They are just scattered images used to articulate what a person does. But not what a person is. They are adjectives. Not nouns. They don’t define him. He’s way more nuanced than that. And my words to describe him . . . are but one posture, one perspective.
Leslie (his wife) knows him in an entirely different way. She relates to Nick as husband, cook, book reader, conversationalist, and the list could go and on. But again, those words are not nouns. Just adjectives. Nick does those things. But he is not defined by those things. He is more nuanced than mere words.
Yes the words are helpful to describe him. But the words are limiting them by themselves.
This is why I have problems with the term unbeliever or non-believer. I know of very few people who un-believe in things. Or who don’t believe in anything at all. Even the staunchest atheist has beliefs about God. They just believe that God doesn’t exist. So to call said atheist an unbeliever is sort of dishonest because they believe in things. Just not the things that I may believe. They don’t lack belief. They just lack the belief that we think they should have. The atheist is the extreme example.
In reality, most people aren’t as extreme as the most extreme atheist. Most people have some sort of belief in God or Jesus. In fact, most research indicates that the majority of people have a rather strong belief in God and Jesus. I won’t go Barna on you with the numbers but the reality is that most people in fact do have beliefs. They are not unbelievers or non-believers. They hold many beliefs. But again, they lack the belief that we think they should have.
So again, we’re back at the point that I made earlier. That most language is used for our benefit. Most language is used to help us define who is IN and who is OUT. When we use terms like unbeliever, we are making a deliberate choice to define and label someone so that it makes it easier for us to categorize them and consequently draw the line that proves they are OUT. We are not defining ourselves in relationship to people as friends and as humans, but are defining ourselves in relationship to US being IN and THEM being OUT.
And maybe it’s only me but I’m just crazy enough to believe in a God who is comprehensive enough to not expect everyone to be at the same point as me in order for them to be IN. Even defining myself as being at on a point is extremely limiting. God is not ponticular and linear. And even when I say “as me“, I’m still defining people in relationship to me. I’m still the center point at which God is comparing everyone else. And therein lies the problem. I have a strange suspicion that God doesn’t think like I think. And I have an even larger hunch that God doesn’t need labels in order to make sense of other people. Crazy huh?
Sorry for this rather existential, postmodern exercise in etymology. But again, I think the words we use say a great deal about the images we hold of things we are trying to describe.
* Nick is not an unbeliever. I just used a personal example of a friend as opposed to using the name Billy Bob. Please don’t send Nick an e-gospel invite.
Part One – Thoughts on the word “church”.
Listening: If The Ocean Gets Rough by Willy Mason
on 
on 
on 
on 
on
35 Comments
Josh, thanks for sharing your thoughts. Labels and words are something I’ve struggled with throughout my entire “church-life.” So often you’re able to articulate things that I can’t, which is why I love your blog so much. I wish I could say something constructive or challenging, but all I can say is I agree 100-percent.
Thanks for the rant.
First, I’m reminded of a Mark Twain quote: “Do I believe in infant baptism? Heck, sir, I’ve seen it with my own eyes!” I digress.
The thing that I like most is your assertion that people are far more “nuanced” than labels allow for.
But people need to create terminology to communicate their agreed-upon way of viewing things. That’s why you’ll hear the word “unbeliever” more often (in my experience, anyway) in evangelical circles. If your theology focuses on heaven and hell, and your primary goal is to convert people to the faith, the label “unbeliever” becomes a MUST.
However, if you’re like me (I have a hunch you agree with me here), and you think we’re all just sojourners seeking reconciliation and love (no matter where we’re looking), then the world “unbeliever” becomes theologically (and practically) unnecessary.
If that makes any sense…
If I didn’t hold the scriptures as some sort of guide, I’d probably agree with you.
But just as there is a word for “believer” in the New Testament (pistos, meaning believer, faithful, etc.), there is a word for “unbeliever” as well (apistos, unbeliever, faithless, etc.).
Because we believe in a Savior, we believe in those who are saved and those who are not. The distinction isn’t arbitrary. And the distinction is scriptural. That’s not to say that the distinction isn’t abused in a Bible-thumping kind of way, so you still have a valid point to make. But we are called to be distinct from the rest of the world – as Jesus described it, the “faithless (apistos) generation.”
Josh, I stumbled upon your blog while I was reading reviews of “N.T. Wright’s” book “Simply Christian” (which is simply brilliant) on Amazon the other night.I think you raise a lot of great questions and concerns with the American Evangelical machine – which I grew up in and now find myself on the outside looking in. I agree our culture has a problem with labeling each other too often and not focusing on what’s really important. I also find that believer/unbeliever is just 1 of the many dichotomy’s the church sadly focuses on. Other examples: heaven/hell, abortion/capital punishment, creation/evolution, liberal/conservative, etc. I feel the church in general has lost its true calling – to be a people that are the salt of the earth and light of the world. Showing the world what is truly means to be human.
Keep up the thought provoking work!
@ josh k. thanks for the kind words. i’m with you. i think you’re right. “labels” like this are only necessary within the church. in the real world, we don’t use or need such staunch lines drawn.
@ jake. nice follow-up. it’s tough for me to talk about anything outside of evangelical circles. i wonder what words mainliners use? any takers? and i agree with you. i think our overall theology or starting point often leads us to the language we use.
@ mike. thanks for stopping by. glad you found the site. albeit the back door. simply christian was a great book. but i’m biased cause nt wright is pure genius in my book.
i think the distinction you make about dichotomies is important. it’s as if that is our only choice . . . believer or unbeliever. when in reality there is a whole lot that lays in between. if those are my only two options then i guess i’m both. because i find myself in both categories depending on the day and the mood. but i’m more nuanced than my moods. or 2 binary options. thanks for joining in!
@ derek
i hold the scripture as some sort of guide. i really do. without getting into a whole hermeneutical exercise though . . . i’m curious as to how many times jesus used those words as opposed to paul. i like paul. but oftentimes he had an agenda he was working from. and as jesus described the “faithless generation” in mark 9:19 . . . could it be that jesus was talking about people’s lack of faith as an adjective describing . . . well, their lack of faith. it’s not a term that he uses to define people. or routinely call people by. it’s not as if in his daily life he’d sit down for a cup of coffee and tell the waiter, “mr. faithless generation, could you bring me an ice-caramel macchiato?” it wasn’t a name. but rather a state of being. one that was not permanent, but temporary and provisional.
and the way i read that passage is that he’s making the claim towards his disciples who were asked to cast out a spirit but were unable to . . . for THEIR lack of faith. in his frustration, he called his disciples the “faithless generation”. it’s also interesting that this passage is juxtaposed against the mountain and transfiguration. when they wanted to build a shelter for jesus and elijah. the same elijah who DID HAVE faith strong enough to call fire from the sky.
so any hermeneutical exercise with this passage needs to keep in mind that it’s his disciples he’s referring to. and in some ways might be making a critique that there faith isn’t anywhere near as strong as elijah’s. who they just wanted, for all intents and purposes, idolize with a shelter.
that’s not even mentioning anything of moses’ faith. that they wanted to build him a shelter to.
@DerekThe fact that the distinction IS abused is precisely the point, IMO.
You’re right on in saying that both words are present in the New Testament, but back in the day, they didn’t carry so much negative connotation as they do today. For us, the term “unbeliever” is usually taken to mean “someone who needs to be conquered”. Just look how often the phrase “win souls for Christ” or some other iteration is used.
I doubt that the intention of the scriptural use of “unbeliever” and “believer” is for conquest. It’s about love. That’s the problem… we have so demented the distinction that it now means the opposite.
Hey Josh, I identify with your struggles and I think it’s safe to that Nick is a non-Christian:)…but I do think that it just sucks that we have to label people in general. I wonder how the 1st century church handled this…it’s interesting that were only identified as the Way…and that it wasn’t these people that first described themselves as ‘Christians’…other people chose this name for them. So I wonder if the original intent of being called ‘the Way’ was to describe that it was how one lived that was important, not so much how one believed. I light of this, I am going to start calling people unWayers…including myself most of the time. later
@ justin
brilliant point. i hadn’t even thought about that. by using the term “the way”, it’s almost as if they were referring to themselves as people of movement. and you could either be moving with god or against god. i like that a lot. i don’t have any problem with using that kind of language at all. but then again, it’s important to remember that there are many times that i move and work against god. as opposed to moving with his kingdom. and i know many “believers” who oftentimes aren’t moving with God and i know many “non-believers” who at times find themselves moving with God.
i think it also recenters things in the kindgom of god, as opposed to this heaven/hell duality.
you get a silver star!
Josh, I appreciate these sentiments and ramblings because I share your concern. Distinctions separate and what I’m looking to do in bring together.
I’m beginning to discover that a more powerful act is the to discover the Imago Dei in people and bring that out. We all have that in common.
@ everyone
Can an individual belong to “the way”, or a builder of “the kingdom” without being a “christian”?
examples…
Gandhi, the Dalai Lama, etc.
I think Yes.
I try to keep words like unbeliever out of my vocabulary. I think it creates an artificial divide that serves no beneficial purpose, though it could cause many unbeneficial ones.
I think one of Paul’s best lines is when he said “this statement is true and worthy of acceptance that Jesus came into the world to save sinners… of whom I am foremost”. He said to those around him, I am with you not above you. There was no us and them to be concerned with. I am all for removing divisive language.
Great Post Josh!
@Mike: Only if they’ve prayed the salvation prayer.
Just kidding.
great post josh. language is so very important. we overlook the words we use and the ethos behind them way too much.
speaking of ethos, before the new testament word we translate as faith (pistos) gets thrown around too much, i would just point out that simply translating it as mere “belief” or “faith,” or even “faithfulness” for that matter is very limiting. and the assumption that it meant adherence to a certain set of dogma is simply untrue.
it was much more nuanced than that. like justin pointed out, it had more to do with “being” and “living” than “believing” (at least as we think of the word now). more to do with participation and collaboration than polarization and postulation. semantics then and semantics now are two entirely different animals.
for instance, in the great faith chapter of hebrews 11, where most evangelicals derive their definition of faith, i find it very, very interesting that the persons listed as champions of faith (abraham, moses, etc.) aren’t listed because they were world class apologists, or because they conformed to a certain brand of dogma, or for any so-called belief for that matter. they were listed because of the things that they did, the action they carried out, and the ways they intentionally participated in the vibrant, redemptive, and creative life of god.
and that. is liberating.
@Mike
I agree with you there.
I think our usage of labels as a definition of who is “in” and who is “out” is likely to be horribly wrong. Just as the ideas of who the messiah was going to be and how he was going to come that were held by the various Jewish sects was proven wrong, our idea of who’s “in the club” and who’s “out” likely follows the same path.
I think the larger problem lies in the fact that we (as a culture) love to define people. We attribute them to distinctions like conservative/liberal, republican/democrat, intelligent/uneducated, and other labels we devalue their true lives. People don’t fit nicely into our black and white straight lined groups, people are mixtures between each side.
I think that if we, as followers of the way (which by the way, I will join in and start using), attempt to label people we are completely missing the point of the (radical, revolutionary, and life changing) message of Jesus.
@ Mike Anderson
Hi Mike, according to Jesus, “you must be born of water and Spirit” (John 3:5 NRSV) to enter the kingdom of God. In John 3:3, Jesus states, “no one can see the kingdom of God without being born again”
Isn’t it most likely that what Jesus is telling us here is that to be of His Way, you have to be born into it. An act initiated by the Father to me rather than me “participating” in it? In short a Christian has something done to them, it’s not what they do.
max . . . could you elaborate a bit more about what you mean when you say “born again”? maybe just a little bit of what that entails to you so that i’ll know how to respond.
and just to push back a bit, if it’s an act initiated by the father and i don’t participate in it . . . isn’t the same thing as god forcing me to accept him? and it’s only done to me and i have no role in it, isn’t that kind of creepy and robs the whole humanity involved in the “transaction”?
@ Max…
What does it mean to be “born again”?
What exactly is the “kingdom of God”?
If being “born again” is repeating the “sinner’s prayer” at an alter call, and the “kingdom of God” is going to heaven when you die, then you’re right.
I think one must get a clear picture of what those concepts meant to a first century christian in a heavily greek / roman / jewish context.
Obviously this conversation is what the “emergent” movement is trying to address these past several years. Although, “N.T. Wright” (bishop of durham) has been writing about this some years before them. I highly recommend all his books.
Instead of rambling on and on here – I posted my thoughts on my own blog –
I agree wholeheartedly – our language and ability to articulate fall short.
Born again, or more literally “born from above”. Therefore born again means to be re-born or regenerated as by God. Who I am in and of myself is entirely insufficient to get into the “kingdom (sonship/citizenship) of God” which is affecting this life and the life to come.
I don’t believe in repeating the “sinner’s prayer” per se (akin to getting your ticket punched)- but I do believe in the necessity of repentance before God and faith (please let’s not contest the order of this – this is Josh’s blog and I’m merely aiming to clarify my comments).
And Mike, I think it’s more effective to meditate on this passage in light of the Jewish Rabbinic context. May I suggest some Leon Morris. Indeed since John is thought to outlived the others in the 1st Century and the tone of this gospel is to prove that Jesus is the Son of God – the context of Nicodemus was no more than Jewish regardless of gentile readers. Jesus’ words were manifestly spiritual in a way that Nicodemus would have gotten.
It doesn’t equate to me, Josh – it is an act initiated by the Father as evidenced by Jesus words and my participation is to repent and believe in all that Jesus claim’sto be and work thru me as a son/brother/friend/bride.
As for the rest of it: “forcing”, “creepy”, “robbing” that’s your opinion and presupposition created from somewhere and reflects you. I don’t see it that way at all. To me it’s merciful, truly loving, gracious and kind. Which do you suppose is representative of God’s nature?
thanks for the star…bling bling for the king…you know what I’m sayin’
Jake said “I doubt that the intention of the scriptural use of ‘unbeliever’ and ‘believer’ is for conquest. It’s about love. That’s the problem… we have so demented the distinction that it now means the opposite.”
Totally agree with you there. As Josh pointed out, Christ was calling His best friends “apistos”. He was describing the way they were, and He was also yearning for a change in their disposition (which He knew would have to wait for the Holy Spirit).
But the distinction is important. And later uses in the New Testament are consistent with how some Christians see themselves as “believers” and those who are not Christians as “unbelievers.”
We can use whatever modern terms we want for it, but there are those in the church and there are those not in the church. In post-apostolic times, the term “Christian” is supposed to reflect this. Pistos and apistos is one of the ways they phrased that in the early NT church, as evidenced by the frequency of their occurrence in the NT. It wasn’t hostile, but the distinction was there, and they had different standards of relationship within the pistos and with those on the “outside,” the apistos.
The key to the distinction was reliance on the forgiveness of Christ and the baptism of the Holy Spirit.
Finally, to underscore Max’s point about the whole process being initiated by God, read Romans 9, particularly verse 16: “God will choose the one to whom he decides to show mercy; his choice does not depend on what people want or try to do.” You have to read the full context to get the point, but it definitely provides a counter-argument to the whole free will thing (I personally think it’s both, btw).
Great post Josh! I really think we need to stop using the word “belief” all the time. It is too often entangled with the notion of “certainty”. I like the word “faith” which can bring to mind things like fidelity, allegience, trust, hope. I have ZERO certainty about anything in terms of events that happened in the past, how the universe works, how a man can be divine, or exactly God is.
However, I do have lots of faith. I really agree with Jesus’s message even if I can’t be certain he really said any of the words we attribute to him. I accept his vision for how things could be if we let God’s will be done on Earth. I trust that it will be better than what we have now and I hope we find the courage to make it so.
This is a very intriguing discussion. One of the places I’m living on this topic is the portion concerning how Jesus referred to things in general.
In terms of being ‘born again’ and that whole discussion…I think that the point that is being made is that words have meaning and attach the meaning. The problem that’s being pointed out is that what we say can be unhealthily divisive. It’s pretty clear to me as I look at the institution we know as ‘church’ that there is an unequal balance between what Jesus ’said’ and what Jesus ‘did.’
Maybe a better way to say it is that Jesus had a death, which in some deals with words as they relate to prophetic texts and the things Jesus taught, and Jesus had a life, as in He lived in such a way the showed people that the Kingdom was a step up from live as usual.
My concern is that people settle for the ease of the concrete that language can provide. What Jesus did and how he lived was a bit harder to get (and do for that matter).
So all this business about Jesus said this or that is pretty brittle in the lives of people without any encouragement to live the way Jesus did. Far too many people are cool with Jesus being their Savior, and Paul being their Lord.
Because it’s a whole lot easier to regurgitate stuff other people said rather than to live the way others have lived.
Maybe if we’d all just live and speak in such a way that shows the beauty of the Kingdom rather use tired old Christian-ese phrases, and yes that does mean updating how we use terms like ‘born again’ or ‘non-believer,’ that really end up being more divisive, it wouldn’t be so bad to call our communities of faith ‘churches.’
how did this devolve into reformed theology? j/k!
i’m with you mike. i’m not against certainty. it’s just that i hold it lightly. and am painfully aware of how limited and finite my interpretations are. they’re highly temporal. i like the word faith 2. especially its relationship to allegiance and hope.
great post josh!
i’ve been chewing on this subject for a little while now. i think you articulated it well.
simply…
i think things like “un-” and “non-” are used primarily as exclusion. And if we DO want to use these terms (unbeliever or nonbeliever), then we have to be honest with ourselves that we fit into these categories countless times in our lives. we are all lacking in faith at times.
may i be the first to welcome everyone to the “non-believer’s club”!
Man, I really hate I’ve come in so late in this conversation. I have to admit that I only read the first few comments, so if I’m being repetitive, then I sincerely apologize.
I think the best point raised has been the “abuse” of this term (unbeliever). When any label becomes wielded as a sword, it becomes exceedingly dangerous. And this term comes with a lot of baggage, too.
But, labels and the “in/out” language are completely unavoidable. Sure, it would be nice if we could keep from using them, but it would be virtually impossible. However, your point about relational identification vs. impersonal labeling is a good one. A label is a term with great limitations, and that needs to be understood. We can only actually “get” somebody in a relational context. I like that.
I do think, however, we could probably find another term than “unbeliever,” even if it is used in the Bible. It should be more carefully guarded, since, as you said, there aren’t many people who “unbelieve” things. I’ve heard some pretty lame attempts at finding other terms (one person I know talks about “pre-Christians”…..), but at least some people are seeing the baggage that goes along with using a term that has been wielded as a sword the way this one has.
Ryan, in reading your comment, I was wondering something. Do you think words such as “unbeliever” or “born again” could (or maybe already have) become profane in the same way words like “damn” and “hell” have? “Biblical” words used in a flippant way? Also, I think there’s an “unequal balance” between what Jesus said and what he did because we can’t, and were never meant to, do all the things he DID. If we truly believe he was God (and I do), then we can’t necessarily be expected to imitate all that he did (unless we, too, are god), whereas his teachings were directed to and for us.
Alan-
I don’t know if they could become profane or not. I don’t think they have already. I do think that they are terms that are used flippantly. They’re just tossed around and often utilized to define someone by what they aren’t…a verbal bludgeoning so to speak. One of the things that strikes me about Jesus is that he often helped people realize what they were–unique and loved by God.
If anything, these terms are already offensive to people of differing faith perspectives. Probably as offensive as one of them coming into a Christian worship gathering and telling the pastor/leader that they’re f***in’ full of sh**. Frankly, they could be right, but the packaging sucks. Just like I’d be right in categorizing someone who has a different belief set as an ‘unbeliever’ or ‘nonbeliever,’ it’s just the packaging that sucks.
I do agree that there are things that Jesus did that we weren’t meant to or able to do, for that matter. However, there are a slew of things that he DID do that many people or churches don’t. They’re as simple as helping meet basic needs of people or spending time with folks that need some love.
Most people are content to listen to a 25 minute sermon from one of Paul’s letters, write a check, and head off to Red Lobster. To me, that’s where the inequality is found.
“So to call said atheist an unbeliever is sort of dishonest because they believe in things. Just not the things that I may believe. They don’t lack belief. They just lack the belief that we think they should have. The atheist is the extreme example.”
I suppose you could strip any term of its “meaning” when you totally remove it from its context. People who use this term know full well that everyone believes in something. The terms (and I would say “non-believer” is the more grammatically correct of the two) are used in a specific context to refer to a specific disbelief.
I will grant you that this word is surely misapplied to folks who do believe on an intellectual level but have not been saved or regenerated. But I’m pretty sure that my beliefs about this sort of thing are different from Josh’s here, so maybe my definition is useless in this particular conversation.
At any rate, I would just encourage us to not be afraid of words, even labels, which are helpful when rightly used (i.e. not condescendingly or judgmentally). And let’s please not remove words from their context and then break down and analyze their meaning. That is a useless exercise.
Great post Josh – good thoughts! We label folders, storage boxes, IP addresses, insects, blogs, everything! I guess that we as Human beings have an innate desire for order, so we label everything around us so that we can bring order to chaos. I don’t like to label people based on what they believe – God knows their heart. We can share the reason for the joy within and witness Jesus to everyone. Why burden ourselves by placing a label on someone first, and if they fit into category A, them tell them about Jesus – if they’re in category B, why bother. It’s never wasted time to share the truth about Christ to others regardless of a label that has been placed on them.
I read a Buddhist guy once that said once you realize there is no such thing as a flower, then you are free to use the word “flower”.
I have no idea what he’s talking about – which maybe it why your post made me think of it.
Josh, FYI. You are SO not with it. The new term everyone is using is “unchurched”. My spell check tells me this is not a real word. If it is a real word it’s a rather awkward one, don’t you think? What do you think it means?
thanks for the comment jon.
i think “unchurched” is only popular in certain crowds. and i’m definitely not running in those crowds. i think it’s a fairly presumptuous term. and a rather loaded one at that. i’m not sure that you can identify or discern someone’s spirituality by a black and white decision based off of whether they go to a church or not. it assumes that going to a church is the litmus test. it assumes that church is a place and an event. it assumes so many things that i’m not comfortable with so i don’t find the term very useful.
josh. awesome. thanks for sharing. you are right on. the labels drive me crazy. i think half the time it is just to make us feel better about our status and some of the remarks we make or situations we get ourselves into with others. “Well, they are an unbeliever and they just don’t understand – or they needed to hear that – or blah blah blah.”
thanks for articulating it so well.
and thanks for the good adjectives on nick
The guys in “Unchristian” use the term “outsider”. He admits it is not that great.
My sentiments lie along what Max has said. It is a bit funny how a generation can get so uptight about a word like “unbeliever”. When it was first used it was pretty apparent that it referred to people who did not trust in Jesus’ work on the cross for salvation. It has nothing to do about a mental state or some broad comment on a peoples’ intelligence. Would I call an “unbeliever” an unbeliever to his/her face? Well, that’s not the point, because I am not one who can judge rightly whether he/she has done that or not – that is between them and God. They can be my friend, obviously, whatever they believe. Do I pray for someone who has decided to follow Jesus that he/she will? Absolutely.
Salvation is the real word that needs to be discussed, I think. Does it mean heaven? Well, yes in the same way that having a car means you get to drive – there is a whole lot more to it than that. Heaven is only the final step of the journey to become more like Jesus in our words, thoughts, and actions. Salvation involves some positional stuff which allows us to go into the throne room sprinkled with the blood of the Lamb; but there is also a progressive sanctification of the Spirit working in our life – kudos to the holiness movement guys that believe that salvation is this process (and have for the last 250 years).
Is everyone saved? No. Jesus died for everybody, but we are responsible for a response to grace. The predestination the Bible refers to is that we become conformed to His image. That is what being a Christian is all about.
It is God who does that in us, as we respond to Him in faith. It is a gift – and He offers it to all. Unless you reach out and take, it, though, it is not in your hands.
Why is salvation needed? Well, it is the issue of sin. The two are inextricably connected. That is the thrust of Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus and why John 3:16 is such a well-known verse. Again, God deals with each of us as individuals. What my salvation looks like could be somewhat different than what yours looks like. The traditional church does reach the lost – but their way of proclaiming the Good News is a cultural thing. The facts are the same, but people need to hear it in their own words to really hear it well. That’s why people translate the Bible into unwritten languages.
For those who are big on original language, why are you even worrying about the word uneliever. Go back to when it was first used and how it was used. It’s English. In the context it makes perfect sense. If it has become passe, fine, let’s find another that makes a distinction between what a person puts their faith in.
I personally believe that sanctification (salvation in a broad sense) is also tied closely to the surrender of our will to God’s. The picture I have in my mind is a throne, and it relates to my life, and whoever and whatever is sitting on it. This relates to the kingdom of God – which I think is simply all those people who are under His will. That’s what a kingdom is about. Jesus said we cannot serve 2 masters.
Our ministry is always to come alongside people and be used of god to help them grow closer to Him, regardless of what point on the journey they are at. Whether they are and unbeliever or a believer, and innie or an outtie. We are to love all people – that is how people will know we follow Jesus.
Right now the church is crap – just like America. The fiasco of the sub prime stuff has affected the world. Do we give up on America? I don’t think so – there is still so much good. Do we reorganize how they do finances? I hope so. Do we give up on the church – It is what Jesus is coming back for, so I think not.
One Trackback
[...] Josh Brown exposits a lengthy, yet meaty post on the subtleties of language, in this case the word u…. As always, his post is thoughtful, and thought-provoking. I wish I could post like he does! [...]