Preaching Language

I don't disagree. However, strong language need not be profane nor coarse.

 

I have not addressed your use of the word "dumb", so I did not say that was questionable. What I have said is that the specific term "screw up" can--can have a vulgar connotation. It can also have a connotation that is not vulgar. So, when you use it, you mean for it to mean what you mean for it to mean and I am certain that you did not mean vulgarity. OTOH, your listener took it as vulgarity, got offended, and walked out. What is more important to you; your right to use a word or your listener's offense at the word? I think your attitude as a servant leader should be "if use of the word "screw up" offends my brother then I will not use the word anymore". Go apologize to the man and try to reconcile the situation. If the man is looking for an excuse to be offended so that he can leave, I assure you he'll find another, you'll spot a pattern, then you may be able to address his weakness. If, however, he does not have a problem in a more general way but was truly offended by the term, then you are losing him because of your unwillingness to apologize and modify your vocabulary. I think that's really unnecessary and is beneath the calling of one who is a servant leader. Really, this one is not worth fighting over and it is not worth losing a man over.

 

He got up and left over the use of one word/phrase, as I understand it. If that is the only issue he has with you, why let the issue remain? It isn't worth it.

Again, this issue has apparently come up once. Is this the only time it's happened? Why extrapolate as though it is a larger issue if the issue is only this one phrase?

Did you grow up in the area in which you are now ministering? If not, this may be a case in which you are in a culture with which you are not familiar. You need to learn that culture and be open to learning about people's sensibilities and be sensitive to them. Public speaking is about communicating effectively to others. If your speech is offensive, then your communication is ineffective at best.

If what has happened here happens over and over again, then learn from it. Learn what is acceptable to the people and modify your speech so that you can be effective.

What is offensive can and will vary from one place to another.

I understand your point. To the pure all things are pure, so it would be nice if the guy would give you the benefit of the doubt rather than walk out, but he's in your congregation, so you have to try to minister to him.

One observation about the incidents you mentioned; in most of those the speaker is speaking to unbelievers who were very religious and who had turned from the truth and were trying to destroy the truth or pervert the truth. The harshest language seems to be reserved for them. And the harsh language is not used to speak about them, it is used in direct address to them. I don't think these instances of harsh language are pertinent to a pastor who is speaking to a congregation of mostly believers in a public setting.

And for me, being from the south, I am used to vivid, colorful language and I like to use it. I have to be careful not to use words/phrases that are so colloquial that people in PA won't know what I'm talking about. I am careful not to say anything derogatory about yankees either...unless it's the NY Yankees--in Philly speaking ill of them is OK!

 

One thing is true: we can go too far in limiting language. A pastor friend was absolutely raked over the coals for using the word "sex" in a sermon. He was preaching a series on the family and talked about sexual relationships. I think it was entirely appropriate (he didn't go into detail, no show and tell, no powerpoints, thankfully . Now, his timing can be up for debate (it was during a live TV telecast, and children were listening) but even there we can go overboard rather quickly.

But another instance is where we take the other end to extremes. A minister preached a sermon where he used a common expression that is understood as a racial slur, but his excuse was that he and everyone grew up hearing the word so what harm could there be?

We should avoid extremes. We cannot avoid truth, but we should avoid profane/coarse language in proclaiming truth.

Kirk out. :laugh:

 

You can't say that you're sorry if you don't feel you were wrong. Each of us make decisions on word choice based on who we are, where God leads us and who our audience is.

Personally, I think you screwed up. :tongue3:

 

Well said.


"He's dead, Jim!"

 

"I'm a preacher, not a doctor...." or something like that. :laugh:

 

Really, you don't see anything wrong with what you did. That's what I get out of this thread.

Here's my viewpoint, and you can take it for whatever it's worth:

We need to be aware of everything concerning our preaching. Am I developing a tick that is distracting, do I need to work on my delivery, am I speaking too low, fast, slow, etc. One of the things I need to consider is how effective I am getting the message across to the congregation. Am I going over their heads? In that same basic thought process, I should consider how the words I am using is taken by the congregation. I could use the word efficacious a lot during a message, but there could be someone there that doesn't know what it means. So, there is a need to consider language usage and how the congregation reacts. Under that same heading, I need to consider very heavily how people react to the type of language I use. I have, on occasion, referred to a harlot, such at Revelation 17 Mystery, Babylon the Great, Mother of harlots and abominations. I'll be honest with you, that was a very valid usage of that term, but I still felt uncomfortable using it. I've never used the world sex preferring the term fornication instead. I don't think I've used homosexual, instead using the term sodomy. I really concern myself heavily with not offending one of God's little ones. Preaching should exhort, instruct, reprove, etc but it should not insult or offend through language used.

You could have said that love spoken of here in the bible is unconditional. You could have said we are all sinners and as such will make mistakes, but we should still love one another and forgive one another.

 

There is no unchageable, unmovable line. Words have a range of meaning and, in this case, the hearer heard you say something that you did not mean and he judged you. So, he is at fault in a sense. However, his understanding of what he heard is within the range of possible meanings of the word, so you are at fault because you did not communicate clearly. If there is an issue between you and a brother you should go to him and try to clarify things. If after your explanation he still takes issue with what you said, since his interpretation of what you said is within the range of possible meanings for what you said, you should apologize. IMHO.

Then why did you bring it up? I think what you said here is very much a part of the issue. It seems like this guy is a pretty difficult guy and your life will be much easier if he just goes away. Now he's gone, so just let him go, right?

Maybe you should think of it this way instead: This guy is a difficult guy who needs some serious growth in his discipleship. Everywhere he goes he finds fault and leaves and he bounces around claiming to be a Christian (as a PB, I'm sure he'd be happy to explain all about God's soveriegnty and election) but, bottom line, he does not love other Christians; he prefers to criticize, and nobody loves him. God, in his sovereignty, has brought him to you. Now you have offended him (admitedly, you're not the first to do this). So, do you just let him go like everybody else has, or do you roll up your sleeves, get involved with him, show him the love of Christ, and try to help? Can you have a conversation with him and try to see his point of view even if it means having to apologize to him and modify your language? Or do you just let him go so that your life is easy and you can say what you want to say?

 

People did stop following Jesus after some things He said, but they were offended at His doctrine, not His words.

I'm not advocating that we compromise the message, I'm saying that we need to be careful what language we use. We have to guard against using language that can easily be misconstrued by someone, even if that person is looking for an excuse to get offended. I need to understand who I am preaching to and try to use the best language to get the message across. If the phrase "scew-up" offends someone, even if the person is looking for an offense, I need to change that. Period. There are a lot of ways to get that across without using that language that have force.

Another thing to consider: some people rely on shock to get attention. That can even be useful in the short term. However, I'm severly unconvinced of its long term success. If I tell women they need to love their husbands even though they are "stupid, screw-ups", I will get the attention of everyone there. The guy who is nodding off will spring to attention. He is shocked to a certain degree. If I rely on that, pretty soon people aren't really shocked anymore, and they are really looking for the shock statement. That means I have to up the shock value. It can escalate. Furthermore, I lose something in the process with that audience. Instead of relying on shock, I need to rely on the Holy Ghost to convict those that need convicting. The simple truth of scripture accompanied with the Holy Ghost is power. I need to rely on that more and less on myself. Peter got the truth across to that audience in Acts 2 without using shock language. The truth that they had killed their Messiah, brought with power by the Holy Ghost, pricked them in the heart and they were convicted and asked what they could do. That is the power of preaching, and we should trust it.

I'm not blasting you here. I'm not accusing you of being a shock value preacher either. But look, we need to search out acceptable words. If I offend someone with my language, that is a problem. If I offend someone with my doctrine, well I'm not changing that.

 

Here's where I think we're talking apples and bowling pins. Jesus confronted people with divine truth and that made them uncomfortable. Did you declare truth? That's part of the question, but not the whole, because of the choice of language.

Would Jesus resort to coarse/profane language? He didn't have to. Just the simple stuff sent people rushing for the doors.

I hear what you're saying. If people leave because I say "All are sinners and all, including everyone here today, must repent" that's one thing. If people left because I say "You freakin idiots - don't you people know you should repent, or are you too stupid to realize you're a bunch of sinners" is quite another. Both contain truth. One contains inflammatory language that will, right or wrong, draw attention away from the truth.