Christians Don’t Call Names
February 8th, 2007 | by Scott |Scripture is clear about one thing: there are two aspects to spirituality, the horizontal and the vertical. And those two aspects are interwoven with each other.
Simply put, you can not have a relationship with God (the vertical) if you don’t have a relationship with His children (the horizontal). Our vertical relationship is evidenced by the horizontal relationships.
If we concentrate on one at the expense of the other then both will become distorted. If we think that we can love God and fail to love all people then we can’t love God.
But I see Christians far too often try to do just that.
Growing up I was called by a lot of different names that were not my choosing.
I had bad acne, was overweight and had bad teeth.
I was a convenient target for a lot of name-calling.
It hurt. Some days, when I am truly honest and reflective, it still does.
I longed for the day that I would grow up and the name calling would cease.
Because adults, especially Christian adults, would never stoop to name-calling, right?
Right?
Refined, educated, godly people would never resort to slurs or epithets, would they?
What I have found, instead, is an all too pervasive proclivity to brandish people with derogatory aspersions. And I know that it grieves God.
I am amazed by how Christians will condescend to name-calling with those that we disagree with:
Homosexuals are a ‘bunch of queers,’ ’sicko’s,’ ‘fruits,’ ‘homo’s’ ‘perverts’ or ‘fags.’ Despite the fact that they are children of God.
Muslims are ‘towel heads,’ ’stans’ and they are all ‘zealous fanatics hell-bent on destroying the world.’ Despite the fact that they are children of God.
Environmentalists are ‘tree huggers’ and ‘environmentalist wackos.’ Despite the fact that they are children of God.
Those who are pro-choice are ‘baby-killers.’ Despite the fact that they are children of God.
Democrats are ‘commies,’ ‘pinko scum’ and ‘America haters.’ Despite the fact that they are children of God.
African Americans are, well you get the point.
To me, the saddest part of all of this is that these are phrases that I hear coming out of the mouth of Christians.
In the defense of what we believe to be true and right we have marginalized and stereotyped the very people that our Savior died for.
In John 10 Jesus proclaims that He is the Good Shepherd. He also proclaims that His sheep know His voice (v. 3)
How sad and appalling, nay damnable, it is that so many precious souls of God never get to hear the voice of the Shepherd because all they hear from His sheep is hatred and slurs.
And understand this, it is hatred. Everytime we utter the slur or insult, hatred has seized our heart. And we do not love God
We will never win the souls of homosexuals, Muslims, etc if we stand on the periphery of their lives and hurl our insults their way. And we do not love God.
We can disagree with their lifestyle choices or political views all day long but there is NEVER any defense for invective.
Yes, we need to “speak the truth in love.” However, aspersions are neither true, nor are they love. If Jesus is the Truth, and I believe Him to be, then we must approach those He loves as we would approach Him.
Christians, when we resort to name-calling then we negate an opportunity to be Christ to others. Jesus is our example, not Ann Coulter (I pray that she will experience God’s love).
Stop worrying so much about whether or not people know that you hate the sin. Stop worrying so much about labeling the sinner.
Let’s love God’s children.
Because understand this: by hurling hurtful names you show hatred toward God.
Growing up when I was called ‘fatty’ or ‘bucky’ or ‘zit-face’ it tore me up. When I turn my ire upon someone else today through the same weapon of name-calling I grieve the Lord.
Let’s end the name calling and instead be the voice of the Good Shepherd in a lost and dying world, shall we?
21 Responses to “Christians Don’t Call Names”
By greg on Feb 8, 2007 | Reply
Those are all good examples. I’ve seen many of those used on various message boards and/or blogs even recently.
Another example from my own experience has come from those in Churches of Christ where people are labeled “liberal” and “conservative.” People on both sides of so many issues hammer each other, although it has always seemed more vicious from the conservative side (but perhaps it was just my perspective, because I usually leaned the other direction.) All sorts of derogatory names are applied to those who see things differently. I’m sure other denominations experience similar things at times, but I’ve wondered if our folks have been more aggressive in ‘defending the faith’ due to the belief that the s-c restoration was successful (and is complete.) Or, at least in my experience, it seems many have always believed that.
I’m kind of rambling, unsure if I’m making sense, and possibly off topic, so I’m going to stop now…
By Scott on Feb 8, 2007 | Reply
I think that one of the things that is important in true discipleship is to tear down the us/them mentality that plagues us.
That’s nowhere more evident then in our own fellowship.
By jasonk on Feb 8, 2007 | Reply
Beautiful. Thank you Scott.
I read recently (probably on one of these darn blogs) that when you resort to name-calling, or even well-intentioned labeling, you are attempting to exercise control over that individual. If I call a homosexual a fag, I am placing them in the category that I want to put them in, which is not necessarily the category they belong in. God is the one who assigns us a name, and He is the only one who has the right to label anyone.
I called you a nerd last week. I’m sorry, dear brother :>)
Seriously, I was called names in school. I was skinny, had a fairly clear complexion, and came from a pretty well-to-do home life. But I didn’t play football, I lived in the country, and rode motorcycles. Oh, and I played in the band and went to church. So just fill in the blanks. Sticks and stones? Bull. Names hurt too. I’m right there with you.
By John on Feb 8, 2007 | Reply
I’m right with you on this, I too had the bad skin, heck I still have acne at 40, and we couldn’t always afford the “in” clothes and I had a temper so people would get arise out of me. Yet many times I would fall into being the tormentor when someone else fell lower on the social chain. This is something to be broken and we don’t always realize that we are guilty of it. Plus this goes great with the thoughts that come from the picture you posted lost week stating Jesus love Osama.
Keep up the good work.
By Scott on Feb 8, 2007 | Reply
Names do hurt.
And there is no Christian witness we can claim when we use them.
By Jason Bybee on Feb 9, 2007 | Reply
I’ve probably hurled more insults than I’ve received over the years. Not something I’m proud of. Now I read Galatians and I weep. All of the us/them dialogue fails to see people as they truly are: beings fashioned in the image of God. When I see someone as a homosexual, a Muslim, a Democrat, etc, I’m focusing on their peripheral identity. May He grant us eyes to see as He sees.
I really appreciate this post, Scott.
By Colleen on Feb 9, 2007 | Reply
Great post, Scott, I couldn’t agree more. The us/them attitude has also bothered me for a long time. For me, it all comes down to grace, which is so humbling and such a powerful force, that I couldn’t even begin to presume it’s role in the life of someone else….other than I know I desire and need it and why should I be any different in that respect. If God’s grace is greater than anything that could separate me from Him, than that must also be true of everyone else, regardless of circumstance….and in my mind that includes the man made idea of a hierarchary of sin…the Jesus I read about was harshest on those who were legalistic, and not on those whose weakness was the most external or obvious to other’s eyes. Grace is such an overwhelming, life transforming concept…that I want other people to experience that freedom that continually amazes me and can literally take my breath away.
By WacoGal on Feb 9, 2007 | Reply
Be careful, though, that we don’t find it easier and more appealing to love the anonymous in the “groups” you mention than the real people that sit in our pews hating those very groups! The “haters” might be the hardest people of all to love, and they’re still children of God.
By Jonathan H on Feb 10, 2007 | Reply
I agree very much with the spirit and point of this post.
However, if I may be permitted the picking of one nit: the designation “children of God” for those who do not follow Jesus is not biblically justified. “Child of God” is not a generic synonym for “human being”. It indicates a specific quality of relationship with God.
So we can say “bearers of the image of God”, “created by God and precious to him”, “people for whom Christ died”, or any number of similar things, but I’m not on board with saying “children of God” for those who do not follow Jesus.
(Of course, all but one of the categories listed by Scott do contain some who are followers of Jesus.)
By scott on Feb 10, 2007 | Reply
So, Ephesians 4:6 that says that God is the father of all doesn’t apply?
What about Malachi that says we all have one father?
God’s nature includes His Fatherhood. Not all recognize that, but He is still Father of all.
By Jonathan H on Feb 10, 2007 | Reply
Granted, God is the father of all. But we aren’t discussing the expression “father” as applied to God. We are discussing the expression “child(ren) of God”.
Of course, in one sense, the first implies the second. However, John 1 definitely talks about “becoming” children of God. So there is clearly a sense in which those who reject God are NOT his children. In fact, I believe one finds the expression “child(ren) of God” used only of followers of Jesus (or before his coming, the faithful of Israel).
By Scott on Feb 10, 2007 | Reply
Jonathan, I understand what you are saying. From the salvation standpoint they are not “children of God” as in the sense of John 1.
But that is a doctrinal quibble that has little or nothing to do with the original post. God created them, He is their father. Hence we are to value them.
I think we do a great job at communicating the “lostness” of people. We often do a very poor job at communicating their value.
By Jonathan H on Feb 10, 2007 | Reply
Scott, I am fully in agreement.
The “children of God” thing is a bit of a pet peeve of mine, probably due to the abuse of the expression by the all-roads-lead-to-Rome crowd.
By Robin on Feb 11, 2007 | Reply
You forgot that Replubicans are called neocons and murderers. Excellent post. We forget sometimes how many ways we grieve the Lord.
By KS on Feb 12, 2007 | Reply
Good post. I have many times in my homophobic view used most…ok all of those slangs. Recently I have had someone close to me admit that he is gay and it has changed some of my views. I still do not rationalize his sin, but do see him as more than “some fag”.
Also: What about us “narrow minded” folks on the other side???
By Scott on Feb 12, 2007 | Reply
Robin and KS, you are right in that those of us that are across the aisle can also partake in name-calling. Case in point: the book I’m currently reading (on the left side-bar).
This post was a re-working of one I did about a year ago when I still considered myself to be Republican. Hence, the lack of being “fair and balanced.”
By len on Feb 14, 2007 | Reply
Good post. Here are my initial thoughts. Over a decade ago I was pastoring in Florida. It saddened me to realize that the place my little girl was most likely to hear the “N”-word spoken was when she was at church. Sad indeed.
In Luke 13 Jesus is told that Herod wants to kill Him. He begins His response in verse 32 with the following words: “Go and tell that fox…” So, did Jesus engage in a little name-calling of His own? I somehow don’t think He meant fox as a compliment. But I also don’t think He was using the derision we so often use in our language either.
By birdmoore on Feb 18, 2007 | Reply
Neocon isn’t a derogatory word, is it? I thought it was just an abreviation for the neo-conservative political movement.
By Scott on Feb 19, 2007 | Reply
I think for some it is. It’s a largely esoteric term to begin with and the fact that liberals often mutter it with disdain and it’s taken a pejorative tone to some. It can be used to stereotype all conservatives of adherents to the Bush Doctrine.
See the Rolling Stones “Sweet Neo Con”
And welcome birdmoore. Are you Jonathan’s wife. Or better said, is he your husband?
By Politics and Culture on Feb 19, 2007 | Reply
There’s an interesting take on Tim Hardaway’s recent comments on homosexuals HERE. I think it is somewhat relevant to your discussion here.
By Jonathan on Feb 20, 2007 | Reply
Yes, I am birdmoore’s.