What do you call people who are not Christians? Have you ever thought about the terms we use, and how these terms are either (1) condescending and rude, and/or (2) biblically inaccurate?
The words we use to describe people who have not believed in Jesus for eternal life reveal a lot about our theology, what we think of them, and how we will interact with them. It could be argued, I suppose, that we shouldn’t have a title or term for those who don’t believe in Jesus. We are all just “people.” But I think some sort of term is appropriate and necessary to give Christians a sense of community, and to help help differentiate ourselves from the rest of the world, while at the same time inviting them to join us in our mission.
Whatever term we use, it must not reveal an arrogance about our present condition, but must be loving and kind. It should also reveal an openness to other people joining us. If possible, it should also be biblical. Below are a few terms I have either used or heard others use, and why they should not be used. I will conclude with two terms that I am currently trying to use. Tell me what you think!
Pagan
I have never used this term, but I’ve heard some Christians use it. I think this is a slanderous term and should not be used.
Non-Christian
I have used this one, and sometimes still do, but it has negative overtones. Also, most ‘Christians” are nominal (in name only) and so while they claim to be Christians, they really aren’t. So how do you classify them? Are they “non-Christians” or not? Besides, it’s not biblical.
Pre-Christian
I once had a pastor friend who used this term all the time. While it does do away with the negative connotation that “non-Christian” has, and does seem to indicate that others are welcome to join us, it is not very precise or biblical. Furthermore, it is terribly arrogant and condescending. It assumes that everybody is on their way to becoming a Christian and once they become full-fledged Christians, they have truly arrived. I detest this term.
Target
Wow. What can I say about this? I hear this one used by door-to-door evangelists and street preachers a lot. I guess when they see a “target” they take aim with their gospel guns and start firing.
Sinners
This one is negative and judgmental. Yet people use it (and I have too) because it seems to have some biblical basis. However, I don’t use this any more. In Scripture (and in experience) everybody is a sinner – even those who have believed in Jesus. Anyone who sins is a sinner, and since we all sin, we are all sinners. So aside from being negative and judgmental, it is imprecise and unbiblical. All of us are sinners. If we call a certain group “sinners” it gives the wrong impression that we don’t sin any more.
Unbelievers
For a long time, this was my preferred term. Though it has a negative connotation, there is some biblical basis to it. Furthermore, it brings out the main difference between people who have believed in Jesus for eternal life and those who have not – belief! However, I don’t use this term any more. This partly because of the negative undertones, but primarily because it is inaccurate. Everyone is a believer. Everyone believes in something. Even atheists are “believers” in that they believe there is no God. I have been called an “unbeliever” by Muslims, and my immediate thought was, “Hey! I believe; I just don’t believe like you believe.” Furthermore, there is much more to the Christian life than just believing the right things.
People who are Far from God
This one is gaining in popularity among “missional” churches. However, like “unbeliever,” it is just plain wrong. It is often used to describe people who live in great depravity and sin. However, Jesus says that such people are closer to the kingdom of God than are most religious people (Matt 21:31-32). You might be more accurate if you refer to the people in the pews as those who are “far from God.”
Disconnected
This certainly seems to invite people to become connected, but in a negative way. It is also not found in Scripture. Thrid, almost everyone is connected to some group in some way, so they are not really disconnected. They are only disconnected from the church, and frankly, fewer and fewer people want to be connected to the church. Also, many people in the church are disconnected as well. They attend church, but are not really being the church.
The Others / Outsiders
These are the terms I currently try to use. I learned them from David Bosch, in his amazing book, Transforming Mission (p. 137). I think these terms avoid most (but not all) of the negative connotation of many of the terms above. They do not seem to be judgmental, and seem to be the technical term used by Paul in his letters (cf. 1 Cor 5:12f, 1 Thess 4:12). Also, these terms seems to invite others to come inside and enjoy the community that (hopefully) we have, even if they have not yet believed in Jesus. They do not imply that “belief in Jesus” is the end-all of the Christian life.
So what do you think? Have any to add? Disagree with anything above? Let me know!
Thanks for caring about this.
I usually go with “people who aren’t Christians” even though it’s a bit long.
Hey Jeremy,
Very interesting post, you gave me a lot to think about. Your comments on the term “unbeliever” especially gave me pause, as that’s the term I have normally used myself. I really liked what you had to say about it, especially that “there is much more to the Christian life than just believing the right things.”
I have to admit the term “outsiders” rubs me the wrong way, but I think the term “others” might work. I guess “outsiders” makes it sound to me like the church is some exclusive club, and those usually don’t come across as very enthusiastic of just ANYONE joining. Like what Helen said, I can see myself saying something like “others who don’t believe this,” or “those who don’t share this faith,” but again, not as succinct as a single word.
You’ve addressed quite a conundrum. How do we accurately and Biblically portray those who aren’t believers in Christ as their Savior while still being loving and showing them the Father’s love without being condescending? I definitely have to think about this some more.
Thanks for the insights, it’s something I’d never really thought about.
I have used ‘those whom God misses most’ many times.
I also you ‘friend’
It’s tough isn’t it? Let me ask you a question or two for yourself and your readers:
*what did Jesus call those outside of the Kingdom?
*what did Paul (since he wrote 2/3rd of our scriptures) call them?
*what other names are used in the Scriptures for those who aren’t connected to God?
Is is wrong to follow the scriptures, in love, using those characteristics/names that Jesus, Paul and other inspired writers used?
Thanks for the post!
One more thing-
Jesus used ‘lost.’ Good term, I mean He was/is God right?
But look at the context He used it in- doing whatever it took to bring back the ‘lost’ to the Father no matter the time, cost or energy, and then celebrating the lost when they come ‘home.’
I think if we as followers of Christ would go after our friends without Christ in those ways and then celebrated their return to the King with huge parties, our friends wouldn’t mind whatever label we used.
Remember it’s not about the language as much as the love and obedience.
BTW- Has New York came to faith yet? Hurray up! We want you guys back in Texas where all the real sinners are! We need your help and friendship. 🙂
I’m kinda liking “outsiders” after reading David Kinnaman’s book, “UnChristian”. Of course, this is a term that best describes how THEY feel in relation to us, so it’s a bit condemning towards the insiders, but I like that feel, personally. Reminds me to be more respectful.
My outsider friends seem to prefer “searcher” (if they’re somewhat openly searching anyway) or even “non-believer” (if we have to use a label at all). I just call them ‘friend’ and leave the sorting out to Jesus.
Stephen,
I forgot about “people whom God misses most.” I really like that term. It shows great love and includes an invitation to community.
“Friend” is great too…as both you and Randy point out.
I like your point about it being more about love than language. That’s true. Most of the terms above could be used if people know we love them by our actions.
It’s slow going up here in NY! But we are looking for people to love. We miss you all!
Jeremy,
I love how thought-provoking you are here. It’s a great question, and I really like your point that belief is not the whole picture, and we ought to consider that in our terminology.
I’d quibble with you on “non-Christian;” it’s at least as biblical as “Trinity” and neutral as possible. I’m not insulted by “non-Buddhist” or “non-Muslim,” or even “non-Catholic,” and I’m sure you aren’t either. It’s as bare a statement of fact as they come. Of course, applied to a nominal Christian, it would be offensive, but (1) that might not be a bad thing in that context, and (2) I’m not sure the term matters in that situation — “outsider” isn’t likely to win you any points either — it’s going to be down to relational skills in communicating the idea lovingly. Some people can say “infidel” in that context and get away with it, because they radiate genuine love; others can’t communicate that content in any way at all without giving offense.
It seems to me the Scriptures use an impressive variety of terminology, ranging from fairly gentle terms to deliberately insulting ones, with a wide span in between. Consider the following array of terms:
fools (Rom.1:22)
[people] of this world (1Cor.5:10)
the unrighteous (1Cor.6:1)
those least esteemed by the Church (1Cor.6:4)
strangers and foreigners (Eph.2:19)
the rest of the Gentiles (Eph.4:17)
sons of disobedience (Eph.5:6)
the dead ones (Eph.5:14)
In fact, I’m having a hard time finding complimentary terms in the Bible for non-Christians as non-Christians. A number of the biblical terms might well be perceived as condescending, insulting, exclusive, and so on — some of them because they’re meant to be. I certainly have no problem saying that a certain way of speaking is subchristian, but if my criteria would force me to indict Paul or Jesus, then the problem is clearly with my criteria, not with the terminology. What’s a Christian to do?
We must learn to speak of things as the Bible does. That certainly does not mean taking the fact that John the Baptist once said “Brood of vipers!” as a permission slip to say the same to anyone I please — context matters, and Jesus didn’t treat all unbelievers that way, nor Paul, nor Peter. But if my criteria would keep me from ever saying “Brood of vipers!” then something is surely wrong there, too.
The problem with “The Others / Outsiders” is that it is rather non-descriptive, don’t you think?
Someone from another church can be called an “Outsider”
Different words for different purposes. Why limit yourself to one? 😉
Paul uses the phrase in 1 Corinthians.
“If any of those who do not believe”…
Which it seems in the context to be talking about those who don’t believe, which would be, unbelievers.
I agree that belief is the beginning. But Christianity is also an on-going learn and belief (for lack of the right word) system. Our faith grows as we learn and believe what we learn.
I think context would tell us how to identify those who are not Christians.
Sometimes tough words, sometimes gentle words.
Depending on the audience, and what we are trying to communicate.
Because the descriptions in the N.T. are many.
I’m not sure if there is a noun (or one name) for those who have not believe in Christ for eternal life. If there is what is it?
I think what ever name we use we should be respectful those those OUTSIDE the Faith.
Outsiders ummmm!! (1Tim.3:7; 1Thess. 4:12; Col.4:5; 1Cor. 5:12,13)
Amen, let this be a lesson for all of us. Great Post!
Very thought-provoking post, Jeremy. I would second Tim’s comments. But I would also add that deciding for others what is offensive or not is pretty tricky. Some folks insist on African-American, others don’t mind Black at all. I’m old enough to remember friends who insisted on Afro-American. I personally think that people should be able to choose their own terms of identification.
Also: in my experience around a lot of people who are not Christians, very few would object to non-Christian, or non-believer. They would consider it a neutral descriptive term, and they understand its use.
I know for a fact some would consider outsider or other as one of the most offensive terms conceivable. (It’s how my undergrad prof in Holocaust studies described the vilification of Jews in “Christian Europe,” – they made the Jew “the other” and it was downhill from there. He was an atheist, and if I told him he was the “Other,” he would see me as doing the same thing the Nazis did in the 30’s.) Many would consider that a very hostile term, even though outsider is biblical.
In this day and age Christians can hardly open their mouths without offending. My aim is not to avoid being offensive, but to avoid being needlessly offensive. You know, a jerk.
Hmmmm? This is a hard one!
I usually use unbeliever, but you’re right that they believe in something.
How about…..
“Unbelievers for whom Christ died!”
Too long!
How about…..
“Those who need LIFE”
Also too long!
How about……
the non-elect!!! Just kidding!
Hmmmmm? I’ll have to think on this one.
🙂
As a fan of the TV show “Lost”, I have a negative connotation to the term “the Others”… and most of these break down in one situation/relationship or another.
As yipeng posted, why can’t we use different terms based on who we’re talking about and who we’re talking to — someone may be offended by a term that someone else accepts without offense.
Once again, the good thing about self-analysis of the terms we use for these dear people is that it makes us check on our (hidden) attitudes towards the people with whom we hope to share God’s love.
Be loving. Be a friend. Share God’s love. Give God credit. Let the Holy Spirit do His work and let Him use you.
Jeff,
Hmmm…interesting insight about “The others.” Lost might have ruined that one for us…which just goes to show…just because Paul or other biblical characters used a certain phrase, doesn’t necessarily mean we have to use the same exact terminology, especially if the term has developed negative overtones in our own culture. The bottom line is that we use terms that are both loving and invitational.
Jeff. I agree with what you said, “Be loving, be a freind, share God’s love, give God credit, let the Holy Spirit do His work and let Him use you.”
That pretty much sums it up. Thanks!
Not sure I have a lot to offer here, but I’m finding myself referring to them as “My friend from Starbucks” or “One of my golfing buddies” or “people from the community”. Language is important. When I’m training other Christians, they pick up on these details.
Aside from the above, my most common reference is “outsiders”.
Guess I should ask my friends from Starbucks or golf how they would like me to refer to them, eh?
Kirk,
If you do ask them, let me know what they say!
I am not sure why we have to have a name at all. I have friends, but I don’t look for a name for those who aren’t my friends – un-friends? non-friends? I also have family, but have yet to refer to anyone outside that circle as un-family. My friends – those that follow Christ and those that don’t, I call friends. I don’t think I ever thought of calling them my non or un something friends.
Maybe I am missing the point (which is highly possible) but it seems to me, that there are Christ followers, and those who aren’t Christ followers. Being a person who is not a Christ Follower doesn’t seem to say anything more than a fact, and I don’t think I would be insulted with this label. If I am called someone who doesn’t’ follow Buddha, or not a Buddhist or a Hindu or . . . I am not insulted. So maybe Christ follower and someone who isn’t a Christ follower are adequate for those who need to have some kind of label.
John,
Good points, and I agree with you. I think more than anything, my post was intended to get people to stop using arrogant and condescending labels.
Oh, I thought of another “label” to stay away from today:
UNCHURCHED.
What a misnomer that is! It gives the impression that as long as you are attending a function called “church” (generally in a building somewhere, at a certain time of the week), it’s okay.
Yeah – I hate all the “who is in” and who is out” language and approach. so much easier to just point people to Jesus (no matter where the person is in their life)
Pagans,
That’s a Motorcycle Club back east. Hey Randy, you left out heathen, which I have used! But not to call someone a non-Christian, they really were a heathen. So was I, in my younger days. Can we really determine where the person is on there journey and do we really need to classify people. I find that if you act like everyone is a Christian and include them in your conversation, people are more willing to talk about God and spiritual matters. We are called to be an example and like a really smart guy said “ and if you have to , use words”. Remember, it’s not our job to save people, we are called to love and mirror the example of Christ. When we do that, no matter where anyone is on there journey, they will be closer to Christ when we are around them and when we have left them.
Lots of Love & Respect,
Rick / Soldiers For Jesus MC
Well said, Rick. And you actually DO this stuff with those “heathens”, so you’re not just spouting off at the mouth about this stuff. Way to go, my friend. Thanks for taking the time to offer your thoughts (I know how much you love to type!)
More biting names include “fools”, “children of Satan”, and “antichrists.”
The people who have used these evidently don’t care about gaining converts, that’s for sure! Or perhaps they think it’s possible to insult someone into believing the way they do.
Yeah, these are biting names for sure. Thanks for including them. It is so sad when Christians think it is okay to call other people such names.
Let’s just call them “neighbors.”