Posted by Jim Henderson on: 02.25.2006 /
Something that we have not covered thus far, and something those choosing to download the Church Survey will soon discover is that we refer to people who don’t believe as we do as “lost”.
The Survey is designed for Christians who are trying to understand the viewpoint of people they say they would like to convert. For some time now evangelical christian have become accustomed to using inflammatory insider language to talk about they people they say they love.
The hottest of hot “insider” words is the word LOST.
None of your Christian friends will call you this to your face (unless they are incredibly frustrate and well … just plain pissed off at you for not listening) but behind your backs they use this word as casually as they would say “prayer” or “the bible”.
Off The Map is out to change that language by simply exposing it in public and telling our customers what we say about them behind their backs.
We even interview “3 Lost People” at our conferences and ask them to tell us (christians) how they feel about the fact that we call them names behind their back.
Many christians get upset with us for “going public” with this bigotry (mostly out of a bad habit) but we have made friends with lots of “lost people” in the process and many of them have asked if they could “tour” with us to different cities and churches - helping convert christians into becoming better human beings.
Once that happens - the rules change. People begin dialoging and then anything can happen
If you are interested you can learn more about this project in my book and in our video interviews with Lost People.
Leave a Reply
Comment by: Rick
1 02/25/06 8:27 PM | Comment Link |I think “Lost” is just another way of saying “Search in progress”. Beauty lies in the eyes of beholder, and freethought does make it a point to extract the best through semantic filtering which gives an entirely new connotation to the term in use. As a result freethinkers take “lost” as a complement instead of thinking of it as an insult. If life is an ongoing search, then inspite of all the answers we find along the way, we are still looking for the ultimate answer till the very last breath.
It may seem quite surprising that atheists et al. who look for answers in happenstances in the natural world should have such positive way of reconstructing a seemingly negative terminology. However in a world governed by random number theory, optimism runs exceptionally high among people who ACCEPT this randomness in the grand scheme of things.
Peace.
Comment by: Peter in Pennsylvania
2 02/26/06 4:05 AM | Comment Link |Of course, we use that word because of the New Testament record… Luke 15, the lost coin, the lost sheep, the prodigal son. Also, for those of us who at one time did NOT believe in Christ and who do now, we honestly do feel that we were “lost” in comparison before.
But I have tried to stop using it, because we have a very different culture now as then, and the word has gotten loaded up with insane baggage.
Comment by: Ir
3 02/26/06 6:13 AM | Comment Link |Jim, I hope you don’t mind me asking this question:
If a Christian, influenced by OTM’s ministry, avoids words with negative associations and becomes more authentic and caring, will that change the attitude of atheists towards the Christian’s beliefs? Might not the atheists simply conclude “It’s a shame such a wonderful person has such bigoted beliefs!”
Comment by: Jim Henderson
4 02/26/06 9:18 AM | Comment Link |Ir
I don’t know
Comment by: Ir
5 02/26/06 9:38 AM | Comment Link |Awesome answer, Jim - thanks.
Comment by: Steve
6 02/26/06 10:09 AM | Comment Link |I think a lot of the terms such as “Lost” come from conditioning, and aren’t really used in a derogatory manner by most people.
Comment by: r10b
7 02/26/06 12:36 PM | Comment Link |I agree with Peter in PA that the word “lost” has been pulled from the NT and suffers from over-exposure as does much of the Christian lexicon (e.g., born-again, saved, spirit-filled…) But, along Ir’s line of thought (I think), I wonder if by focusing on the political-correctness of our terminology we are not engaging in a form of hypocrisy. Are we looking for words that don’t offend to relate principles that can, and perhaps must offend at some level? Jesus didn’t pull his punches (but he also possessed perfect knowledge).
Comment by: Ir
8 02/26/06 5:06 PM | Comment Link |r10b, I’m glad you brought that up because I think the question of whether the message about Jesus which Christians would like to share with missing people must cause offense to them is very relevant.
I wonder if by focusing on the political-correctness of our terminology we are not engaging in a form of hypocrisy.
That’s a good point — but my perception is that that is not really OTM’s focus — I think their focus is encouraging Christians to have changed attitudes and behavior towards missing people. And when Christians achieve that, they will be different in many ways, changed terminology being just one of those ways.
Comment by: Tom in Sacramento
9 02/26/06 5:41 PM | Comment Link |I think this is fascinating. Maybe it’s regional. Maybe its “sect-ual” ;-) — associated with this or that denomination. But I can’t recall using “lost” to mean anything except a guy in a car without a map.
I don’t even think in those terms. For me, a person who doesn’t know Jesus is, in one sense, no different than a person who doesn’t know my brother. Not “lost”; simply missing out on a relationship with a wonderful person who brings a depth of color and dimension to life that it heretofore had not had.
I might feel a sense of pity for someone who has not had the pleasure of my brother’s acquaintance; they’re missing out on a great treat. But they aren’t “lost”, they are (if you need a term) blissfully unaware.
Tom in Sacramento
Comment by: r10b
10 02/26/06 6:53 PM | Comment Link |Ir: You’re probably right. To that issue, here’s an article you might find interesting: Must The Truth Offend: An Exchange
Tom: Well, I’ve heard it so much I thought it was ubiquitous. Generally it appears in the phrase “reaching the lost…” which makes me think that the etymology traces to the lost sheep parable.
Comment by: Jim Henderson
11 02/26/06 10:22 PM | Comment Link |Read Luke 15 closely and ask yourself who is doing the losing.
Can a sheep know that it is lost?
Can a coin know that it is lost?
When the son (who knew he was lost) returned, why did his father not remind him of his lostness?
Luke 15 is about God feeling like a loser not the animal, coin or kid
At OTM “missing” is our replacement word for lost.
When people “get lost” in our culture we say they are missing.
Lost= dead
Missing = hope
We think of them as the people Jesus misses most
Comment by: r10b
12 02/27/06 6:50 AM | Comment Link |At OTM “missing” is our replacement word for lost.
That’s great.
Great=meaningless.
I apologize for extending this thread. I think we can agree that any more discussion is just kicking a lost horse.
Comment by: Ir
13 02/27/06 8:28 AM | Comment Link |r10b, I’m not sure of your meaning. Are you saying that (in your opinion) OTM’s ministry is a waste of time and effort because it’s meaningless?
By the way, I’m going to read that article you gave me the link to, but I didn’t quite get to it yet. (I wanted to respond to Hemant’s church survey first)
Comment by: r10b
14 02/27/06 11:02 AM | Comment Link |Heaven’s no!!! Please!!!
The semantics Christians use amongst ourselves to describe unbelievers whom, due to their desire to reflect the light of God, they wish to evangelize. That’s what’s meaningless.
Comment by: r10b
15 02/27/06 11:35 AM | Comment Link |Grammer police action: I switched themselves to ourselves with out changing their/they to our/we.
Comment by: r10b
16 02/27/06 11:38 AM | Comment Link |Spelling police action: Grammar! I voluntarily relinquish my posting privileges.
Comment by: Ir
17 02/27/06 12:39 PM | Comment Link |The semantics Christians use amongst ourselves to describe unbelievers whom, due to their desire to reflect the light of God, they wish to evangelize. That’s what’s meaningless.
Ok, thanks for clarifying.
I tried to read some of that article. It was a bit long but I think the bottom line was, yes, the truth must offend.
I noticed this comment in it near the end: “if Christians were to retreat from advancing the claim that Jesus Christ is the unique mediator of salvation, it is not clear what they would have to offer to the world.
I thought Christians were supposed to have more to offer the world than words. I thought they were supposed to be followers of Jesus, which would mean that they treat [the people of] the world like Jesus would. I think that’s something clear they have to offer as well as words.
Comment by: Jim Henderson
18 02/27/06 1:31 PM | Comment Link |Nice Ir
Comment by: Mark
19 02/27/06 3:01 PM | Comment Link |Ir,
Please answer this…what type of treatment to our fellow human do you think you or your fellow christians do that the average atheist doesn’t do? I’m honestly confessing this is a loaded question in that we are morally/ethically equal.
Comment by: Ir
20 02/27/06 6:52 PM | Comment Link |Mark, my observation has been that atheists and Christians who have similar beliefs about how they should treat other people have a similar degree of success in acting on those beliefs.
Comment by: Mark
21 02/28/06 5:45 AM | Comment Link |Ir,
I’ll make 3 generic questions for you to answer/reply to before I continue please.
1. Does anyone know for certain god exists?
2. Is there any proof or evidence of god?
3. So then is there any reason to believe god exists?
Comment by: Ir
22 02/28/06 6:04 AM | Comment Link |Ok Mark, I’ll give those questions my best shot.
1. I would say that technically, no, no human being knows for certain that God exists. Some people consider themselves to have strong enough evidence for God’s existence that they couldn’t imagine anything could dissuade them of God’s existence. Other people consider themselves to have strong enough evidence that no such being exists that they can’t imagine anything could persuade them that God does in fact exist.
Nevertheless, people in both categories may say that they are open to new evidence; that they will try to consider it with an open mind if presented with it; and that if it truly is convincing and shifts the weight of evidence from “for” to “against”, or vice versa, they will change worldviews and go with the compelling evidence.
2. Many people think there is evidence for God’s existence. Some of it is personal and experiential. Evidently :) what convinces some people does not convince others. Some of what one person considers evidence (”God answered my prayer”), another would consider a coincidence of circumstances that proves nothing about God’s existence.
3. I wouldn’t expect you to believe in God’s existence if the evidence you have come across indicates to you that no such being can exist.
I would expect a person to believe God exists only if the evidence they have come across could reasonably be interpreted by them as indicating God exists.
I can’t give an absolute answer to “is there any reason to believe [G]od exists?” because I know that different people have different answers and why would my answer carry more weight than any of theirs?
Comment by: Mark
23 02/28/06 6:11 AM | Comment Link |That is why I am so confident in my atheism. There is no evidence whatsoever in any form for god and when people say there is I take that statement as nothing less than arrogance that needs to be rebutted. That’s how I saw the minister lady and her statement also. Am I always so confident? Only when necessary:)
Comment by: Ir
24 02/28/06 6:30 AM | Comment Link |Mark, would you expect a Christian who is convinced there is no evidence whatsoever disproving God’s existence to take your statements that there is, as nothing less than arrogance that needs to be rebutted? :)
Comment by: Mark
25 02/28/06 6:51 AM | Comment Link |I’d ask for evidence… verifiable, repeatable which was my second question. I think my 4th question would be
4.do you believe in god with or without having evidence?
Comment by: Ir
26 02/28/06 9:37 AM | Comment Link |I’d ask for evidence… verifiable, repeatable which was my second question.
I take your point and I think that’s a good request. On the other hand not all evidence is verifiable and repeatable. Historical events, for example, cannot be repeated exactly how they were in the first place.
I think my 4th question would be
4.do you believe in god with or without having evidence?
I don’t remember posting that I believe in God, actually.
Anyway, whatever I believe is of course based on my best assessment of the evidence that’s come my way :)
Comment by: Mark
27 02/28/06 9:45 AM | Comment Link |Historical events can be simulated and repeated? I didn’t see someone drop a baseball but they told me it hit the ground. I therefore get one and do a similar experiment with the same results.
I didn’t say you did believe in god, just asked a 4th question.
Comment by: Ir
28 02/28/06 10:12 AM | Comment Link |I’m thinking more of things like the War of Independence, or the coming into existence of the universe, or the process of macro-evolution. I don’t see them as repeatable. Not exactly. You can perhaps try to repeat bits and pieces of them but either you can’t re-create the original conditions or you’ll die long before you see the results of your attempt at repeating the process, because it takes so long.
I thought the only answers to question 4 were “I believe in God with evidence” or “I believe in God without evidence”. Maybe I misunderstood the question.
Comment by: Mark
29 02/28/06 10:32 AM | Comment Link |Oh, well you mean artifacts which we do find for the War. Those artifacts corraborate the stories. Certainly we can find old muskets, guns and uniforms along with letters declaring war. We do see other stars collapse the sun is a star. We see the expanding universe. There is no such thing as macroevolution, it’s a word by creationists trying to make time appear to work for them. No old fossil disagrees with evolution so whether it’s short term or long term evolution remains intact. Evidence for god in any form or fashion=none. People are free to have an opinion or belief on any god they want. I don’t believe in the one true god Zeus and I bet most other people don’t either. Of course there is no evidence for that god either:)
Comment by: Bruce Lofland
30 02/28/06 11:25 AM | Comment Link |That is a good point Mark, when we say we believe in God, what do we mean by that? What is the God we believe in? What is it about God that you don’t believe in? Chances are that we may find ourselves in more agreement than you realize.
I don’t believe that reason and faith must be at odds with each other, but it took me a long time to figure that out.
To give you my answer to your question 4, I assume that God exists, at least my idea of God. I do not have irrefutable proof of this, but I don’t need it because the God that I believe in created logic, reason, natural laws, etc. and thus is not as difficult to believe in as I once thought.
Comment by: Mark
31 02/28/06 11:58 AM | Comment Link |I was once a xian, I do understand. What I was stating is there is no evidence and I’m not stating that confidently or arrogantly. I don’t believe people realize the bible, koran, god..etc are just stories and not literal..that’s what I believe. I say that humbly.
Comment by: r10b
32 02/28/06 6:48 PM | Comment Link |Hey, Mark. Two questions it might be tough to answer briefly but I’d appreciate your attempt:
1. How do you explain the origin of the universe from nothing?
2. How do you explain Man’s capacity to create art, religion, philosophy, etc., a capacity no other living thing has even in a less-evolved rudimentary form?
Comment by: TXatheist
33 03/1/06 5:30 AM | Comment Link |1. It wasn’t nothing, look up the singularity concept.
2.written language transmitted to future generations,yes, even the bible:) Ideas are perpetuated and evaluated just like science.
Comment by: Tom in Sacramento
34 03/1/06 2:48 PM | Comment Link |In response to Mark in #21
Question 1. There is also no certain evidence that you exist. Or I. All that you think you experience, including this e-mail, is mere perterbations of the electrons in a brain in a jar of nutrient fluid.
You sound like a bright guy so I’ll assume you know the argument. My point is this: we each have a plethora of electrical discharges in our brains that we have a compulsion to interpret in some meaningful way. (Gee. There’s a clue.)
At one point in my life I was contemplating the reliability/truth of Christianity. I concluded that if Christianity was true, everything in the world made sense. Even the bad stuff makes sense. But if Christianity is not true, nothing makes sense. Nothing.
To the Jews, as I understand, there is a concept that understanding follows obedience. Of course, in pragmatist America obedience follows understanding. (That’s the whole idea behind “Question Authority”.) But if the Jews are correct — I think they are — they you have a real dilemma.
One might reasonably ask a number of questions about the Jewish vs. American approaches, but that’s another topic.
Tom in Sacramento
Comment by: Paul
35 03/1/06 4:28 PM | Comment Link |As christians are folk that are supposed to be sent out by God, perhaps if we don’t do that we’re the ones who are lost/gotten lost not the other way around?
Comment by: r10b
36 03/2/06 6:49 AM | Comment Link |TXAtheist: It wasn’t nothing, look up the singularity concept.
Singularity Theory: In the beginning the universe in which we inhabit did not exist. In its place there was an incredibly hot and dense region referred to as a singularity.
1. we are not sure where singularity came from (which leaves my original question unanswered)
2. we are not sure of its properties
3. we are not sure how old it was
4. we are not even sure if time (i.e., causation) had meaning in the beginning.
Now there’s a rock-solid cosmological statement we can all get behind!
written language transmitted to future generations,yes, even the bible:) Ideas are perpetuated and evaluated just like science.
For sure. Now evaluate my question just like science.
Comment by: TXatheist
37 03/2/06 7:39 AM | Comment Link |TXAtheist: It wasn’t nothing, look up the singularity concept.
Singularity Theory: In the beginning the universe in which we inhabit did not exist. In its place there was an incredibly hot and dense region referred to as a singularity.
1. we are not sure where singularity came from (which leaves my original question unanswered)
a. That’s 15 billion years ago so to even identify the chemical makeup is amazing. Energy always was, just transforms so it may have always been….we don’t know…yet.
2. we are not sure of its properties
b. The size of a singularity is much smaller than a piece of sand but hydrogen was one of the first chemicals.
3. we are not sure how old it was
c. At least 15 billion years old
4. we are not even sure if time (i.e., causation) had meaning in the beginning.
d. Right and when you have those answers then we’ll all know. You don’t and no one else does either. NO one knows, it’s not known and anyone who claims they have the answer is either a liar or needs to prove it.
Now there’s a rock-solid cosmological statement we can all get behind!
It’s the best knowledge we have and way ahead of what we knew 100 years ago. It will only get better.
written language transmitted to future generations,yes, even the bible:) Ideas are perpetuated and evaluated just like science.
For sure. Now evaluate my question just like science.
TX atheist:I did.
Comment by: r10b
38 03/2/06 7:58 PM | Comment Link |what’s up with the ital? Did I forget an end tag in #36? Here’s one.
TXatheist…
I can only assume that you have some better reasons for denying the existence of God than those hypothesized in singularity theory.
And I assume that I’m missing something if “language transmitted to future generations” is evidence that art, religion, etc. can be observed in non-human animals. The best I can make of it is that you mean the lower animals are storing up such knowledge and someday the robins out back will be building bird cathedrals from twigs while my dog paints the scene.
By that time man will also certainly have verifiable, repeatable lab experiments proving matter came from nothing but eternal energy; and I’ll be an atheist.
Comment by: TXatheist
39 03/5/06 3:16 PM | Comment Link |It’s a lot more than science that I consider all gods myth, you are correct. Please allow me not to agree there are lower animals. We are an animal also but when we transmit information from generation to generation via language, especially written, we have a unique advantage of knowledge perpetuated from generation to generation. It compounds knowledge exponentially. The robins and dog can only pass knowledge down from one generation to the next where we can go back many, many generations and that is what makes us able to continuiously BUILD knowledge. Chimpanzees that have been taught sign language have passed it on but we taught them this. It wasn’t written but it is a language that is being passed on from generation to generation at a much more archaic level. Similar to cavemen drawings. There are repeatable and testable experiments concluding our solar system came from a singularity or energy and it’s up to you if you want to label yourself an atheist or Christian or anything else. Religious views don’t alter science at all.
Comment by: Richard
40 04/15/07 7:03 PM | Comment Link |I do not wish to spar with the atheists about origins, I respect their request for solid proof and acknowledge we Xtians have less proof at this time than we care to admit. I’m thinking about Jim H’s question: why do we use the term “lost”? Personally, I don’t use the term because while Biblical it has come to mean “headed for Hell” in the minds of orthodox believers.
I think hades is the grave, and as a repository of the dead it will end when all people leave it. The fact that God will resurrect all the unjust out of hades, is promised in numerous places.
My take is that Jesus visited the human race to reclaim all of it. All of it was lost, and all of it was saved by the atonement he accomplished at the cross. However, that salvation arrives to individuals in stages. Stage one is for those who hear and respond to God’s call during the Christian age. For Christians, salvation is much more than getting to live again as humans. Scripture talks about living in heaven, being joint heirs with Christ, judging the world, ruling the nations, etc.
And those who remain lost for the present, in spite of all our wonderful examples and sterling preaching? :-) Jesus specifically said in John 12:47 that he does not judge those who hear without believing. He came to save the THE WORLD, he says. Stage 2 is the reign of Christ as king upon earth — the Messianic age or “judgment day”. Here, though, it’s important to rethink the images we’ve been taught of fire and a faceless, cruel God pointing his finger at everyone. The judgment day is no picnic but it’s, on balance, a joyful time for all but the most heartless, selfish folks.
As I see it, everyone who has ever lived will automatically be presented with a thorough educational program during that time — overwhelming factual evidence of the presence of Christ and the power of God, as all the people who have ever lived are resurrected, healed, regenerated, mercifully taught but lovingly confronted with all that a righteous God would expect of people that he hopes to spend eternity with.
Today’s “lost” will not be voted off the planet.
They’ll all be found, when God stops hiding himself from the masses and reveals himself in power and loving kindness.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
41 04/15/07 7:06 PM | Comment Link |Richard, I definitely prefer your beliefs to those of Christians who believe some people will be eternally tormented.