<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Verbiage. Say What You&#8217;re Not Saying.</title>
	<atom:link href="http://chadjarnagin.com/2010/04/verbiage/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://chadjarnagin.com/2010/04/verbiage/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Jan 2012 20:02:52 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chad Jarnagin</title>
		<link>http://chadjarnagin.com/2010/04/verbiage/#comment-597</link>
		<dc:creator>Chad Jarnagin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Apr 2010 13:15:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://chadjarnagin.com/?p=1056#comment-597</guid>
		<description>Thanks guys. I&#039;m with you Kevin. Most of historical issues have been w/ the type of action we do or don&#039;t do. I still don&#039;t think that we can discredit the way we communicate. That too has been a historical issue. Thanks for the thoughts. This has been great!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks guys. I&#8217;m with you Kevin. Most of historical issues have been w/ the type of action we do or don&#8217;t do. I still don&#8217;t think that we can discredit the way we communicate. That too has been a historical issue. Thanks for the thoughts. This has been great!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kevin</title>
		<link>http://chadjarnagin.com/2010/04/verbiage/#comment-596</link>
		<dc:creator>Kevin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Apr 2010 04:16:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://chadjarnagin.com/?p=1056#comment-596</guid>
		<description>I don&#039;t think the problem lies with our verbiage at all. I think it lies with our action. The problem is not what we call each other or the terms we use. It&#039;s how we don&#039;t do what the bible says we should do, that is showing grace and loving one another the way Christ loved us.

I don&#039;t think the problem is verbiage at all. I thinks it&#039;s action. Love is a verb! Or is that too christian cliche? Lol. 

Btw, great discussion you got going here.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t think the problem lies with our verbiage at all. I think it lies with our action. The problem is not what we call each other or the terms we use. It&#8217;s how we don&#8217;t do what the bible says we should do, that is showing grace and loving one another the way Christ loved us.</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t think the problem is verbiage at all. I thinks it&#8217;s action. Love is a verb! Or is that too christian cliche? Lol. </p>
<p>Btw, great discussion you got going here.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Devon</title>
		<link>http://chadjarnagin.com/2010/04/verbiage/#comment-595</link>
		<dc:creator>Devon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Apr 2010 23:13:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://chadjarnagin.com/?p=1056#comment-595</guid>
		<description>Good post Chad.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good post Chad.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chad Jarnagin</title>
		<link>http://chadjarnagin.com/2010/04/verbiage/#comment-594</link>
		<dc:creator>Chad Jarnagin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Apr 2010 03:43:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://chadjarnagin.com/?p=1056#comment-594</guid>
		<description>Thanks Kevin, for your point. I get your angle.

The message of Jesus IS offensive. Jesus told stories. He spoke to the people in ways that he knew they would understand. NOW, we don&#039;t tend to do that. Saying something and sticking with it has been part of the problem. It&#039;s possible that we&#039;ve been saying the wrong things for a very long time. Sending the wrong message, for a long time. AND, we&#039;re seeing less and less people hearing, responding, and receiving the message of Hope thru the story of the gospel b/c of US (our verbiage, issues, and lack of communication skills) getting in the way. Jesus was an amazing storyteller. We don&#039;t tend to be, unfortunately. 

Those that are challenging the status quo will see results. The message of Jesus, not changing. Love God. Love people. 

Businesses also use the term partnership. It&#039;s a &quot;buy in&quot; type term. 

&quot;To reach people no one else is reaching, we must do things no one else is doing&quot;. I think it should start w/ the way we speak.

Thanks again! Good stuff. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks Kevin, for your point. I get your angle.</p>
<p>The message of Jesus IS offensive. Jesus told stories. He spoke to the people in ways that he knew they would understand. NOW, we don&#8217;t tend to do that. Saying something and sticking with it has been part of the problem. It&#8217;s possible that we&#8217;ve been saying the wrong things for a very long time. Sending the wrong message, for a long time. AND, we&#8217;re seeing less and less people hearing, responding, and receiving the message of Hope thru the story of the gospel b/c of US (our verbiage, issues, and lack of communication skills) getting in the way. Jesus was an amazing storyteller. We don&#8217;t tend to be, unfortunately. </p>
<p>Those that are challenging the status quo will see results. The message of Jesus, not changing. Love God. Love people. </p>
<p>Businesses also use the term partnership. It&#8217;s a &#8220;buy in&#8221; type term. </p>
<p>&#8220;To reach people no one else is reaching, we must do things no one else is doing&#8221;. I think it should start w/ the way we speak.</p>
<p>Thanks again! Good stuff.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kevin</title>
		<link>http://chadjarnagin.com/2010/04/verbiage/#comment-593</link>
		<dc:creator>Kevin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Apr 2010 01:00:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://chadjarnagin.com/?p=1056#comment-593</guid>
		<description>Lost or found, Christian or non-Christian, Churched or Unchurched. Jim Henderson wrote a book called &quot;a.k.a. Lost: Discovering Ways to Connect with the People Jesus Misses Most &quot;

My point is what&#039;s next? There&#039;s always going to be something we use to separate those that know God from those that don&#039;t. Biblically, that&#039;s Jews vs. gentiles. Is it right? I don&#039;t think so but if there isn&#039;t something, then how do you differentiate the two, cause there IS a difference.

You changed members and membership to partner and partnership. How weird is that seeing Homosexuals use that same terminology. Personally, I don&#039;t think that&#039;s a smart move.

However, the point is this. A few years ago they tried to force teachers to quit using a red marker to mark wrong answers and change to purple because it has a less negative reaction. However over time, the purple color will become just as bad as the former red one.

So no matter what you change words to, eventually they&#039;ll end up having the same negative connotation as the previous ones used.

So personally, I say use something and stick with it. Cause no matter the case your still saying the same thing.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Lost or found, Christian or non-Christian, Churched or Unchurched. Jim Henderson wrote a book called &#8220;a.k.a. Lost: Discovering Ways to Connect with the People Jesus Misses Most &#8221;</p>
<p>My point is what&#8217;s next? There&#8217;s always going to be something we use to separate those that know God from those that don&#8217;t. Biblically, that&#8217;s Jews vs. gentiles. Is it right? I don&#8217;t think so but if there isn&#8217;t something, then how do you differentiate the two, cause there IS a difference.</p>
<p>You changed members and membership to partner and partnership. How weird is that seeing Homosexuals use that same terminology. Personally, I don&#8217;t think that&#8217;s a smart move.</p>
<p>However, the point is this. A few years ago they tried to force teachers to quit using a red marker to mark wrong answers and change to purple because it has a less negative reaction. However over time, the purple color will become just as bad as the former red one.</p>
<p>So no matter what you change words to, eventually they&#8217;ll end up having the same negative connotation as the previous ones used.</p>
<p>So personally, I say use something and stick with it. Cause no matter the case your still saying the same thing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chad Jarnagin</title>
		<link>http://chadjarnagin.com/2010/04/verbiage/#comment-592</link>
		<dc:creator>Chad Jarnagin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 Apr 2010 21:05:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://chadjarnagin.com/?p=1056#comment-592</guid>
		<description>Thanks for all of your input. this is good convo.

Brian, thank you for your perspective. you have a good angle. I think the point could be made that we are ALL people. In or out of church. We are either the Church or we’re not. If “unchurched” equals people that are not in or of the Church, why are they not just “people”? I guess that’s the angle of our lingo.

Being a part of the Church doesn’t mean we&#039;re in the club or initiated. It might (in subcultured circles). Fraternity verbiage does us no good here.

The TRUTH stands alone w/o us adding or taking away w/ our terms and lingo. We should continue to pursue getting out of our own way as we communicate the truth. Be it our language, verbiage, etc. This is actually part of the point I am making here.

Make sense? Just thinking / processing out loud.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for all of your input. this is good convo.</p>
<p>Brian, thank you for your perspective. you have a good angle. I think the point could be made that we are ALL people. In or out of church. We are either the Church or we’re not. If “unchurched” equals people that are not in or of the Church, why are they not just “people”? I guess that’s the angle of our lingo.</p>
<p>Being a part of the Church doesn’t mean we&#8217;re in the club or initiated. It might (in subcultured circles). Fraternity verbiage does us no good here.</p>
<p>The TRUTH stands alone w/o us adding or taking away w/ our terms and lingo. We should continue to pursue getting out of our own way as we communicate the truth. Be it our language, verbiage, etc. This is actually part of the point I am making here.</p>
<p>Make sense? Just thinking / processing out loud.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brian Tyler</title>
		<link>http://chadjarnagin.com/2010/04/verbiage/#comment-591</link>
		<dc:creator>Brian Tyler</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 Apr 2010 04:01:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://chadjarnagin.com/?p=1056#comment-591</guid>
		<description>I like your later take on words being important and all, but I think that the words being used,  &quot;churched&quot; and &quot;unchurched,&quot; do not mean the secret handshake, etc. They are actually an example of the very point that you are making. That is to say that they are a replacement set for &quot;church member&quot; and &quot;non-members.&quot;

 They apparently came into popular use as a sensitive reaction to the inside/outside mentality of the &quot;member&quot; set of descriptions. Those, it was felt, came with the accusatory feelings attached to being seen as an outsider. Being called &quot;un-churched&quot; apparently is less negative a remark, like perhaps you escaped the tainting. In most cases the member set of words came with statements like, &quot;I am a member of a Church.&quot; or &quot;He is not a member of a Church.&quot; The non church attendee had only a negative description.

Yes, there is truth to the description meaning you do not &quot;get the lingo&quot;, but that is exactly what it is supposed to mean. It accurately (within culturally fluid boundaries of course) describes this person as someone who has not been initiated. The truth that there is truth to be explained, secrets to be revealed, etc., is founded in Biblical New Testament truth. Members, or churched folk, generally have experienced the reading, preaching, teaching, and understanding of Biblical truth and have been initiated into a subculture of words with meanings particular to the church scene.

Yes, let&#039;s be sensitive to how we are communicating, but lets communicate. Let&#039;s keep developing our language as long as it helps communicate the truth. That&#039;s why we have been left here, to hold forth the truth for those who need it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I like your later take on words being important and all, but I think that the words being used,  &#8220;churched&#8221; and &#8220;unchurched,&#8221; do not mean the secret handshake, etc. They are actually an example of the very point that you are making. That is to say that they are a replacement set for &#8220;church member&#8221; and &#8220;non-members.&#8221;</p>
<p> They apparently came into popular use as a sensitive reaction to the inside/outside mentality of the &#8220;member&#8221; set of descriptions. Those, it was felt, came with the accusatory feelings attached to being seen as an outsider. Being called &#8220;un-churched&#8221; apparently is less negative a remark, like perhaps you escaped the tainting. In most cases the member set of words came with statements like, &#8220;I am a member of a Church.&#8221; or &#8220;He is not a member of a Church.&#8221; The non church attendee had only a negative description.</p>
<p>Yes, there is truth to the description meaning you do not &#8220;get the lingo&#8221;, but that is exactly what it is supposed to mean. It accurately (within culturally fluid boundaries of course) describes this person as someone who has not been initiated. The truth that there is truth to be explained, secrets to be revealed, etc., is founded in Biblical New Testament truth. Members, or churched folk, generally have experienced the reading, preaching, teaching, and understanding of Biblical truth and have been initiated into a subculture of words with meanings particular to the church scene.</p>
<p>Yes, let&#8217;s be sensitive to how we are communicating, but lets communicate. Let&#8217;s keep developing our language as long as it helps communicate the truth. That&#8217;s why we have been left here, to hold forth the truth for those who need it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

