You walk into a new church.

After finding your seat, you're listening to the conversations around you.

One person says, "Sibling Johnson told me if his master slows down you'd find him in his meditation basement."

And the people behind you?

"I saw the crime and I went to the table of sacrifice to be reclaimed."

And off to the side: "Stacy has been dead weight to me lately."

And yet, when unchurched people visit a service the language can be just as incomprehensible.

It's called Christianese.

The above translate: "Brother Johnson told me if the Lord tarries you can find him in his prayer closet","My testimony is that I went to the altar and got saved", and "I've had a burden for Stacy lately."

Do you see if a non-Christian heard those statements the translation might be just as hazy. But they're phrases Christians throw around without care.

In 1 Corinthians 14:23 Paul talks about a church where everyone is speaking in tongues and how, to an outsider, that seems like craziness. But with Christian lingo, we might as well be doing the same.

Paul's conclusion? Translation is necessary.

When we are conversing with nonbelievers we need to use what is called "rhetorical sensitivity." We adapt our language to the people we communicate with. We don't hide what we believe (that's called "equivocation" and it's not good.) But we describe precisely what we believe in terms they can understand.

We all practice rhetorical sensitivity.

When I'm passing out tracts and a group of middle age ladies approach, I might extend the literature and say, "Good morning, ladies." But if a group of teen guys come by I'll say, "What's happenin' guys?" It's a trite example, but a relevant one.

You probably speak differently to a three-year-old than you do a seventy-year-old. All of us naturally adapt our language, but we rarely let it conquer our Christianese. Is it religious elitism or a reliance on tradition? (From what I've read, Jesus hated that stuff.)

Non-Christians may not understand phrases like, "'Brother Jones', 'testimony', 'led by the Spirit', and 'washed in the Blood'." Good substitutes are "'Pastor Jones', 'my story', 'felt like God wanted me to', and 'cleaned up by what Jesus did'."

We can't abandon phrases like "washed in the blood." It would be heresy. The cleansing of the Blood of Jesus is an integral part of Christianity and is used in the great hymns and all throughout the New Testament. But what we can do is use them with care and understanding. Don't just throw them out there. If you use them, define them.

I don't often tell non-Christians I wrote a book on "evangelism." It's a loaded word with various meanings in their eyes. Instead, I tell them my book is about being "outreach centered" instead of "me-centered." That's something they can relate to and with a bit further explanation gets to the idea. I'll talk about "helping people know and follow Jesus" instead of "evangelizing them" or "soul winning."

You might think, "But, aren't Christians supposed to be 'peculiar' people and separated from the world?"

Yep. We are.

But we're peculiar because we fast and pray. Peculiar (odd - different) because we give away a large portion of our income. We spend significant time reading an ancient text. We have different views on cussing, getting wasted, and viewing pornography. We try to discern the will of God. In the world we live in, that's peculiar enough. The insensitivity in our rhetoric is one more blockade in the lives of people.

We don't need to widen the gap already there by speaking like "men of the cloth."

Let's make it as easy as possible for people to follow Jesus. Choosing our words carefully is essential.

Your non-Christian friends will appreciate the difference and I'm confident Jesus will too.