9 Words That Can Cause Division (and How to Approach Them)

Editor’s note: This article is the second in a three-part series by Todd Pheifer, the author of Let's Talk!: A Guide to Awkward Conversations and Unifying Dialogue in the Church. Pick up the book on Amazon and follow along on The Banner's Facebook and X pages for discussion of the book and its important topic.

Language is an imperfect means of human communication, and societies are constantly assessing or adding words to convey complex ideas. Suggesting that words can be ambiguous or have multiple interpretations might be an understatement. Some ambiguities are humorous, while others can cause deep hurt if used without contextual awareness. Many are familiar with the rhyme “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me.” Unfortunately, words can cause great pain and contribute to large divisions in the church.

Some might believe that segments of society have become overly sensitive, and there might be evidence to support that idea. Others believe people should consistently research the origins and impacts of certain words. Similarly, we should routinely engage in apologetics so that we are practiced in the origin of our beliefs. Sometimes words are deemed unacceptable because of cultural sensitivities; other times a shift in acceptability stems from a broader understanding that a word was a poor descriptor from the beginning. Here are some words that can cause strife in the church and some recommendations for how people can approach them.

Left/Right

This two-for-one pairing is common in political discussions and loosely associated with particular parties. But this pairing is inherently positioned to cause division, which does not make it desirable for use in the church. We can think of the left/right spectrum like a game of tug-of-war in which each group is trying to drag the other toward their own ideological side. Today it is common for people to lament the left or the right even though neither is a measurable group. Recommendation: Consider removing this pairing from your vocabulary. No one is asking you to compromise your beliefs, but keep your evaluative focus on issues, individuals, or defined groups. Avoid referencing an abstract ideology that has no membership, website, or published creed (Rom. 16:17-18).

Liberal/Conservative

This pairing has ideological similarities to left/right but differences in application. Both words are associated loosely with political parties, but the dictionary definitions are far less divisive. All of us have some openness to new ideas while at the same time experiencing thoughtful contentment with other beliefs or practices that do not need constant revisiting. Therefore, it is fair to suggest that we are all both liberal and conservative. If we evaluate our thoughts and behaviors over time, it is likely that we will discover that we are hybrids of these two words. Recommendation: Before using these words, consider whether they move the conversation forward or merely entrench people on a particular side. Are these words definable enough to promote dialogue and seek harmony, or are they used as weapons?

Evangelical

The word “evangelical” is admittedly a tough one. We don’t want to feel like we have to surrender this word with theological origins because it has been sufficiently tainted or confused by society (Rom. 12:2). But the word “evangelical,” at least in the U.S., has become associated with particular views on political and social issues. These days, perhaps there might be value in self-labeling instead as a “Christ follower.” Make it about Jesus alone—solus Christus. We might be part of a denomination or support a particular theological system, but that is not our core identity as children of God. Recommendation: Consider whether “evangelical” is the best word for personal identification and for labeling the church. When it comes to faith, how do you most want to be described?

Church

We know the church is not a building; neither is it limited to weekly corporate worship. That hasn’t stopped us from consistently describing the bride of Christ as an event or as a structure that will eventually need a new roof. We encourage people to go to church rather than striving to be church. Is that how we want the church to be known? Another challenge is that the church does not always have a reputation for extending love, grace, and forgiveness. We cannot build our faith and practices merely around the criticisms of an unbelieving world, and we must be aware that the church has in many instances not mirrored Christ. Recommendation: Boldly invite people to join your congregation, but recognize and understand the baggage that may come with the word “church.” Ask people to describe their encounters with the church, and do not be shocked if their perceptions are different from your own.

Truth

God is truth, and truthfully our spoken language fails to adequately capture the sheer magnitude of that statement. We try to find truth in other parts of life with various degrees of failure. We seek truth in theology, politics, our particular interpretations of science, societal leaders, or the consensus of a voting body. Divisions can arise when we put our faith in these human constructs rather than reserving the powerful word “truth” for God. Recommendation: Be careful with the word “truth” and evaluate whether its use is a sign that we are seeking comfort or security in something other than God.

Biblical

As with “truth,” the problem with “biblical” is not the word itself but some of the ways it’s used. The Bible is the inspired Word of God, useful for teaching, rebuking, and training in righteousness (2 Tim. 3:16). As we read Scripture, we interpret and apply. This should be done prayerfully, through thoughtful discussion, and in consultation with scholarly commentaries. The challenge is that we are sinners, so we must be wary of our own self-assurance. Sometimes we seek to compensate for doubt with consensus. Though like-mindedness can have value, it can also cause division and the weaponization of the word “biblical,” especially when it would be more accurate to say "my preferred interpretation." Recommendation: Evaluate your use of “biblical” and prayerfully reflect on whether you use Scripture as a standalone authority or as a means to justify other beliefs.

Justice

“Justice” is one of those words that tends to get a positive response from a broad audience. When someone says, “Justice must prevail,” everyone nods, but “justice” can be an incredibly ambiguous word. Justice for whom? Through what means or system? Our sinful nature means we most often look to our own benefit, and our perspective on what is fair or equitable is inherently biased. Justice might be served at times, but not everyone gets an equal share. Recommendation: When speaking about justice, provide qualifiers and frameworks while admitting limitations in knowledge of history, context, and culture.

Some of this analysis might feel like an attempt to make the gospel more palatable to a skeptical and sensitive society. That is not the case. Jesus reminds us in Matthew 10 and Luke 12 that division will always follow us, but we must ask ourselves whether our words contribute to conflict. We should never be ashamed of the gospel, but each day and through every interaction, we must ask whether we are moving people closer to Jesus. Do our words divide, or are they an invitation to talk and listen to one another more?

Move forward in boldness with the knowledge that if we consistently meditate on Scripture and constantly focus on Jesus, God will always give us the words to say