Ed,

I like the connector/unconnected verbage. I was using missional, but it has gotten so watered down by people who think their church is missional because they go on missions trips.

I am now using MIROR Church, which stands for Missional, Incarnational, Relational, Organic, and Reproductive. It is based on the foundation of the perichoretic nature of the Trinity and is a practical expression of the functions of the Trinity. I'm doing a blog series on it, actually, and will be writing a book on it as soon as my dissertation is done.

Also, I don't use Christian anymore...I use Christ-follower.

1. What do you think of their lexicon?

I like it. It makes sense. It is not stodgy. It holds to the basics of the faith and puts it in a new way--something I think is vital to reach a new generation.

2. Do you use the term "missional"? Why or why not?

I use it sparingly. I understand the term and agree with it. I do think some in my circles associate it directly with branches of the Emergent Church--a group some do not agree with.

4. Have you opted for less traditional language when attempting to communicate biblical truth with the world? If so, why? Please give examples.

Like I mentioned before, it's vital to contextualize the gospel for this generation. On top of this, some traditional terms are extremely watered down today. For example the term "Christian" doesn't necessarily mean someone who has been forgiven of their sins and is now living a new life with Christ. It could mean anything from a catholic who does not hold to evangelical doctrines to a synonym for "American." So I actually think it is very important to use newer terms that give actual definition to the things of God in a way that speaks to this culture.

James MacDonald caught my attention when he said this at last years Straight Up Conf.

I seldom talk to someone that I’ve never met before, without saying to them, “Have you given your life to Christ? Are you saved?” And use biblical terms. Down with “are you a seeker,” “are you pre-converted,” “are you unreached…” ARE YOU LOST? How’s that? “Are you lost?” I’m going to think that God’s not upset about the Bible. I think that he likes his terms. I’m going to stick with those. “If you’re lost, you need to be…found.” “If you’re unsaved, you need to be…saved.” You need to be forgiven. You need Jesus Christ in your life…This is nothing we want to mince words about. I don’t want to be clever about this, I want to be CLEAR about it."

When I hear the term "Christ-follower," I always think that being "like" Jesus doesn't save. Being a believer in Christ does save.

1. What do you think of their lexicon?

The lexicon seems to be a good idea for the simple reason that it gets everyone on the same page—think Alexander the Great spreading Greek culture throughout the Mediterranean world primarily through language. That is, the territories that he conquered adopted Greek language and consequently Greek culture. So it seems if we can get everyone in the church speaking the same language then our church “culture” can be spread. Often times I have found that I must convert people to the church before they are converted to Christ which means I have to speak a language that they will understand.

2. Do you use the term "missional"? Why or why not?

Yes, I use the term missional because I was given Francis Dubose’s book The God Who Sends by a church librarian who was cleaning out her collection and did not know what to do with it and the influence of writers like yourself and others such those with the Gospel and Our Culture Network. Simply put “missional” is a great word for describing the sending of the church—The Father sending the Son, The Son sending the Spirit, and the Spirit sending the church—simple right? :)

3. Do you use an alternative term(s)? If so, why? And, if so, what terms do you use?

I do use alternative terms. I put myself in an unchurched person’s shoes and ask, “Would I understand that?” For me this is relatively simple because I did not grow up in church. Below is an partial list of church terms I translate.

Christian to follower of Christ
Blessed to Happy
I was born again to I was given a fresh, new start
I was saved to My life was changed at that moment
Jesus is my Lord to I put Jesus in charge of my life
I repented to I changed my mind
I had sinned to I knew I had blown it
All are sinners to Nobody’s perfect
I felt convicted to I realized that…
The Holy Ghost to God’s spirit

4. Have you opted for less traditional language when attempting to communicate biblical truth with the world? If so, why? Please give examples.

Yes, even my sermons are very conversational. I am often interrupted with questions and I pose questions and ask for response. People enjoy conversation and have negative reactions to “preaching”, especially in my context where we run into a lot of what we called “previously churched” people who have been burned, hurt, and exiled from the church. Also, I train my members to look for natural cultural bridges in order to communicate biblical truth. The bridges are there, we do not have to build them. For example, we recently engaged several of our yet-to-believe friends with some truth found in the movie “Walk the Line.” We discussed ideas like guilt, judgment, and stewardship.

Matt,

When I first became a Christian, I came home and asked my dad, "Are you saved?" His response was, "Saved from what?" (I did not know the answer, but I knew he needed to be!)

In the case of a nominal Catholic from NY, the words had no meaning.

So, I am OK with saying someone needs to be saved, but I wonder if they will understand what that means.

And, I will tell you that from where I sit, seems like everyone in TN is “saved” but many of them desperately need to become Christ-followers.

Being “saved” is the equivalent of my confirmation class growing up (a rite of passage, like a bar-mitzvah if you will).

So, I find that asking people “are you saved” here is like asking people “are you confirmed” in NY. Both answer yes most of the time and are often not Christians.

James is in Chicago, so maybe that is different.

I used “saved” here, but I have to explain what I don’t mean as much as what I do mean.

Ed

Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

A lexicon is useful, if you are going to make up new words to describe the process and the particulars of God's plan of salvation.

I kind of lean in Matt's direction, what is wrong with God's vocabulary?

Just because the church, influenced by a sinful world, has redefined the terms, does that mean we come up with new terms (terms that often do not accurately reflects God's plan of salvation)?

"Everyone" in Tennessee is "saved" because someone changed the definition of "saved".

God has not changed His definitions and salvation is based upon His terms.

Again, the church bends its doctrine to the will of culture. (Change in practice becomes change in doctrine eventually)

>> Again, the church bends its doctrine to the will of culture.

That is a pretty big leap from whether you emphasize certain words or use synonyms.

For example, propitiation and justification are Bible words I teach in my preaching. But, I typically do not use them to describe my evangelistic and outreach strategy (though they are central to it). However, the point here is discussing create a lexicon of ministry (connecting, missional, etc.), not eliminating the use of Biblical words to "bend our doctrine to the will of culture."

And, I do use "saved," just usually with an explanation. However, I think it is just as biblical to ask if they are following Christ (or other terms, etc.)

However, I do get your concern. I am not afraid of Bible terms (and use them in preaching).

Just wondering which to use first and most frequently to help people get the message and get on mission.

Ed

This may shed additional light on BBC's "missional willingingness."

Something unique I noted about Brentwood in visiting churches all over the country this year: Brentwood is a Southern Baptist Church in the Bible Belt, yet they have been willing to turn Sunday night into a "regular" weekend church service (as opposed to the usual members-focused "Evening Service"). This is paired with nighttime Bible study options, too.

This move can be both streamlining for a church and a strong help to connecting with Young Adults, among others.

A Sunday night option among weekend church services is fairly prevalent these days, but it seems very rare in this type of church.

I don't know anything about the decision or how it was made, but it struck me as a move that shows willingness to try something new, at least.

1. What do you think of their lexicon? Very effective. As you say, it will take a while for it to become part of the language, but that only comes through time, teaching, and usage.

2. Do you use the term "missional"? Why or why not? Yes, and I define it also.

3. Do you use an alternative term(s)? If so, why? And, if so, what terms do you use? We use the 'connected' and 'unconnected' terms and have since I have been at this church. We speak of 'being connected to our Family of Faith' (local church) and 'being connected to Christ' (which is a prerequisite to being connected to our church, of course). We also use 'the story of our rescue' for testimony, playing off the old word 'saved' which I still particularly like. Many people in our setting have heard and know the word, so we just build upon it.

4. Have you opted for less traditional language when attempting to communicate biblical truth with the world? If so, why? Please give examples. Yes, with children and adults. Some of the examples are in the last answer. Just like newer translations use modern english, we try to do so in our preaching, teaching, witnessing, advertising, etc.

I think the lexicon is good and makes sense in the culture today. I especially like Christ follower because the words Christian and Disciple have too much baggage from the political world and the Christian witness in general. Being a Christians today is more about a membership or association in a club then living with and for Christ under grace. Christ-follower catches the focus and goal to be Christ like or for the church to manifest christ in world we live in......infact invade the world with the presence of Christ that is in you by living it.

Missional is so over used and has become a trendy word to say to cover up your lack off outreach... Blah blah blah....i'm not bitter just tired of blah blah blah and no do do do....

1. What do you think of their lexicon?

Meh. I give them credit for defining terms. I think they didn't opt for translation theological terms into vernacular; I think they opted to translate old church-growth language into new church-growth language.

2. Do you use the term "missional"? Why or why not?

I don't use it. I think it's a term which covers too much ground, and includes too much baggage. We talk about reaching community, making disciples, teaching disciples, worship, prayer and fellowship.

3. Do you use an alternative term(s)? If so, why? And, if so, what terms do you use?

See above. My opinion is that none of those terms fly above anyone's head.

4. Have you opted for less traditional language when attempting to communicate biblical truth with the world? If so, why? Please give examples.

Not for nothin', but I have never given anyone the Gospel in Greek or Hebrew -- so in one sense I have to say "yes" to Q4 here. But, for example, I share conversational polemics like this one and this one (the second one is for geeks, not cool art types).

For the record, both my grade-schoolers know words like "incomprehensible" and "justice" and "sustainer". I find it far-fetched that adults can't grasp them.

We would do well to remember that God's vocabulary as we originally received it was Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Not many of us ask, "Su sesosthe?"

It is interesting that we would accuse the church of bending to the culture by using the vernacular of the people with whom we communicate. The same argument was used against Wycliff when he started preaching to the people in English instead of Latin.

1. I like the lexicon approach.

2. We do not use "missional," but we encompass the "missional" concept with the phrase "on mission."

3. We use "missionary followers of Christ" to describe disciples.

4. I usually use "rescue" for the original Greek, "sozo" (grin).

Sorry. Back to my cave.

I think some of our problems with single words, whether it be "saved" or "lost" "connected" or "unconnected", is that single words cannot fully plumb the depth and breadth of life without Christ vs. life with Christ. We must use words, use labels, for so did Christ. We just have to guard against being lulled into a mindset that life with Christ is ONLY about getting connected with Him, or ONLY about getting saved from our sins, or ONLY about being elected by His grace.

On a parallel subject, Ed, I have a guy in my community life group (read: sunday school class) who is a life-long missionary and bible translator (THAT Phil Fields), and he's been translating the Bible into a language/culture which is utterly non-western.

This is an important fact because it highlights the problem you are trying to think about here -- because I think you're saying, "we need to find ways to speak to our post-Christian culture." You example of your nominal Catholic Dad is one which, frankly, I have a lot of Buffalo kinsmanship with.

But here's the thing: there's a significant difference between trying to preach the Gospel into a culture where the terms "justice" and "mercy" have no actual words to represent them, and no cultural foothold to deliver those ideas -- and our culture which, in spite of its place on the historical curve, is still philosophically undergirded by JudeoChristian and Greek concepts of justice and mercy.

The nominal Catholic in Western NY understands what justice and mercy are -- he just doesn't understand why that's Good News for the Jew and the Gentile. And that is why we have to speak to that rather than trying to reinvent ways to say "member", "membership", "maturity" and "mission".

IMO. Your mileage may vary.

Ed,
I believe you nailed down the issue in your final statement: "Just wondering which to use first and most frequently to help people get the message ..."
I in no way took your post to say that terms, such as saved and lost were irrelevant. Rather, I feel that you are possibly suggesting other *culturally relevant* terms that people *get*. If I'm in my church context and am counseling someone who has a church background, I will ask him or her, "Are you saved?" And even then, I probe farther. Jesus spoke to his audience, using such relevant terms/stories in Luke 15, stories of which us western city-slickers do not get all of, because we do not live in the culture that Luke 15 presents. The Bible student must do research and study the 1st century culture context. And thank God for scholars like MacArthur who are able to explain 1st century culture to us!
Question 1
So, is there something inherently unbilical about the terms suggested above? No. I applaud their goal that is given under "unconnected." This goal is modeled in the ministry of Christ.
Question 2
Being relatively new (recent months) to the whole missional thing, I do use the term sparingly among certin key leaders within my church but then follow up with what I mean by that word. I use it to prick their brain in order to stimulate their thoughts about our goal/mission as a church and as people who make up that church.
Question 3
Again, I am relatively new to the conviction of being missional. But one phrase I like to use, which I believe describes it well and provides biblical support in practice is "incarnating the culture" and pointing people to Phil 2 as an example. (That example may have come out of Stetzer's book.)
Question 4
Can't really think of a distinct time and place when I opted for less traditional language, but I'm sure there are those times.

It is incredibly important that we define words without throwing them away.

The word 'saved' is a word that stands for a group of words. If the world doesn't understand the word, we should explain it... but not throw the word out.

If my doctor tells me I have a certain disease or condition, I would expect him to break it down for me. But I would be very comforted to know that he knows the proper terminology. The medical field shouldn't move to slang because I don't understand what they do.

What other major institution feels the need to change its terminology because the outside groups don't 'get it'? Financial, legal, electrical, medical, technology?

We should figure out what resonates with the individual and work from that... Not figure out what will work in a whole culture or society.

People do know what sin is. They know what it means to be a sinner. They even know they shouldn't be one. That's because the Holy Spirit is telling them.

I suggest it isn't the words that are the problem... but we aren't living the words out, or we live them out in the wrong way. Great example:

People who took 'holiness' farther than God ever intended earned the title 'holier than thou'. So when the world thought of 'holiness' they thought of certain legalistic standards. That shows how much actions... even wrong actions, can determine definition. So what if the true 'active believers' redefined Christian terminology by proper actions. We wouldn't have to define ouselves... That's how we got the name 'Christian' in the first place. It was action, not redefinition.

Many people were 'followers of Christ' without being disciples, but every disciple was an 'active believer'. They embodied the Spirit and nature of Christ. An important difference between being a Christian and a Christ-follower... Christians weren't trying to define themselves while Christ-followers are. This emphasizes our image-driven culture. "We don't want to look like what we think, they think, we look like. (Even though we earned that stereotype.) So we will call ourselves something different. If we call ourselves something different, we will be seen as something different." Horrible approach, but it reflects our image-driven culture. Nothing will change what they think, as quickly as living how we should live. If we lived as we should, they would find a word for us. And it might be a mocking word. But it would be something that makes sense to them.

I am a Browns-follower, but nowhere near being on the team. I am not a Cleveland Brown. And you know what? It doesn't offend me when you say I am not on the team. Psst... I already know that. How sweet it would be, but alas, I am only a folllower. If I made the team, I sure wouldn't tell you I am a follower... LOL.

So, I believe, if we are relevant in our lives, our lexicon will follow.

Changing (corporate) language in my opinon is contextually optional. Those who choose to use it must discipline themselves and be patient with those who haven't caught on. I would be interested to see how they begin to "translate" words like "Great Commission, Great Commandment, salvation, heaven and hell, or maybe some non-essential "terms" like Theology, doctrines of grace, etc.

1. What do you think of their lexicon?

It's a great first step. To begin contextualizing our language, bringing it out of the ivory tower and into the streets, is key to truly beginning to let unchurched connect (for lack of a better term) with the authenticity of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

2. Do you use the term "missional"? Why or why not?

Yes. I think missional is the best contemporary descriptor of God's design for our lives as lived incarnationally amongst those who need to hear His saving hope.

3. Do you use an alternative term(s)? If so, why? And, if so, what terms do you use?

I use missional in my churched context. Of course I deal with a wide range of ages, but most are fairly progressive thinkers. I don't use missional outside of a churched context, as when I talk with my friends and neighbors who are unchurched. I prefer authentic or just dropping any kind of spiritually coded langauge and just start being real with them.

4. Have you opted for less traditional language when attempting to communicate biblical truth with the world? If so, why? Please give examples.

Yes, a couple of years ago I sat down and wrote out my story as I would commonly (but not methodologically) share it with people. I then took out all of the catch phrases and Christianese and rewrote it in light of context in which I live. Then I handed it to a Muslim and atheist friend and asked them what they thought. They understood it better. Even in my preaching/teaching I don't use church loaded phrases but try to find common ground around concepts and terms that everyone can understand. (I think we'd be surprised how many of our regular pew sitters really don't know the difference between sanctification and justification.) It has helped, but the Holy Spirit has helped more.

Thanks for the post, it is terrific to see others adopting language for unchurched people. It communicates their desire to really reach them.

You are the church!
R.A.

Jesus used contextual language to relate to the people he conversed with. Doing the same in our post christian culture does not take away from our doctrines. it does not say that we dont think "God's Terms" are good enough, we are just putting Gods message in to terms that people can understand.

i use the term "missional" sparingly. not because i disagree with it, i just don't use it alot.

i do use alternative language when talking about living life with Christ. i just don't think people get why they are *lost* and what being *saved* gets them.

@David 9:47am

You say "People do know what sin is. They know what it means to be a sinner. They even know they shouldn't be one..."

I'm not so sure we can say this in our post-modern culture. While it may be true, especially from a theological standpoint, many people who did not grow up in a church environment do not agree with that statement. People know what loss is, what pain is, and what frustration is - but do they translate it into "sin" as we define it? For most post-moderns I would say they do not make that connection.

And for your revelation that you are a Browns-follower I will pray for you! Seek repentance and become a Steelers-follower! Grin.

Kudos to BBC for taking the time to examine their approach to evangelism in such detail. That being said...

1. What do you think of their lexicon?

I like the concept here, but I have a small issue with the words connectors/unconnected. Maybe it's my church planting world talking here, but the terms feel a little temporary. We connect and disconnect things all the time. If you use those words, as I do, in describing people who are connected to the church and/or small groups or bible study, then when those folks drop off we label them differently. That's fine when referring to attendance, but I have a problem when it comes to salvation.

2. Do you use the term "missional"? Why or why not?

I do use the term missional, but I do agree with previous posts in that it feels like it is getting watered down like the term "Christian".

4. Have you opted for less traditional language when attempting to communicate biblical truth with the world? If so, why? Please give examples.

I have used different terms, but none that have not already been discussed in this thread. Again, context will play a large role in terminology.

I hope the conference goes well and benefits BBC in their outreach.

Do I speak to my three old about the things of God like I speak to my Mormon neighbor? Yes and no. I use different words to point to the same truths. I could careless if my daughters or neighbors call themselves saved or connected, I care that they ARE saved and connected.

Words, narrative, are means to revelation; revealing the gospel to unsaved/unconnected people is the point. The language of the gospel varies in the N.T. Paul speaks differently according to point and audience. Even to the same audience he uses different terms and narratives to explain the gospel and truth. 1Cor3:5-17 the language is agrarian, 2 Cor.2:12-15 the language of a Roman procession from the battlefield. Seems silly if not spiritually prideful to thump any modern language as “the language of the Bible.” I often use 2Cor.2:12-15 to explain the gospel and evangelism, but I explain in detail according to my own contextual lexicon how these terms where understood when they were written. We need to practice hermeneutics in all our narratives. To say that people should know the meaning may indeed be true, perhaps they should know, but the fact is many don’t. You don’t loose the gospel by explaining terms that sound different than the KJV or even ESV, you loose the gospel by not explaining it all. Or we just become a clanging symbol. Now what does that mean? : )

In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the Kingdom of God unless he is born again". How can a man be born when he is old?" Nichodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mothers womb to be born!" Jesus answered "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the Kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to Spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, 'you must be born again.' John 3:37
Pretty clear words from Jesus Himself. It is a far cry from connected/ not connected. And much deeper also. Being born again includes having the Holy Spirit, not man made words and ideas so that people will "understand what we are saying." God never changes. People who are born again will understand what the Spirit is saying. The Holy Spirit draws us to Christ. Not man made ideas.
Ed in your response to Stephen you said "Just wondering which to use first and most frequently to help people get the message and get on mission." This was in reference to using biblical terms vs. new words. Getting the message and getting on misssion has a completely different meaning than what the Bible says about what salvation is.

back @ Jim R. (10:06)

There have been times I was embarassed to be a Browns fan, no doubt... but deep down I knew I was. I have never copped to being a Steelers fan, and never will, thanks to the 'Once a Browns fan, always a Browns fan' doctrine. I can deny the Steelers worth, and even their existence, but it does not translate into reality. And I still go to bed at night knowing I want to beat them twice a year.

The same is true with a 'post-modern' culture. This sub-culture is let off the hook on a regular basis. There is way to much scripture, and way too much experience in dealing with them to believe that they don't see themselves as sinners. I have never, in decades of dealing with many different sub-cultures, ever had anyone (of teen thourgh adult ages) honestly ask me what 'sin' is, or what a 'sinner' is. But invariably, I can ask a group of teens (churched or unchurched) to list sin, and even list sinners, and a long list will come back to me. This idea that our 'post-modern' culture doesn't understand these concepts is unproven and ludicrous. On the surface they act like they are 'ok', but when pressed, they nearly always admit to coming up short.

I have found that people of any culture quickly know what sin is when it happens to them. Stealing is 'acceptable', until you steal from me. No one calls fouls on their own team, if that makes sense. I doubt you know or could meet anyone who would doubt that Bin Laden, or Hitler are examples of 'sinners'. Again, this is true, not because of my lexicon, but because the Holy Spirit convicts of 'sin'... not 'frustration', or 'loss', or 'pain' (which are important issues of course). He is telling them. And they are hearing Him. They just don't like what they hear, and are in denial... much like I am about 'Big Ben'.

Go Browns!

I find it instructive that even Jesus had to tell three parables in Luke 15 (the lost sheep, the lost coin, and the lost sons)to more fully explain the meanings of the ideas "lost" and "saved." Even for Him, the simple use of a particular word was not sufficient to convey His meaning to His audience. When we suggest that this or that word is sufficient to communicate truth regardless of context, we do less to fully articulate the Gospel that Jesus Himself did.

@David 2:36pm

You make a great point about sin becoming applicable once it happens to someone and affects them personally. Downloading music off the internet is not an a sin (or even theft!) in their minds but if their personal work was misused and stolen they would have an issue with it. My question is how do we take this reality they live in and translate the gospel so they get it?

Ed - sorry we hijacked the thread a bit. Will try to stay more on topic.

Dwight wrote:
>> I find it instructive that even Jesus had to tell three parables in Luke 15 (the lost sheep, the lost coin, and the lost sons)to more fully explain the meanings of the ideas "lost" and "saved." Even for Him, the simple use of a particular word was not sufficient to convey His meaning to His audience. When we suggest that this or that word is sufficient to communicate truth regardless of context, we do less to fully articulate the Gospel that Jesus Himself did.

That's pretty insightful, Dwight.

I think we can know truth through language, but the question is which words. And, the key may be which word best communicates the eternal truth which underlies the language.

Frank (Uber-reformed-blogging-trouble maker) Turk wrote:
The nominal Catholic in Western NY understands what justice and mercy are -- he just doesn't understand why that's Good News for the Jew and the Gentile. And that is why we have to speak to that rather than trying to reinvent ways to say "member", "membership", "maturity" and "mission".

I would say we need both. (And, having planted in Buffalo, I agree with you that they would “get” those terms.)

I want people to have a clear understanding of the gospel AND I think people at times overstate the cultural distance of the church from the world. HOWEVER, I do think that language helps people in church to understand the mission of the church.

I want both because I think such a lexicon can help create a more unified vision.

Language can help them know a common path to discipleship and spiritual maturity. So, I think that such language can be helpful.

I bet your church uses some-- and people "get" their mission better when they have some common language to communicate the strategy of the local church.

But, I could be wrong... ‘aint never been to your church, but you sure do know those Purpose Driven words well, my Reformed friend!

God bless,

Ed

For the record, both my grade-schoolers know words like "incomprehensible" and "justice" and "sustainer". I find it far-fetched that adults can't grasp them.

There is a big difference between words we know and words we use in every-day speech. If you can translate Christian/Academic/High-Vocabulary words into every-day words (even if it takes more of them), your meaning will jump out at your hearer/reader. Otherwise, it takes more work for your audience. I'm not saying your audience won't be able to understand you -- it'll just take more work and your meaning won't be communicated with as much strength.

This is a problem with many Bible translations that are meant for reading (not study) like the NIV/TNIV. They did a good job with the literary style (sentence structure/grammar), but the vocabulary is far removed from every-day spoken English, so they are a lot of work to read -- like a textbook. And people wonder why they love to read, but reading the Bible is such a chore. The GNT and NLT do a better job, but there's much more work to be done to effectively communicate without all the cumbersome questions ("what did redemption mean again?") that distract the reader from the author's train of thought.

I'm not saying we shouldn't use $100 words that carry a particular shade of meaning or background, but we should do so sparingly and explain them when necessary.

Your grade-schoolers may understand the phrase "that's not justice!", but "being made just", "justified" and "justification" are not going to leap off the page with meaning.

A good source of today's vernacular is the Corpus of Contemporary American English (www.americancorpus.org), particularly the Spoken section. But beware: some word ("holy", "sacred") are high-frequency, but if you check the usage, it's almost all religious. If you use a word or pair of words from a non-religious context ("pure and untouchable"?), your meaning will come across clearer, stronger and fresher.

I'd love to see a thought-for-thought translation, informed by the top detailed exegetical commentaries (like Rosscup's list) in every-day English...