The people who I'm calling freedom fighters are the people who percieve that there's a mass movement telling them not to use religious language.
Again, I recognize that outside of the blogsphere, there probably are people saying "Don't use it at all." Heck, I ran into one lady who gave me crap about a word I used in a lay sermon one time. She gave me static, I argued back, then we went for chinese food. (Sigh. That was a great church.)
But as far as the folks on the blogosphere are concerned, I feel like for the past week the conversation has been more like:
Religious Language fans: People should be able to use whatever term they think will work the best.
CC: Exactly, but sometimes religious language won't be the best term. I think Sinkford was wrong to try to market Christian language as something that's really going to resonate with people and that using it have this huge effect. I don't think it will work.
Religious language fan: Boy, I really hate it how people are trying to BAN religious language and tell Sinkford he can't use it!
CC: Not that I think anybody's listening any more, but for the record, that's not what I said.
I don't think Jeff and I and anyone else on the negative side of the debate has actually said "Don't use it." I think Jeff and I and anyone else have been pretty consistent on the "It just won't work" point.
But over and over I keep hearing "people are trying to tell Sinkford how to talk" or "people are trying to ban religious language." Maybe that's appropriate in a medium where people are actually saying this.
But as far as the debate here goes, this is a straw man.