# Language and thought **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [April 7, 2010, 7:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/language-and-thought/535252 "2010-04-07T07:04:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 9
**Author:** ![Heart\_of\_Dorkness](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/4bbf92/32.png) [@Heart\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Heart_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2010, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/language-and-thought/535252/9 "2010-04-07T15:45:34Z")
> [@Notassmartasithought](#): > > Specifically, I said that one shouldn’t use the word “Christian” as an adjective. I was told that by a very good Lutheran theologian, Bill Lazareth, nearly 35 years ago, and it still works. > [@FatBaldGuy](#): > > So what is the difference between using “Christian” as an adjective, or using “Lutheran” as an adjective as you have done here? Yes, which synod, please? Seriously, I suspect you’re taking Mr. Lazareth a bit too literally. I would imagine that the point he was trying to make is that we must be careful about lumping all Christians and Christian things together when there are _relevant_ distinctions to be made. And I think this is good policy, not just for Christianity, but for any grouping of people, things, ideas, etc. However, sometimes, the distinctions aren’t relevant. I mean, for pete’s sake, if we can’t say all Christian things are alike in some ways, then how can we possibly talk sensibly about “liberal/conservative ideals”, “adult responsibilities”, or “human tendencies”? We can, and do, because within certain contexts, these very large groupings share common properties that can be discussed and considered without regard to their internal differences. Yes, often these terms do paint with too broad a brush, but in some cases, they can be perfectly acceptable. For instance, we can say that Christian theology: is based on the idea that Jesus was the son of God, is monotheistic, uses the Bible as its primary sacred text (and believes the New Testament to be equally valid to the Old), shares roots with Jewish and Muslim theology, and so on. But all that aside, it seems you’re objecting not to “Christianity” or “Christians”, even though they denote exactly the same broad ideological category as the adjective “Christian” does, because they’re _nouns_, and not _adjectives._ > [@Very simple grammar question](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/very-simple-grammar-question/535180/44): > > Oh, and by the way, if you say your father is a Christian, that’s using the word as a noun, not an adjective. I’ve got no problem with that. It’s the use of the word as an adjective that I’m making a case against. If you say “I have a Christian father,” I might be at a loss. Roman Catholic? Evangelical? Methodist? This makes no sense, as **pulykamell** points out: > [@Very simple grammar question](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/very-simple-grammar-question/535180/46): > > 😕 > > First of all, both sentences, as stated by **Giles** , are equivalent. If you have a problem with “I have a Christian father,” I don’t see how you don’t have a problem with “My father is Christian.” What’s the difference? Indeed - why wouldn’t you be at a loss in either case? “Gee, he’s _a_ Christian, but is he _a_ Roman Catholic? _An_ Evangelical? _A_ Methodist?” How does the noun form impart more precision or detail than the adjective? The point is, it doesn’t. So if you’re simply exhorting people to choose their words carefully, that’s fine. If you’re saying that words are meaningless if they’re general, that’s wrong. If you’re saying that general nouns are okay, but general adjectives aren’t, that’s just silly. --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/language-and-thought/535252)._