Theology vs. Ideology: Why “Sinner” Became Offensive in the Pulpit

by: Alan Smith and Jeff Rowland

How did a word as basic as “sinner” become something people don’t want to hear in church? For many believers, the issue is not that Scripture changed, it’s that our thinking changed. When sin is renamed, excused, or softened, the cross starts to look optional instead of necessary. And when the cross becomes optional, the whole shape of Christian life gets reduced to comfort, slogans, and self-approval.

This matters because the gospel is not just an invitation to feel better. It’s God’s rescue for real guilt, real bondage, and real rebellion, starting in the heart and showing up in our choices. When preachers stop naming sin, and when listeners stop admitting sin, the church becomes easier to attend but harder to transform.

A light start that still makes a point

The conversation opens with humor, the kind that disarms you before the serious part lands. There’s talk about “baited breath,” said like people around the world are waiting anxiously for wise words. Then comes the correction: “baited breath” is not the same as bad breath.

That leads to a story about riding in a truck with someone who eats so much garlic you can hardly let him in. In hot weather, the only solution is cracking the window. It’s simple banter, but it sets the tone. These are ordinary men talking in plain language, and they’re about to address an issue many Christians feel but don’t always name.

There’s also a quick sponsor moment that stays in the same playful lane: glasses, spectacles. The welcome is clear and funny, and it pulls in anyone who wears them.

Then the mood shifts. The laughter doesn’t disappear, but the focus sharpens. A topic comes up that touches preaching, repentance, and why many churchgoers react strongly when sin is named out loud.

The question behind the episode: why don’t preachers name specific sins?

The discussion is sparked by two things. First, a question raised in a Friday night Bible study conversation: why do preachers no longer name specific sins and preach about them? Second, an article titled When sinner becomes an offensive word in the pulpit, shared by Karen Elliott (with a note that a producer asked to remain anonymous, and that request is honored).

A quick line is offered that many people recognize: before anything else, you have to find out whether the preacher is for it or against it. That sounds blunt, but it exposes something real. Some pulpits now avoid clarity because clarity costs something. It can cost attendance, praise, approval, and comfort.

From there, the hosts widen the lens. The Bible uses several terms that help describe the sin problem. Each word adds color and weight. Sin is not only “doing something bad,” it’s also a condition of rebellion, crooked desire, and falling short.

A few of the terms mentioned are:

• Iniquity
• Transgression
• Trespass
• Falling short

Romans 14 is also brought into view with a hard line: “Whatsoever is not of faith is sin.” And the broader biblical witness is stated plainly: all have sinned, and if someone claims they have no sin, they’re lying and the truth is not in them.

The issue is not whether sin exists. The issue is what people do with it once it’s named.

Sin starts in the heart, then shows up in actions

A key claim in the conversation is that we often focus too much on “acts” while missing the root. The act of sin is the outward proof of something that was already present inwardly. Sin is a heart matter first. Behavior is the fruit, not the seed.

That’s why naming sin can feel offensive to someone who has spent years building a mental structure to protect it. When the heart wants what it wants, the mind often goes to work to justify it. Over time, a person can form a belief system that makes disobedience feel reasonable and holiness feel extreme.

The dynamic is spiritual, but it is also painfully practical. If a person can reshape their beliefs enough, they can keep what they love without the pain of conviction. The hosts describe it as a kind of coping. Instead of confessing sin and turning from it, people learn to live with it by changing their story about God.

This is one reason “sinner” becomes offensive. The label is not just describing a behavior. It’s challenging an identity a person has tried to rewrite. Once you name the sin, you also expose the need for the cross, the need for transformation, and the need for accountability that goes beyond a quick “I love Jesus” line in the middle of a busy day.

That’s also why watered-down preaching is not neutral. It isn’t just gentle. It can train a whole church to treat sin like a minor inconvenience instead of a deadly enemy.

A related warning shows up in another episode theme on Kingdom Prophetic Society about poisoned church culture, where style replaces truth and slogans replace Scripture. The imagery is simple and strong, clean water upstream, polluted water downstream. That same kind of drift is discussed here in moral and spiritual terms: the source gets ignored, and the results get normalized. For a deeper look at that “poisoned stream” idea, see https://www.kingdompropheticsociety.org/videos/what-is-in-your-church-s-spiritual-water-ep-792-november-3-2025.

The belief structures that excuse sin, and why “God doesn’t expect” is so dangerous

One phrase is singled out as a red flag: “God doesn’t expect…” The moment someone starts there, the hosts argue, they’re often not quoting Scripture, they’re announcing a conclusion. It can sound humble, but it usually functions as a self-issued permit.

Examples are given that expose the problem. You can’t casually claim God would never ask hard things, then read the lives of Job, Jonah, Daniel, the Hebrew children, or the apostles. You also can’t forget Peter, who was told, “Come and follow me,” and had to walk out the cost in real life, including what that meant for family, work, and stability.

Another belief structure shows up with the phrase “God loves everybody.” That is true as far as it goes, but many people attach a false conclusion to it: if God loves everyone, then whatever everyone is doing must be okay. That turns love into approval and mercy into permission.

A third excuse is the resignation line: “I just can’t pull all of that off.” It’s framed like honesty, but it can become an argument for staying the same. The belief becomes, “Since I can’t, God must be fine with me never changing.” But Scripture does not treat holiness as an optional track for intense believers. The call to come out, be separate, deny self, and follow Christ is not written only for a spiritual elite.

This connects to a larger warning about messages that still sound Christian but quietly shift trust away from Christ and obedience. A teaching can quote Bible verses and still rebuild the center around human reasoning. That danger is explored further in https://www.kingdompropheticsociety.org/profiles/blogs/another-gospel-in-disguise-intellectualism-vs-dispensationalism-e, especially where it warns against systems that feel “smart” but weaken repentance and the cross.

Theology vs. ideology (and “idolology”): when man’s thinking replaces God’s Word

The heart of the episode is the distinction between theology and ideology.

Theology is thinking about God from God’s Word. It submits to Scripture, even when Scripture cuts across preference. Ideology is man’s thinking, a system built to protect conclusions. In the conversation, it’s even called “idolology,” not because it uses statues, but because it installs the self in the place of final authority.

That’s why the hosts connect today’s excuses back to Genesis. The serpent’s temptation did not begin with open rebellion. It began with subtle reframing. The deception suggested that God was holding back, that God’s words could be softened, and that man could decide what was good. When people justify sin with “God wouldn’t expect,” it’s described as a replay of the first lie.

This also affects preaching. If a preacher relies mostly on opinion, tone, and crowd-approval, he can end up speaking for God without using God’s Word. That is treated as a serious matter. If you’re going to say “God says,” you need the text.

The episode also draws a line between two kinds of “certainty”:

• In true Christianity, the closer you get to God, the more you question yourself. Light exposes what’s there.
• In ideology, a person can become convinced they can’t be wrong, and that their thoughts are always right.

That second posture is spiritually dangerous because it removes repentance from the Christian life. It turns correction into an attack. It sears the conscience over time. The hosts describe the end result in biblical terms, a hardened heart, a calloused soul, and a conscience “seared with a hot iron.”

A related Scripture-focused warning about presuming what God would or wouldn’t expect is echoed in https://www.kingdompropheticsociety.org/profiles/blogs/revelation-2-2, where the same phrase is challenged directly and tied to endurance, labor, and prioritizing God’s kingdom.

Confession or self-justification: two paths with two outcomes

A simple contrast is laid out. On one side is the person who agrees with Scripture, admits sin, and confesses it. The promise from 1 John is clear, if we confess our sin, He is faithful and just to forgive, and to cleanse from unrighteousness. That person is not pretending to be fine. They’re coming into the light so they can be changed.

On the other side is the person who refuses the label “sin” because their belief system has already declared it reasonable. “I’m not in sin, God wouldn’t ask that of me.” That person may still attend church, still use Christian words, still sing, and still feel religious. But the inner direction is away from confession and toward self-protection.

A strong analogy is used to make the point land: a doctor who refuses to name cancer is not kind, he’s deadly. If a doctor waves off tumors as “probably a virus,” the patient dies. In the same way, a pulpit that refuses to name sin is not merciful, it’s withholding the diagnosis that drives people to the cure.

That’s also why the hosts say the problem is not only “out there” in culture. It’s in the pulpit. When churches turn gatherings into emotional release, entertainment, and one-liners, people may leave feeling better without ever meeting God in repentance and surrender. And when that happens long enough, Christians become unprepared for conflict, temptation, and spiritual war.

There’s a similar theme in https://www.kingdompropheticsociety.org/videos/bible-study-14-settling-for-mediocrity-august-29-2025, where the danger is not open rebellion but settling into spiritual average and calling it normal.

From the Lord’s Day to “our day”: how small compromises rewired a culture

One of the most practical parts of the episode is the look back at Sunday life in 1940s and 1950s America. The picture is clear: restaurants closed, stores closed, gas stations closed. The church bells rang. People went to worship. Sunday afternoon wasn’t for ball games and lake days, it was treated as a different kind of day.

Then a shift started. Stores began opening, but not until after church. Even that felt like a line being crossed. Many people thought, “This can’t be right.” Over time, the compromise became normal, and the normal became forgotten.

The point is not nostalgia for its own sake. The point is how compromise works. It rarely announces itself as open sin. It comes through rationalizations, one small permission at a time, until the Lord’s Day becomes “my day,” and church becomes optional.

A note is also made about rest and Sabbath principles being treated as an “oddity” now. The hosts bring up Charlie Kirk discussing rest, including shutting off the phone and protecting a day for family. What once would have sounded like basic wisdom now sounds strange in modern life. That strangeness is the evidence of how far the culture moved.

This cultural drift also ties into church drift. When leaders stop preaching the meaning of the Lord’s Day, and when churches stop framing worship as reverence before a holy God, people don’t just change schedules, they lose fear of the Lord.

The long-term result is fewer people willing to gather, fewer people willing to submit, and more people living as if God exists to support their plans.

The “double agent” warning, and the need for humble learning

The episode also touches on public voices and the danger of acting like a “double agent,” whether knowingly or not. Candace Owens is mentioned in connection with TPUSA and Erica Kirk, with the claim that she produced a large number of shows focused on the death of Charlie Kirk. The concern is not only tone, it’s damage, especially when someone who could strengthen the body ends up fueling suspicion and division.

Tucker is also mentioned as someone who could do less harm by staying away from theology talk. The point is blunt: when people operate from ideology, they don’t yield. They don’t learn. They don’t admit error.

By contrast, a healthy posture is shown through the mention of Doug Wilson. Even with real disagreements (dispensationalism, Calvinism, and other frameworks are named), the hosts stress that a Christian should still be able to learn. When a believer can say, “I’ve learned from him,” it signals theology, not ideology.

This is where the episode becomes personal for every listener. The test is not whether you have convictions. The test is whether you can be corrected by Scripture, and whether the closer you get to God, the more honest you become about yourself.

A broader view of why the local assembly matters, and how subtle deception pulls people away from gathering, is also addressed in https://www.kingdompropheticsociety.org/profiles/blogs/the-church, especially where it warns against belief systems that justify living apart from the local body.

Conclusion: the offense might be the mercy

If “sinner” offends someone, the real issue is often deeper than tone. It usually means a belief system is being challenged, and that system may be protecting sin that should be confessed. Theology submits to God’s Word, ideology submits to self, and that difference shows up fast when repentance is preached.

The church doesn’t need softer diagnoses, it needs truer ones, because the cure is still Jesus Christ and the power of His cross. The call is simple and costly: confess, repent, and follow. In a time of drift, choosing theology over ideology is not just a debate, it’s survival.