I've written quite a lot on the whole "same-sex marriage" debate. This will not be another one. The position I have always taken is that "same-sex" and "marriage" don't go together. I'm not saying "Same-sex relations are sinful, so they shouldn't marry." I'm saying, "Marriage means something specific, and 'same-sex' doesn't fit into that definition." At that point, morality is irrelevant. Words mean something. "Marriage" is no exception. And that's it.
Many have complained about this approach. Why is it not acceptable to change definitions? We do it all the time. English is a living language. According to Derek Haines, there are approximately 4,000 new words added to the dictionary every year. Beyond that, words get redefined all the time, either in "official" dictionary form or in common usage. And that's all without considering the words that change definition based on context. So what's the big deal about words and their definitions? Go with the flow!
The problem is that words express ideas. If the words that express a given idea change, then expressing that idea becomes difficult. Add to that the fact that we (those of us who cherish the Bible) are reading words whose meanings do not change. So, for instance, if the meaning of a word used in the 1971 publication of the New American Standard changes, the comprehension of the 2011 version of the reader will miss it.
You know this to be the case. The King James Version speaks of "charity" in 1 Corinthians 13. We don't think of "charity" in the same sense that they did in 1611. For us, "charity" is giving to someone in need. So when the KJV describes "charity" as it does in that chapter, it's confusing. The word changed its meaning out from under the text. And now communication slows down while we try to translate the English translation into our understanding.
I chose "charity" as the example because it is the perfect illustrator of the problem. The term "charity" in the 17th century is now expressed with the term "love" in 21st century America. However, that word has taken on a different meaning today than it had a century ago. Today it means "tender affection" and very often associated with "sexual passion", concepts entirely missing from 1 Corinthians 13. So if we work our way backward, what word would we use to identify what was called in Greek agape, in King James English, "charity", and in mid-20th century English, "love"?
This problem illustrates my concern with other words. You see, today "love" means "tender affection". Try, then, to connect discipline or punishment with "tender affection". Try to explain how it is possible to "love your enemy" while defending your home. Make some sense out of "love your neighbor" and the justice system. How can you feel warm affection for and even sexual passion for someone and sentence them to life in prison? Or try to find any way possible to make sense out of the biblical statement, "The Lord disciplines the one He loves, and chastises every son whom He receives" (Heb 12:6). With today's cushy "love is a warm feeling" definition, "love" and "scourge" (the word used in Heb 12:6 translated "chastises") won't go together. The problem there is that this makes God ... well ... crazy. He scourges the children for whom He feels warm affection. No, that makes no sense! But the problem here isn't that God is crazy or that the text makes no sense. None of these are contradictory to biblical love. The problem is the language changed.
It's a little bit disturbing, in fact, when you start to think about it. Many of the words expressing main biblical themes have eroded. Who even knows what "propitiation" means anymore? How many people understand that what Americans think of when they hear "freedom" and what the Bible is expressing with that term are two different things. We despise the concept of "slaves", but the Bible assures us that we are all slaves, either to sin or to righteousness. Atonement, justification, love -- the biblical concepts that these words and more express have eroded to the point that we're losing the words to express the concepts and end up fighting instead over words that mean something different. So now the world would have us add "marriage" to that pile. What, then, will be the understanding of "the Marriage Feast of the Lamb", of Paul's profound mystery (Eph 5:32), of all those outdated references to husband and wife? With opposition to Scripture being what it already is, having to reclaim words that once meant something is just that much more difficult. Brothers, these things ought not be.
13 comments:
I looked up marriage in my old 1972 Webster's dictionary and it was as expected - between a man and a woman. nothing about same sex. I looked it up in a new version online however and they have added a new definition: (the second one)
Unbelievable.
1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage
Interesting that even the "modern" dictionary recognizes what pro-"same-sex marriage" people seem to refuse to admit, that marriage has always been the union of opposite sex persons. (The dictionary admits that in the phrase, "traditional marriage".)
Give it a few years and they will remove the term "traditional marriage". Terms like this are used to ease in the redefining of terms. Eventually, they will remove the first definition altogether.
Maybe, but I notice that, despite the "certainty" that our universe came into existence randomly and by chance, scientists cannot avoid the use of the word "design" in their descriptions of things. Maybe, just maybe, "marriage" has a root beyond our current culture's attempt at dismantling it.
Excellent article. The whole issue of redefining words has long been part of the homosexual agenda, as I note in my post about the power of words
http://sanityinanupsidedownworld.blogspot.com/2010/07/words-are-power.html
Controlling words controls the debate.
So we end up "two people separated by a common language".
It's true that word meanings change over time. Often, it is more a less a natural thing. Sometimes we can entertain ourselves by researching how a word meaning morphed as it did (the slang term "faggot" comes to mind--how did THAT happen?)
What's more troubling for me is when words are purposely distorted to support an agenda. The word "tolerance" is an example. We "tolerate" pain. We WON'T "tolerate" bad behavior by our children. We can tolerate differences in our fellow man if those differences are merely looks, food choices, and certain cultural practices. We are now told to "tolerate" bad behavior in adults and that's somehow supposed to be a good thing. Using the word "tolerate" suggests that what is tolerated is NOT a good thing. It must, however, be proven not to be a bad thing.
Yes, redefining "gay" and "marriage" and even "tolerance" are all good examples. Then there are new words. "Homophobic" has arisen out of nowhere. It does not mean "fear of the same" as the break down of the original sources would suggest, nor does it mean "fear of homosexuals" as the original notion might suggest. So they take "homo" meaning "same" and "phobic" meaning "fear" and end up with "hatred for homosexuals". And then they define that as "any comment that we don't like". What?
Although words like "propitiation" aren't a problem of definition changing but usefulness and education level. Since most people probably come out of college reading at about the 9th grade level, big words like that get left behind. And besides, aside from theologians, where would you even use propitiate?
Sometimes I wish we spoke a dead language, then we would all know what we meant the first time without having to explain each words meaning.
So, with that definition of homophobic, would homophonic mean sounding homosexual?
Gah, I almost typed "sounding gay" but ever since I had my gay marriage I can't think of that word like its used now lol.
"Although words like 'propitiation' aren't a problem of definition changing"
Ah, you're not keeping up lately. Now there are those within the "Christian" camp who, having decided that an angry God is not possible and that the whole "blood sacrifice" thing is too barbaric, "propitiation" can't mean "appeasing an angry God".
"without having to explain each words meaning"
(I think you meant "word's".) We are, too often, people separated by a common language. Two of us say "marriage" and I mean "the union of male and female for the purpose of procreation and complementing" and he means "feeling warmly toward each other for as long as that lasts". "Yes," we agree, "we're both in favor of marriage." It only gets tougher in more complex ideas like "Trinity" or even "sin".
And, yes, a homophone is someone who sounds effeminate. Obviously!
(For those who don't get the "gay marriage" reference here, see my post on David's Gay Marriage.)
Tolerance
tol•er•ance \ˈtä-lə-rən(t)s, ˈtäl-rən(t)s\ noun
(15th century)
1 : capacity to endure pain or hardship : ENDURANCE, FORTITUDE, STAMINA
2 a : sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one’s own
b : the act of allowing something : TOLERATION
3 : the allowable deviation from a standard; especially : the range of variation permitted in maintaining a specified dimension in machining a piece
As you unpack “sympathy”
1 a : an affinity, association, or relationship between persons or things wherein whatever affects one similarly affects the other
b : mutual or parallel susceptibility or a condition brought about by it
c : unity or harmony in action or effect
2 a : inclination to think or feel alike : emotional or intellectual accord
b : feeling of loyalty : tendency to favor or support 〈republican sympathies〉
3 a : the act or capacity of entering into or sharing the feelings or interests of another
b : the feeling or mental state brought about by such sensitivity 〈have sympathy for the poor〉
As you unpack key words like “indulgence” or “indulge”
in•dulge \in-ˈdəlj\ verb
in•dulged; in•dulg•ing
[Latin indulgēre to be complaisant]
(circa 1623)
transitive verb
1 a : to give free rein to
b : to take unrestrained pleasure in : GRATIFY
2 a : to yield to the desire of : HUMOR
b : to treat with excessive leniency, generosity, or consideration
intransitive verb
: to indulge oneself
So, with all of that said, I understand tolerance to mean that I accommodate someone else’s beliefs and adjust mine to meet theirs. I will not do that . . . I may accept, but I will not tolerate. Does that make sense? By the way, these definitions are from Merriam Webster.
"I understand tolerance to mean that I accommodate someone else’s beliefs and adjust mine to meet theirs."
That is what "tolerance" has come to mean, but nothing in the dictionary definition requires "adjust mine". If I believe that X is wrong but do not actually prevent people from doing it, I am tolerant by definition.
Post a Comment