Used To Be

I've often complained that our language is changing. You say "marriage" and I say "marriage" and we mean two radically different things. What you mean by "tolerance" and what the dictionary says "tolerance" means are quite often not the same thing. You know what I mean. The truth is, however, that language does change. In one sense it's not only obvious; it's necessary. Before they invented the "television" there was no word for that thing they had not invented. After they did, it became necessary. And because it's a living language (not a dead one like ancient Hebrew or Latin, for instance), it stands to reason that things will change. I just wish they would stick with the former -- new words for new concepts -- rather than the current mode of redefining existing concepts and then expecting us all to still be on the same page.

The fact that English is a living language and, therefore, is in constant flux means that I appear to be in constant flux as well. How is that? Well, consider. In March, 2007, I wrote an entry titled, "Why I Am A Calvinist", and in September, 2007, an entry titled, "Why I am NOT a Calvinist." Why? Because perceptions about the term vary. In October of this year I wrote, "Why I am Not a Conservative" simply because the term is so far off of what I am despite the fact that most people would classify me as one. The language changes and, apparently, so do I.

Even though I am a registered Republican, I am not a Republican. I may be what "Republican" stood for in the '60's(?), but the Republican values of today don't really reflect mine. They used to support traditional marriage; no longer. They once defended religious liberty; not the case anymore. It's no longer fashionable to protect our national symbols. The first woman to serve in the House of Representatives was a Republican. It was a Republican president who abolished slavery and a Republican president who signed the Clean Air Act into law and a Republican president who appointed the first female Supreme Court judge. Republicans used to be the party of low taxes and small government. They were the party of strong military and individual rights and pro-life. No longer. Obviously things have changed. The Founding Fathers included "No taxation without representation" in their call for what is right. I don't think I've been represented in the government for a long time. I'm not really a Republican anymore; I just have nowhere else to go.

I used to be "saved". That term lost so much meaning that we had to change it to "born again". That term followed suit and we're still trying to find something to convey that we're not so much "religious", but in a saving relationship with Christ.

I used to be a Christian, but that term has been so long abused and misused so as to be barely recognizable. No, not a "Roman Catholic" kind of Christian as the media thinks it is. No, not a "Christian of the Crusades" kind of Christian as so many anti-Christians seem to think it is. No, not a "I call myself that but I live however I want" kind of Christian as so many live today. No, not a "I believe in Jesus; it's all that Bible and religion stuff I hate" kind of Christian as a growing number see themselves. I suspect that if you were to ask the majority of people what a "Christian" was, I'd have to say, "No, I'm not that."

I used to be a "Fundamentalist". In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, while Protestants were soaking themselves in theological liberalism and cultural modernism, "Fundamentalism" stood up and said, "Hey! We need to get back to the fundamentals!" There are a variety of "fundamentals", depending on who you ask, but basically it was the inerrancy of Scripture, the literal nature of Scripture, the bodily resurrection of Christ, and His substitutionary atonement on our behalf. Boy, is that all gone now. "Fundamentalist" was yanked out of that position and thrown under the "crazy" bus. Now it refers to those loony enough to blow themselves up for their jihad. It refers to the nutcases who call themselves "Christian" (again, that term, meaning something completely different) who throw out what the Bible has to say and rant about how God hates homosexuals and the like. Not the same thing. I'm not that fundamentalist.

I used to be an "Evangelical". The term used to refer to a particular, narrowed theological line of the general classification of "Christian" (See? There's that term again.) that referred to those who believed strongly in the centrality of the Gospel, the need for conversion, the inerrancy, authority, and sufficiency of the Word of God, and the importance of the Cross. (Yes, it was similar to and even, perhaps, an outcropping of "Fundamentalism".) It came about as other groups were jettisoning all that in favor of ... something else. Something less. It doesn't mean that anymore. In our world a person can be an "Evangelical" and reject the Gospel, reject Scripture, even reject Christ. Someone stole the word at some point and it has become more of a "you doggone politically conservative religious types" kind of term. For instance, when you read that "81% of white Evangelicals voted for Trump", you realize we're not using the term in the same way. I'm not the current "Evangelical".

So, I'm suffering an identity crisis of sorts, I suppose. I know who I am. I know what I believe. Unfortunately, so many people apply so many terms and so many stereotypes based on those terms to me without any accuracy (or, apparently, any concern for accuracy) that it's becoming rather difficult to explain what I believe, what I am, how I view things. Rest assured. If you read something here and think, "Oh, he's one of those ______," you're very likely wrong. I may have been once, back when that word meant something else, but I only used to be. That word has changed.