When God wanted to break up the building of the tower of Babel, He did it by changing the language. Apparently, language is important.
I was reading a solid, biblical, well-respected website recently and came across an article that included a conversation that included this TLA (Three-Letter Acronym): SSA. What is SSA? Most of you know, but for those who don't, it refers to same-sex attraction. It's a currently popular term to refer to people of the homosexual persuasion who are, you know, sexually attracted to those of the same sex. It is more popular among conservative Christian groups, I suspect, than among the general populace of SSA folk. Many of these solid, biblical, well-respected Christians are discussing the problems of SSA for Christians in terms of fighting off the temptation and living for Christ without the sin. It comes across as sort of a sympathetic term. "Oh, you suffer from SSA? We are here to encourage you in your fight against it."
Here's the problem. The term, "same-sex attraction," carries with it a particular impact. It affects how you think. Think about it.
What do we mean by "same-sex attraction." Well, we mean "same-sex desire." Simple. We're talking about people who have a sexual desire for people of the same gender. We understand that. So why don't we say that? Is there a fundamental difference between "same-sex attraction" and "same-sex desire?" Yes, there is. In our language, "attraction" is something that happens to you and "desire" is something you do. You would never say that you experience gravity as a desire; it is an attraction. Magnetism is an attractive force, not a force of desire. Desire is "I want" and attraction is "a pull." Here, let's try this from another direction. Try the two terms in heterosexual terms. Does a guy desire a pretty girl, or does she simply attract him? A married man's claimed that he couldn't help cheating on his wife because of his attraction to another woman doesn't sound the same as the guy who couldn't help himself because of his desire for another woman.
Thus, by using the term, "attraction," we are inserting subconsciously the notion that they can't help it, that it is not in their control, that there is an excuse for it and nothing that can be done about it. We unconsciously buy the "born this way" principle without even giving it a thought. You see, this isn't something that happens to someone, heterosexual or homosexual. This is something they allow and even endorse. One might say, "I have these attractions and I'm trying not to" while another would say, "I have these desires and I'm trying not to." Which one is admitting responsibility?
The Bible isn't vague here. Temptations may come from a lot of places, "but each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death" (James 1:14-15). Excusing a desire for sin with "attraction" rather than "my lust" is not going to address the issue. The issue isn't temptation or attraction. We've met the enemy, and it is us.
We have a problem. Not just the gays; all of us. We are sinners. Providing helpful excuses and comforting dodges to this problem does not address the problem. Using language that softens the impact softens the impact of a really big issue -- we are sinners. "Born that way" doesn't help. "I can't help it" isn't true. Despite the protests, what we do is a choice and using language that makes it easier for people to avoid that fact does not help.
5 comments:
last year the pastor made that case that we should no longer use the term sin to describe our condition. rather we should use the term brokenness. so when counseling others we address their brokenness. but the difficulty of such distinctions is that it shifts the cause of our condition from an active rebellion of our nature, to a consequence of things outside of our control. rather than say; you are a sinner, opposed to God, we are being encouraged to say; your condition is a result of things broken in your life. such dubious distinctions only obscure that fact that we are by nature enemy's of God. perhaps the pastor was concerned that by addressing sin he would offend others, whereas buy using an innocuous description such as brokenness, he would appear more loving. so by giving the appearance of wisdom they became fools, because such actions have no power to extinguish the desires of the flesh.
Yes, we are actually pretty good at making our sin problem look less sinful with the simple use of words.
I’ve always thought that brokenness was the point where we acknowledge the gravity and severity of our sin and acknowledge that we have no way to repair the relationship except through Christ.
Frankly, I think the two words are being used interchangeably. And while that might be grammatically improper, I don't think it's done with a deceptive intention.
I don't think it's done with deceptive intention. I think, however, that it is deceptive. It's like I tell you, "I can't drive over to see you because my car's broke." Unless you ask, "How?" and I tell you, "I took a sledgehammer to the engine," you will never know where the fault lies. "We're broken people" is true enough, but it mitigates the fault -- us.
Post a Comment