It was James who wrote, "For we all stumble in many ways. If anyone does not stumble in what he says, he is a perfect man, able to bridle the whole body as well" (James 3:2). My regular readers know I've often made a big deal about the use of words. I would like to point out, then, that I'm not alone. James warns about the power and danger of the tongue (James 3:2-12). I think, if you look around, you might be able to see it. You are certainly a victim of it. You might even be doing it.
We are way too flippant about our use of words. There are lots of easy examples. Our society uses "homosexual" as an identity rather than an act, so we do, too. Our culture claims "love is love" without the slightest regard for the nonsense of the claim. (Do we all really believe that "love of pizza" and "love of mother" and "love of my pet" and "love of my spouse" are all the same thing?) Today we tell our kids, "Don't let anyone stop you from reaching your dream." Really? What if that dream is to be a serial killer? Shouldn't we actually evaluate these "dreams"? Almost all of us have embraced the "self-esteem" concept that says, first, "We all must love ourselves" alongside, "We don't." The Bible disagrees (Eph 5:29). Today, warning someone that they're overweight and it could be detrimental is "fat shaming" instead of "concern for their physical wellbeing." We -- all of us -- have incorporated lies into our vocabulary and given the nod to our societal fabrications of identity, choice, love, sex, marriage ... on and on. We've relinquished words with their intended concepts and accepted substitute concepts without new words for the original concepts. Those original concepts, then, are tossed out, marginalized, erased. Biblical love, marriage, identity, sin, and more cannot be discussed because the words are gone.
I often find myself walking a fine line here. As an example, our culture (and, therefore, most of my readers) think of "LGBT+" as a monolithic group whose identity is in their sexuality. If I want to speak of those who support and/or practice sex between the same sexes or alternate genders as a group, the most expedient way is to use their language -- "LGBT+" -- but I don't actually believe in their concept. Just a single example. There is so much more. I find that if I am to actually communicate the ideas in my head to my readers, I am not allowed the words and would have to use too many other words and definitions to accomplish it. So how can I not stumble in what I say and still be understood in today's world? It's a dilemma.
9 comments:
It is a dilemma. I agree that it is often necessary to use their terms to communicate, even knowing the problems with those terms.
Your use of the alphabet soup moniker is an excellent example. As we've seen recently the supposed monolithic bloc has become much less monolithic as the "ts" are gradually eclipsing the Ls and Gs. We're seeing significant disagreements as the Ls and Gs, have no interest in dating the "ts", and the "ts" demand that they must.
It's hard because we don't want to constantly spend inordinate amounts of time defining terms in order to have a conversation.
I find it difficult knowing that I know there are different meanings to the words being used, but my opposition does not. Some how our society extols empathy and thinking from someone else's perspective, yet it seems the vast majority fail to even attempt it. As an example, we are pro-life. We understand the emotional concerns for women unready for motherhood. But we put life as paramount in the concern. But pro-abortionists only care about the mother and can't even seem to grapple with our arguments about life. They're only defense is "it's not life", without any regard for our position. We can empathize with the unready mother, and have organizations working to help them. But they can't emphasize with our horror at murder. The worst I heard was from Bill Maher, "I agree they're alive, and I don't care, we need fewer people" (paraphrased). No empathy from the pro-empathy crowd.
Stan, you wrote, “So how can I not stumble in what I say and still be understood in today's world? It's a dilemma.” I would say that somehow, you have managed to work it out (at your blog, at least, as I for one never have trouble understanding your posts).
Personally, I don’t use the “LGBT” alphabet soup (and I have no clue what all the latest letters/symbols I’ve seen added at the end even mean). I still say “gay people” or even “the gays” (when referring to those who wish to be known for their sexual proclivities above all else). As I commented another time, I never say “trans people” but either “gender pretenders” or even the old-fashioned “cross-dressers” or “transvestites,” and I don’t lump those people in with “gays” since some of them are not even sexually active (i.e. juveniles). I don’t automatically adopt the language of the cultural unless I agree it’s really a “thing” (which “trans” is not). (And sometimes I stop using a term that is common in our culture that I think is inaccurate, i.e. “races” among human beings, where “ethnic groups” is more precise.) I realize I am not “woke,” and I’m OK with that. But unlike you, I am not having conversations with people with vastly different viewpoints from mine; I’m also OK with that.
Yes, Craig, I've had a hard time with the "LGBT's" where the "L's" aren't really pleased with the "G's" and the "T's" completely contradict both the "L's" and the "G's" and no one at all is doing anything for the "B's."
Yes, David, "pro-life" is an excellent example of the problem of words ... even for "pro-lifers."
Lorna, I don't even like to refer to "gay people" as if that's a condition that cannot be addressed -- it's just an identity. You know, "born that way" (which science won't back anymore). In their eyes, "gay" means "I can't help it, so it's all good." I prefer "those who practice homosexual behavior," and that's already too long, isn't it? I am not comfortable accepting a sin condition as an identity-which-makes-it-okay. Mostly, though, it lends itself to confusion even among believers. "Is it an identity? Can it be immoral, then?"
Yes, I agree, Stan. When I say "gay people," it's really shorthand for "those who practice homosexual behavior" (how I view it in my mind, too) and even going beyond that to mean “those who have adopted an openly "gay" lifestyle (including appearance and unnatural mannerisms) because they practice homosexual behavior.” And yes, that’s too long!
The alphabet soup moniker has never made sense to me, since the “L” is simply a female version of “G,” and “B” is just a part-time member of “G” (and I already said that “T” doesn’t belong with them at all). And if we don’t want to say “gays” instead of "those who practice homosexual behavior," then we need to discard the whole thing. I’m old enough to remember when that initialism began, and I never accepted it from the beginning. Seeing how it has morphed over the decades and how the different participants take issue with the various initials used just points out how contrived it all is.
David,
"The worst I heard was from Bill Maher, "I agree they're alive, and I don't care, we need fewer people"
I agree with your take on the Maher quote, but I appreciate that he has the courage to say what too many others hide from saying. I'd have no problem with more people saying this, I suspect it would swing support away from the abortion any time for any reason crowd. I'd also disagree that our declining birthrates are a good thing.
Stan,
Yes, I suspect that the fragmentation will ultimately hurt the DFL electorally because the L/Gs will realize that they've been thrown under the bus because the DFL is only interested in the "ts". I pity the Bs becasue they have no excuse not to date the "ts". It's just an alphabet soup mess.
I see too many pro-abortion people who'll respond by calling us anti-abortion. Which we are, but were against abortion because we're pro-life first and foremost and because science tells us when a unique life begins.
I agree with "those who practice homosexual behavior" as being the most accurate way of referring to gay folx, but it's cumbersome. Maybe TWPHB going forward.
Oh, nice, TWPHB. Let's run with that. You think it will catch on?
Being reminded above of what Bill Maher said prompted a terrible flashback for me from when I was in my late teens--BEFORE THE LORD SAVED ME. Right after the passage of Roe vs. Wade, legalizing abortion upon demand (which most unsaved young women were celebrating), I made a horrendous remark; I distinctly recall saying about unwanted pregnancies and babies, “Easy come, easy go.” It is painful for me to even admit this (all these years later), but I am willing to share it because, “there but for the grace of God go I.” (I am not certain, of course, but I believe I was “punished” for that rash attitude by suffering through infertility for many years later as a Christian wife. God was gracious and eventually gave me two children, which I cherish as every decent person would.) I will use this awful memory as a prompt to pray for Bill Maher, that he will repent of his sinful callousness.
Post a Comment