If you're paying attention, you'd catch that the title of this piece is a word that doesn't exist. There is "acceptance," but not "exceptance." There is "accept" and "except." Are they related? Sure! First, they are homophones -- they sound alike. Beyond that, they have similar origins. Both have "cept" in common, rooted in Latin "capere" -- "to take" or "to grasp." The "ex" part is "out" and "ac" is "to." Both reference "to take" or "to grasp," while one is "out" and the other is "to." See? Very clear. And in today's world "acceptance" is important. Critical even. Certainly demanded.
"Tolerance" and "acceptance" are linked in our language. The dictionary defines "tolerance" as "willingness to accept behavior and beliefs that are different from your own, although you might not agree with or approve of them." Ah, there it is, a link! What does it mean to "accept behavior"? Again, the dictionary says "acceptance" is "general agreement that something is satisfactory or right, or that someone should be included in a group." So it is not simply "to take," but to take "as right." So now I have a problem. If you take something as right "although you might not agree with or approve of them," you're operating on a contradiction. Do you approve or don't you? Do you agree or don't you? If you approve and/or agree, then tolerance is no longer necessary. If you don't take as right, then you don't "accept." Which is where I get "exceptance." Yes, it's my word, but I need it ... right here. If tolerance requires "although you might not agree with or approve of them" and a willingness to allow them to continue, I think "exceptance" is more appropriate. "No, I don't agree with that, but I'll make an exception and not work to eliminate it." It is, in fact, the only way I can make sense out of "tolerance."
Christians like the word "accept" in one very particular application: "Accept Jesus into your heart." Strange thing. You won't find that phrase or anything like it in Scripture. You find "receive" (John 1:12), but not "accept." Why? Well, "receive" is passive while "accept" is active. In "receive" something comes to you and in "accept" you choose to take something in. Which is interesting because, thinking that through, "Accept Jesus" would put the weight on you (which the natural man wants to have) while "receive Jesus" puts the weight on Him. In terms of "acceptance," we offer Christ our approval and He comes in or, in the case of "receive," He comes in and we passively receive Him. His choice, not ours. Which, interestingly enough is exactly what Jesus said. "You did not choose Me, but I chose you" (John 15:16). Hmm.
12 comments:
It feels like that should already be a word, and I keep going back to the British word for taking offense at something, but I must be thinking of something else. But I like it. If they're going to co-opt our words, we just need to make new better ones rather than their shorter nonsense ones.
I appreciate that you addressed (even if only briefly today) the parenthetical question I posed in my comment for your Dec. 6 post. I did notice your use of the nonexistent word “exceptance” in your title today (as I typed that word just now, my Spellcheck gave me the dreaded squiggly red line!). It does appear that the dictionary definition for “tolerance” is skewed, and your new word is very much needed! (We should add it to “our” dictionaries.)
Regarding the phrase “accepting Jesus”: I personally interpret that to mean “accepting the truth of who Jesus is and one’s need for Him and for salvation,” so that “accept” = “believe.” My dictionary lists “to take or receive (something offered)” and “to agree, consent, or accede to” as its first two definitions for “accept;” therefore, I can more easily see “accept” and “receive” as synonyms (but I do see your point on that as it relates to the new birth). Personally, I don’t say “accept Jesus into your heart” in witnessing opportunities (because it’s too simplistic and suggests “decisional regeneration”), but I do encourage others to accept truth, i.e. believe it. And of course, this absolutely presumes the work of the Holy Spirit on hearts and minds.
To receive and to accept are really the same thing. If you hand me a 10 dollar bill I can chose to accept it and I can chose to receive it. They are synonymous.
According to the dictionary, the difference between "accept" and "receive" is that "accept" requires the will while "receive" does not. Accept is active; receive is passive. They are often used interchangeably, but we all know that how we use words in society these days is not a good indication of what they actually mean (you know, like "marriage"). I don't suppose that the world is going to cease their (mis)use of terms they've co-opted ("tolerance," "love," "marriage," etc.) because I tell them they're wrong, and don't expect that you, the readers, will change your use of terms because I say such things. I mean, we all still need to communicate with others. I'm just pointing out that there are technical differences between the two.
Biblically, you don't accept the Holy Spirit, you receive it. The example people give of accepting the $10 or gift or whatever as part of the step after receiving it isn't given in Scripture, only our philosophy on Freewill makes us want to add something we do to our salvation.
Stan, you may not be able to recover the meaning of words in our culture, but it is still important for us to struggle for their true definitions so they are never truly lost, almost like they are a remnant...
Hi Stan, I now better understand the difference between “receive” and “accept”--words that are commonly used interchangeably and therefore often incorrectly (just like “take” and “bring”). For biblical matters, I concur that “receive” is the better word for my interaction with God as a recipient of His gifts. All of the things I have been given as a child of God--grace, mercy, faith, a new heart, the Holy Spirit, forgiveness of sins, Christ’s righteousness, salvation, spiritual gifts, an inheritance, and so much more--were by His hand rather than mine.
While it is true that we receive Christ (rather than accept Him), I do think there is a place for “acceptance” in the Christian life, as it pertains to our sanctification. To “accept” here would depict conscious and determined efforts to obey God’s instruction or leading; in this way, I accept (embrace and then act upon) what I have received (i.e. truth or instruction from God). I don’t think we are to be passive as Christians but to actively apply our hearts, minds, and will to grow in Christlikeness (Phil. 2:12-13)--again, only with the enabling of the Holy Spirit.
I love the dichotomy of "Work out your salvation with fear and trembling" laid alongside the certainty that "It is God at work in you both to will and to do His good pleasure." I love that we get to participate because He enables and power it and we get rewarded for it. He's a good God.
Yes, He is a good God! He both wills and works--for His pleasure and my good (Phil. 2:13, Heb. 13:20-21).
What is wrong with you, Dan? You ask if I believe I am one of "the whimsically lucky few that a cruel godling chooses to select. To hell with the rest of us, though" followed by "It's a reasonable question that is in no way unkind or disrespectful." It is one of your more mild aggressions, to be sure, but it cannot be regarded as "friendly" let alone "kind" or "respectful." Do you not read what you write? Just stop.
Seems there's a failure to understand choosing in accordance with His perfect and good will is not the same as being cruel and whimsical. But that comes with the territory of believing that we're simply lovely enough for God to want to save anyone and everyone.
Post a Comment