Words Mean Something

Both sides of the debate agree: words mean something. Unfortunately, no one can figure out just what. And can you blame them? Look at what we do with words.

It is common to take words and "bend" their meaning -- I get that -- but we've taken them and turned them on their heads. Take the word "moot". The word used to mean a point worth debating. Now it means a point not worth discussing. How did we get there from here? You've heard the word "refrain". It means to hold back from doing or saying something. The word originally meant to repeat something. (That's why in music there is a "refrain" -- a repeated section.) Those aren't even close. We "trim" hair by removing it and "trim" trees by adding to them. "Oversight" could mean "to supervise" or "to forget". You could have left your keys at home when you left the house -- one means to stay and the other not. The Bible says marriage is when a man and a woman cleave together, but we also use the term to describe severing something (like meat). You can have a "light dusting" of snow meaning to add "dust" or you can "do the dusting" which means to remove it. You can use a screen to show something or to block the view of something. The list goes on and on.

There is a whole slew of words used every day by the masses that we all know and all understand and have no clue about. There is "no-fault divorce", "homosexual", "gay", "transgender", "safe sex", and "marriage". No one -- no one that I know of ... except me, I suppose -- scratches their heads over these terms. We use them. We understand them. We get it. But, really, what do any of them mean? There is, for instance, no such thing as a divorce that doesn't include fault. That's like saying that there is an effect without a cause. Doesn't happen. Terms like "homosexual", "gay", and "transgender" have been picked up and used as if they're real things, but they're not. "Gay" means "happy" or "bright", but we've turned it to mean "homosexual", and now that's the number one meaning in the dictionary. "Homosexual" refers to someone who is sexually attracted to someone of their own sex, but we've entirely pushed that beyond its bounds. Now it's an "orientation", a "lifestyle", even a community. It is not a behavior; it is an identity. We're even pretty sure it's genetic ... although there is no such indication from science. How do we end up creating an identity from what we do in the bedroom? But we do. And "transgender". Really? How did we get so confused that a guy can be a girl if he feels like it? Merely if he feels like it? We do that by stripping all meaning from "guy" and "girl", I suppose. Because in all species "male" and "female" have hard definitions and nothing you do can make a "male" into a "female" ... except in the human species where you just feel like it. And, oh, that's the limit. It only works in gender. You're a skinny woman that feels like she's fat? We have treatments for that. You're a white person that feels black? Stop it! That's crazy. You're a middle-class American who believes he's Napoleon? Too bad. See a shrink. You're a high school girl who believes she's a guy? We will bend over backward to see to it that you are endued with all the rights and privileges thereto. Nonsense! And I mean that in the literal sense -- not sensible. They call it "gender dysphoria". Do you know what the opposite of "dysphoria" is? It is "euphoria". So "dysphoria" means to be uncomfortable. Our solution? "Forget reality; embrace it!" Crazy talk. Then there's "marriage". For all of history in all places regardless of the actual word used it always meant the same basic thing -- the union of a male and a female forming a single family for purposes of procreation and mutual support. Various practices have entered and left -- various traditions come and go -- but the definition has never changed ... until now. In the enlightened 21st century now it can mean ... nothing at all, as perfectly illustrated by the "gay marriage" of a fellow and his dead partner. So bizarre is our definition (or lack thereof) of this particular word, this particular concept, that we have simultaneously eliminated its meaning and strictly defined it as not "more than two" or "with anything other than one other human being." Any what other than another single human being? We aren't clear. And why so arbitrary?

The purpose of language is to communicate ideas and information. The concept is to take what is in my head and transmit it to your head in a medium we both understand. Words are symbols of thoughts. A "tree" is not a four-letter word, but an entire ecosystem from roots to stems, but we convey it in a word. Given the disarray of what we call "language" today, is there any question as to why we don't all get along? We're not speaking the same language. You're telling me about someone who has delusions of gender. I'm thinking, "Wow! He needs help." You're thinking, "Wow! She needs help!" Not the same help. Not the same thing. Rodney King famously asked, "Can't we all just get along?" No, Rodney. The answer is no. We don't even know what we're talking about.

Tolerance Test

Instructions: Yesterday I gave you the definition of tolerance. Let's begin with that just for clarity.

Tolerant: showing willingness to allow the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.

Keep in mind that tolerance requires something with which you disagree and the willingness to let it be. Your job, then, is, given the definition of tolerance, rate the following statements as "tolerant" or "intolerant". Good luck.

1. I'm a Christian.

2. I'm opposed to Christianity and think those who follow it ought to be removed.

3. I'm a Christian calligrapher. My business is making fancy wedding invitations. I do not want to be required to make invitations for weddings that contradict my beliefs, but I will recommend other vendors for those people who come to me with such a request.

4. I think that people who refuse service to the LGBT folk on the basis of personal values ought to be fined, jailed, lose their business or some other serious consequence to prevent it from happening again.

5. I oppose abortion and would urge women seeking an abortion to seek alternative help.

6. Deeply held religious values need to be changed in order to keep abortion free.

7. I believe the Bible. I hope that others will, too. You're free to have an opposing opinion.

8. I believe the Bible is misleading, misunderstood, and potentially dangerous. It should not be allowed in public.

9. I think that homosexual behavior is a sin and people who practice it need a Savior.

10. I think that those who oppose homosexual behavior are bigots and haters and deserve whatever bad things come their way.

The End.

(I don't think I need to grade your answers. I'm hoping you can figure it out. Because the irony of those who clamor for "tolerance" while doing so without tolerance as opposed to those who stand for what they believe while being accused of being intolerant is a serious problem.)

Word Play

Allow me to illustrate the problem of language using some extremely common terms we see thrown around these days.

Bigotry: Intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself.

We all know what bigotry is. Like the dictionary says here, it is intolerance towards those who differ with our own view. But wait! I think we need to examine "intolerance".

Tolerant: showing willingness to allow the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with. From a Latin term meaning "to endure pain"

So, "intolerance" is not-tolerance. But tolerance is the willingness to allow the existence of views with which one does not agree. It is not the willingness to allow views that one agrees with. That's just normal operation, not tolerance. Tolerance is not embracing a view with which you disagree or it is not tolerance by definition. So a bigot is someone who does not allow to exist views other than his own. Someone who disagrees with them but allows them to exist -- the definition of tolerance -- cannot be called a bigot. Do you see the problem?

Let's try another.

Prejudice: an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason; any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.

As all of us know, prejudice is bad. We must not be prejudiced. The error of prejudice, according to the definition, is "opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason." That is, our opinions ought to be informed by fact, not by pre-judging without the facts or without cause. So I ask, what if I have an unfavorable opinion of something or someone based on knowledge, thought, and/or reason? Can I then be termed "prejudiced"? Not according to the definition.

Here's a popular one.

Judgmental: involving the use or exercise of judgment; tending to make moral judgments.

We're not supposed to be judgmental. Of course, the definition of "judgmental" is located in its root, "judgment".

Judgment: the ability to judge, make a decision, or form an opinion objectively, authoritatively, and wisely, especially in matters affecting action; good sense; discretion

Do you see the problem here? If "judgment" is the ability to judge objectively, authoritatively, and wisely -- having good sense -- then why would we not want to be judgmental? How is "judgmental" bad? Why are we being told, "Don't be wise in your decisions"? "Don't have good sense," doesn't make sense.

In my youth, when I wasn't allowed to use swear words, I amused myself by listening to how other people used them and laughing to myself about what they actually said. It turns out that paying attention to what people say can be funny when they don't have a clue what they're saying. Today our society is pinning its primary assaults on us as intolerant bigots, prejudiced and judgmental. They keep using those words. I don't think those words mean what they think they mean. If only they weren't so intolerant (not allowing a different view to exist) and non-judgmental (not making wise decisions), concluding what words mean without knowledge, thought, or reason (prejudiced).

The Problem of Evolution

Yeah, yeah, I'm sure there are some who would love to see me discuss the problem with Darwinian Evolution, and it is no small discussion, but it is not that evolution that I wish to point out. It is the problem of the evolution of language. You know ... one of my pet themes here.

It is true that languages that are alive evolve. Nothing we can do about it. It happens. The problem is that we don't appear to notice. That is, we often think that what one person means by a word or term today is exactly what others mean, or that it has always meant the same (evolved) definition in the past. Consider a couple of prime examples.

Recently, in doing some research, I came across a guy who claimed that the Bible does embrace homosexual relationships. "Look," he said, "at David and Jonathan." Now, my two sons, one named David and one named Jonathan, were partly named because I hoped for the very same kind of relationship for them that the biblical David and Jonathan had, so I was baffled. The author of this particular piece used, as his "proof", a reference by an earlier expositor who said that these two were "lovers". Now, there is no doubt what this guy believes the word "lovers" means because, well, it's how the word is used today without a doubt. It refers to two people who are sexually involved. (In fact, in many cases there doesn't need to be any love at all. Lots of people refer to two people as "lovers" who would more aptly be described as "lusters".) However, this is the definition according to Merriam-Webster:

1. a person in love.
2. an affectionate or benevolent friend
3. a devotee
4. a person with whom one has sexual relations

Today, of course, there is only one possible definition ... the last one. "Lover" today always means "two people in a sexual relationship". That's how we know that David and Jonathan in the Bible were involved in a homosexual relationship. Scripture says that Jonathan and David loved each other (1 Sam 18:1,3; 1 Sam 20:17) and early commentators referred to them as "lovers", so clearly they were involved in a sexual relationship because that is the only use of the term "lover" today. Indeed, David said his love for Jonathan was "surpassing the love of women" (2 Sam 1:26). See? It has to be! (J. Warner Wallace gives a good counter argument on his website.) (Oh, and, by the way, given David's marriages and later fall into sin with Bathsheba over sexual desire for a woman, apparently David was not "born that way" -- problematic for the "born that way" homosexual argument.) So how did we get to this divergent view? The evolution of language and the failure of moderns to recognize that the meaning has changed.

Another example is regarding a book written in the past couple of years by a woman who argued that our relationship with God is largely sexual in nature. "What?" you may (rightly) ask. Taken to task by many Christians, she responded, "Why should that bother you? Even Jonathan Edwards wrote about having intercourse with God." There you have it! Proof! Except that she, like our misguided homosexual sex defender, failed to understand that what we generally mean by the word "intercourse" today is not what Jonathan Edwards and his contemporaries meant by the same term. As it turns out, "intercourse" means, first and foremost, "communication or dealings between individuals or groups." It may be social. It may be economic. It may be interpersonal -- an interchange of thoughts and feelings. It may be sexual (because sex is certainly "dealings between individuals"). But, while in our day it can mean nothing but a sexual relationship, in a previous, less sexually-immersed time, it did not mean that at all. Proof that Jonathan Edwards understood that a relationship with God was sexual in nature? Far from it!

These are just two examples illustrating the problem. Today we cannot speak of "love", "marriage", "gay", or many other things without it carrying widely erratic content. Worse, we cannot refer to them from prior times without it being understood in today's terms. Even worse, this problem gets assigned to God's Word. "Obviously," they might say, "when God says to love one another He is commanding us to engage in sexual relations with each other" as an example. A bad example, but not an outlandish one. It is in keeping with today's evolutionary language, where terms meant something at one point, shift in today's world, and then get shifted back then to today's modern meaning (or lack thereof).

Sometimes it is self-conscious. The King James Bible uses "charity" in 1 Cor 13 to describe something that we no longer understand the word "charity" to mean. We understand it as a voluntary giving of assistance; they understood it to mean benevolence, love, a concern for the best interest of others. So modern translations replace "charity" with "love" and we're okay (for the most part). In this case the problem arises when an older word is subverted to a new meaning and no new word can convey the older meaning. We are there now with terms like "marriage" and, apparently, "man" and "woman". More frequently, however, it is unconscious. A product of language evolution, a word takes on a new meaning and we don't even notice. We happily assign the new meaning to the old use and miss the point entirely. On the surface it is largely the result of post-modernism which claims that words mean what the reader wants them to mean and not what the author intended. And we wonder why there is such a failure to communicate. But don't be deceived. This is not a problem of post-modernism. It is a problem of sin.

Bait and Switch

Years ago I was helping a young pastor (I was also young) start a new church. We met in our house. I helped with the music. It was good. Not a large crowd (obviously), but there was always Mrs. Jones (not her real name), a widow who was a constant attender and the largest financial contributor. One day the pastor came to me. "Stan," he said gravely, "Mrs. Jones has complained that you don't love her with Christian love." I searched my memory to try to figure out just where that might come from. I was unaware of that "fact". "Why does she say that?" I asked. "Well, she says you don't hug her when you see her." I was asked to leave the church.

Do you see what happened there? Mrs. Jones saw the word "love" as a key component of Christian living, but applied her own definition -- "hug" -- and I was found wanting. I wasn't excommunicated for lack of hugging; I was left out in the cold for lack of love. Except it wasn't love. It's the classic "bait and switch". "You believe in x, don't you?" "Yes, I do." "Well, now x means y and you just agreed with y."

We do this all the time, actually. You will hear someone say, "I could care less" which requires the ability to care less than I currently do (that is, "I do care") but is intended to convey that I don't care at all. (More correctly you would say, "I couldn't care less.") An ever-popular term is "irregardless" which is intended to mean the very same thing as "regardless", except that the "ir-" prefix means "not". Thus, "irregardless" would be a double negative and mean the opposite of "regardless". If you say, "The boxes were sitting there unpacked" you mean that they were packed. That is, "unpacked" means "packed". "Moot" is defined as "a subject to debate or dispute", but a "moot point" refers to "a point not worth debating." How about "egregious"? The term today means "outstandingly bad", but the dictionary says that definition #2 is "remarkably good". Now, to be sure, that second is marked "archaic", but clearly somewhere along the line "remarkably good" was redefined as "remarkably bad". Or how about "apology"? Today it says, "I was wrong and this is how I was wrong", but originally it meant "I was right and this is how I was right."

Words change, and not always rationally. Then you have to discard the old meaning and use the new one or you are no longer communicating. Unfortunately, in our current culture, no one is going to tell you that the word changed. They're just going to apply the new meaning and expect you to follow along.

So, now we've changed "marriage" to mean something it never did and "racism" is only applied to one race and women cannot be "sexist". Made-up words like "homophobic" (meaning "to fear homosexuals") have already to morphed to mean "to hate homosexuals" (which is not the same thing). A term like "fundamentalist" which meant "someone who sticks with the fundamentals" now means "an idiot who can't think his way out of paper sack" ... or worse. There, use that example. "Are you a fundamentalist?" The guy who is sticking with the fundamentals because they make perfect sense, are documented, are historical, and so forth says, "Yes" and is branded "an idiot who can't think his way out of a paper sack" even though it was thinking that got him there. Bait and switch.

Taken for Granted

Communication is tenuous at best. First there is the problem of language as it changes underneath your very nose. (Get it? Comes out of your mouth ... under your nose ... never mind.) "Marriage" means one thing last year and something else this year. That kind of thing. But in principle language is difficult because words don't actually exist. Words are things intended to convey ideas. I have "this idea" and I need to transfer it to you, so I use words. Have you ever found that you know what a word means but can't actually define it? That's because you get the idea even if the words that transmit the idea aren't readily available.

So, here I am, merrily reading along in Philippians and I come across this verse.

For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in Him but also suffer for His sake. (Phil 1:29)

Okay, let's see ... so Paul is trying to tell them to "Let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ" (Phil 1:27) even in hard times, standing firm and without fear (Phil 1:27-28), because the good news is that God has granted to you to suffer for His sake! Yippee!! Oh, wait ... is that a good thing?

So now I'm stuck. What does it mean "to grant"? You see, this is one of those words you likely understand but can't fully define. There is a sense in this word of something good. You see, at its core, "to grant" is a verb meaning "to give". But it's something more. It is to give something good. An employer can "give you a pink slip" or "give you a bonus" and, while you receive something in either case, they are not equally pleasant. But "grant" suggests something pleasant. The dictionary says things like "to bestow" or "to agree" or "to transfer" or "to accede". There, you see? "To accede" means "to assent to a request or demand". Something you want. Something that is good. Inherent in "grant" are two aspects. One is "I have it and you don't" and the other is "If I give it to you, you'll certainly want it." Merriam-Webster says it is "to agree to do, give, or allow (something asked for or hoped for)." And that's good, you see? Not just something given (like a pink slip or a poke in the eye with a sharp stick) but something good. In fact, the Greek word in this verse is χαρίζομαι -- charizomai. Rooted in "charis" -- grace or favor -- it means "to grant as a favor". It refers to gratuitous kindness. To give a good thing. Okay, so it's something good that you could not or would not get on your own and someone is giving it to you.

So, Paul is saying, "It is not something you could or would get on your own, but God has kindly given you the opportunity to suffer for the sake of Christ." Yippee!!

As if that's not strange enough, we had to just leap right over text in front of it. Because right in the very same sentence is a phrase that says we were granted something else. We are granted to "believe in Him". Not only that, but also to suffer for Him.

Wait ... we are granted to believe in Him? I mean, I was always told that God provided His Son and the offer of salvation and the promise of new life and that faith was something I brought to the table. God doesn't believe for us, does He? I mean, that doesn't even make sense. And, indeed, it doesn't. Still, whence comes faith? Where do we get the willingness or ability to believe? According to this text, that is granted from God. It's not something we drum up to start with. It is a grant, a favorable gift, a gratuitous kindness. Like when we read of how the Lord's servant should be kind to everyone, "correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth." (2 Tim 2:25) See? There it is again! Something that Scripture says is granted that we always thought we supplied on our own -- to believe and to repent.

So, I'm kind of stuck here. I know we've always been told that we provide our faith and repentance. It looks like Scripture says something else. Clearly we exercise faith and repentance, but it does not originate with us; it is granted by God. So I'm going to have to go with Scripture here rather than other suggested sources on the topic.

Ironic, isn't it? The phrase, "to take for granted", means "to fail to appreciate something". We can either take faith and repentance (that we exercise but God gives) as a good gift from God ("granted"), or we can take it for granted ("fail to appreciate"). Now, in English, I wonder how we would differentiate those two options? We can take it for granted or take it for granted, by which we don't mean the same thing. Sigh. Communication is tenuous at best.

The Tower of Babel

I have complained for years about the demise of the English language. More precisely, about the decay of language as a tool of communication. Danny over at The Bumbling Genius has written a good article on this concept. Apparently, I'm not alone in my concern. It is, as Danny indicates, a modern version of the Tower of Babel.

Some change is inevitable. Technology drives the necessity for new terms. A mouse once clearly referenced a small creature for which you purchased a trap or a cat to eliminate and eventually every computer user had one for the computer. Not the same thing. Dictionaries are constantly adding new words to keep up with changes in technology. That's to be expected. And British English and American English, for instance, are similar but not the same. A "bonnet" has been a piece of brimless headgear and the hood of a car. In the U.S. we ride in elevators and in the U.K. they ride in lifts. People here live in apartments and in flats there. And so it goes. And the language just evolves. Did you know, for instance, that the "perks" of a job were originally the "perquisites" and we just got too lazy to say the whole word? Then, of course, people are always making up new words. The cell service provider, Sprint, has coined "framily" as a merge of "friends" and "family". Silly. Theodore Roosevelt coined "muckraker" and George W. Bush brought us "misunderestimate" and "embettermment". New terms.

So in many cases due to changes in environment, changes in geography, or just changes over time, the meaning of words change. It is to be expected. And it isn't much of a problem -- that is, as long as the original intent still exists. So if the British still have a word that refers to brimless hats and the Americans still have a word that refers to the hood of a car, the idea of the words still exists and we just have to learn what word expresses that to the other. As long as we understand that "perquisites" has been shortened to "perks", it's not a problem since the meaning hasn't changed, just the usage.

This, unfortunately, isn't always the case. In too many places, words are being subverted without being replaced. One of the obvious examples is the current redefinition of the term, "marriage". It has always meant the union of a man and a woman, but today we've stripped off that meaning, substituted "two people (an arbitrary number ... and, indeed, an arbitrary type -- "people") who love each other and want to commit to each other, at least for awhile." It used to be understood as a lifelong arrangement. Now it's most often temporary. It used to include monogamy; now it is "monogamish" -- serial monogamy. "Only one at a time ... or not." (Even that word "monogamy" has changed. That used to refer to marriage, demonstrating a difference between bigamy (married to two people at the same time) and polygamy (married to multiple people at the same time). No longer. Now it references the number of people with whom you are having sex. Now how is that the same?) So, if I wish to refer to the union of a man and a woman for life, what word is left me today? I can't say "marriage" because that word no longer means that, either in gender or in longevity.

In older movies, songs, and stories there are people who were "making love". This original sense was to be doing those things -- words and deeds -- that inspired love (which has also changed, largely, to mean "sex" but didn't used to mean that at all). That concept has not merely changed; it has vanished. Now the phrase refers to engaging in sexual activity ... and that activity may or may not include actual love. So if I wanted to refer to those things that produce a feeling of love, what term would I use? There isn't one anymore.

It seems like one of the biggest areas of the demise of the meaning of words without substitutes is in the area of Christianity. It is largely the Christians who wish to keep "marriage" just as it has always been intended while the rest of our culture is fine with eliminating the concept while they subvert the word. We've had to work hard to get across the idea of the genuine Christian. We've gone from "Are you a Christian?" to "Are you saved?" to "Are you born-again?" to ... what is it now? ... because each term shifted under our feet. Language and concepts have shifted continually and mostly in the arena of Christian concepts of morality. Sex, fidelity, idolatry, even the meanings of theological terms like Omniscience or "the Atonement" -- these concepts are moving. And they aren't trivial. Trying to discuss them or debate them becomes a monumental task when the words for them have either changed or vanished. So we end up with "I'm a Christian" and "I'm a Christian" and neither one means the same thing at all. Two people separated by a common language.

Danny suggests that we become "bilingual", speaking both the language as we know it as well as the language as those with whom we are communicating know it. That, of course, is a good idea, but I'm just not sure about the practicality of it. The language, it seems, is in constant transition. I will be comfortable with a word only to discover that the meaning has shifted. Just when I nail down the new meaning, it has changed again. Then, when I try to assimilate this new one, it turns out the idea I was trying to express no longer has a word. I don't know the answer, but I suspect that the culprit to this dilemma is not a friend of Man or God.

Americans, Behold Your Future

In his second inaugural address our president assured us, "My fellow Americans, we are made for this moment." What moment? The moment when we seize the limitless possibilities of America. We are ending a decade of war, you see, and our "economic recovery has begun", you understand, and now "we will seize it — so long as we seize it together."

What are we seizing, then? Equal rights. The president quoted from the Declaration of Independence that "We hold these truths to be self-evident" and went on to assure us that all "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." That was the premise of his speech. Let's grasp these rights endowed by the Creator!

What rights? Certainly economic "fair play" is in view. (Read "We need to equalize the economy, taking away from those with more so that more with less have more.") Certainly "a great nation must care for the vulnerable" ... as long as "the vulnerable" are not the most vulnerable — unborn children. In other words, the "rights" endowed by the Creator will be carefully distributed by the government. The rich and the unborn will have less than the poor and the women.

How does that make sense? "We have always understood that when times change, so must we." Oh, I see. Got it. So what must change with the times? "A little girl born into the bleakest poverty" must have "the same chance to succeed as anybody else." That does not mean that she has to earn her way like everybody else. It means that we need to take away from those who have so that those who don't will. It means that, while "every citizen deserves a basic measure of security", the "security" in question here is universal health care. It means a nanny state to take care of everyone. And it means, above all else, that true happiness is found in having stuff. So we will need to provide stuff. It means that we'll have to stop climate change because certainly climate change is not security. And have no doubt, fellow Americans. It means that the perpetual, longstanding definition of marriage must change. Remember! This is due to the rights endowed by the Creator! Thus, the Creator demands that all of history and all of Scripture and all of the Church for all time admit its complete and total failure to comprehend this singular matter and agree that we have finally figured it out. Marriage has never been about husband and wife, father and mother, "the two shall become one". It has always been about personal preference and personal pleasure. God demands that we change. We must alter our view so that "our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law — for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well." Because, you see, "love" and "commitment" are the only acceptable definition of "marriage" today. And when times change, so must we.

Are you ready, America? You voted for it. You have given the "popular mandate". As understood by the current administration, you have decided that "equal rights" does not include "freedom of religion" if it violates your views. You have decided that those who earn more than others ought to lose that income in favor of those who do not earn as much. You have decided that God has changed His mind (or has lost it) and from time immemorial the human definition of marriage and the biblical definition of marriage has always been wrong. You have decided that "protecting the vulnerable" is a matter of selection, where the most vulnerable deserve no protection and we'll work our way up from there. That's what the president that you've elected understands you to believe. Be ready for the promised changes. You asked for it. As for me, I was not made for this moment. I was not made for the moment when our "limitless possibilities" include shaking our fists in the face of God, radical irrationality, and nonsensical administration. Not my idea of "limitless possibilities". We need to "seize it together" he said. You'll have to do it without me. But you guys go ahead. See how that plays out for you.

Inconceivable

The movie, Princess Bride, is just one of those guilty pleasures I have. You know the kind. You're not proud of it, but, well, you like it. It's not something magnificent or grand, but, well, you just like it. That movie is one of those things. There are so many "classic" lines (I'm using the term loosely) from that movie. There is the spot where Miracle Max tells them "He's only mostly dead." There is the clergyman expounding on the importance of "twue wove". There is the repeated Inigo Montoya line, "Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die."

Vizzinni is the brains behind the kidnapping of the princess. As they proceed with their plan, things keep happening to which Vizzinni keeps saying, "Inconceivable!" After the fourth or fifth time, Montoya has a great line: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." I like that line.

On the news the other day a local woman was taken into custody because, for the third time, she was accused of abusing a large number of cats. On the first occasion they took away over a 70 of them. The second time there were over 100 of them, including some in the freezer which she admitted to using in a stew. The living ones had to all be put to sleep due to their condition. This time it was 64 cats. They were sick, malnourished, lame, poorly kept, dying. And she went to jail. In an interview with a news outlet she gave her side of the story. "I wasn't abusing them; I just love my cats." The cab driver that picked her up twice a week for years agreed. She just loved her cats. "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." Me? I can only hope and pray that no one ever loves me so much that they starve me, refuse to care for my injuries, and eventually stick me in a stew. You see, to me, that's not "love".

Indeed, this seems to be a common problem. The abused spouse who assures her friends and the doctors who are treating her for her injuries, "He loves me; he just loses his temper sometimes." Or perhaps you've heard of the Stockholm Syndrome where hostages bond with their captors. Strange concepts of "love". "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

And if love was the only concept that was in trouble, it would be bad enough. But words are symbols of realities and when those words come to represent unrealities, they become problematic. When "love" can mean "torture and abuse", so far from what it really means, then the warm and friendly phrase, "I love you", can become worse than meaningless. It can become threatening. And love is not the only concept at risk here. There is "marriage", as anyone who has read my stuff knows is a prime issue for me. There is "sex". That might seem plain and simple. How can it go wrong? Well, it has. Our concepts there are so far from the original intentions that we might not even recognize them if we saw them. And speaking of sex, how many words in our vocabulary have been subjugated to some subversive new rude, crude, sexual content? It hardly seems like you can say a single sentence without someone catching some sexually deviant undertones in it. The other day I overheard a guy in a tire store. A woman came in and asked to get the tires rotated on her car. After she left I heard him say to his associate, "I'd like to rotate her tires." What does that even mean? Not sure, but we get the implications.

Our society has been playing fast and loose with the English language for a long time. In some ways, it almost defines the English language. (A little play on words there.) Add to that the complexity of the language as it is. As a silly example, a "hit" might mean someone got killed, the play was great, the bat collided with the ball in a satisfactory manner, or he sunk my battleship. Now add in evolutionary effects on the language and innuendo from stolen words and it just gets really, really difficult to communicate. Love? Marriage? Gay? Christian? "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." Sometimes I'm quite sure it doesn't.

Verbal Brainwashing

You likely don't recognize it, but most of us are victims of verbal brainwashing. It's very subtle, this brainwashing. You hear a term used a particular way and you hear it repeated. It becomes a part of the vocabulary and pretty soon you're unaware that you've accepted new concepts as true.

One that has struck me of late is the term "actor". For most of my life there were two forms of the word. One was "actor" and the other was "actress". The difference between the two was simply gender. "Actress" was simply defined as "a woman who is an actor". You don't hear "actress" used much anymore. Actresses have discarded the term. They don't want to be recognized as women who are actors. Gender is irrelevant, you see. Despite the protests, the move to eliminate gender differences has gotten a firm foothold in Hollywood simply by eliminating a term -- "actress". Of course, that elimination has been popping up all over the place. You won't likely find a spokesman or spokeswoman anymore. They are all spokespersons. You no longer have a mailman. They are all mail carriers. It's everywhere. The language is shifting to eliminate gender differences, and we go with it, hardly aware that it's happening.

One of the most obvious places it occurs is in the language of homosexuality. Think about it. I bet you use the terminology pretty freely without even considering its ramifications. The first one is pretty easy to see. I've complained about it before. "Gay" used to mean "happy" and now ... it doesn't. But "gay" has shifted even more. While I think of it as "homosexual" (and only use that term), there appears to be only gay men because homosexual women prefer to be termed "lesbian". (Thus the LGBT -- Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transexual -- designation.) But we've also appropriated an entire philosophy into our language that is hard to avoid. You are probably quite comfortable with the term "gay lifestyle" or the like. It references not a way of living, but a complete person. Mandatory in the term is the position that a person who has homosexual desires is born that way and is fundamentally different in how they live than those who have heterosexual desires. In other words, the term "lifestyle" in that context requires that "gay" or "homosexual" is a condition, not a choice or activity. If you use the term "lifestyle" in that context, you are agreeing that a person who has homosexual desires is a person with the habits, attitudes, tastes, moral standards, economic level, etc., that together constitute the mode of living of a group we recognize as "gay". If you would like, from that point, to argue that "homosexual" is a choice, you've already lost the argument. It is a lifestyle, not a preference.

Oh, and we've bought it there, too. A simple shift in terminology and we've gone from "sexual preference" to "sexual orientation". No one speaks about "sexual preference" anymore. It's not a matter of the gender with whom you prefer to have sex, you see. It is an "orientation". By succumbing to the "orientation" terminology, you are admitting that there is something inborn, something fundamental, something intrinsic in this. This is flawed at its core. You see, I may have a tendency to be attracted to females rather than males, but I don't have to act on it. What one does with one's preferences is a choice. But we accept "orientation" and "lifestyle" and are happily moving toward philosophical positions that are neither true nor relevant.

Step from there to "gay marriage" and you've gone farther. You haven't brought equality to people who have a sexual preference for the same gender. You've loosed the term "marriage" from its original moorings and cut it adrift. It is no longer the core of society, the life-long joining of two people into one unit for the purpose of procreation and perpetuation. All of that is gone ... with a simple acceptance of a term.

Try it sometime. See how far you get. I know I have to work hard at not using terms that admit to beliefs I don't have. The minute you use the term "homosexuals", for instance, as a reference to a group, you've likely used it to mean a group of people who not only have sexual preferences, but also have their own "lifestyle", their own morals, their own attitudes, their own orientation, and so on. They are born that way and have no control of their actions. That is, they cannot choose not to act on their sexual desires for the same gender. In fact, you've made sex a divine right. I mean, you can't ask someone who has sexual desires for the same gender to be celibate, can you? That wouldn't be fair! Now, you may not have meant it that way, but that's the way it will be interpreted. The same is true with "gays", "gay lifestyle", "sexual orientation", and so on. We've been moved from personal responsibility, individual choice, and sex as an option to automatons who have no options in their preferences or the way they live ... simply by use of language.

And it doesn't stop there ...

Fun with Words

English is a tough language, even for English speakers. I was having some fun the other day with odd English constructions.

During the floods, the only way we rode anywhere was when we rowed down the road.

For me, going to two stores is two too many.

They're keeping their treasures in there.

She filed for divorce, but he tried to think that tying the knot had not come to naught.

Is that your ewer you're carrying around?

I'm sure there was a valid reason that the application for a handicap placard for my invalid friend came back "invalid".

I bet you can come up with some of your own. Of course, most of you are probably not so easily amused as I am, but, hey, maybe there are a few out there.

The Meaning of Words

Have you noticed how much words are changing? It's actually quite dramatic. King James referred to St. Paul's Cathedral as "amusing, awful and artificial" by which he meant "pleasing, awe-inspiring, and artful." "Gay" used to mean "happy" ... to anyone you wanted to ask. Now, the first definition that comes to mind is ... not "happy." People used to know that "bitch" referred to a female dog, a "chick" was a reference to a baby chicken, and "bug" referred to an insect. Now "bug" is also a noun referring to problems in software or a verb describing what her little brother does to his older sister. ("He bugs me.") Once, when I was in the Air Force, I was out for a drive with family. We went by an airport and I commented, "Look, a hangar." My brother-in-law, a construction worker, heard me point out someone who hangs drywall. My wife heard me point out a device on which to hang clothing. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Trying to keep up with my kids' changing vernacular was real work. Words that meant one thing to me meant something entirely different to them and even something else again across the 5 years that separated them. The dictionary used to be a source document. One person would say, "That word means this," and another person would say, "No, it means something else." They would solve their dispute by looking it up in the English source document -- the dictionary. Today the dictionary is in constant flux, simply trying to keep track of how words are meant, not what they actually mean. But one of the most interesting and confusing changes that is occurring today is not in the meaning of words. It is in the feel of words.

I saw a post recently about the Evangelical Manifesto. The term "manifesto" raised eyebrows because it felt like the "Communist Manifesto" or the "Humanist Manifesto" or the like ... bad things to Evangelicals. If you want to insult someone, call them a "liberal." No one likes that term anymore, even though it simply is defined as "favorable to progress or reform." "Fundamentalist" is a serious insult these days. It doesn't really matter how it is actually defined. The term broadly references "the interpretation of sacred texts as literal truth," generally references "any religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles that includes rigid adherence to those principles," or specifically refers to "a movement in American Protestantism that arose in the early part of the 20th century in reaction to modernism and that stresses the infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record, holding as essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as the virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second Coming." (Note: If you're going to refer to the latter, there cannot be "Islamic Fundamentalists", can there?) Drop that word bomb in a crowd of Christians and watch them scatter because it feels like it's a bad thing. "I'm no fundamentalist!" they'll object because they know they've just been insulted.

The meaning of words is becoming a very difficult concept. "Intelligent Design" is the same as "Creationism" which is the same as "Creation Science" which is, as everyone knows, quite ludicrous. Never mind that there are steps between the three terms and they are not synonymous. It's simply how we feel about them. Claim that you do believe in the Perseverance of the Saints but don't believe in "Once Saved Always Saved" and they'll look at you like you're a walking contradiction. Never mind that they have different meanings. Shorthand terms are drifting so far from their intended meaning that they are becoming useless. We all agree, for instance, what "Calvinist" means ... until you actually explain what you mean and find out that there are nearly as many definitions for the term as there are users of the term.

Here's the problem. When we can no longer agree on the definition of terms, communication breaks down. Worse, when how we feel about a word determines what the word means or, worse, how we feel about the person who used it or to whom it was applied, communication becomes nearly impossible. English is a popular language on the planet these days, but it is quickly becoming an unusable language. What do we mean, for instance, when we "sanction" something? It can mean "to grant approval" or it can mean "to express disapproval." Where are we going with the language when Christians are afraid to call themselves Christians because of how people feel about the word? How can we effectively communicate the Gospel in a world where language changes based on feelings and definitions are not definitive? We're going to have to stay on our toes, folks.

The Weight of the Words

Have you ever weighed words? Most of us don't, really. It's obvious in our unconsidered speech. I heard a well-known narrator on a nature show speaking about crab fishermen in Alaska tell us, "They self-regulate themselves." Now, the weight there is no big deal, but the language informs us that he wasn't paying attention to what he was saying. They can either self-regulate or they can regulate themselves, but to self-regulate themselves is straight out of the Redundancy Department of Redundancy.

I'm not too concerned about a faux pas like that. I'm thinking more of our day-to-day conversations that seem to take place without any real thought to the consequences. You share with a close friend an embarrassing event from someone else that you received in confidence and soon it's all over the internet. Gossip is a killer. Secrets rarely remain that way. But of even greater concern to me are those persistent attitudes in our communications. Have you ever been around a complainer? Everything is wrong. Everything stinks. Everyone is out to get them or doing something wrong. Even writing this begins to get me down. Stay around someone like that for long, and you'll find that everything is wrong in your world, everything stinks, and no one is doing things right. Why? It's the weight of the words.

Very few like the "pollyanna" types who see everything as rosy. It's not real. We prefer real. But ... do we? The truth is that if you spend much time around people who prefer to see the good in things, you'll likely find yourself seeing the good in things. Some people seem to have a positive outlook, and when you spend time in communication with these folks, it is infectious. It's the weight of the words.

I remember a sign one of my pastors had when I was a teen. It said, "Engage brain before opening mouth." Perhaps we ought to do that more often. What effect will the attitudes my words express have on others? Is it my goal to encourage or discourage? Paul said we should be "speaking the truth in love" (Eph. 4:15). Some of us really like that "speaking the truth" thing, and we'll clobber you over the head with it if we have to. Others of us are completely enamored with that "in love" part and are willing to fudge the truth in an ill-conceived attempt at love. Paul says we need to speak the truth and we need to do it with love. Are we weighing our words for truth and love? We ought to. Perhaps we should pray, as David did, "Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable in Your sight, O LORD, my rock and my redeemer" (Psa. 19:14).

Great ... Just Great

I'm an advocate of using correct grammar and proper spelling. I think it improves communication. So when I get something like this in my email, well, it just doesn't help me at all ...

Cna yuo raed tihs?

i cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dseno't mtaetr in waht oerdr the ltteres in a wrod are, the olny iproamtnt tihng is taht the frsit and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it whotuit a pboerlm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Azanmig huh? yaeh and I awlyas tghuhot slpeling was ipmorantt!

No matter ... I'm still in favor of proper English, even without the support of Cambridge University.

Is There Any Wonder?

Well of course English is a difficult language when a word like "hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia" means "the fear of long words". Sigh!

The Difficulty of English

The English language is a difficult language. I sympathize with anyone who attempts to pick it up as a second language. It is imprecise and relative. It depends largely on your location and context. For instance, is a “bonnet” a hat a woman might wear or the hood of a car? Is “randy” a common first name or a coarse character? These would depend on whether the speaker was from England or America. Is “bad” a good thing or a bad thing? Is a “hit” a good thing (“The play was a hit.”) or a bad thing (“The ship took a direct hit.”)? It would depend on the context and speaker.

To me, nowhere is English more difficult than in signs. While they are intended to briefly explain, they tend to obscure.

Driving out of a parking lot, one might read “Right turn only”. This would be a good thing, since we wouldn’t want to make the wrong turn. Unfortunately, one might also read “No right turn”. The only possible course of action at this point would be to make the wrong turn.

Walking down the hallway one day I saw a sign that said, “Wet Paint”. It was very unclear what to make of it. Why would they want me to wet the paint? And with what? It appeared that someone had already done so, since the paint was currently wet. It was all very confusing. The text under the “Wet Paint” sign only made it more confusing. “Painted with Pride by the Maintenance Dept.” Really? It looked like paint to me, but they used pride. Oh, wait a minute. It was white! Painted with white pride? Oh, this was getting ugly!

A common sign is “Out of Order”. This one is too elusive to think about. I walked into the men’s restroom one day and saw an “Out of Order” sign hung on one of the urinals. Now, all the urinals looked identical, so I couldn’t imagine how someone could tell what order they should be in, let alone if one was in the wrong order. Further, if one was in the wrong order, wouldn’t a second have to be, also? Or was I to conclude that there is an overall order to these things, that somewhere else in the world another urinal was in the wrong place? And most puzzling, how did these things happen in the first place? Did vandals sneak in and move them? All too confusing for me to understand.

I haven’t yet figured out the sign found in some neighborhoods: “Caution: Slow Children”. If I were a parent in that neighborhood, I would be offended. Maybe my kids aren’t the brightest in the world, but that’s no reason to label them “slow”. And exactly what threat did they pose to have to caution folks about them?

Yes, it’s a tough language.

Schadenfreude

Thanks, Scott Adams, for a new word for my vocabulary. In one of his recent Dilbert cartoons, he used the word, "schadenfreude". I had to look it up.

The dictionary defines the word as "Pleasure derived from the misfortunes of others." It is a compound German word: schaden, meaning "damage" and freude, meaning "joy". It is always intended as a negative concept; we shouldn't take joy in other people's misfortunes.

But ... you know we do.

We delight in practical jokes. Shows like America's Funniest Videos and Jerry Springer are predicated on it. It seems to be a primary motivator in most people. I remember in Basic Training in the Air Force after weeks of humiliation and abuse hearing several of my flight members discussing how they hated this and couldn't wait to get out of Basic Training ... so they could come back as Instructors and torment others. Schadenfreude.

I wonder how much of our time is involved in schadenfreude. We certainly take joy when the bad guy loses. Maybe that's not so bad. But how many of us don't laugh at the Three Stooges as they pummel each other into stupidity? That's not so good.

What do you suppose motivates us to take joy in others' misfortune? I don't know, but I'm guessing it's not due to our higher character.

The Sad Passing of a Friend

I like English. I know ... bizarre. But I have always liked it. So it is with a sad heart ...

I'm torn. How do I face this rising tide?

In my youth I was given an education that apparently isn't offered anymore. It's not that I'm brilliant. I'm not. It seems, however, that I was taught the English language and it simply isn't taught anymore.

We've all seen it coming - the demise of the language. It nibbled around the obvious places, the "weak members" of the herd, so to speak. How do you spell "misspell"? Sure, it's "I before E except after C" most of the time, but it likely is no surprise that "weird" is one of the exceptions. There have always been difficult words to spell, and they were the first to fall. The dictionary, then, started listing not what was supposed to be, but what was. They didn't define the language as much as explain it. So they started including "the norm" as well as "the right" ... which automatically made "the norm" "right". Word processors incorporated "spell checkers" (which in and of itself is bad grammar) which insisted on errors. "Judgement" (the correct spelling), for example, was judged incorrect in favor of "judgment" (the "normal" spelling).

One might think it is a matter of education, but working at a university, as I do, it doesn't seem to be any better. I heard a cheerleader the other day tell her friend, "We told them to bring it, and they brung it." A physics major confessed to his buddy "I shouldn'ta did it." And a new student came out of the bookstore to tell his parents, "I've boughten all the books I need." This isn't abnormal; it's the norm. You hear it a lot (which is now spelled as one word - "alot").

So after a while one begins to wonder. There are basically three possible types of responses. One is to "go with the flow". Give up. You're fighting a losing battle. No one really cares what you think "English" is. I mean, look at the dictionary. Doesn't that prove that it's a fluid concept? Don't fight it; join it. The other is the obvious response: I will fight for English to the death. Start campaigns. Write wrongs. (That's a pun, not a mistake.) Correct folks when they make these foolish mistakes. Defy spellcheckers even when they tell you that "judgement" is wrong. Too much work. I suspect I'll opt for the third type. I'll stick to my English, complain quietly about the others, but essentially do nothing at all about it. Isn't that, after all, the Christian thing to do?

Dismantling Good

Has anyone noticed the dismantling of “good”? It's sad, but interesting to watch if you're paying attention. It is in our terminology and our perceptions of our terminology. Let's look at a couple of examples.

We use the term “love” in a variety of ways. One of the striking modifications to our language is in the use of the phrase “make love”. In days gone by, this term had a radically different intent. The original intent was closer to the obvious intent. To “make love” in its original form, a suitor would pursue a bride-to-be. This entailed an “other-centeredness”. He would have to find that which pleased the woman he wished to marry as well as her family, particularly her father. He would woo her, hoping to engender in her feelings of love. He would court her, hoping to gain both her approval and her father's permission. It required a lessening of self and an emphasis on others, designed to stir in another feelings of love. Today? Well, of course today it means having sex. Indeed, there is nothing in today's usage that even requires actual love. It is merely a euphemism for sexual relations. There may be passion, but there is no reason to think it is love beyond the momentary. It is merely sex.

In the same way, “lovers” used to indicate two people who were in love. They were noticeable by their romantic gestures toward one another. They would hold hands or look at each other in a certain way. He would be a grand gentleman, and she would be a fine lady, regardless of their state in society. Arm in arm they'd stroll down the avenue, and everyone would know that they were “lovers” ... that they were in love. Today, it is a simple term requiring only that they are engaged in a sexual relationship. This one often implies more than mere sex; it may be a prolonged sexual relationship. But as “make love” today is “have sex”, “lovers” are those who are engaged in a sexual relationship.

Now, having dismantled the language like this, what do we find in our perception ... of sex? Interestingly, perhaps, the general perception has gone the way of the language. Whereas sexual relations were original limited to married couples, declining to “couples in love”, today it is simply people who engage in the act. It is not assumed in most circles that a person who has sex with another necessarily has any sense of commitment, any deep feelings, any romance, any love. Sex today is simply viewed as a biological necessity, something “fun” in which to engage. And we are bearing the brunt of this decline in the forms of teenage pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and the like. All this is seen in the change of a phrase.

How about “marriage”? The original intent of marriage was two-fold: 1) companionship, and 2) procreation. We see the first in Gen. 2:18 - “Then the LORD God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.’” That's one reason - “It is not good for man to be alone.” The other is in Gen. 1:28 - “God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. ’” Companionship and procreation comprise the primary functions in God's design for marriage. Look, now, at the evolution of thought. World War II came along. Men went to war, and women went to work. This was the first modern influx of women into the workplace. In the 60's, the daughters of these women decided they needed to be “free”, and the Women's Liberation movement was begun. At the same time, the cost of living increased, so these liberated women offered to help out by going to work. It wasn't enough to be a mother; they wanted careers as well. Eventually, with women pushing higher and higher into all areas of the workplace, the concept of “family” became optional. In days gone by, this would have been unthinkable. Women had children. Women who didn't have children were mocked, ridiculed, or sorely pitied. But with these changes a woman's career gained equal importance to having children. At the same time, “marriage” was being redefined. This, of course, had been a work in progress for some time. From its original footings as companionship and procreation, it moved to an expression of “love”. This concept is actually fairly recent in the history of Man. Marriages were (and still are in several societies) arranged by the families. This was perfectly suitable when one had to “make love” and when marriage was companionship and procreation. But in the evolution of the concept, it became more about “How I feel about him/her”. The mere suggestion that a marriage might be arranged for two people is considered today as actually immoral. Marriage is about love!

Of course, having moved from its original intent, we can see where we stand today. Having bought the notion that sex is a human necessity, that “love” and “sex” are not necessarily related, and that “marriage” is about “two people who love each other”, the notion of “gay marriage” is unavoidable. In previous times, it would be unthinkable simply because the definition of the purpose of marriage included an unmistakable procreative element to it. A marriage that had no children was valid, but pitied, not applauded nor even sought. So “gay marriage” would have been an oxymoron, since homosexual relationships produce no offspring. But to fight the concept today is nearly impossible because love doesn't mean what it used to, sex doesn't mean what it used to, and marriage doesn't mean what it used to.

By carefully and slowly dismantling the language and our perceptions, good has been carefully and slowly dismantled. It has become nearly impossible to defend good because the terms don't exist anymore, at least as they were originally intended, and the perceptions of those terms are lost to a completely foreign view. Our society is paying the price, and we will continue to pay because there is little defense left.