Word-Twisting

In an age in which people will use language to distort and deceive, we have to hold fast to what is true, which is found in the Scriptures. In Psalm 119, we can read:
159 Consider how I love Your precepts; Revive me, O Lord, according to Your lovingkindness.
160 The entirety of Your word is truth, And every one of Your righteous judgments endures forever.
161 Princes persecute me without a cause, But my heart stands in awe of Your word.
162 I rejoice at Your word As one who finds great treasure.

Isn't that indicative of the days in which we live?  In which we find ourselves ridiculed because of our faith and under threat of being shut down or shut up because we proclaim who Jesus is. People call evil good and good evil - they twist the language for their own purposes.  We have to make sure that we are committed to walking in and sharing the truth of the Scriptures.   We can indeed rejoice in the Word as we make it a priority.

+++++

Jesus is the Word Who became flesh, according to John 1, and it is He who teaches us how to speak and walk in truth consistent with the Word. In John 16, He teaches us:
13 However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come.
14 He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you.
15 All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you.

One of the threads in our culture about which Meeting House guests have been sharing has to do with the words that we use and how some words have been redefined to accomplish certain purposes that are inconsistent with Scripture and how new concepts have been introduced through the use of certain terms. 

In a recent article at The Stream, writer Tom Gilson discusses the distortion of the language and refers to what he calls "confusion" that is "beyond describing, in Christian ministry, in education, at work, at home, everywhere. I’m pretty sure confusion is part of progressives’ purpose. We speak the same words but for many, those words have taken on alien, pagan meanings. Is it time we gave up the notion that we speak a common language, and starting bearing more of the burden of translation?"

He relates:

If we could all agree on what “human” meant, we’d have an easier time with “male adult human” and “female adult human.” But when we have serious researchers calling for human rights for a lake, we don’t know what “human” means any longer. When people around the globe demand civil rights for trees and rivers and mountains and elephants, we aren’t elevating trees and bodies and waters and large mammals; we’re defining humanness out of existence.

He moves on to two other words that have experienced a redefinition; he writes:

It’s impossible to pinpoint where this started. Two early words to tumble were “tolerance” and “truth.” One used to mean treating others with respect when we disagreed with them. Then it became intolerant to disagree. Later it became “hateful.”

Later in the piece, Gilson references another Stream article that he had written; one centered on tolerance.  He writes:

“Tolerance” is no virtue, not the way it’s touted in our culture. It was supposed to draw the world together. Instead it’s tearing us apart. You see the effect of it in marriages. You see the same in our increasingly hate-filled politics.

Gay activists label any disagreement with them as “hate.” That’s cold rhetorical manipulation on their part — yet’s it worked. Why don’t people see through it? Because the activists are using the tactic in a culture that has no idea what it means to disagree productively.

And “tolerance” is to blame for much of it. It’s created a culture where hardly anyone develops the skill of disagreeing well.

He goes on to say:

The whole crazy, incoherent idea behind this new “tolerance” was that disagreement is wrong. We’re all supposed to regard every way of living, every idea, as equally valid and true.

Many commentators, especially Christian ones, have tried to explain how impossible that is. If “tolerance” means every idea is equally valid, what about the idea that this version of “tolerance” is wrong? That one’s off the table; it’s disallowed. It’s intolerable to tolerate disagreement with “tolerance.”

He calls this type of tolerance a "sham virtue." 

In the first Stream article, Gilson suggests that perhaps there needs to be a class on "English as the formerly-same language." The curriculum?  He writes:

In these classes we might teach that in their other-English, the word “love” doesn’t mean “treating others with their best interests at heart,” the way it does in our English. For them it’s more like “staying out of their way as they live the life they want to live.” (How love ever got equated with staying out of each others’ way, I cannot fathom, but that’s how it is.)

We would teach the how to translate old, useful, meaningful worlds like “safety,” “truth,” “wisdom,” “male” and “female” (of course), and the long-neglected “wisdom” into words our contemporaries could grasp. Above all we would show how to translate the name “Jesus” into terms they wouldn’t confuse with SJW/socialist/tolerant/fabulistic/whatever “Jesus.”

In a podcast discussion with Christian apologist Frank Turek, host of the I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be an Atheist podcast, Erwin Lutzer shares about a chapter in his book, No Reason to Hide, dealing with the subject of propaganda. He says:

In it, I give six or seven ways that language is used in propaganda. But one of them is this. I quote, a university that says that you need to have speech codes. You can't use the word freshmen. You can't use the word, you know, and it goes on listing the words that are appropriate. Recently, a university says you shouldn't use the word American, and it goes on and on and on. Now, Frank, I want to ask a question. Let's step back, take a deep breath and ask ourselves this. What in the world is going on there? The purpose of those speech codes is not to elevate the discussion. I point out the purpose is to silence the discussion. In other words, it has to do with censorship. 

Lutzer says, "The purpose of propaganda is to so shape people's view of reality, that even when confronted with a mountain of evidence, they will not change their minds. So, propaganda is what I like to call, cultural streams that are so powerful, they are picked up, of course, by the media. And eventually, they become so powerful that to stand against them is almost impossible."  He notes, "...you need an enemy to fear, and you need an enemy to hate. Hate is very important...You have to visualize an enemy out there that you have to demonize, no matter how inappropriate the demonization might be. 

Then,  he says: "...you need people who fear because there are consequences if they step out of line. And then you need such a barrage of cultural streams that you need slogans."  He goes on to say:

Then, of course, you know the meaning of the term gaslighting, where you create a reality that isn't really real, but nonetheless, it is created and so forth. The other thing that I point out in my book, "No Reason to Hide", is you win arguments, not by trading ideas. But what you do is, you make it a psychological issue.

Examples? "You know, you're Pro-Life, well you hate women. You are opposed to same-sex marriage, you're a bigot."

As Lutzer and Gilson demonstrate, language is being used to distort the truth and shut down discussion. Those perceived to be "in the right," the enlightened, progressive types, want to silence their opposition - essentially, there is an attempt to homogenize discussion.  We have to be firmly convinced in the superiority of the Scriptures and make sure that our lives are built on the foundation of Biblical truth. 

But, we have to make sure that we don't live up to the labels that are being thrust upon us.  We have to learn to disagree well - not with anger, but with conviction.  Not with attempting to silence, but with listening and then entering a discussion in which we present our Biblical viewpoint.  Because, our endgame is not to win arguments or demonstrate our moral superiority, but to win hearts to come into a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.