The War of Meaningless Words (Pt.1)
Christians are currently involved in a titanic struggle. Our whole existence is currently being threatened by a noisy minority who have the ears of our politicians.
These God-haters, à la Psalm two, want to throw off every semblance of God, His Son, Jesus Christ, and His revealed Law-Word. They are done following the Maker’s commands and they are demanding absolute autonomy for themselves. These are the Secularists complete with their desire for the Secular State.
Consequently, we hear a great deal in regard to the separation of Church and State. We hear that the concept of God is passé. We hear that people can freely have and practice their religion. However, there is an explicit quid pro quo. We can have our religion (Christianity) as long as it stays a private matter.
Along with Secularism comes its bastard child, Political Correctness. This spawn from the pit starts to make even more demands. However, the cleverness of this corrupting child is that it seeks to mask its corruption by feigning equality. Thus, one is no longer a ‘lowly housewife’. One becomes a “domestic engineer”. Speaking of a former life, I was not a “Garbo”, but a “sanitation engineer”.
Insidiously, this spurious mongrel makes people believe that they are being elevated in importance and rank when in actual fact nothing changes. Indeed, in many instances, degradation and regression are deliberately masked.
The last example of the “garbo” is particularly pertinent, for sanitising is exactly what Political Correctness sets out achieve. It does this by destroying language, terminology, and meaning. The Secularists use it with great skill in the war that has been unleashed upon our nation. They have been so successful, that they have managed to have a variety of terms introduced into common parlance. More importantly, they have had legislation passed to fortify their position and silence those who would oppose.[1]
Regrettably, we Christians have been a bit thick. We have been all too eager to jump on this Bastard’s bandwagon and adopt its perversions without engaging our brains or engaging with God’s word.
Just as many Christians have given up on the physical discipline of their children for fear of being “dobbed in”, too many Christians have adopted the language of Political Correctness in an effort to conform and not stand out.
This acquiescence has only worsened the situation we face. It has made our enemy stronger and it has substantially weakened our cause, the cause of Christ. As a result, we face a very dire time. There is a growing voice of opposition. It is vociferous at times. At times it is an incoherent rant filled with sheer hatred for God and his people.[2]
However, take heart. All is not lost. First, we serve the Lord Jesus Christ. In case any are in doubt, His job description and title goes something like this – King of kings and Lord of lords; Prince of peace; Son of God, Mighty God; on whose shoulders rest the Governance of the nations; a King whose Kingdom cannot end; A King who sent His servants to “teach the nations to obey all that He commanded”. In the words of S.M. Lockridge, “Yeah, that’s my King!”[3]
Second, Christians can arm themselves for this battle. It is a battle that must be self-consciously fought in the Name of the King and in His power, but it can be fought and won. Indeed, I would contend that it must be fought and won.
Please allow me to outline, in brief, a bit of a battle plan.
1. Christians must quit the fuzzy thinking. Listening to Christians argue their case, I hear too much baptised humanism. In other words, the Christians are arguing with a Secularised worldview rather than with a Biblical worldview.
2. As this is the case, Christians have no effective weaponry. Cotton Mather, speaking of the use of so-called ‘white’ magic against ‘black’ magic, remarked that such an enterprise was “to use the devil’s shield against the devil’s sword”. It was an endeavour of futility.
3. Consequently, Christians need to arm themselves with the “Sword of the Spirit” and the “mind of Christ”. What is meant by this is that we must use the Biblical weaponry, but that, equally, we use our minds and the wisdom God gives through Christ Jesus.[4]
When these simple points are brought together, the Christian must realise that Jesus Christ did not come to reveal “doormat theology” or the view that we Christians are to be the poverty stricken whipping boys of all other belief systems. On the contrary, Jesus revealed to us the system of life and victory.
By taking our stand in God’s word, we stand upon the immovable Rock that is Jesus Christ. When we clothe ourselves with the mind of Christ, we are able to think God’s thoughts after Him and outthink our opponents. In 1 Corinthians1:20 & 25 we are encouraged with these words: “Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? … Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.”
Therefore, let us do everything within our power to take the fight to our opponents by following the Wisdom of God. “But How?” you ask. Well, let’s see if we cannot give a few pointers to help you.
A. Do not let the enemy set or force the agenda. Too often Christians awake from their sleep just long enough to fight this or that battle. However, when the urgency subsides, the Christian’s hibernation continues. In opposition to this, we need to be awake and on the job 24/7. We need to be the ones in the politician’s ear giving sound counsel.
At present the battle ground is the issue of homosexual union. However, I do not hear too many arguments against homosexuality, full stop! How did we arrive at this point? Honestly, there are a number of answers. Amongst them, though, are things like Christians being distracted by silver and gold; Christians being more interested in trying to figure out the date and time of Jesus’ Second Coming than “teaching the nations to obey”; and Christians being concerned that their children get a good (State based) education, rather than being concerned that their children receive a Christ(ian) education.
B. Adopt the Christian or Biblical worldview. This is really the critical need of our day. Too many Christians are unable to think Biblically and critically – the second because they lack the first. Yes, Christians often use the terminology of ‘believing the Bible’ or ‘standing on God’s word’, but in reality, very few do.
Let us look at the issue of homosexuality. In a few sentences I will present a ‘no holds barred’ assessment that will offend many. The offence comes from the fact that we do not hold to a Biblical worldview. In short, we do not view issues from God’s perspective or take God’s statements seriously.
God, in the Bible, calls homosexuals an abomination. God states that their immorality is worthy of death. These are very serious charges. Despite the moderns desire to reinterpret these texts, the simple reality is that God situates homosexuals among that which disgusts Him most. Thus, He decrees that they should die.
No doubt, you will counter with, “Oh yes, but that is the Old Testament.”[5] So, let us look at the New Testament. In Romans 1:26-27, Paul, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, declares homosexuality to be both the pinnacle of rebellion against God and of God’s judgement against Man. Note, please, Paul is expressing God’s absolute distaste for homosexuals and their practice. Then, in verse 32, Paul speaks of these as “being worthy of death”.
In Paul’s argument, there is a complete unity with what God has said in previously in the Law and the Prophets. Yet, modern Christians read over this explicit statement. They re-interpret the term “death” as meaning ‘spiritual death’ or as a euphemism for Hell.
With this reinterpretation complete, the average Christian then speaks of God’s love for the homosexual. They tell us that we are to tolerate these people, even if we do not condone their sin. In the worst cases, we have Christians (??) refusing to even label homosexuality as sin! Yet, the question must be posed, “How is it, given the Scripture’s unified statements to the effect that God is disgusted with homosexuals and that He decrees that they should be struck from the earth, that Christians come forth with statements that say the exact opposite?”[6] How does the Christian sanitise that which God labels disgusting?
Now, many / some will not agree with what has been said, but the challenge then is, “Does your disagreement come from the Biblical dictates of a Biblical worldview or does it originate in the Worldly dictates of the Secularist’s worldview?”
In any case, the point is simple. Modern Christians are, at times, found to be calling good that which God has called evil; they try to tear asunder that which God has brought together or bring together that which God has torn asunder. They do so because a miasma of Biblical illiteracy has descended upon the Church.
C. Do not be fooled by the language. As we noted above, the illegitimate offspring of Secularism, Political Correctness, seeks to mask evil by changing language. Thus, the Biblical concept of fornication[7] is toned down into sleeping together;[8] Husband/wife/spouse becomes partner; Adultery becomes an affair; Sin/Evil becomes sickness; Sodomy becomes homosexuality/gay; Murdering infants becomes pro Choice; Murdering the elderly becomes euthanasia;[9] Corporal punishment becomes child abuse; and stating a fact becomes vilification / slur.
Secularism also seeks to invent and apply stigmatised labels[10] as a weapon in this war. People who will not yield are labelled and through labelling are shamed into capitulating – you are judgemental; homophobic; intolerant; bigoted.[11]
By adopting this language, Christians give ground. We begin to subtly imbibe the Secularist’s worldview. More importantly, we actually impugn our God. We do this by our abandonment of the Christian worldview, but also by the implicit denial that God gave us morals and terms[12] that both encompass and express those morals.
D. Do not be fooled by false claims. The Secularists will claim that they hold the moral high ground on many issues. However, when light is brought to bear, the Secularist is found to be naked with naught but a smile to hide behind. Hence, he manipulates the situation through language and fortifies his position with legislation. Again, by buying into this practice we actually support and abet the ungodly desires, notions, and goals of the secularist.
This brings us to the heart of the current debate, namely, the obvious hypocrisy and deceit by the Secularists as they push their anti-God agenda.
(For the examples, please read Part 2 of this article)
[1] We will talk about hypocrisy later, but even here the Secularist is seen to be a hypocrite. He justifies his cause on the basis that God is dictatorial, suggesting words mean a certain thing and that any lack of conformity will be punished. In response, the Secularist demands that words mean nothing – until he puts meaning into them – and if you do not conform to this new usage, you will be punished!
[2] See Bill Muehlenberg’s No Tolerance for Dissenters.
[3] http://thatsmyking.wordpress.com/2007/11/16/sm-lockeridges-my-king-2007-high-energy-remixed-version/
[4] Colossians 2:3.
[5] There is another discussion to be had here in regard to God’s immutability. Those who argue OT v NT are implicitly, if not explicitly, stating that God has changed His moral standing on issues like this. Regrettably, this attitude smacks of a return to the Marcionite heresy.
[6] The counter to this is, of course, the fallacious statement that God loves the sinner but hates the sin. Room does not allow for a full discussion, so we will make two points: A. The Bible never, in the judicial sense, separates a man and his sin; B. Why does God send men to hell and not just their sin?
[7] For a thought provoking read, see RC Sproul Jr’s, Sexual Destruction.
[8] It is fundamentally important that we grasp the point being made. Search the Scriptures and you will not find a moral imperative that would forbid an unrelated, unmarried couple of the opposite sex from actually sleeping together. The Bible may ask us to be wise because such a situation, if indulged too often or in the wrong circumstances, may lead to that which is forbidden. However, I repeat, the Bible has no moral imperative against two people “catching some Z’s” together. On the other hand, the Bible does have some strong words and presents a moral imperative against sexual congress outside of marriage. The masking, is at heart, an attempt to destroy God’s moral imperatives by changing the connotation of the act, removing the stigma attached to immorality, and, in essence, removing morality from the action. Hence, we encounter the sanitising effect of Political Correctness.
[9] For those not aware, the term euthanasia literally translates to good death. Here, again, the sanitising crew of PC has done their best to wipe the muck off this term and mask the reality. In what sense is this death good? What or who is the determiner of a good or a bad death? After all, we are all dying, are we not? So whilst I live, I hasten to die? So at what point and on whose authority does the process of dying converge with the death event? What qualities make this convergence good or bad?
[10] Here, again, hypocrisy comes into view. It is wrong of Christians to stigmatise homosexuals with their Biblical language and moral objections, but it is right and acceptable for the Secularist to stigmatise Christians with their invented language and labels of shame.
[11] This was the same approach used by the Feminists in their war. If you disagreed with them, as a male, you were labelled as a misogynist.
[12] It is important that we understand that terms apply to certain things. We work with this fact every day. Yet, as we have shown, the Secularists are keen to destroy these terms when they are detrimental to their agenda. Elsewhere, I have addressed this issue with the illustration of a child wrongly naming an animal that he was shown.
Thanks Murray,
I don’t believe any errors occurred in what you said, but for me the discomfort would come if one were to leave the judgment without saying anything of the cure. I wasn’t accusing you of this though, I merely thought it would be profitable to add that token thought in my comments. For me, it certainly is unbiblical to bring the full curse of the law to bear without the gospel in due course. I perceive that you agree – I think it was Spurgeon who said something like: “Give 90% of the law, and 10% to the gospel cure”. Probably not a bad balance! To be sure, the full weight of God’s judgment needs to hang over the sinner. In light of how politically incorrect it is to call sin sin these days, I think we are under pressure to lighten the load of this judgment by watering it, under-emphasising it – and of course with the compromisers shirking it alltogether. Such is antithetical to the true preaching of the Kingdom tidings.
God be with you brother, as I say – I’ll look forward to reading the next couple of parts.
Isaac
Hi Murray, thanks for the article – i’ll look forward to reading the last two parts as I have time. I would only add one thing to say that I do not think that we should leave homosexuals we know with condemnation only. Certainly they should come to know their dire predicament, and know that God does indeed hate such sin. But we must remember too, that ‘such were some of us’ 1 Corinthians 6:9-11. The homosexual is not beyond redemption, and God’s grace is certainly available for them too. I have been reading a most remarkable book ‘Secret thoughts of an unlikely convert.’ The testimony of a former feminist-lesbian professor come Reformed Pastor’s wife. Truly remarkable, our God is great! In Christ, Isaac.
Greetings Isaac,
Thank you for taking the time to read the article and to leave a comment. It is appreciated.
As to your comment, the addition, might it be that it actually shows the point being made? Why is there discomfort with what is stated? You yourself agree. So why is there a need to add anything at this point?
Had I stated a falsehood, rebuke and correction would be necessary? Had I “misquoted” the Word of God, then setting the text straight would be most necessary. However, your agreeance would suggest that no such errors occurred.
My point was and is that Christians feel the need to sanitise God’s standards and water down His clear pronouncements. They simply cannot (seemingly) let truth stand. They seemingly feel very uncomfortable with certain aspects of God’s character.
In the present case, I nowhere stated that homosexuals cannot be saved. I nowhere said that homosexuals were beyond the reach of Grace. The point was simple – starting with where they are at, right now, we must tell them that they are abominable in God’s sight and that His wrath is fully kindled against them. That is a plain, Biblical statement. It needs no emendation.
This leads to the next point. Paul tells us that “the Law is a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ.” In the modern world of pseudo-evangelism, we no longer take the sinner to the Law of God and show them the pure righteousness of an absolutely holy God. When they gaze into such perfection, their sin, shame, and inability are at once known. If we do not do this, then they will continue in open rebellion or have some erroneous belief that they do not need forgiveness.
Let me illustrate. A recent media event highlighted the case of a homosexual who had committed suicide. He had been having a major internal struggle. Now, one of the moderns continued to counsel this chap. When this chap asked the counsellor, “Does God love me?” he was constantly told, “Yes, he does!” If this is true, that God loves this person fully and unconditionally, then the clear implication is that this person has a standing and a relationship with God. In this instance, there is no hope. Absolutely no hope! The sinner is thrown back onto his own devices. His wayward counsellor has given the ‘counsel of death’ and simply increased this man’s burden, à la the Pharisees. When this poor chap’s conscience and inbuilt tablet of Law convicted him, he was told to ignore it. Thus, the conflict grew.
Had he come to me, I would have told him, point blank, that God hated every atom of his being. Oh, yes, this sounds very harsh. Yet, in reality, having stripped away every particle of hope found in man, one could then talk about God’s Man, Jesus Christ. In choosing this option, the counsellor is intrinsically offering Hope.
Now, which of these means is the better? The harsh love that speaks the truth and, therefore, places hope on the table or the false-love which destroys all hope for it leaves man to his own devices?
Therefore, the text you reference is not applicable. You focus on the “were” whereas my concern is with the “are”. My focus is upon the fact that Christians seem very reluctant to speak about the “are”. We might even say that when we were the “are” then we “were” under God’s just judgement. We know this, so why shy from it?
I know that we are not at cross purposes, though it may seem so. I just want to reemphasise the fact that we should allow God’s words of judgement to stand with their full force. Just as we should allow God’s word of redemption to stand with full force. There is nothing to be achieved by watering down any aspect of God’s revealed truth. When we water down, we hinder the Gospel progress. When we state the truth, the Power of God is unleashed.
In closing, it may be well worth pointing people back to Romans. That book is commonly referred to as the book on Justification by Faith. Yet, it could equally be said that it is the book on The Righteousness of God. We often quote Romans 1:16 – The Gospel is the power of God unto salvation. Rarely, do we get to the “why?” so clearly presented in verse 17 – for in it the righteousness of God is revealed!
This righteousness revealed, argues Paul, is the means that strips away all false attempts to reach God, whether by Jew or Gentile. It shows that all men are under God’s just condemnation – all have sinned – for all men are shown to be sinners without the requisite righteousness. It is also this righteousness that is manifest by Jesus Christ, which shows God as Just and the Justifier of men. If we take this righteousness from the Gospel, then there is simply no need for Jesus Christ, for all men have not sinned and their own righteousness may get them home in the end. Why then do they need a Saviour?
Thanks again for contributing to the site. I do hope you get the opportunity to read some more.
Regards,
Murray
Additional: After writing the above comment, I read the following by Andrew Kuyvenhoven in his daily devotinal book, Daylight. I believe it adequately sums up the intent of my original comment.
Speaking on Hebrews 12:28-29, he says, in part:
“Our style of living and worshipping will show whether we know God as a consumming fire. If we are truly aware that no impurity and falsehood can exist before Him, we will pray and strive to be filled with His holiness and ask to be guided through the world and beg to be kept in the Kingdom of His Son. We must also learn, reverently and humbly, to talk about this aspect of God’s character. It is not much discussed nowdays. But it is less than “honest to God” to ignore the fire. Perhaps there are some people who despise the grace of God, also because Christians have painted such a harmless picture of the Eternal One.Maybe, if they had an inkling of the truth, they would listen, now, while it is called “today.””
These words were published in 1977. If the “Eternal One” was being painted as harmelss 30+ years ago, it seems that He is considered absolutely toothless in our day. It seems that we are not willing to speak to the world concerning The Consuming Fire or to ourselves concerning a Father who chastises those He loves as His children. In this, we show that we have adopted a very wrong perspective on God; one not reflected in Scripture.
Regards,
Murray