Do words really mean anything these days? Perhaps not so much, especially when the original etymology has morphed into a new definition designed to suit the wishes of a determined few. There is a fight in America to redefine words in order to weaken and defeat the beliefs of devout Christians. Hijacking our language and the meaning or words is the work of the enemy.
Take the rainbow in Genesis 9:13. “I have set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth.” The rainbow was a sign from God that he would never again destroy all life on earth. Today when someone says the word “rainbow” or depicts the symbol, it no longer immediately means a sign from God. Instead, it is a symbol of homosexuality.
In the 1920s, or even the early 1980s, if we had commented that someone was “gay” it would have described their mood or personality — happy, carefree, or joyful. Today the exact same sentence has a totally different meaning, especially to our children. “Gay” has disappeared from the lexicon as a positive emotion. The true meaning of the word has been kidnapped and murdered— sacrificed at the altar of a political agenda. It died over 30 years ago and will never, ever be used in its original context again.
CS Lewis and his theological book Mere Christianity describes much better than I how words are twisted to our detriment. The book was adapted from a series of BBC radio talks between 1942 and 1944 as Lewis attended Oxford during WWII. Don’t let the old-style British verbiage prevent you from reading it through. I excerpt a great portion of it to demonstrate that the usurping of the English language has roots in darkness and affects how and why Christians interpret scripture so haphazardly:
People ask: ‘Who are you, to lay down who is and who is not a Christian?’ or ‘May not many a man who cannot believe these doctrines be far more truly a Christian, far closer to the spirit of Christ, than some who do?’ Now this objection is in one sense very right, very charitable, very spiritual, very sensitive. It has every available quality except that of being useful. We simply cannot, without disaster, use language as these objectors want us to use it. I will try to make this clear by the history of another, and very much less important, word.
The word gentleman originally meant something recognisable; one who had a coat of arms and some landed property. When you called someone “a gentleman” you were not paying him a compliment, but merely stating a fact. If you said he was not “a gentleman” you were not insulting him, but giving information. There was no contradiction in saying that John was a liar and a gentleman; any more than there now is in saying that James is a fool and an M.A. But then there came people who said – so rightly, charitably, spiritually, sensitively, so anything but usefully – “Ah but surely the important thing about a gentleman is not the coat of arms and the land, but the behaviour? Surely he is the true gentleman who behaves as a gentleman should? Surely in that sense Edward is far more truly a gentleman than John?” They meant well. To be honourable and courteous and brave is of course a far better thing than to have a coat of arms. But it is not the same thing. Worse still, it is not a thing everyone will agree about. To call a man “a gentleman” in this new, refined sense, becomes, in fact, not a way of giving information about him, but a way of praising him: to deny that he is “a gentleman” becomes simply a way of insulting him. When a word ceases to be a term of description and becomes merely a term of praise, it no longer tells you facts about the object: it only tells you about the speaker’s attitude to that object. (A ‘nice’ meal only means a meal the speaker likes.) A gentleman, once it has been spiritualised and refined out of its old coarse, objective sense, means hardly more than a man whom the speaker likes. As a result, gentleman is now a useless word. We had lots of terms of approval already, so it was not needed for that use; on the other hand if anyone (say, in a historical work) wants to use it in its old sense, he cannot do so without explanations. It has been spoiled for that purpose.
Now if once we allow people to start spiritualising and refining, or as they might say ‘deepening’, the sense of the word Christian, it too will speedily become a useless word. In the first place, Christians themselves will never be able to apply it to anyone. It is not for us to say who, in the deepest sense, is or is not close to the spirit of Christ. We do not see into men’s hearts. We cannot judge, and are indeed forbidden to judge. It would be wicked arrogance for us to say that any man is, or is not, a Christian in this refined sense. And obviously a word which we can never apply is not going to he a very useful word. As for the unbelievers, they will no doubt cheerfully use the word in the refined sense. It will become in their mouths simply a term of praise. In calling anyone a Christian they will mean that they think him a good man. But that way of using the word will be no enrichment of the language, for we already have the word good. Meanwhile, the word Christian will have been spoiled for any really useful purpose it might have served.
Today the word “Christian” has been changed to mean many things to many people. It no longer specifically means a follower of Jesus Christ. It has become a subjective adjective, at best.
Likewise, the word “Republican” used to mean someone who shares the views of the Republican Party as defined by the Republican Party platform. However, over the last several years “Republican” has been bastardized to the point that it, too, is a becoming a watered-down and meaningless word.
Most of the country (as a whole) used to stand for something, specifically moral values and Biblical behavior. Today the Republican Party has been infiltrated by many factions who do not share the core, fundamental beliefs of the platform. The most influential infiltrators, at least here in Harris County, Texas, are for the most part Libertarians. While the Libertarian Party does share some beliefs of the Republican Party, there are many more who do not share our Biblical views on traditional marriage, illegal drugs, prostitution, abortion, and gambling— to name just a few. In short, the Libertarian idea is that individuals are free to share Republican views and values… or not. It depends on how they “feel” about a topic more so than what the Bible teaches or what the Republican Platform stands for. Libertarians believe they are free to choose anything they want and that anything goes. In short what’s good for “me” may not be what good for “you,” so do what you want. It’s all good, right?
This view has lead and will continue to lead our society as a whole into the ground. After all, who needs moral guidance? Why NOT legalize prostitution, drugs (and heck, while we’re at it, polygamous marriage, pedophilia and beastiality). Think I’m exaggerating? Really? Imagine a world with no core standards, where people pick and choose depending on their views rather than God’s. Total hedonism. Zero consequences. And a society turned upside down. Speaking of which…
Here are a few points from the communist agenda and how communists are working to destroy our nation form with.
15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.
24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press.
25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”
27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a “religious crutch.”
28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state.”
Sound familiar? Here are a few of the key issues that some precinct chairs and other prominent Republicans including elected officials are working to change.
They want us to be:
- Anti-Biblical Marriage
- Pro-Homosexual Agenda
- Anti-American Defense (these would be the left-wing hippies)
- Anti-Border Security
- Anti-God (all references to God and religion should be left at the doors of our churches)
- Inclusive to all political and social beliefs
What does this tell us? We cannot continue to allow people to redefine who and what we are by letting them hijack the words that we use to describe ourselves. We are Biblical Christians, not animals, and we live by a platform that supports Biblical values—the Republican Platform. That may not be “cool” or “hip,” but I’d rather be “principled” than a person run amuck in a world of moral relativism, which is simply “code” for absence of values. How about you?