|
|
Calvary Herald |
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
Someone somewhere aptly wrote that “He who defines wins.” Whoever defines terminology in debated issues can gain the attention and support of the fence-sitters and thus obtain cultural victories. I believe we are seeing this manifested today.
We are seeing a redefining of moral terms that is costly to our culture. These redefined terms are also tempting for Christians to use. I will give a few examples.
For years an unborn child has been called a “fetus”. This thinking particularly arose after 1973 the Roe vs. Wade decision. Human life was declared to begin at birth, rather than at conception, as it formerly had been. The unborn was redefined as a mass of tissue. This redefinition directly opposes scriptural teaching in passages such as Ps. 51:5, “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity and in sin my mother conceived me.” This is only one of the verses that shows humanness begins with conception. There are many other verses that can be used here and in the following examples, but my purpose is not to explain the scriptural basis for particular definitions. Instead I am simply trying to show the subtlety and danger of shifting definitions.
When we think of the word “gay” today we most likely think of homosexuals. In my youth “gay” was a term for “happy” or “joyous”. It now is used to define a practice and lifestyle that scripture nowhere defines as joyful. In fact, the Bible states that such activity is “against nature” and “shameful” (Rom. 1:26, 27).
The description of “gay” helps homosexuality to gain a hearing and be more palatable to the moral taste buds of our society. After all, we do want people to be happy don’t we? In the eyes of many anything which brings happiness or gaiety cannot be shameful or wrong.
Also the word “ethics” has been replaced by “value-systems”. I was asked recently about my “value-system”. Ethics refers to a standard outside of oneself; “value-system” is far more subjective. In economics or another sphere I may place a greater value on an item than you. I may buy an item that you would not because I place a higher value on it than you.
Ethics are set forth in an objective standard such as the Ten Commandments. The issue is not how much or to what extent we value these laws. The reference point is neither me nor you. The reference point is God, the Author. Those commandments are to be the basis for our relationship with God and with one another. They are to be obeyed ultimately because God says so.
When moral issues are defined in terms of value, then man becomes a god, because he determines the value that is placed upon a moral issue. I may have a contrary opinion and thus place another value on it. That is okay in this system because what matters is the individual. Since there is no recognized ethical standard, the importance of a moral action is limited to the eye of the definer.
Many other examples could be given but it is important to draw some applications.
First, we have to realize this is a cultural problem because it is a church problem. For years the churches have sent mixed signals into culture. Any number of churches approve of abortion, homosexuality, and other sinful activities as actions the Bible allows. In doing so, the church has said there is no objective standard speaking with relevance regarding these issues to today’s culture. This view is false and unbiblical. We need to be thankful for churches that stand on the authority of God’s word and its relevance and applicability to every area of life.
We must expect more words to be redefined or drop out of cultural usage. For example, when was the last time you heard an immoral activity referred to as a “sin”? The usage of “sin” brings up the fact of an objective standard, of judgment, and of God’s existence. Thus “sin” and “God-fearing” are archaic words now.
Christians must not allow themselves to define words by cultural usage. Why not use the word “homosexual” instead of “gay”? Why not continue to refer to the unborn as a “child”? By doing so we are maintaining the scriptural definition and outlook.
Additionally, we hinder ourselves from possible compromise. By using the word “value-system” rather than “ethics” we can subtly be influenced over time to think that “value” is a good replacement for “ethics” on certain issues. Spiritual compromise is dangerous but so easy.
We must also be faithful to teach our children in terms of distinctions and definitions that are rooted in scripture. They are under greater pressure than we probably know to think culturally and not Christianly.
Using biblical definitions in our conversations is an evangelistic tool. It reminds listeners that there is an objective standard and ultimately a God who holds us accountable to Him.
©2006 Byron Snapp, Hampton, Virginia |
|
|||||
