Christians Should Watch Their Language
Satan’s chief tactic is the lie.
And the lie is a linguistic matter. We humans are hardwired to think in language, confess in language, and we are guided to truth by language. Jesus is the eternal Word (John 1:1ff). By the Word were all things made (Gen 1:1ff). Preaching involves verbal proclamation. The consecration of the bread and wine, the efficacy of baptism, and the pronouncement of absolution involve specific formulae of words. The Bible is itself the Word of God, and the individual words used in the texts matter.
This is why every dictator in history makes use of propaganda. It is a weapon to change hearts and minds of their victim-subjects through language.
George Orwell, in his classic 1984, takes up this politicization of language, whereby an entire nation’s thoughts are controlled by the control of their words. The denizens of Orwell’s futuristic England (Airstrip One) are constrained in their language to the latest dictionary, entitled Newspeak. By restricting the people’s words, the Party controls the people’s thoughts - and even their confession of what is true, and their grip of truth itself - which the Party contends is malleable.
And so this kind of thing is really just the devil working through the world to promulgate the lie, and to separate us from the Truth - which is incarnate in Jesus Christ our Lord. And this is why language matters.
I’m shocked at how linguistically compliant Christians are. But I suppose I shouldn’t be. Like Orwell’s proles, Christians and non-Christians alike watch the same curated programming on telescreens, whether it is called “news” or “entertainment.” The propaganda is undeniable. Even the commercials are intentional and pointed political propaganda that takes square aim at the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. And the frequency with which the Newspeak Dictionary is changed by our cultural lords and masters would surprise even Orwell.
“BCE/CE”
Although the entire world uses the same dating method for assigning a year number to the calendar: the BC/AD system put in place by a sixth century (AD) Christian monk named Dionysius, in the past few years, it has become fashionable to keep the Christian numbers but to send Jesus and Christianity down the Memory Hole. BC (Before Christ) has become BCE (Before the Common Era). AD (Anno Domini - in the Year of our Lord) has become CE (Common Era). Thus Jesus is literally replaced by the word “common” - which interestingly is opposite of “holy.” The word “vulgar” is synonymous with “common.” You have to give the devil his due.
It should surprise no one that the world should wish to excise even the historical memory of a man named Jesus, whom even unbelievers cannot help but admit, changed the world. But what I find shocking is that Christians would go along with this. A few years back, I wandered into one of our many beautiful Roman Catholic churches in New Orleans to find a bulletin with a brief biography of one of the saints - and it made use of the CE designation. Really? Many years ago, I read the doctoral thesis of one of my professors, whose degree was conferred by a prominent Roman Catholic university. In accordance with the school’s style guide, he was compelled to use BCE/CE in his paper.
I also recently ran across a children’s book published by a highly-respected conservative Lutheran organization that makes use of CE instead of AD. Why would we voluntarily do this to ourselves?
I understand if this is done under compulsion, such as a secular publisher that insists on BCE/CE as a style. I get it if one works in an environment where this is the accepted and mandated practice. But I don’t understand why individual Christians or Christian institutions would voluntarily adopt this Christ-excising methodology.
In his essay, “Live Not By Lies,” the great Soviet dissident and author, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, who spent time in a Gulag camp, takes the tack that we may well be forced to say certain things, but we should not voluntarily lie, or live according to them. We should not internalize the lies that our political and/or cultural masters promulgate. As Solzhenitsyn says:
And therein we find, neglected by us, the simplest, the most accessible key to our liberation: a personal nonparticipation in lies! Even if all is covered by lies, even if all is under their rule, let us resist in the smallest way: Let their rule hold not through me!
And this is the way to break out of the imaginary encirclement of our inertness, the easiest way for us and the most devastating for the lies. For when people renounce lies, lies simply cease to exist. Like parasites, they can only survive when attached to a person.
We are not called upon to step out onto the square and shout out the truth, to say out loud what we think—this is scary, we are not ready. But let us at least refuse to say what we do not think!
This is the way, then, the easiest and most accessible for us given our deep-seated organic cowardice, much easier than (it’s scary even to utter the words) civil disobedience à la Gandhi.
Our way must be: Never knowingly support lies! Having understood where the lies begin (and many see this line differently)—step back from that gangrenous edge! Let us not glue back the flaking scales of the Ideology, not gather back its crumbling bones, nor patch together its decomposing garb, and we will be amazed how swiftly and helplessly the lies will fall away, and that which is destined to be naked will be exposed as such to the world.
So unless he are compelled, we should continue using BC and AD. Perhaps a good practice for us Christians might be to whenever we say a year, to add, in English, “in the year of our Lord…” before the number of the year.
Of course, Christians often justify adopting such changes because they see Christianity as about being “nice” and “hospitable.” It is seen as un-Christian to offend someone. And given that not everyone confesses Jesus, so goes the weak-sauce argument, we should not mention, or even imply the existence of, Jesus, when we converse with those who are offended at Him. Such a viewpoint places a warm reception by unbelievers above a right confession of the Truth.
I think this is wrongheaded, and will lead to further degradations of our public confession.
“The Prophet Muhammed”
Christians who interact with Muslims will sometimes use the Muslim designation of “the Prophet” for Muhammed. And in Muslim countries, this may well be another example of a Solzhenitsynesque survival strategy. But why should Christians voluntarily do this?
Muslims understand the importance of language to their own confession of faith. They typically not only refer to Muhammad as the Prophet, but will often vocalize “peace be upon him” after saying his name (PBUH in writing) - which they often do with Jesus as well. What Muslims don’t do is to refer to our Blessed Lord as “the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity,” as “God Incarnate,” or the “Word Made Flesh,” etc. - not even as a matter of hospitality or niceness to Christians. And in general, Muslims are hospitable people. They come from cultures that highly value hospitality in the way that some regions and subcultures in America do.
When I speak with Muslim friends - and we sometimes talk about our respective faiths - I do not refer to Muhammad as a “prophet,” and nor do they speak of Jesus in the way that we Christians do. Honesty and accuracy are important, as is our confession of Jesus as the Christ. In this sense, we can learn from Muslims. They take their faith seriously. They will not speak a lie - not even out of hospitality. They will use titles of respect for the people they believe to be prophets in a kind of verbal liturgy in the same way that it used to be common for Christians to bow the head at the mention of the name of Jesus - whether in a church service or in public.
And such usage of language is a liturgical practice, not unlike the now-virtually lost customs of crossing oneself when driving past a church, pausing for prayer at the sound of an ambulance, or standing with hat in hand as a funeral procession passes. Even praying before meals is virtually extinct among some Christians - especially when dining in public. We have slowly but surely replaced our own liturgies with those of the world, so as not to stand out.
“Happy Holidays”
The annual fight over “Merry Christmas” vs. “Happy Holidays” is yet another manifestation of the wrangling over language. There are gaslighters who will tell you that the War on Christmas is a myth, even as they support the placement of a Baphomet statue erected by Satanists next to a creche in the state capitol at Christmas, while they simultaneously turn to the courts to try to get depictions of the baby Jesus banned from public spaces.
Under the guise of politeness, Christians are being pressured to stop saying Merry Christmas in public. Even with a diminished Christian piety in the west, we still have a plurality of Christians among those professing a religion, and more enduringly, have centuries of cultural tradition behind Christmas. Indeed, countless unbelievers still put up trees and festive lights to celebrate not some winter solstice or happenstance December 25 Generic Holiday, but Christmas.
There is a similar - though less pitched battle - over Thanksgiving. Many people have come to refer to it as Turkey Day. But it is Thanksgiving. It is not on the Christian church sanctoral calendar, but harvest festivals most certainly have been celebrated by Christians (and indeed by all people who worship any deity) as an opportunity for offering Thanksgiving to God. Our cultural gatekeepers are eager to excise out any reference to the Christian God in the west. Even something as mild as having a holiday of Thanksgiving.
“Female Pastors”
Women’s “ordination” has created problems for those of us who confess the scriptural understanding of male ordination to the pastoral office. How do we address and refer to such women? Obviously, Christians do want to be as kind and polite as possible, especially as men who value chivalry. But at the same time, they want to render a clear confession. While I was a seminarian, we had a rollicking debate in a class about whether or not to refer to an “ordained” woman as “Pastor Smith.”
I suppose that if a person believes that she really is a pastor (but we in the LCMS opt not to ordain women), then it is appropriate for that person to call her Pastor Smith. But if you believe an ordained woman is an ontological impossibility, it would be living - and giving voice to - a lie, to call her a pastor.
We do sometimes have to interact in secular settings with such women. Military chaplains have an easy alternative, since all chaplains may be addressed as “Chaplain” or “Chaplain Smith.” Where it is possible, we should avoid referring to “ordained” women as “pastors” - whether descriptively or by address. I tend to use quotation marks in written form to make this distinction. If you are quoting books or articles, the use of brackets, ellipses, and the abbreviation “sic” can help avoid this construction. It may take some creativity, but it is worth the effort.
“LGBTQ+”
The greatest current cultural and linguistic pressure to control thought by controlling language is the juxtaposition of the political with the sexual. We Christians believe, teach, and confess that God creates mankind exclusively in two sexes: male and female. This is said by the mouth of God through Moses in the Old Testament. This is said by the mouth of God the Son through Matthew in the New Testament. And as Jesus makes clear, while such things as polygamy and divorce were tolerated in the Old Testament, it is not the created order and the divine design of sexuality, which is opposite-sex monogamy for life. Anything that deviates from this path is sinful. The Roman Catholic Catechism - which is being wrangled over by advocates for deviant sexuality - still reflects the biblical understanding of same-sex sexuality, and refers to homosexuality as “intrinsically disordered.”
But homosexuals have worked hard to normalize their sexuality, and even impose it upon the ancient legal, normal, and universal definition of marriage. And this new definition was mandated upon every state, country, city, and village in the United States by a one-vote margin of unelected judges. One man’s will has essentially used an Orwellian redefinition to alter that which stood for millennia, and now we see Christians getting in line in the way they speak. But lest we forget, the words we speak are a confession of what we believe in the heart.
What used to be called sodomy and buggery began to be softened by more clinical and morally neutral words like “homosexuality,” coined in 1868. “Lesbianism” was also a euphemism, invoking the Greek writer Sappho from the island of Lesbos. "Bisexuality” is a constructed word for those who are sexually confused. “Transgender” was coined to describe people with gender dysphoria. The word “queer” has no discernable meaning, but was intended as a kind of catch-all. Thus the acronym of euphemisms, which began as LGBT, became LGBTQ. But the Q was apparently not enough of a catch-all, and the acronym began to grow, and to splinter, much like the ever-changing and expanding elements of the so-called rainbow flag (whose six colors reflect an incomplete rainbow comprised of seven).
Sometimes one sees LGBTQIAA. There are longer variations, including LGBTQQIP2SAA (explained here by a sympathetic Jesuit university), and LGBTIQCAPGNGFNBA. The acronym seems to have settled down to LGBTQ+ - with the plus sign (ironically a cross) indicating the catch-all. Even the substitution of the word “gender” for “sex” is a leap into the chaos, confusing the objective biological term “sex” with the subjective word “gender” (which is really a grammatical, not an anthropological, term). The multiplicity of so-called “genders” and “gender identities” in recent years has found its way into government documents and laws.
This acronym of euphemisms is clearly designed to normalize that which we Christians cannot, and to numb us from the real meaning behind these words and letters. And in using these made-up words, we play along. We should stop playing along.
This also goes for made up words like “cisgender” and the multiplicity of new pronouns (so-called), as well as the practice of stating “one’s pronouns” - as if this were compatible with the Christian faith, not to mention biology. It was the pronoun issue that catapulted Jordan Peterson to fame, when he (not a Christian), resisted a mandate from the University of Toronto to speak lies. Even the use of the plural pronoun “they/them” for an individual as a denial of one’s biology is not just linguistically and grammatically confusing, it is a participation in a lie.
One of these made-up genders includes the f-word. Unless we are willing to push back against the normalization of these words, we may well see the day when little children come home from their Lutheran grade school using the word “genderf***,” which, by that time, will become normalized - not unlike the evolution of the name of a certain restaurant in the movie Idiocracy. What was edgy satire twenty years ago is now typical for even kindergarten and preschool today. We should start saying “no” now rather than waiting for the further future degradation of our language and culture.
I believe it is also a trick to normalize deviant sexuality by referring to “the LGBTQ+ Community.” A community is what you find in a neighborhood: families, neighbors, people of different backgrounds whose connection is in locale and place. The word invokes the wholesome imagery of picket fences and neighbors barbecuing together. The current penchant for referring to all groupings of human beings with some kind of similarity as a “community” is in itself an Orwellian perversion. The same goes for referring to fans of a specific football team or brand of slacks as a “nation.” These definition-stretches are designed to sell something, be it a product or an ideology. For being part of a community and a nation are universal human longings that the unscrupulous will exploit for to some end.
While the LCMS has a reputation of standing firm against this cultural and theological onslaught, there are evidences of weakening. Years ago, in a presentation that is still online, a pastor gave a presentation to one of our districts arguing that we should not refuse the sacrament to “married” same-sex couples. They should not be treated in the same way as cohabitating opposite-sex couples for the reason that the same-sex couples don’t believe that they are sinning. There were other disquieting things in that presentation, but the advice to overlook sin goes well beyond disturbing personal opinions. More recently, a pastor has been taking to the podwaves to promote his “LGBTQ” outreach ministry, likewise encouraging us to recognize things we should not, for example, he refers to his own brother’s “husband.”
Up until recently, LCMS pro-homosexual agitation was generally done underground and was kept “in the closet.” A pastor retired not long ago, and there was a YouTube video of him (which has been since removed) in which he explained that he was stepping down because he had become a pastor, in part, because he wanted to change the LCMS’s doctrine on marriage to include same sex couples. He had performed one such “wedding” himself. He is still on the clergy roster. In another example, a pastor retired, “married” his same-sex paramour, who then adopted two young boys, and posted the “family’s” entertainment at a drag-queen event, the toddlers included. They also went on to be “divorced.” I’m also familiar with a rostered lady professor who was president of a group agitating for women’s ordination, Her husband was a pastor. After retirement from their decades-long careers, they both bolted to the Episcopal Church. Recently, a well-known pastor who served several presidencies, after decades of ministerial service in the LCMS, just resigned for greener pastures in the ELCA. The so-called “gender” issue is not only about the roles of the sexes in marriage, but also in ministerial service. There may well be more cracks in the foundation of the synod than we think. On the other hand, to be more optimistic, maybe these defections of older liberals reflects a resignation that the LCMS is not really going to change, and that younger pastors and laymen are not as sympathetic to the world’s ethics as they had hoped. That said, our eagerness to use worldly vocabulary remains an Achilles heel.
We Christians are confessors, and confessors are those who speak. We need to confess and speak with clarity. We need to make it clear that we don’t believe as the world believes. Beware of euphemisms and neologisms. Beware of the Euphemism Treadmill. Beware of wokeism, what was formerly called “political correctness.” None of these things being euphemized and circumlocuted are new. Only the words used to normalize them are.
Let us Christians speak as Christians: confessing the truth with charity where possible, and with clarity always.