Keystone
Academy
A Private Christian School
Specializing in Independent Study
"The fear
of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge."
Truth in Labeling
or
The need for precision in Christian
discourse
"Truth is the most valuable thing we have, so let us economize it." Mark Twain
"Let your Yea be Yea and your Nay be Nay. Anything more comes from evil" Jesus
Although Socrates was unsuccessful in discovering the essential nature of truth (as all such pagan attempts must be), he was correct in emphasizing the need for clear definitions in speech.
As Christians, we are enjoined to "speak the truth in love." This involves a dual responsibility: that of speaking the truth, and doing so en agape. We can not default on either element.
Speaking the truth demands that we use words with precision, i.e., we cannot call that unclean which God has called clean anymore than we can call that good which God has called evil. [1]
We must speak plainly and with an exactness that reflects our recognition that Christ, as the logos of God is the final reference point of all meaning. This ultimacy of Christ holds whether we are speaking to believers or pagans and whether we are discussing theology or politics.
In much contemporary political dialogue, Christians fail to speak with clarity and have, thereby, been both unfaithful and ineffective. I have written elsewhere of the need to take a stand on distinctly Christian/biblical grounds. Here, I am concerned with the need to use language, i.e., words, in clearly defined ways that make the Christian position plain while, at the same time, forcing the pagan to take his stand in manifest opposition to Christ and his rule.
Most recently Christian activists have not been clear in their opposition to homosexual marriage. This is due, at least in part, to the fact that "popular" Christian leaders are not trained or practiced in making or sustaining distinctly biblical arguments. It is also because they do not want to risk alienation from "mainstream" political leaders that might result from the use of biblical terms like "sodomy" rather than "gay."
Christian arguments cannot be sustained if the pagan's vocabulary is accepted as authoritative or if the Christian attempts to argue from "within" the pagan's frame of reference. In both cases, the Christian lends an aura of legitimacy to the opposition while crippling his own position.
The argument over a "right" to homosexual marriage is, in the final analysis, a war of words. The party that makes the most compelling case for its definitions will win.
Christians must frankly acknowledge that the authority (and truthfulness) of their vocabulary is derived from the authority of Christ. The pagan must, at the same time, be challenged to declare the source from which he drives his claims.
Advocates of homosexual marriage must first deny the plain, historic meaning of words, e.g., "rights" and "marriage." It is at this point that Christians, as speakers of truth, must take their stand.
The concept of "rights," has been so abused that Christians must first re-learn the meaning themselves while freely and frankly acknowledging the fact that they have often been complicit in this abuse through their sanction of various "rights" asserted in recent times, e.g., education rights, employment rights, healthcare rights, and (horrors) civil rights.
This restoration of the true meaning of terms will also require that Christians understand and defend a clearly biblical concept of the limited role of civil-government in relationship to personal rights.
As John Kennedy remarked, rights do not come "from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God." He was, of course, merely echoing the Declaration of Independence which declares that "men ... are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights."
Christians must understand "rights" to be, and only be, those natural capacities with which a man has been endowed by God. That is, a man has a right to do only that which he is able, unhindered, to do. So, a man has a right to Life, Liberty, and Property, and those rights which derive from these fundamental rights.
As a correlate of these endowments, a man has the right and responsibility to assert and defend his rights, and no man (or group) may exercise rights in a way that deprives another of the free exercise of rights.
The only biblical and, therefore, legitimate role of civil-government is the protection and defense of men in the lawful exercise of their rights. Civil-government is neither a bestower nor an enabler of rights. A man has a right to work, i.e., to use his labor to his own profit, but he does not have a right to employment, and government has neither the responsibility nor the authority to provide such employment or compel another to provide such against his will.
It is clear from this view of rights and (as will be shown) marriage, that homosexuals have no right to marry, i.e., there can be no right because there is no ability.
Marriage, in both its historical and general signification means nothing else than the joining of two distinct but complementary persons or objects. So, we speak of "marrying" two pieces of electronic equipment (male and female plugs). When joined or fitted together, these different parts, form a unit - something more than the mere addition of two disparate objects.
In human relations, this signifies more than the mere joining of two people (although it does not involve less) as anatomically complementary. It involves the joining of two "types" (male and female) into a new unit - a marriage.
It is thus not only biologically, but relationally impossible for two men (or women) to marry.
This is evident by the fact that one "partner" in a homosexual relationship assumes the masculine role while the other takes the female part (so, when Rosie O' Donnel was "married" during the outbreak of madness that took place in San Francisco last year, she introduced her partner as her "wife" - one is justified in asking if that made Rosie the "husband" or if such unions consist of two wives).
Ultimately, such illegitimate claims to rights, whether in law or in society, are an attack on language, which is an attack on truth, which is an attack on the Creator. Christians cannot and must not permit such assaults to go unchallenged.
1. "Each of these passages has faults of its own, but, quite apart from avoidable ugliness, two qualities are common to all of them. The first is staleness of imagery; the other is lack of precision. The writer either has a meaning and cannot express it, or he inadvertently says something else, or he is almost indifferent as to whether his words mean anything or not. This mixture of vagueness and sheer incompetence is the most marked characteristic of modern English prose, and especially of any kind of political writing. As soon as certain topics are raised, the concrete melts into the abstract and no one seems able to think of turns of speech that are not hackneyed: prose consists less and less of words chosen for the sake of their meaning, and more and more of phrases tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated henhouse." George Orwell, "Politics and the English Language," 1946
Keystone
Academy
P.O. Box 1888
Norwalk , CA
90651
562/862-7134
e-mail keysacad@aol.com website www.keysacad.com