Redefining Words

Much is being written these days about the phrase Whoever Controls the Language Controls the Culture. There seems to be a lot of concern in Evangelical circles that Christianity is being pushed out of its place at the center of culture by some sinister new religion that is out to destroy our society by redefining words.

One such writer is Scott Allen who I discovered while doing research about the phrase “He who controls language controls the culture”. Other Christian writers have also written about this topic. I will address them in other blogs. But first, Let’s see what Allen has to say. Allen’s writings are in bold.

First, a short introduction to Scott Allen from Wikipedia

On November 4, 2014, Allen was elected to the Wisconsin State Assembly. He serves in Senate District 33, Assembly District 97. In 2015, Allen recorded a “Christmas message” for the Wisconsin Assembly Republicans’ YouTube channel. In that video, he proselytizes, “For those who may watch this who are not Christians, I invite you to consider the hope offered by the Prince of Peace,” and he quotes the Bible: “We are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who believe and are saved”.

Satan is redefining words.

Allen: In part 1 I argued that a new religion has taken root in the West, and it advances by redefining words — vacating them of their true meaning and hijacking them to serve new purposes. This is a powerful tactic. We can already begin to see how the redefinition of a single word—marriage—is leading to massive social and cultural repercussions. But we are not talking about a single word. We are talking about an entirely new dictionary.

I guess we can see where this is going. Allen says that the true meaning of words has been hijacked and changed over time. I have serious doubts that this claim is true. To illustrate that he might be in error I have used three different dictionary sources from three different eras. By comparing the actual definitions from different eras we can see if words really have been stripped of their original meaning over time. Plus, I’m not sure what Allen is referring to when he says, “true meaning” of words.

Defining Marriage

Let’s look at the word “marriage”, since Allen brought it up first. Older dictionaries do say that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. However, online dictionaries simply say that “marriage is the relationship that exists between two people who are united as spouses”.

From where I stand, this might simply be a case where language is changing to be more inclusive. Not sure why being more inclusive is seen as controlling culture or why it’s so threatening. In addition, I’m wondering how it would “lead to massive social and cultural repercussions” as Allen claims. Also, who gets to say “what” the true meaning of a word is? Does Allen have the dictionary that has the “true” meaning of all words? He believes he does, as we shall see in part two.

Also, Allen doesn’t say what old dictionary he’s quoting, but later in his article he says that Noah Webster’s 1828 edition is a “dictionary built “from the Bible up”. So, I’ll reference that one first.

Defining Love

Allen: We could look, for example, at the word “love.” In the old dictionary, love meant to seek the greatest good of another person, even an enemy, and to take action accordingly, regardless of one’s feelings. In the new dictionary, love is nothing more than strong feelings or emotions.

Allen’s take on the meaning of love is humorous. In the old (Christian) dictionary love meant to seek the greatest good of another person, even an enemy, and to take action accordingly, regardless of one’s feelings. How virtuous! How Noble! One can almost hear the trumpets playing… DUM, DA, DA DAAAAA. But in the new (Humanistic) dictionary love is nothing more than strong feelings or emotions. How unprincipled. How ordinary. In contrast you can almost hear the last bit of air being squeezed out of bagpipe as those words are read. It seems that Allen might be taking some liberties of his own while summarizing how older and newer dictionaries define certain words. But back to the meaning of love.

Noah Webster’s definition of love is pretty wordy (453 words). If you feel the need, you can follow the link and read it for yourself, but I’ll just summarize it for you. It gives examples of things we could love. For example, I love my wife and I love my morning cup of coffee because they give me pleasure. It also says that Christians love their bible and that we should love God above all things. (Now would that be an objective or subjective definition of love?)

However, what you won’t see in Webster’s definition of love is what Allen says it contains, “to seek the greatest good of another person, even an enemy, and to take action accordingly, regardless of one’s feelings.” I’ll let you decide for yourself.

Dictionary Comparison of Love

• (Noah Webster’s 1828) verb transitive luv. 1. In a general sense to be pleased with; to regard with affection, on account of some qualities which excite pleasing sensations or desire of gratification. We love a friend, on account of some qualities which give us pleasure in his society. We love a warm room in winter. The christian (sic) loves his Bible. In short, we love whatever gives us pleasure and delight, and if our hearts are right, we love God above all things. 1. noun An affection of the mind excited by beauty and worth of any kind, or by the qualities of an object which communicate pleasure, sensual or intellectual. It is opposed to hatred. We speak of the love of whatever contributes to our pleasure or supposed profit. The love of God is the first duty of man.
• (Random House 1987 hard cover) 1) profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person 2) a feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection 3) sexual passion or desire 4) a person toward whom love is felt
• Merriam-Webster Online:  1) strong affection for another arising out of kinship or personal ties 2) attraction based on sexual desire: affection and tenderness felt by lovers 3) affection based on admiration, benevolence, or common interests 4) warm attachment, enthusiasm, or devotion.

Defining Freedom

Allen: In the old dictionary, “freedom” was defined as the ability to choose the good, right and true.  In the new dictionary, freedom is defined as the ability to do anything I want, so long as it doesn’t harm anyone.

Hmmm, once again we’re seeing a bit of dishonesty from Allen as he takes more liberties with the language of definitions. Not even Noah Webster mentions “the good, the right and true”. I’ll let you read and decide for yourself.

But before we move on, we really must address Allen’s new age definition of freedom. In the new dictionary, freedom is defined as the ability to do anything I want, so long as it doesn’t harm anyone. Let’s see, what might he mean by that? Does a person have the freedom to love whomever they want, as long it doesn’t harm anyone else? I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that Allen would probably not approve of that kind of love.

Dictionary Comparison of Freedom

• (Noah Webster’s 1828) 1. A state of exemption from the power or control of another; liberty; exemption from slavery, servitude or confinement. freedom is personal, civil, political, and religious. 2. Exemption from fate, necessity, or any constraint in consequence of predetermination or otherwise; as the freedom of the will. 3. Any exemption from constraint or control.
• (Random House 1987 hard cover) 1) the state of being free rather than in confinement or under physical restraint. 2) exemption from external control. 3) the power to determine action without restraint, 4) personal liberty as opposed to bondage or slavery.
• Merriam-Webster Online:  1) the quality or state of being free: such as 1a) the power to do what you want to do: the ability to move or act freely, 1b) the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action 2) liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another, 3) the quality or state of being exempt or released usually from something unpleasant, painful, or unwanted

Defining Justice

Allen: In the old dictionary, “justice” was defined as equal treatment regardless of race, sex or religion. In the new dictionary, justice is equal outcome, regardless of personal action or behavior. 

Does anyone else see the problem here? Noah Webster’s 1828 definition of “justice” never mentions “equal treatment regardless of race, sex or religion”. Think about it. But we’ll come back to that in the next part.

Notice Allen’s new definition of justice. Justice is equal outcome, regardless of personal action or behavior.  This is a below the belt shot at the less fortunate. The subtle implication is that the poor want to be given everything, and don’t want to work hard for it like he did. Expressing disapproval of those slackers is something that would resonate with his readers. But that’s not the point. The issue at hand is how dictionaries actually define justice. You will not see “justice is equal outcome, regardless of personal action or behavior” in any of the following definitions?

Dictionary Comparison of Justice

• (Noah Webster 1828) 1. The virtue which consists in giving to every one (sic) what is his due; Distributive justice belongs to magistrates or rulers, and consists in distributing to every man that right or equity, deciding controversies according to the laws and to principles of equity. Commutative justice consists in fair dealing in trade and mutual intercourse between man and man. 2. Impartiality; equal distribution of right in expressing opinions; it is a duty to do justice to every man, whether friend or foe.
• (Random House 1987 hard cover) 1) The quality of being just, righteousness, equitableness or moral righteousness. 2) rightfulness or lawfulness 3) the moral principle determining just conduct 4) the administering of deserved punishment or reward
• (Merriam-Webster Online) 1) the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishment 2) the quality of being just, impartial, or fair 3): conformity to truth, fact, or reason

Oh, we got trouble…

Just like Harold Hill in The Music Man, Allen is creating a trouble where none actually exists. It seems a bit silly to say that we are in grave danger not because of the hatred or the lies or the corruption that permeates our culture. We’re in grave danger because the “true” meaning of words are being changed. From where I stand it seems that Christians really love this kind of melodrama So much so, that it’s been around for centuries. An evil enemy is changing our language to destroy us? Really? It’s clearly not happening. But don’t take my word for it and don’t take Allen’s.

Pick up an old dictionary (if you can find one) and look for yourself.

Music Man: “I need some ideas if I’m gonna get Christians out of the serious trouble they’re in.”

Man: “Christians ain’t in any trouble.”

Music Man: “We’re going to have to create some. We must create a desperate need in Christians…”

Oh, you got trouble… with a capital T that rhymes with V and stands for Vocabulary.

Coming next: A Five Headed Beast

In part two, we’ll see that the sinister villain that is out to destroy our society by changing the true meaning of words, is a five headed beast.

 

 

From Where I Stand

Dale Crum

mt.toll@comcast.net