Welcome to Conquest of Grace! If you would like to know more about who I am and where I am coming from, I highly recommend checking out my about page.
Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air. (1 Corinthians 14:9 NIV)
Do not underestimate the importance of precise language or the danger that lies in misleading wording. Failing to understand the necessity of accurate definitions and rigorously developed concepts makes one significantly more susceptible to exploitation and deception. There is peril in the perceived mundanity of definitions. People ignore how much wording can be weaponized against them because they think it is just a question for dry academic debates found only in dusty old tomes. Precision of language is a crucial shield against false narratives and deceitful manipulation.
That language can deceive is not new to anyone. We all know that people lie. Either in overt fashion, saying things that are blatantly false (and that they know are false), or more subtly, like telling white lies that leave out important information. Here I want to deal with a more specific issue. Leaving aside deliberate attempts at obfuscation or misdirection through loaded language, purposeful omission, or euphemisms. Instead, focusing on the less understood issue of definition.
Let’s take two words as an example of this problem. The first is gender. If I were to ask you how many genders there are, what would you say? Conservatives (the second word we will cover) might give a somewhat contrarian and counter-culture answer and say, “There are only two genders!” Saying it in emphatic fashion, too. Just look at the scandal that erupted when a seventh-grade student was told to remove and replace a shirt that said “There are only two genders”. Those we commonly call “Social Justice advocates” might claim that there are many different genders. Far more than two, at least.
What is the right answer? Well, despite what “conservatives” might think, there are actually more than two genders. However, not in the way that their opponents think. The problem here is actually more fundamental. We have to back up a step and realize something. Gender is a grammatical construct. It is not a biological concept. There are three genders: masculine, feminine, and neuter. The truth is that words have gender, not people! Gender refers to a grammatical classification of words that roughly, and often very loosely (if at all), corresponds to the two sexes. Saying that there are only two genders is a trap. The trap is failing to recognize what has happened to the word gender itself.
Let’s look at how this works. In English, we don’t tend to run into this very often (unlike, say, Spanish or German). One reason why people tend to overlook it is that most words in English are neuter, other than some obvious ones. For example waiter and husband have the masculine gender, whereas waitress and wife have the feminine gender. A word like child has the neuter gender. This is what it means to say that words have gender, not people. It is the word “wife” that has the feminine gender. A woman who is a wife has the biological sex of female. Note the important distinction between the word we use and the thing itself.
It is only recently that people have used the word gender in a way that contradicts its original meaning. Previously, gender referred to other words, as its proper usage is grammatical, not biological, or it served as a synonym for biological sex (i.e. male or female). To see this, you just have to look at older dictionaries such as the 1919 Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English or the 1828 Webster’s Dictionary.
It wasn’t until John Money twisted the usage of gender and used it to refer to some trait people had outside of and separate from biological sex that it came to be used in such a disingenuous and ignorant way. The history of the word gender and how John Money twisted it can be found in Terry Goldie’s book The Man Who Invented Gender. In short, John Money needs to be understood as a fraud whose theories are deeply flawed, outright harmful, and the precursor of the nonsensical gender ideology we have today. He was the one who started the distorted and misleading usage of gender. Gender was taken and distorted to refer to a nebulous “gender identity”. Supposedly this new “gender” was something that people had on top of and separate from their biological sex. This false distinction and redefinition of gender is the origin of gender ideology.
This matters because the right approach to such a perversion of language is to reject that language completely. Whenever conservatives keep using the word “gender” in this new way, they are unknowingly playing into the hands of the people who are pushing harmful gender ideology on others. The definition of the word matters because a key tactic of deception used by opponents of Christianity is to redefine words so that they have the framing of their anti-Christian belief system. By using this new definition you are implicitly giving credence to the false narrative that underlies the new definition.
Whenever people claim to have a gender, we need to recognize that the issue is the corrupted definition of the word gender. A corruption that comes from a false view of human nature. People don’t have a gender; they have a biological sex. There are, of course, only two biological sexes: male and female. But there are actually three genders. That is because words and grammatical constructs need not match biological reality. For proof of this take the Spanish word for cat, el gato (the cat). In Spanish, gato has the masculine gender. In German the word for cat is die Katze (the cat). As opposed to Spanish the word for cat in German has the feminine gender. It doesn’t matter whether the cat is itself male or female. Opposite genders for the same word across two languages, regardless of the biological sex of the cat in question. That is because gender, being a grammatical construct, does not at all need to match the biological reality of the object it describes.
If we mean biological sex (male and female) whenever we say gender, then it needs to be understood that people cannot have both a sex and a gender. Imagine saying “somebody ate the entire cake and also the whole cake.” You just said the same exact thing twice but phrased it as if they were two separate things. Either the words gender and sex mean exactly the same thing, and therefore cannot be treated as separate, or gender must refer to a grammatical construct, and is therefore not something people can have. If it implies something other than one these two things it is based on something that isn’t real. By using the language of gender ideology we are giving it credence, no matter what we say otherwise.
The next example here is what I have already mentioned. The term conservative. What exactly is a conservative? The way most understand it, conservative refers to those on the “right” side of the political spectrum. However, if we consider it a belief system, this label becomes rather meaningless.
What exactly do “conservatives” conserve? We like to think conservatives are more “traditional” but this doesn’t actually make much sense. What traditions are we talking about? Many might say “conservatives” support traditional marriage. Except, what about gay conservatives? There is an organization called the Log Cabin Republicans consisting of self described LGBT members who support the supposedly “conservative” Republican party. Depending on the study around 50% or more of so-called conservatives actually support gay marriage.
What about small government? This might be true, except for the neoconservative expansion of welfare programs and foreign intervention. President George W. Bush in his 2001-2009 terms in office oversaw one of the largest expansions of government in American history. He was the president who signed the USA Patriot Act and helped establish the Department of Homeland Security.
The truth is that conservative is a largely meaningless label, except for when it refers to membership in the Republican party. This might conflict with what many people think. Including those who identify as conservative. Even I fell into this trap earlier in my life. Thinking there was such a thing as “RINOs” (Republicans in Name Only) or that “true conservatives” should believe in some particular view towards government or tradition.
The problem is that conservative (or conservatism) has no meaningful definition apart from membership in a political alliance. It does not refer to a principled belief system. It refers to a politically aligned group that contains several contradictory beliefs. The only unifying factor is the opposition to the “leftist” or “liberal” political alliance. We cannot keep using this term if we intend to portray a coherent belief system. Because “conservatives” don’t conserve anything, don’t believe in anything in particular, and only have a set of associated beliefs because those beliefs just so happen to reflect the majority of people in the conservative movement at a specific time. Why do you think conservative means something different whenever we talk about different time frames separated by generational gaps?
These are only two words that showcase the problem we have with the lack of definitional precision. There are many, many other terms that suffer from this problem and poison discourse. Because the ambiguity and shifting nature of these words creates a space for serious confusion, if not outright deception. We can say the same thing about terms like woke, social justice, racism, non-believer, and many more. Future articles will address some of the most egregious examples. Because they are so important to understand.
If we continue to use casual language for serious arguments or wording that is based on prevarication and ignorance, we will continue to set ourselves up for failure. Do not think that this is just a pedantic exercise in hairsplitting. Christians who do not arm themselves properly in the war of ideas can expect defeat at every turn. We need wordsmiths who critically evaluate the language we use, the language our opponents use, and who help arm other Christians with the right understanding. This will help us recognize and then defeat the sophistry and deception of the false religions of our age.
For that reason I am have a series of articles covering important terms whose definition matters when it comes to the “culture wars” or worldview discussions. As more get added I will add to them here.
Distrephism
The very first one to cover is a neologism. That is because of the serious failures of the terms used to describe the “woke” or “Social Justice” religion. We need a new framework to describe this religion and “Distrephism” is the term I have coined to label it. Avoiding the issues that come from the pejorative or misleading terms typically used.
Religion
The next word is religion itself. Few realize just how many problems exist with this term and how misused it is. So many legal issues we have stem from the word “religion” alone. I have a unique theory of religion and definition that requires explaining and the basis for it can be found in this article here.
Worldview
Worldview is used somewhat more accurately by people but there is nuance that is important to understand. Especially in the fact that it needs to be understood relative to religion.
Conservative/Right
I expand on the issue of what conservatism is in this article. Especially since there is more complexity to this issue and more things to cover to explain what exactly is going on.
Liberal/Left/Progressive
The counterpart to “conservative” also requires further explanation. Though the term is accurately viewed as a counterpart there are important distinctions to be made. Especially because of the fact that most confuse Distrephism for “leftism”. There is also the fact that both progressive and liberal have other uses that do not match the people often labeled that today.
The sensible person’s wisdom is to consider his way, but the stupidity of fools deceives them. (Proverbs 14:8)