The Power of Words ‘Sticks and stones can break your bones but names can never hurt you’. We say this to our children knowing it to be totally untrue. Bruises quickly fade but the hurts of words can last a lifetime. Words are amongst the most potent tools there are: for building up and tearing down nothing quite equals the power of language.
Words are vitally important to the Christian faith. Creation itself begins with the repetition of words which bring everything into being: ‘God said, “Let there be . . .” and there was.’ God the Son, the One who shows us the reality of God, is introduced as the living Word: ‘In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.’ (John 1:1)
The faith spreads with words. The saying that we should preach the gospel in every way, using words if necessary, is immensely harmful. Our lives should demonstrate the goodness of God as an expression of God’s love, not as bait to attract people to church without the awkward business of speaking about Jesus. Paul is unequivocal: people will never come to Christ without using words. (Romans 10:14)
Weaponised Words Once language changed and developed as the culture changed and developed. Today language is deliberately altered as a means of changing the culture. Control the language people use and you shape the way they think. The use of language is the closest thing we have to mind control.
In an experiment one set of people who knew nothing about rearing pigs were asked what they thought about confining pregnant sows in what the industry described as ‘gestation crates’. The second group were asked for their reaction to ‘individual maternity pens’, which were the same thing. The difference in response was stark. The language shaped the reaction.
The woke think that if we don’t say the offending words then what they represent will vanish.
Words are weaponised as never before, used not so much to describe as to produce a result. This goes much deeper than the manipulation common in advertising. But through advertising we have become so accustomed to being influenced by the choice of words that we rarely notice it elsewhere.
Manipulation The first real front in language manipulation in the culture wars was when homosexuals began to call themselves gay. ‘Homosexual’ is a cold word, a clinical term with disapproving connotations, which nevertheless accurately describes a sexual predilection. ‘Gay’ is a warm, positive jolly word with connotations of harmless happiness and fun.
The same language change occurred with the push for homosexual marriage. ‘Same-sex marriage’ is a legal description of a certain type of union, again a dry clinical term. ‘Equal marriage’ was substituted and then it became a matter of fairness and giving a minority the rights they have been cruelly denied, and no one can be against fairness.
We see the same manipulation with the immigration crisis. Illegal immigrants are people who have entered a country other than by authorised channels: they have done something criminal. But that sounds harsh and condemnatory, so illegal immigrants have been re-branded as ‘undocumented immigrants’, as though they were legitimate newcomers who just happened to have misplaced their passports. Using this reasoning, burglars become ‘freelance removals specialists’, drug dealers ‘unauthorised pharmacists’, and we would have no more boy racers but ‘creative automotive artistes’.
In the language wars even the most basic terms are adjusted or even completely dismissed. The woke flee elementary terms of biology and psychology like vampires fleeing a cross. The use of the words ‘male’ and ‘female’ is thought harmful since they undermine the ‘lived experience’ of transgender people. Before having a medical scan men can be asked if they are pregnant. Some NHS Trusts as well as the Biden administration prefer the term ‘birthing people’ as mother is not inclusive enough, and fathers have become ‘co-parents’. We have the introduction of the phrase ‘sex assigned at birth’. This, despite the fact that all human beings since we first walked the earth have known that biological sex is observed at birth, not ‘assigned’.
These adjustments of language reveal an anti-science mindset. Activist buzzwords which the woke claim are more neutral have replaced accurate scientific descriptions. The observable facts of science, accepted throughout all advanced cultures, are dismissed as being in conflict with the emotion-rich language of the woke totalitarians. The jargon of woke ideology is the preferred option.
The manipulation of language demonstrates a totalitarianism determined to enforce right-think. For most people an ‘inclusive space’ means a space where everyone is welcome. For the woke an inclusive space becomes a space which must exclude some. We cannot make people feel welcome if they hear language which offends them and makes them feel unhappy, therefore those who would use normal speech must be excluded from inclusive spaces.
Magical Mindset Very young children play hide and seek by putting their hands in front of their eyes, thinking that if they can’t see you then you can’t see them. The woke think that if we don’t say the offending words then what they represent will vanish. Yet no matter how many ‘birthing people’ there are, only women will ever give birth to babies.
The woke do not do this just to annoy (although they do annoy). Their language manipulation is the product of a determination to alter reality. Not for nothing are the Harry Potter books the favourite reading of the young wokesters who graduate to become culture warriors. The woke are wizards who by the incantation of their new words can alter reality and remake creation.
This puts Christians at the forefront of their animus, as Christians live in and deal with reality. We are an obstacle to their utopia of niceness where everything is gentle and sweet and anything which might disturb their serenity is banished. We must always refuse to accept their linguistic tyranny. The problems of the world, and more importantly the problems in our own lives, will be met only when we confront reality.
A Grain of Sand 
Yes, linguistic manipulation can end up changing the thinking of millions, but it’s not just in today’s society! I was reading a book written by one of the Puritans (round about the 1660s) really appreciating his theological points – until I came to a bit where it became clear he had begun to see one particular word in the Bible as meaning an entirely different word. He then began using this different word in his explanations to produce an idea that the scriptures he was using in support actually did not support his thesis. He kept substituting the word ‘obedience’ every time the Bible said ‘righteousness’.
It wasn’t long till I became alarmed, for obedience is doing, while God’s righteousness in Christ is a quality of deity. Anyway, large swathes of Christians have been so affected by this mis-use of two biblical words, they don’t see any problem, and perpetuate this idea. I just mention this to flag up for any Christians reading this article the need to be alert to personal application in their own use of biblical words.
LikeLike
A good point. There is little credit in criticising others when we fall into the same error ourselves. I think Jesus had something to say about that
LikeLike
A year or two ago I acquired (second-hand) a British, college-level text book called “Language, Society and Power: An Introduction” edited by Linda Thomas and Shan Wareing (1999). The essays in this book address much of what you speak of here, not in a condemning way, but in the sense of developing awareness of how we use language, how it is used to influence us, and how we use it to influence, in a dozen or more different ways. I found it interesting partly because I’m a word nerd, but partly because it was produced before the domination of wokeism.
LikeLiked by 1 person
When is a woman not a woman?
Dangerous precedents about the definition of what the word ‘woman’ means may be enshrined in Scottish Law. The Court of Session has ruled that the definition of sex was “not limited to biological or birth sex” although an earlier decision under the Equality Act established that the definition of ‘woman’ “excludes biological males”.
Does this mean that a person whose biological or birth sex was male and who later self-identifies as being female will be recognised in law as being a ‘woman’ even though their biological or birth sex precludes them from ever becoming pregnant and giving birth to a child? Isn’t pregnancy and giving birth a major function of being a woman?
An example of linguistic mind control being used by those in power to force the views of the minority onto the majority. I can but hope that reality will prevail at the next election. After all, at least half of all Scottish voters are women.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Aidan O’Neill KC claims that the Scottish government’s stance gave rise “an unworkable minefield, an ambulance chasers’ dream”, and ultimately gave men more rights than women.
LikeLike
The hearing of the appeal in that case is under way this week. Hopefully the outcome of the appeal will sort this particular problem.
LikeLike