First of all, let me apologize for the drought of posts recently. After a year off, I returned to seminary three weeks ago. I am working full-time and taking six hours of credit, so I am a little busier than I was a month ago. I will endeavor to post more frequently (it is a good escape from my academic rigors), but it will likely be less than before. And now, on to the post...
I have always disliked the abuse of the idea that the difference between two words is "mere semantics". Certainly, there are times where any number of synonyms will do the job quite nicely (i.e. there is overlap in their semantic maps). Also, in casual conversation, trivial emails, etc, there is no need to be precise all the time. On the contrary, there are times that every "jot and tittle" plays an important role and must be precise. (And I would add, in any type of writing where one wants to be taken seriously, one should strive for precision.) For example, take the following sentences:
God causes sin.
God allows sin.
God orders sin.
This debate came up in a discussion in one of my classes. One participant indicated that he felt that causing and allowing were basically the same thing in this context--using one or the other for theological reasons was "mere semantics". This, I feel, is not the case. The sentence, "God causes sin," implies that God is the originator of sin. "God allows sin," implies that God does not originate it, but at the same time He does not stop it from happening. The third sentence, "God orders sin," implies that God does not originate it, but He allows it so that it might accomplish His purposes. Each of these three sentences, then, carries with it different theologies proper and hamartiologies, and a simple dismissal on the grounds of "mere semantics" is not acceptable. To quote a famous radio talk-show host, "Words mean things."
This is not meant to belittle anyone who isn't anal-retentive about English like I am. I understand that not all people have a "bad grammar" sensor that plagues them every day, and that's okay. What this post is meant for is to dispel the notion that because you have formed a certain opinion about something, any slight change in wording of the proposition is "mere semantics" and can safely be ignored. This is most definitely true with respect to the Bible. If you don't believe me, pick up an academic commentary sometime. In an inspired book, one must allow for the possibility that one word may indeed make or break a certain theology. A famous example is John 1:1. Most of us read it, "The Word was God," but Jehovah's Witnesses will tell you it says, "The Word was a God." This is a drastic difference--all because of a one-letter word! (By the way, the former translation is preferable because of the rules of Greek grammar.)
Semantics is an often abused word. It is in the same position as the word "academic", which in the vernacular of our day often means "insignificant". I would urge you to help the little guy out--pay attention to him once in a while. Do a word study. Take the time to think critically about a proposition (or even a preposition). It may not be "mere semantics" after all.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Jon;
Excellent article! I agree with all of your points (and will endeavor to enhance my writing abilities accordingly). Communicating in modern “popular culture” is almost like “swimming in post-modernism”. General communication is so “fluid” that often there is no real communication; this differs (typically) from professions where exacting language is required such as in medicine or engineering.
As has been said “words are power” and if you throw the wrong switch it changes everything.
let me ask you a question as an off shoot of your post. has God's impact on man been exclusive to or aimed at sin? or better yet has God delivered man from his inner being?
Pat,
I'm not sure what you are asking. Can you clarify?
i don't know how else to word it jon.. how about this... has God's work for man been limited to following and conforming to a moral code, or has his effort been toward the human being?
I would say that the Fall was a moral event that had all-encompassing effects. Therefore, through Christ men and women are redeemed morally, but at the same time the effects of redemption are all-encompassing.
God doesn't want us simply to follow a moral code; that just makes us religious. He wants to restore us to a relationship with Himself, and in that context we "become what we were made to be," as it were.
I completely agree with Jon, the Bible is not about rules or religion it is about relationship. Our relationship or lack thereof with God, and our relationships with one another, the vertical relationship and the horizontal relationships (hmmm I think I’ll use that in an article).
Rules and religion are HUGE arrows pointing us towards Jesus, grace, faith, and the life transforming relationship available to all of us.
Post a Comment