Word Manipulation: ‘Racism’ -4
In short, Word Manipulation is a liberal methodology that:
1.creates new words
2.changes definitions of old words
The objective of Word Manipulation is to create confusion by using certain manufactured words, in a certain context, in order to inspire the masses in a desired direction.
Today, let’s examine the word ‘Racism’.
Dictionary.com defines racism as: “a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.”
Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism) defines racism as: a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.
The common denominator in both these definitions, is that the word ‘racism’ has a uniform application to all racial ethic groups. In other words, the traditional definition of “racism” applies to any person or group who believes one race is superior or inferior to another.
The Bible is even more detailed. First, the Bible does not use the word “race”, except to apply to athletes who run against one another(1Cor9:24). The reason is that God does not separate people by skin color—which is the foundation for the contemporary definition of race. God created man with less or more melanin, which translates into less melanin equals lighter skin; and more melanin equals darker skin. Therefore, the Bible teaches one human race (Acts17:26) —with different individuals or people groups having differing amounts of melanin!
Second, the Bible uses the term “respect of persons” (prŏsōpŏlēpsia), which means partiality or favoritism (Jms2:1,9), under which falls the sins of racism and tribalism. In other words, the Bible uses terms like “tribes”, “tongues”, “people”, and “nations” (Rev14:6) to define groups, but not skin color.
Therefore, because the Bible categorizes “respect of persons” as sin, and racism as part of the “respect of persons”, then the Bible calls racism sin. In other words, the Bible teaches any person or group can commit any sin, i.e.no sin is unique to a person or group; therefore, like the dictionary definition, the Bible declares the sin of racism can apply to any person or group.
Tragically, the Biblical and Dictionary view of racism is totally inimical to the contemporary view of racism, which has been re-defined. I repeat, at one time, the Biblical and Dictionary view of racism was ‘THE’ standard definition in America, but now this view has been re-defined. What then is the liberal re-definition of racism? Let’s review an example. In 2015, NPR interviewed President Barack Obama, who said, “What is also true is that the legacy of slavery, Jim Crow, discrimination in almost every institution of our lives — you know, that casts a long shadow. And that's still part of our DNA that's passed on. We're not cured of it. Racism. We are not cured of it.”
First, if we apply the uniform dictionary definition to the word “racism” in this context, which again, applies to all races uniformly, President Obama’s statements do not make sense!!! For example, he describes racism using the following terms: “legacy of slavery”; “Jim Crow”; “discrimination in almost every institution of our lives”; “that's still part of our DNA”. Here is the million-dollar question: Do these phrases refer to a uniform definition of racism applying to all races equally? Absolutely not! Obama’s usage* of the word ‘racism’ can only be understood one way: White racism!
Here we have an illustration of ‘Word Manipulation: changing the definition of a word’. In other words, the subliminal message conveyed through Obama’s words is: racism is now White racism!
Of course, my critics will immediately decry: “Pastor Jackson you’re being disingenuous because we all know: ‘context determines definition’”. On the contrary, this rebuttal is inapplicable because liberals have declared…for years…that Blacks cannot be racist because racism requires power; and because Blacks have no power—then Blacks cannot be racist! Therefore, liberals believe Blacks cannot be racists…but, if this is true, the old definition of racism no longer exists. Can we now honestly say, the traditional definition of racism--which applies to every person and group equally…includes all groups but Black people?!?!
How about some evidence! The present culture is everywhere…SCREAMING racism!!! Which group is the accused in those screams?!?!? Let’s be honest—White people! I mean, to whom does the term ‘White Privilege’ refer? Tragically, White Privilege has now been shortened to “Whiteness”, and to what group does “Whiteness” refer? The following question is often asked to both Blacks and Whites in the media and entertainment, “Does racism still exist in America?” But the obvious subliminal message in this question is: “Does White racism exist in America?” Remember, Blacks can’t be racist, so the question cannot apply to Black people.
Still…need more evidence? Who is the focus of Critical Race Theory (CRT)? Whom is the target of ‘The 1619 Project’? When America is accused of ‘Systemic Racism’, what part of America is the culprit? Who does the phrase ‘People of Color’ exclude? Who is not included in the acronym BIPOC**?!?! In every case, the answer is obvious…White people!
In conclusion, even though the Biblical and traditional definition of the word “racism” applies equally to all people; meaning that any person or people group, or skin color, can commit the sin of racism--through Word Manipulation, liberals have redefined “racism” to mean “White racism”!!!
FYI – I have coined this evil: ‘Liberal Racism’!
*The word “racism” is used like this daily in America!
**Black and Indigenous People Of Color
Choose to grow in the areas of your strengths, not in the areas of your weakness. –John Maxwell
Word Manipulation: Love -3
Following is an example from Humpty Dumpty and Alice which sheds light on Word Manipulation:
"When I use a word, it means just what I want it to mean —neither more nor less." said Humpty Dumpty. "The question is," Alice asked, “can you make words mean different things?” Humpty Dumpty answered, "The question is, who is to be master—that is all.“ -‘Through the Looking Glass’ by Lewis Carrol
In other words, Humpty Dumpty has authority* to determine word meanings, which literally means: there is no universal definition of words—which obviously allowed Humpty to re-define words any way he desires. Second, the end of his authority is: “to be master”! In other words, Word Manipulation facilitates coercion.
In this tidbit, I offer the word “love” as the example of liberal Word Manipulation. The word ‘love’ is extremely important because human beings have a God-created inherent need for love—to first receive love, then to give love.
For example, God reveals Himself as love(1Jn4:8), Who first loved us, and through that love, permits us to love Him and others(1Jn4:19). In other words, human beings have a need for love in spirit, soul, and body---without which, we perish!
How then does liberalism manipulate “love”? First, at its root, liberalism is a doctrine of the flesh(Jer17:5). The flesh uses feelings, or the 5 senses (see, hear, smell, taste, touch) to determine good and evil. However, because of “sin in the flesh”(Rom8:3), the flesh can NEVER please God (Rom8:7,8; Rom7:14-25)!!! Therefore, the flesh will always call good, evil; and evil, good(Is5:20)!
Second, in practice, the most critical way liberals pervert “love” is through re-definition. For example, the common thinking in Hollywood and the music industry--in various forms--is: “Let me love you!”; or “I want to love you baby!”; or “Let’s make love tonight!” Of course, the re-definition of “love” in these statements is: Love equals sex. On the contrary, while love can include sex, for instance, in the context after a man and woman marry! However, love is not sex!! Nor is love equal to sex!
On the contrary, God is love(1Jn4:8), and He most certainly is not sex. Furthermore, love exists between God and man (Jn3:16), yet no sex exists in that relationship! Love exists between parents and children, yet no sex OUGHT** to exist in that relationship! Love exists between siblings, cousins, uncles, aunts, etc., yet no sex OUGHT** to exist in those relationships!! Love can even exist between a human and a pet, yet no sex OUGHT* to exist in that relationship!!! By far, the vast majority of the time where love exists, NO sex is involved! Sex is—by far—only a minute part of love!
Third, liberals continue re-defining love, inventing another popular phrase: “Love is love”! This phrase is most often used in the context of homosexuality, by which they reason: “Everyone needs love, and all love is equal, therefore, ‘love is love’, and I can love who I want, when I want, and the way I want!” By the statement: “love is love”, gays mean all love is the same.
Simply, all love is NOT the same!!! Because God is love(1Jn4:8), it is critical to go to the Word of God--to find answers on love:
-“…to the beloved Gaius, whom I love in truth” -3Jn1
-“…let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and
in truth.” -1Jn3:18
These two passages teach that ‘love demands truth’! Yet, the scriptures also teach:
-Jesus is truth (Jn14:6)
-The Holy Spirit is truth (1Jn5:6)
-The Word of God is truth (Jn17:17)
-God’s law is truth (Ps119:142)
1.Love is defined only by God, Whom is love’s origin (Jn3:16)
2.Love requires truth, which originates only in God(Jn14:6)
3.Truth gives birth to morality, i.e.right and wrong, which
is required for love to be love
4.The end of love is not sex, but to know God(1Jn4:7)
In conclusion, Paul prayed in Philippians 1:9, 10:
“9.And this I pray, that your love may abound yet more and more
in knowledge and in all judgment;
10.That ye may approve things that are excellent…”
How then do we abound in love? Not through sex, but through acquiring knowledge, and in all judgment(discernment). Discernment requires God’s word, for His Word alone brings light to man (Ps36:9; Jn1:4,9) to determine good and evil, in order to approve that which is excellent in life!
Three departing points, in review:
1.all love is NOT the same!!
2.love is not equal sex!
3.Love requires truth, and therefore morality!!!
*The question is, who gave him this authority?
**I use the word “ought” because love requires the existence of morality!!!
Start with where people are before you try to take them to where you want them to go.