The English language has ruined several good words. Some words used to mean so much more than they do today, and because of the circumstances, some words are now useless. An example from C.S. Lewis (lengthy but it contributes to my point)
“The word gentleman originally meant something recognisable; one who had
a coat of arms and some landed property. When you called someone "a
gentleman" you were not paying him a compliment, but merely stating a fact.
If you said he was not "a gentleman" you were not insulting him, but giving
information. There was no contradiction in saying that John was a liar and a
gentleman; any more than there now is in saying that James is a fool and an
M.A. But then there came people who said-so rightly, charitably,
spiritually, sensitively, so anything but usefully-"Ah, but surely the
important thing about a gentleman is not the coat of arms and the land, but
the behaviour? Surely he is the true gentleman who behaves as a gentleman
should? Surely in that sense Edward is far more truly a gentleman than
John?
“They meant well. To be honourable and courteous and brave is of course
a far better thing than to have a coat of arms. But it is not the same
thing. Worse still, it is not a thing everyone will agree about. To call a
man "a gentleman" in this new, refined sense, becomes, in fact, not a way of
giving information about him, but a way of praising him: to deny that he is
"a gentleman" becomes simply a way of insulting him. When a word ceases to
be a term of description and becomes merely a term of praise, it no longer
tells you facts about the object: it only tells you about the speaker's
attitude to that object. (A "nice" meal only means a meal the speaker
likes.)
“A gentleman, once it has been spiritualised and refined out of its old
coarse, objective sense, means hardly more than a man whom the speaker
likes. As a result, gentleman is now a useless word. We had lots of terms of
approval already, so it was not needed for that use; on the other hand if
anyone (say, in a historical work) wants to use it in its old sense, he
cannot do so without explanations. It has been spoiled for that purpose.”
He does bring about a rather interesting point that after we refine words they lose their true purpose and become in essence unnecessary. Fear, like gentleman has lost all of its true meaning. In the Old Testament the word fear meant to honor or respect. When the Israelites were commanded to fear the Lord it did not mean to be afraid of his wrath, but rather to be in awe and honor his majesty. Where this went awry I am not altogether sure. But I started to contemplate this when I received a flyer from somebody walking down Kuykendahl today (attached below). Give them a quick read.
http://tinypic.com/r/10eigsj/5 (front)
http://tinypic.com/r/ne3jl/5 (back)
This whole flyer got me wondering. I read through the end of it and it seemed to not exactly flow together. The first 3 titled sections are about the beast and signs of his arrival, and then it just kind of jumps away from that. It slightly connects with the age old Fire and Brimstone technique where you scare the crap out of people so that they get saved and don’t get trapped into hell <- obviously my interpretation haha. But the last paragraph offers a prayer that to me seems almost unrelated to the message they have explained previously. It asks to “Help me to love and live for You, to hunger for Your truth, to learn Your Word and to share Your love with others…” This is a good prayer and I certainly do not mean to bash it or take away from it in any way at all. I just came to question why, why it was worded in such a way, and why it connected to the thesis previously stated. The flyer said nothing about what the prayer is asking for. It didn’t even really draw to a close what they we’re promoting. It closed with talking about the “exciting days to come” after you accept Christ. I was a bit perplexed. The purpose, or at least how I saw it conveyed, was to explain the significance of the devil and his plans. I suppose that that is one way to evangelize to people. I mean it makes logical sense that if a bus is headed towards someone you would want to cry out and alert them to their situation. But at the same time if you inspire the wrong kind of fear into a person then are they really capable of experiencing such life change? Possibly, I cannot say no definitely for I am not God, but walk this way with me…
If one accepts God out of fear (rather out of being scared of a danger of some kind) then they most likely do not consciously make the connection to the true purpose behind Christ’s coming. Justification, a big Christian word yes, involves not just turning away from the wrong, but running towards what is right. How can somebody do that if they have not been equipped with that? One who only knows terror from danger is not seeking Christ for his redeeming love but rather his safety from the rains. Christ, in this sense, can be compared to a large house, allowing those who truly love him inside, while those who run to him for the wrong reasons (in this case terror) stand outside under an awning only seeking the protection he offers from something they are scared of.
Some of humanity may be incredibly gifted and knowledgeable, able to discern the heart of this matter for themselves, but what this man gave me offered no solution. Yes Christ is the solution to our problem. But our problem is not the Beast, nor the antichrist. Our problem is the sin we were born into under Adam. And the only way to treat that corruption is to go straight to the heart and work from there. An exterior fear of condemnation and death that Satan might give us cannot simply be suppressed by finding a place to hide from his storm; it must be treating from the source of any such fear. If a doctor begins to treat a symptom and not the actual problem, as in treating the pain for a cancer patient, it is usually a sign that no more help can be done. If the problems are not attacked directly from the root they will continue to grow, as though a weeds in our lives. A house divided cannot stand. If we allow these weeds to remain undeterred in our lives we will not be able to see the light that shines so clearly for us. Dealing with fear does not guarantee one is saved, but the recognition of who God is should lead to fear. Contrary to what we have thought yes, but isn’t our culture steadily regressing? God doesn’t regress and he will never change.
All this to bring me back to my first argument, that we have mutilated the definition of fear. Proverbs 1:7 says that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge. First and foremost the fear of God is crucial to our lives. Simply being in awe of his might is what He asks us for, and subconsciously we may comply most of the time, but just for a minute try and contemplate what the fear of God looks like in your life. Fear is not being afraid of what God could do to you if you don’t measure up. That fear is a denial of all that Christ has accomplished in his death and resurrection from the dead. Eternal life is ours; we should not have that fear anymore. We should fear the Lord, for he is just, and he alone is good. Fear is a good thing. Next time you are prone to fearing anything other than God himself, cast it aside and give it to God. Will that be easy, of course not. I know that following the Lord is hard, its comes with the territory. But do remember that the fear of the Lord will give you strength. He asks us in Joshua to be strong and courageous for his name. So let us do that. Let us battle fear of danger with the Fear of the God Most High!
-matt
No comments:
Post a Comment