Have you noticed that contemporary America fights a lot about words? If you’re a teacher, you could get fired for using female pronouns to refer to a male student identifying as female. You’re addressing the same student either way; the problem is using the wrong word to address that student. If you’re in academia, you might publish lists of politically incorrect words, together with lodes of sanitized synonyms to be used instead, e.g. “denylist” instead of the “racial” “blacklist.” You’re communicating the same concept either way; the problem is using the wrong word to communicate that concept.

Why is the Left bound and determined to force us to use their vocabulary? Aren’t we all talking about the same things, whether we say “transgenderism” or “gender dysphoria,” “homosexual union” or “homosexual marriage,” “happy holidays” or “merry Christmas?” Let’s take a brief overview of the biblical theology of language, shall we? I think we’ll uncover the very important answer.

Throughout history, words have always been central to God’s interactions with humans. God spoke creation into existence with words (Genesis 1:3). God communicated His commands to man with words (Genesis 2:16–17). Because humans wanted to build a tower to glorify themselves,, God divided the human race into nations by dividing their languages (Genesis 11:6-9). God communicated His covenant and law through words (Exodus 20:1–17). God rebuked His people through the words of the prophets (Hosea 6:4–5). Then, in the fullness of time, the Word became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14). And His word is powerful, effective, and sharper than a double-edged sword (Hebrews 4:12). And we know all this because God chose to communicate His truths to us through 31,102 verses of Scripture—all enshrined in words.

As creatures created in the image of God, God allowed us to share in His ability to communicate using words. Our capacity for language allows us to communicate with God and with each other, and is therefore one of the most fundamental prerequisites for one of the most fundamental human callings: relationship with God and each other (Genesis 3:8). Our ability to speak is also a necessary tool for fulfilling basic parts of the Christian life, such as singing praises to God (Psalm 150:1–6), preaching the Word (2 Timothy 4:1–2), or sharing the gospel (Mark 16:15). And our capability to use words is a powerful tool for shaping the lives of others, whether it be fathers teaching their children as they walk along the road (Deuteronomy 6:6–7), or preachers impacting the lives of the unsaved (Acts 2:37).

The ability to marshal the world-changing forces of language elevates us above the animals but also imposes on us a level of responsibility that animals do not have: the obligation to align our words with truth. (We don’t prosecute dogs for perjury.) The same God who gave us the ability to speak gave us instruction on how to speak. Our words must accurately describe reality (Leviticus 19:11). Our words must build each other up (1 Thessalonians 5:11). As a matter of fact, we must be slow to even use words in the first place (James 1:19).

But all these restrictions on language don’t demean its importance; they emphasize it. Since the tongue is so dangerous (James 3:6), we are ever more obligated to use it to honor the Lord (James 3:9–12). And Christians throughout the centuries have used the gift of language to fill the world with God’s truth as they translate His word into languages around the world, teach and encourage each other, and fight heresies and tyrannies. Wherever Christian language goes, lives are changed. Which is why the enemy hates it, and that is why he has declared war on words.

Words—those pesky things that we are commanded to use truthfully—are implicit truth claims, and the choice between one word and another, even to refer to the same person or thing, is often the difference between a truth and a lie. When we refer to someone as “she,” we make the implicit statement, “that person is female.” If that person is in reality male, then we have just lied, and we are acquiescing to those who are endeavoring to shape the world in accordance with lies. If we refer to homosexual unions as “homosexual marriages,” we are making a claim about marriage: it is a term that can appropriately be used to refer to other types of unions besides the one-man-one-woman-for-life union as which God defines it. We shouldn’t be calling marriage something that God doesn’t.

As G.K. Chesterton once observed,

“If you’re not going to argue about words, what are you going to argue about? Are you going to convey your meaning to me by moving your ears? The Church and the heresies always used to fight about words, because they are the only thing worth fighting about.”

The Left is now fighting every day for our lexicon. If only we, the people of the Word, would fight equally hard for it. Be bold: say “merry Christmas,” use biologically correct pronouns, and label gender and sexual confusion as the frauds they are. It is worth losing your popularity or even your job, because what our words bow to is what we bow to. This is why the martyrs refused to deny Christ or to stop preaching His gospel—doing so would be submitting their words to the intimidation of evil. As Peter and John said to the Pharisees who commanded them not to speak in the name of Jesus (Acts 4:19, NIV), “Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God’s sight to obey you rather than God.”

As of early January 2023, Danco Laboratories, the U.S. manufacturer of the abortion pill, announced that the FDA has made changes to its guidelines surrounding the abortion pill. These changes allow pharmacies, from large chains like CVS or Walgreens to small, locally owned businesses, to dispense the pill to anyone with a prescription.

Many women choose the abortion pill (also known as a chemical abortion) because they assume it’s safer and more natural. However, complications occur during chemical abortion four times more frequently than during surgical abortion. According to Dr. Christina Francis, “approximately one in five women will experience a significant complication,” which often must be treated by emergency surgery.

The abortion pill is actually a two-pill regimen made up of different drugs:  Mifepristone, also known as Mifeprex or RU-486, and Misoprostol. When a woman chooses to abort her pre-born baby through a chemical abortion, she first takes Mifeprex. This blocks progesterone, starving the pre-born baby of the nutrients needed to continue developing. One to two days later, she takes Misoprostol, which causes her to deliver her now-dead baby. This part frequently happens in the woman’s own home, so she is responsible for disposing of her pre-born baby’s body, often by flushing it down a toilet.

Unsurprisingly, this causes significant trauma for the woman involved in an abortion. Aside from the moral harm it does to her conscience, seeing her dead child covered in blood and floating in the toilet, often awakens her to the reality of what just happened, causing insurmountable emotional problems she will struggle with for years.

But the emotional trauma resulting from the use of the abortion pill isn’t why it was under guidelines that prevented it from being sold in retail pharmacies. Mifeprex, the first drug in the regimen, is dangerous enough that the FDA gave it REMS status. REMS stands for Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, which is described by the FDA as, “a drug safety program that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) can require for certain medications with serious safety concerns to help ensure the benefits of the medication outweigh its risks. REMS are designed to reinforce medication use behaviors and actions that support the safe use of that medication… REMS focus on preventing, monitoring and/or managing a specific serious risk by informing, educating and/or reinforcing actions to reduce the frequency and/or severity of the event.”

Mifeprex is often dangerous. A few of the possible side effects include:

• Death (a tragic example is this 19-year-old who died after taking the abortion pill)
• Flu or fever-like symptoms
• Hemorrhage
• The need for surgical completion afterwards (the baby didn’t die, or the remains and/or placenta are retained, resulting in a need for surgery)
• Pain in the chest, lower back, side, arms, jaw, or neck
• Infection and possible sepsis
• Prolonged bleeding, from several hours to as long as 30 days

Under the previous REMS guidelines for Mifeprex, women could only receive the pill in person at approved clinics or hospitals that could provide certain medical and safety procedures. But as of January 3rd, 2023, the guidelines have been amended by the FDA so that retail pharmacies who “become certified in the Mifepristone REMS Program” can dispense this highly dangerous pill to anyone with a prescription.

Women in hopeless situations, who believe the lie that the abortion pill is a safe and effective way to deal with a difficult circumstance, are unwittingly walking into a deadly situation. These women desperately need Jesus. This world desperately needs Jesus. The culture of death is so insatiable in its thirst for blood that it’s willing to bypass any concern for human life, and any idea of the sacredness of human life, solely to make death easier, more accessible, and more desirable.

Read more:

Four Doctors Groups Tell Federal Court to Pull Abortion Pill From Market, It’s Dangerous for Women (LifeNews.com)

Illinois’s recent assault weapons ban has provoked more than a little consternation across the state—as it should. The ban, signed into law by Governor JB Pritzker on January 10th of this year, immediately banned the sale of “assault weapons” and magazines with a capacity greater than ten rounds. The ban also requires current firearm owners to register their now-illegal weapons with the Illinois State Police. There’s only one problem for Pritzker: The vast majority of Sheriffs in are not on board.

So far, 90 out of 102 Illinois counties’ sheriffs have stated that they will not be enforcing the ban and will not require residents to register their weapons and magazines. It’s certainly gratifying to see that Illinois might just have some Constitutional spirit left, but as Christians, we ought to consider the legitimacy of such resistance. May sheriffs (and citizens) disobey Pritzker’s assault weapons ban? The relevant passage of Scripture here is, of course, Romans 13:

Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil.  (Rom. 13:1-3)

The Apostle Paul’s reasoning is clear: the ruling authorities are divinely appointed by God; therefore, to resist the ruling authorities is to resist God.

It appears that Illinois sheriffs who are defying the assault weapons ban are disobeying Scripture, does it not? Not so fast. Who is really resisting the higher powers here, the sheriffs or J.B. Pritzker? The highest law of the land—the United States Constitution—states that the people’s right to keep and bear arms may not be infringed. Governor Pritzker, by signing the assault weapons ban into law, is himself in high-handed disobedience against the Constitution. In other words, Pritzker is the one who’s actually disobeying Paul’s injunction in Romans 13. Those sheriffs defying the governor’s mandate are, in fact, upholding the law; the sheriffs are the ones truly acting in subjection to the higher powers.

What about citizens, then? Must owners of “assault weapons” and “high-capacity magazines” register their banned firearms anyway? The same logic applies: obey the Constitution. There is, however, an additional assurance—citizens are obeying their sheriffs. Local authorities who rightly defy Pritzker’s unlawful bill give the residents of their county an avenue to submit themselves to the higher powers (the sheriffs) so they don’t have to comply with unlawful injunctions from the state government. In other words, rejection of Pritzker’s unlawful legislation does not result in anarchy—citizens may (and should) still in good conscience obey their local authorities.

Historically, this was known as the doctrine of the lesser magistrate. When a ruler overreaches his divinely-appointed sphere of authority, lesser magistrates (like sheriffs and mayors) may interpose themselves between the citizen and the ruler, both protecting the citizens and giving them a lawful authority who may be obeyed. John Calvin puts it thus:

[P]opular magistrates have been appointed to curb the tyranny of kings . . . So far am I from forbidding these officially to check the undue license of kings, that if they connive at kings when they tyrannize and insult over the humbler of the people, I affirm that their dissimulation is not free from nefarious perfidy, because they fraudulently betray the liberty of the people, while knowing that, by the ordinance of God, they are its appointed guardians. (Institutes of the Christian Religion, Bk. IV.31)

Illinois citizens and law enforcement officers ought to take comfort in this doctrine. Law enforcement officers are no less appointed by God than Gov. Pritzker and, as Calvin says, perform an important role as the appointed guardians of the liberty of the people. They must courageously defend that liberty, interposing themselves between the state government and Illinois citizens. Citizens likewise may rest assured that they are not agents of anarchy when they disobey the assault weapons ban. On the contrary, they are simply obeying their God-appointed lesser magistrates—law enforcement officers.

A little while back, we addressed the topic of “ableist language.” Yes, “ableist” is now a word—enshrined in academia at the highest level. Stanford’s Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative (EHLI) considers it offensive to use the term “stand-up meeting” to refer to a brief rendezvous, because people in wheelchairs are unable to physically stand, and therefore the term demeans them. Instead, we ought to use the substitute, “quick meeting.”

I spent a decent amount of ink analyzing “ableism,” because the whole concept struck me as an oddly far-fetched grasp at solving a problem that wasn’t there. But it turns out that “ableism” was only the first of several taboos on the EHLI wanted list—if you keep reading, you’ll find another category that’s much more commonly discussed than ableism: racism. I’m sad to report, however, that the EHLI’s stance on what counts as race-based offense makes no more sense than their stance on ability-based offense.

Exhibit A: “Blackbox.” According to Stanford, the preferred phrases would be “hidden,” “mystery box,” “opaque box,” or “flight recorder,” because the word “blackbox . . . assigns negative connotations to the color black, racializing the term.”

The glaring assumption in this line of reasoning is that the color’s negative connotation is racial in character. I will agree with one thing: there are things in the world that are black and have negative connotations, such as nighttime, mold, or assassin clothing. However, I decidedly disagree that referring to a black thing as a bad thing automatically invokes race. Night-time is black, and many people are scared of the dark. Are they scared of the dark because it reminds them of African skin tones and they hate African people? No! They’re scared of the dark because dark is the absence of light, and the less you can see your surroundings, the more uncertain you are about whether you’re safe. Whether you’re a kid scared of the monster in his closet or a hunter scared of the cougar that might be trailing him, we all can relate to this phenomenon. Fear of “black night” has nothing to do with “hate for black people;” so just because we refer to any black thing as a bad thing does not mean we are referring to black people.

Given this, the Stanford explanation is actually one of the most counter-productive efforts at political correctness I have ever seen. Let’s look at that very last phrase in Stanford’s explanation: using the word “blackbox” is “racializing the term.” Just so we’re all clear, to “racialize” is to “make racial in tone or character.” For example, if you were telling me about the wisdom of the founding fathers, and I pointed out that they were all white and therefore their perspective couldn’t be trusted, I have just racialized the subject of America’s founders. Broadly speaking, the principle is thus: I am talking with you about Thing A, and in the context of our discussion, Thing A normally would have no racial association. However, I suddenly use race-based terminology to refer to Thing A, so that now, when you think about Thing A, you think about race. Now, I have just “racialized” Thing A.

However, when the EHL includes the term “blackbox” in its list of racist language, it is therefore using race-based categories to refer to it something that previously had no racial connotation! I have heard the word “blackbox” dozens of times in my life, and never once thought of it as connected to someone with darker skin. Stanford’s document was probably the first time I had ever encountered the idea. By dragging race into conversations about airplane equipment, Stanford is actually racializing the term “blackbox.” Stanford, no one was thinking about race until you mentioned it.

I have a dream that my children can grow up in a world where words can actually have multiple meanings. As our language dictators would have it, one use of the word “black” (to refer to the color of skin with a greater amount of melanin in it) now permeates many other uses of the word “black” which did not carry racial connotations in our minds until the “experts” told us they did. It seems to me that this kind of connotation-smearing is a symptom of a larger cultural problem: the fight against racism has become almost a religion. Our culture has become so obsessed with not offending anyone because of the color of their skin that any possible race-based meaning of a word is now the lens through which we view all other meanings of that word. That’s what any religion does—it permeates your thought, so that no matter where you look, that’s what you see. When Christianity is our lens, it is liberating. But when misguided social philosophy is our lens, it is crippling.

Does racism exist? Yes. Is it sin? Absolutely. All men and women came from the same two people and thus are all brothers and sisters no matter what they look like. But is scrubbing words like “blackbox” or “white paper” from our vocabulary the way to fight such evil? Absolutely not. We’ve slapped the wrong lens on our camera.

Social media is dangerous. It’s easy to lose your real life to a virtual one. One school district in Seattle, Washington has decided it’s had enough of students suffering from the designed dangers of social media. In a 91 page complaint filed against the parent companies of the social media platforms TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and Snapchat, Seattle Public Schools, recently joined by the Kent School district, asserts that these companies have specifically curated their social media sites to be addicting to youth by “exploit[ing] the neurophysiology of the brain’s reward systems,” and that “the content Defendants curate and direct to youth is too often harmful and exploitive (e.g., promoting a ‘corpse bride’ diet, eating 300 calories a day, or encouraging self-harm).”

The complaint also specifies how as social media usage has increased, so have mental health problems, such as:  depression, anxiety, eating disorders, and suicidal thoughts (revealing that “from 2009 to 2019 there was an on-average 30 percent increase in the number of students… who reported feeling ‘so sad or hopeless almost every day for two weeks or more in a row that [they] stopped doing some usual activities.’”

The Seattle School District’s detailed complaint alleges that social media harms users in the following ways:

• Social media has been designed to manipulate users’ brains via social reciprocity and intermittent variable rewards.

• Social media is designed to create dopamine loops to keep users hooked.

• Social media capitalizes on “fear of missing out” (FOMO) to keep users coming back.

• Social media curates the feed to keep users on longer.

• Social media pushes content that is often inappropriate, immoral, and harmful.

• Social media encourages dangerous behavior.

• Social media can cause teens to act disruptively, including sexual behavior, self-harm, vandalism, and violence.

It’s no secret that social media is harmful. That cry has been sounded so often, it’s now apt to fall on deaf ears. It allows every user to be the star of the story. It demands constant attention, so you don’t lose followers or miss new features and stories. It pressures users to show off their best life, rewarding the diligent with likes and follows. Users defend this form of entertainment as an effective way to connect with others, whilst sidestepping the reality that it’s mostly just a waste of time. It’s easy to get on, difficult to leave, and many (if not most) people have developed a habit of checking it whenever they have a second of downtime. Even though the minimum age for most social media is 13, it’s not uncommon for younger users to already be hooked. It’s designed to be addicting, and often lets you stumble (or guides you) into things you can’t unsee and can’t get away from.

Social media is difficult to regulate, hard to get rid of, and deeply enmeshed in American society, making it a problem difficult to solve. The lawsuit filed by Washington’s Seattle and Kent Public School districts is a good place to start – and a glimpse of what it would look like for schools to take the safety of children seriously. Parents, grandparents and church leaders, please take note: Protect kids from the designed dangers social media platforms pose.

It’s old hat at this point to bemoan the deleterious effects of feminism and the sexual revolution. The internet is brimful of pornography, enticing young men before they even reach double digits in age; public schools appear to be hell-bent on convincing children (likewise before they reach double digits in age) that sexual expression is the essence of human expression; and casual sex is so casual that, for some, it might better be classified as a hobby than an intimate act.

We’ve all grown accustomed—even jaded—to our culture’s sexual decline. But whatever the solution is, it doesn’t appear to be coming from the evangelical church.

David Ayers, in his recent book After the Revolution: Sex and the Single Evangelical, analyzes a set of statistics from the Centers for Disease Control that in a more sane era would have provoked an outbreak of sackcloth and ashes. According to this CDC data, 55 percent of evangelical women and 45 percent of evangelical men are “LGBT-affirming.” Of this number, 6 percent of evangelical women and 4 percent of evangelical men say that they same-sex attracted. Most shocking of all, however, is that 17 percent of evangelical women surveyed reported having had sex with another woman. 

These statistics were not drawn from mainline denominations or denominations that have long since dispensed with the Bible’s benighted (or so they say) sexual ethic. No, the women surveyed are in evangelical denominations—denominations that uphold the authority of Scripture as the ultimate authority in all matters of faith and doctrine (or so they say). Obviously, these churches have not recognized the threats to the spiritual health of their members. So, what is the solution to this crisis?

The first and most obvious answer is, of course, repentance. Pastors must call individuals to repentance, and individuals must respond in faith. Beyond that, however, the American church as a whole must repent of its failure to preserve a culture that is in submission to God. To paraphrase Henry Van Til, culture is merely religion externalized, and insofar as the whole of our culture is apostate, the whole of the American church is culpable.

But just as faith without works is dead (James 2:26), so cultural repentance without cultural renewal is dead. That is to say, having repented in faith, the American church must dedicate herself wholly to the work of building a Christian culture. And herein lies the solution to the sexual crisis that beleaguers our churches.

Evangelical denominations have, on the whole, been faithful in standing against sexual perversions, at least on the level of their statements of faith and confessional documents. The passage of Overture 15 at last year’s Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) General Assembly was an encouraging victory. Yet, a denominational resolution or a statement of faith is not a counterculture in itself. What good is clarifying the language in a statement of faith so as to absolutely rule out homosexual sin if the church members are still primarily products of popular culture?

Even a Sunday school class or sermon series is not enough to solve this crisis. As they were members of evangelical denominations, many of the individuals in the above survey had doubtless heard affirmations of biblical sexual ethics from the pulpit or in the Sunday school classroom. Rather, the only solution to this crisis is a distinctly Christian culture.

As pastor and author Douglas Wilson puts it, you can’t fight a naval war without a navy, so why expect to be able to fight a culture war without a culture? “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world,” says the Apostle John (1 John 2:15). The church must turn from the things of the world that have caused her to abandon her first love (Revelations 2:4). This means no more sending Christian kids to government schools to be educated by people who hate God. This means no more happy-clappy church music, the style of which has been dictated to us by money-grubbers in Nashville. This means no more youth groups feebly attempting to raise children one night per week in the place of parents who have abdicated their responsibilities the other six days.

No more.

The church must redouble its commitment to Christian education. The Church must regain a love for the glory and beauty of good music, composed by our far-sighted forebears. The Church must commend the centrality of the family, equipping and exhorting fathers to bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord (Ephesians 6:4).

When the church begins to do this—when she begins to fight the culture war with an alternative culture—then, by God’s grace, her members will remain faithful to the Word, unsullied and unattracted by the perversions of the world.

Warning: you are about to encounter an onslaught of politically incorrect words. The following five phrases have been labeled “potentially harmful” by academia at the highest level, so interact with them at your own peril. Ready?

         “Stand up meeting.”

         “Quadriplegic.”

         “Walk-in appointment.”

         “Basket case.”

         “Sanity check.”        

Whew! Did you survive? Good, so did I. But unfortunately, I am not making this up. According to a Stanford University website, it is considered “harmful language” to use the phrase “stand up meeting” to refer to your next brief get-together. Why? Because it is “ableist language that trivializes the experiences of people living with disabilities.”        

Just a couple weeks ago, Stanford’s Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative released a 13-page list detailing dozens of politically incorrect words and phrases and including a column of substitutes for the forbidden locutions. The Initiative’s purpose is to “eliminate many forms of harmful language, including racist, violent and biased . . . language in Stanford websites and code.” We are told in the list’s preamble that the purpose is to “educate people about the possible impact of the words we use.” It purportedly was neither “attempting to assign levels of harm to the terms on this site” nor “attempting to address all informal uses of language, “but the implication is obvious: this index is a primer on what specific words should be tossed in the waste bin by the Stanford IT community.        

While the categories of racist and gender-based language were largely unsurprising, one category caught me off guard: “ableist” language, which is language offensive to or demeaning those suffering from disabilities. While I agree that no one should be mocked for their disabilities, that doesn’t seem to be exactly what Stanford has in mind. Let’s look at a couple examples.

Referring to a “blind study” is harmful because it “unintentionally perpetuates that disability is somehow abnormal or negative, furthering an ableist culture.” The preferred term is “masked study.”        

Wait, wait. Are we to care for the needy? Absolutely. Are we to demean their afflictions? Absolutely not. But I’ve never thought I’ve been demeaning blind people when I refer to a blind study, and I guarantee you none of my audience has thought I have been, either.

Stanford’s reply might be that I am not necessarily disparaging blind people, but I am instead implying that “disability is somehow abnormal or negative,” because the word “blind” often carries a negative connotation in many other contexts, such as this one. An ironic point to raise for this particular word—since blind studies are supposed to be a positive thing—but there’s a deeper point to raise.

Don’t misinterpret me, but isn’t disability kind of abnormal, and even somewhat negative, by definition? My grandmother needs a walker and/or wheelchair to move around, and I know she’d give a lot to be able to walk like she could when she was twenty. Disability is both abnormal and less-than-ideal, and making that statement is not in any way a disparagement of those who are suffering from it, any more than saying “cancer is horrible” would be a condemnation of those battling it.        

Another example: “committed suicide.” This is harmful because it is “ableist language that trivializes the experiences of people living with mental health conditions.” Instead, we are to say “died by suicide.”        

I’m not intending to be insensitive toward the awful circumstances of suicide – my own uncle committed suicide from PTSD, and I’ve personally felt the pain of knowing you’ll never see someone again because of a choice he himself made. But, honestly, what’s the difference between saying “committed suicide” and “died by suicide?” The first implies you did something to yourself, while the second implies that you fell victim to something . . . that you did to yourself. 

The slight connotative difference disintegrates when we realize that the core term – suicide – is inescapably a self-inflicted tragedy. In the previous paragraph, I wrote, “my own uncle committed suicide,” and I wasn’t trivializing his trauma – I was just telling the truth. And I’ve told many people about his story and have never thought I was trivializing his experience. In my humble opinion, constantly euphemizing the subject to a more benign “died by suicide” is a term that trivializes how horrible his PTSD actually was – a mental condition that led him to willingly inflict death upon himself.        

The list goes on and on. Here are Stanford’s explanations for our opening list of political incorrectness:        

• “Stand up meeting” and “walk in” are “ableist language that [trivialize] the experiences of people living with disabilities.” Preferred language would be “quick meeting” and “drop-in.”

• “Quadriplegic” is a “term that generalizes a population of people while also implying that people with disabilities are not capable.” Preferred language would be “person who is paralyzed.”       

• “Basket case . . . originally referred to one who has lost all four limbs and therefore needed to be carried around in a basket.” Preferred language would be “nervous.”        

• “Sanity check” is a term that “could be offensive to those dealing with mental health issues.” Preferred language would be “confidence check.”        

Honestly, have you ever thought any of those things when using any of those words? I hope you sense the confusion of an average English-speaker striving to justify the way language has worked for, well, forever.        

It seems to me that many of these “ableist” concerns are a symptom of a broader linguistic-cultural problem: we are afraid of using words to discuss the harsh facts of life openly or frankly. But recognizing that the world is harsh is the very reason we strive to make it better! If disability is not “abnormal or negative” in any way, why does the field of medicine even exist? Why do we develop medications, prosthetics, or therapy for those suffering from disabilities, if those advances are really seeking to eradicate a normal and positive circumstance?        

Now, don’t get me wrong in the least. Inspiring disabled men and women from Homer to Helen Keller to Andrea Bocelli have accomplished astounding things, often using their disabilities to touch the world in ways they wouldn’t have been able to otherwise. But who of us, if we were blind but had the choice to receive our sight back, wouldn’t take it? Blindness, like all other sicknesses and maladies, is a result of the Fall, and neither the Fall nor blindness nor deafness nor lameness nor any other disability of the sort was ever “the way it was supposed to be.” 

Can God use disability for his glory? Absolutely – ask the Apostle Paul. Can you live an inspiring life as a disabled person? No doubt about it – ask Nick Vujicic. But does that mean we should pretend that disability is normal or that death is trivial? Absolutely not. To do so would be to deny the reality of the Curse and undermine efforts to deal with it. It’s hard to solve a problem while simultaneously attempting to dismiss it.        

As a closing thought: A society that edits its very language to avoid facing the harsh facts of physical disability isn’t very far from doing the same thing to avoid facing the harsh facts of spiritual death. Have you ever heard someone refer to sin as “we all make mistakes?” Or seen a “coexist” bumper sticker? Efforts to minimize the seriousness of sin or the stark necessity of Christ as the only way to God contradict the gospel message at a fundamental level. There’s a reason God spends 39 books telling us how horrible sin is before Christ comes on the scene in the New Testament. If we don’t understand the bad news, how will we understand the good news?

It is a common assumption that Leftist views are compassionate, while conservative, biblical views are not. The assumption is so ingrained in society that it rarely gets called into question. And yet, even a superficial examination of Leftist policies and programs reveals all sorts of lies, hypocrisy, and callousness.

One of the most well-known programs initiated and promoted by the Left is the welfare system. The national welfare system was established in 1935 in response to the devastating effects that the Great Depression had on families and communities. This system was established to provide a safety net in the event that another depression hit the country.

The original intent of the welfare system as a last-chance “safety net,” however, has been abused. Today it has become the source of permanent, long-term income for many. Philosopher, professor, and author Dr. Jay W. Richards notes in his book Money, Greed, and God, the following statistic about the overuse of the welfare system and its direct link to poverty:

An experiment comparing a control group with household recipients of welfare benefits revealed that welfare is a disincentive to work. Husbands reduced their hours worked by an average of 9%, and wives reduced hours worked by 20%. Young males reduced their hours worked by 33%; singles, by 43%.

As this study notes, the overuse of the welfare system is hurting poverty-stricken communities of America. What does Scripture have to say about those who refuse to work? The Apostle Paul, in 2 Thessalonians 3:10 (ESV) says,

“For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat.”

Paul again, in 1 Timothy 5:8, says,

“Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”

These are just two instances when God shows his displeasure for those who refuse to work and provide for their families.

Policies on crime are another way in which the Left exacerbates poverty. The SAFE-T Act, which was signed into law by Governor J.B. Pritzker on February 22, 2021, is a prime example. In this bill, the cash-bail system, which is a means by which criminals are detained until cash-bail is posted and a way to ensure that the defendant will return to court for trial, will be ending on January 1^st. Dan Proft, host of AM 560 Chicago’s Morning Answer, identified some of the dangers of the SAFE-T Act:

In point of fact, under the SAFE-T Act, non-detainable offenses would include – by non-detainable meaning you’re released – burglary, robbery, arson, kidnaping, second-degree murder, intimidation, aggravated battery, aggravated DUI, aggravated fleeing, eluding drug offenses, drug induced homicide and threatening a public official.

The Illinois General Assembly recently made some changes to this act to try to placate critics, but the changes were minor, only involving procedures and risk assessments.

As in Illinois, Leftists control government in California. They passed Proposition 47, which designates shoplifting items valued under $950 a misdemeanor instead of a felony. Not surprisingly, thefts have skyrocketed in the state.  Barnini Chakraborty, senior reporter at the Washington Examiner, wrote an article for Fox News exposing the effects of Proposition 47:

Since Proposition 47 was passed, there has been an increase in theft across the state. Cities like San Francisco have seen organized crime rings turn shoplifting into a well-organized racket involving desperate thieves and unscrupulous black-market resellers. Among the nation’s 20 largest cities, San Francisco now has the highest rate of property crime, which includes theft, shoplifting and vandalism.

God also has much to say about the sin of theft. The Eighth Commandment says, “You shall not steal” (Exodus 20:15). In Ephesians 4:28, the Apostle Paul declares,

“Let the thief no longer steal, but rather let him labor, doing honest work with his own hands, so that he may have something to share with anyone in need.”

As for the thief’s punishment, God commands in Exodus 22:7 that

“If a man gives to his neighbor money or goods to keep safe, and it is stolen from the man’s house, then, if the thief is found, he shall pay double.”

It’s not hard to see that the Left’s policies–the misuse of the welfare system, the SAFE-T Act, and Proposition 47–harm individuals and communities.

God is not impartial with regard to the poor or justice, and since God is not impartial, Christians shouldn’t be either. Christians have a duty to stand against policies that go against God’s Word and to replace the lies with the truth that comes from Scripture. In Zechariah 8:16, the Lord declares,

“These are the things that you shall do: Speak the truth to one another; render in your gates judgments that are true and make for peace.”