Word Meanings

I teach classes in churches and disciple people (men) in the ways of the Lord. I'm also a student of the Bible myself. In all these respects, I find myself continually dissecting a sentence in the Bible to discern its real meaning. I find myself wrestling with a piece of Scripture to discern all of its possible applications. Taking something out of context, for example, seems to make a big difference in what's being said.

Jesus said, "Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, ..." (Matthew 5:10). This is a good example of what I'm referring to. What exactly does "blessed" mean? Some translations use the word "happy" instead of "blessed." Are they really interchangeable? Do they have the same meaning - in the same context? And what does it mean to be persecuted? Does it mean the same thing in all cultures at all times? Moreover, what is righteousness - especially that it would cause persecution?

I believe one of the greatest travesties in Christianity today would be the Christians who read Scripture passages like that and then just accept it at face value. It's as if we know what Jesus was communicating; like we get the full force of His intent. So we read the Bible verse and then go, "Oh, okay." But the truth is we remain ignorant of what Jesus said. It has no practical application for us ... and so it has no particular meaning for us.

Okay, I just let the cat out of the bag, so to speak. I'm one who holds fast to the tenet that for anything to have real meaning it also has to have practical application. Otherwise its just an abstract notion that may be nice to think or say. I might call that a platitude --- something that has words but doesn't seem to say anything.

The point is that if we don't wrestle with Scripture and dissect the sentences and tear apart the meaning of the words, we may never really know what's being said! I met a man once who had read the whole Bible and memorized much of it. He had an impressive command of the Scriptures. Unfortunately, he didn't really know what God was saying in the Bible. He hadn't been transformed by anything he'd read. In fact, he'd read the Bible and not actually met God there. He'd memorized the Bible and not met Jesus. He remained a Hindu. This is what can happen if you read something without having understanding of what it says.

Words seem to change everything. And they are changed by everything. In fact, our language seems to be held hostage by our culture. So the meaning of words changes as culture shifts. Consider, for example, when you tell me something and I respond by saying, "Wow, that's really cold!" I would be expressing an opinion that what you've just told me is sobering, perhaps mean and unloving. But what if I responded instead by saying, "Wow, that's really cool!" Of course then I would be expressing approval, applauding what you've just told me.

These kinds of patterns are repeated throughout our language. Even among the English speaking countries, the same word can have different meanings. And I haven't even gotten into slang, the invention of new words, etc.

When we read the Bible, we really need to consider what it's saying. We need to understand that the English language is the most complex language known to mankind. We need to realize that this could obscure the meaning of Scripture for us --- if we simply try to take Scripture at face value.

God allows the different translations of the Bible to enhance our understanding. (He wants us to hear Him better.) But we have a responsibility to listen. Are you listening responsibly?

Electing Leadership?

We're in the final countdown now, to the presidential elections here in the United States. Just a few more days until one of the biggest decisions in our country will be made. The world is watching, literally. I was in a Ugandan prison last month and was surprised to hear the prisoners discussing the U.S. presidential elections. For the world's only remaining super-power, the President of the United States has been called "the most powerful person on earth." So while we Americans think about electing our country's foremost leader, the world seems to understand that whatever we decide has an enormous impact on everyone else as well. I wonder if Americans are cognizant of that truth when they decide for whom they will vote.

In the elections we tend to discuss leadership and refer to the elected officials as leaders. But I've been thinking and I'm not so sure we have a handle on that. I mean to say that maybe leadership isn't the issue we think it is. If you look up the definition of leadership in the dictionary (or go to http://www.dictionary.com/) you'll find it is rather ambiguous. I read all of the available definitions of leader or leadership and think to myself, "No, that is not what I'm looking for in America today."

You can jump over to some Internet searches on leadership, and you end up in topics like qualities of leadership and other such topics - which tend to be someone's opinion of what leadership really is. Go into any bookstore today and there seems to be no end to business or religious books on leadership either. Quite frankly, I get sick of hearing it. Some of these books are pretty lame. It seems that we humans tend to confuse success with leadership. We take a football player, for example, who is a good athlete and makes a ton of money - and we call him (or her) a leader. Or we take a person who has made a lot of money in business - and we call him (or her) a leader. Is that really the criteria for leadership?

I am concluding that there is a cultural definition of leadership, at least in this country. It is perhaps better defined as influence or celebrity. It doesn't seem to be comprised of a particular set of skills or gifts or even behaviors. After all, the bully on the school playground can be considered a leader in today's terms. And we've all known about evil leaders like Hitler or Idi Amin. For centuries, and continuing today, the world has had many leaders that were truly bad people. A leader can be evil and still be considered a leader. Some would argue that they may not be effective leaders. But perhaps we assume that any reasonable definition of effective leadership would require positive results. Unfortunately, no dictionary seems to have that definition.

So if leadership isn't all it's cracked up to be, what should we elect instead? For starters, I think we should elect wisdom. It is that captured learning that lets you make extraordinary observations of past experiences and present information to come to new conclusions and make decisions that produce better results. I think we should elect discernment. It is the ability to sort through the noise and separate the urgent from the important. It is time we elect integrity. It is consistent thinking, speaking and behaving against a morally high set of values that are applied in all situations at all times.

We could argue for things like courage, for example. But I've seen courage be incredibly foolish. Sometimes people aren't afraid of things that they should be afraid of! Or we could argue for honesty and truth, but I've seen the truth spoken without love - and it turns out to be just mean. We could argue for tenacity or perseverance, maybe high energy. But I suspect those would ultimately fail us as well.

No, I believe I'm going to hold onto wisdom, discernment and integrity. Whoever is elected will be a world leader, good or bad. The world will be impacted by their leadership, whether they are effective or ineffective. But I think that Americans and the rest of the world will be best served if our next President is wise, discerning and a man (or woman) of integrity. Most of all, I would like to see our next President be truly submitted to God, leaning not on his own understanding, but turning to God in prayer for every decision and every perspective. So, my fellow Americans, do you think that is the person we can elect in the next few days?