Themes that Confront Ecclesiastical Preeminence
When approaching a culturally engrained problem, especially one that has been solidly cemented for over 1,600 years, helping to take the scales from people’s eyes might seem to be a daunting task. It is different than putting together pieces from a puzzle. The evidence that Jesus is the only one that is to be preeminent is overwhelming. When the veil is taken away, it is like beholding a giant multi-faceted diamond shining colorfully in a bright light. Jesus’ preeminence is unmistakable. The many facets and multitude of colors are the themes that speak to its brilliance. In many instances, little needs to be said as the scriptures speak for themselves.
Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, Luke 24:45
In establishing a pedagogy for facilitating a reformation against preeminent suppression, themes can help facilitate the Conscientização. This can lead to the essential Praxis that will allow the reformation to take root. The fruit will be the emergence of true fellowships where Jesus is the one and only Shepherd—the only preeminent one, the dynamics of which are beyond our imagination.
To apprehend these themes is to understand both the people who embody them and the reality to which they refer. But—precisely because it is not possible to understand these themes apart from people—it is necessary that those concerned understand them as well. Thematic investigation thus becomes a common striving towards awareness of reality and towards self-awareness, which makes this investigation a starting point for the educational process or for cultural action of a liberating character.
Language Distortion
An attack on meaning
If God gives us a basis for reality through language, then culture’s grip on reality slips further into insanity through the perpetuated misuse of language.
In his 1888 book: The Twilight of the Idols, philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche said, ”’Reason’ in language!-oh what a deceptive old witch it has been! I fear we shall never be rid of God, so long as we still believe in grammar.” Nietzsche believed that if people assume that language is objective, they will believe that language expresses reality. If language is objective, then people will think of the world in specific, objective ways that, according to him, are not true or real. In other words, Nietzsche asserted that by using language to express reality, humans must also presuppose reality itself. He reasoned that because man has observed the effects of the world’s existence, they know there must be a cause. To Nietzsche, humans invented God as a suitable cause and a de facto answer for all the unanswerable.
Nietzsche’s philosophy allows culture to reject the Creator and make its own subjective meaning of creation, thus making reality subjective. But from a biblical worldview, language is a gift from God intended to help us communicate reality. As image bearers, we can contribute to reality with words, just as when God brought the animals for Adam to name. But we can’t redefine the reality revealed in God’s Word. We dishonor God when we attempt to twist reality or reshape it to suit the desires of our flesh. …
God addresses language in the Ten Commandments. “You shall not bear false witness” tells us that our words should be truthful (Exodus 20:16). Language does, and should, reflect objective reality. With grace, we must resist the cultural pull to misuse language in ways that add to confusion or promote unbiblical choices. … We rebel against the authority of God’s Word when we attempt to reshape reality by redefining and making chaos of language.
(Answers in Genesis Magazine, January – March 2024, page 47)
How To Combat Language Distortion
It would be easy to just say, “go back to the originals.” But that will not do as I point out in an article (Is the Bible Holy?) and a video (Biblical Inerrancy).
Instead, one needs to get back as close as you can to the 1611 version of King James. The two best sources are Noah Webster’s 1828 Dictionary and Samuel Johnson’s 1755 Dictionary.
Most of the time these two sources will be sufficient to get a solid understanding of the words used with the 1611 King James Version. Occasionally, one must dig further as the 244 years of cultural effect on the English language from 1611 to 1755 could have had a significant distorting influence. I engage in this deeper investigation in several of the themes.
