War of the Words (part 1)

"Words, words, words! I'm so sick of words! I get words all day long first from him now from you, is that all you blighters can do?" (Eliza Dolittle from My Fair Lady).

As Rush Limbaugh often used to say: "words mean things". The choice of words in a debate is very important, but not just for the purpose of conveying meaning. Those of us who are more literal-minded can get frustrated with the vagarities and subtleties that can be involved in discussions of emotional or controversial topics. Unfortunately, it is not enough to use the correct dictionary definition in a conversation at the best of times, and in these (post-)modern times it is an even more ineffective strategy in public debate. Why? There are several reasons.

First of all, as Francis Schaeffer pointed out, words actually have two meanings: the 'denotative' and 'connotative'. The denotative meaning is the literal meaning of the word, while the connotative value consists of the feelings and associations that are aroused in the hearer by the word, independent of its literal meaning. This has probably been true from the beginning of human history and it is impossible to escape from. As an easy example, look at the two words "resolute" and "stubborn". Both have nearly the same denotative meaning - the quality of sticking with a point of view no matter what social pressure is brought to bear. The connotative meanings of the two words, however, are vastly different. If a person is "resolute", he is a paragon of virtue, steadfast, dependable - a moral leader. If a person is "stubborn", however, he is a closed-minded cretin, unable to consider other points of view, obnoxious, unfriendly, and self-centered.

Obviously we ignore this second meaning of words at our peril. If the right words are used to formulate the question, the debate can be over before we even start. Schaeffer talked about this in the context of the destruction and marginalization of traditional Christianity by modern anti-religious groups who, after repudiating God himself, appropriate "god words" to promote their own philosophies. They are using the powerful and heavily weighted connotative values of the words *in direct contradiction* to the denotative value, to promote anti-God and immoral arguments, and the power of the words allows the speaker to burrow past the rational resistance of the hearer without a fight. We must, therefore, be constantly on the alert to this type of argumentation and also use it to our advantage. I would argue, though, that we must not take it too far. An argument won this way is really a lie and we must always struggle to blow away the fog to make the underlying truth crystal clear.

The appropriation of the opponent's words is a sneaky and effective tactic, and it forms the basis of many attacks on both Christianity and American traditional values. For instance, marxists have co-opted entire denominations by using biblical words to promote socialist outcomes. Can you imagine going to Luther, Augustine, Calvin or Paul, for that matter, and telling them that in your church you define "salvation" as having the government take away everyone's money and forcibly doling it out to the people in small but equal amounts (and justifying killing over 250 million people in the process)? But if you go to a marxist church (like the one the president and his mom evidently attended in Hawaii when he was a kid or the Chicago church he went to later) you will hear about "salvation" which is based on "redistributive social justice" and leads right to Karl Marx, rather than to Jesus. Actually now they have even co-opted the person of Jesus Christ to promote socialism (as opposed to personal charity, righteousness, and generosity of persons).

The left knows about this and is very obvious in its use of this principle. In fact, they have even gone beyond this. The left actually works very hard to control the language. George Orwell described the process very dramatically and specifically in the book 1984, of course, and O'brien lectures Winston Smith very unashamedly on the process. Not only do those on the left (religious and political) constantly use connotative words dishonestly, they work constantly to control the vocabulary of any debate, even actively pushing completely new definitions onto words every day.

(More on this in part 2.)