Isn't it amazing how different words take on different meanings to different people? I suppose that's because our different backgrounds and experiences color our point of view and we just "see" different means. The problem arises when we assume our interpretation is the only one there is and that others should see the world as we do -- unfortunately they usually don't.
I've always like this quote by Stephen Covey, "We see the world not as it is, but as we are." So what should we do when our actions and our language make people uncomfortable.
Should Stick to our Guns or Cut and Run
Word Usage Assessment
When challenged about word that make people uncomfortable, how do you decide when to change it and when to stick to it? This is what I think about,
(1) Does the word have a particular meaning in this context that is important to make -- Sometimes is just OK to make people uncomfortable with a word if you want people to think about why its there. Don't though out the spices in a good meal just because someone may not like paprika. Its there for a purpose! Christians need more than milktoast to feed on.
(2) Are you trying to pick a fight? -- using words for shock value is very poor communication, and terrible Christianity. Are you writing in love or just to jab at people you know might be offended and deep down you dislike. "You catch more flies with sugar than vinegar." [of course we're not trying to catch flies or this would be good advice] Is there a better way to say the same thing that makes friends not enemies?
(3) Do you words, your intentions, and your actions reflect Christ? -- the bottom line is whether your purpose is to reflect the image of Christ to the reader. Commuication is the art of persuasion and if you words offend, then persuasion becomes much harder. On the other hand, sometime the only life change that happens is when you rock someone's world. Jesus said harsh words to people, particularly the pharisees, out of love in order to wake them up to the changing world that was happening all around them.
rad·i·cal [ˈra-di-kəl] -- marked by a considerable departure from the usual or traditional
synonyms – far-reaching, essential, sweeping, major, uncompromising
antonyms – compromising, minor, conservative
Radical Personalities – Martin Luther, John Wesley, Paul (formerly known as Saul of Tarsus), Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King, Jr., Jesus (carpenter from Nazareth), William Carey, you, me, etc.
Romans 12:2 Do not conform any longer to the patterns of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.
Was Jesus a Radical?
Are we His disciples?
Are we then Radicals too? Will people be offended if we were? Are people offended that we aren't?
What would we do differently if we really were Radical in our Faith, our Giving, Our Service, and our Optimism?
Let me hear from you!
Email Subscription:
“I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: ‘That we hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal.'”
“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”
“I have a dream that one day…little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.”
“…when we let freedom ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God’s children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, ‘Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!'”
Was Martin Luther King, Jr., a radical? According to your definition, “marked by considerable departure from the usual or traditional,” he was. “Thank God Almighty” he was!
“Mordecai had a cousin named Hadassah, whom he had brought up because she had neither father nor mother. This girl, who was also known as Esther was lovely in form and features,….”
“Esther had not revealed her nationality and family background, because Mordecai had forbidden her to do so.”
“Now the king was attracted to Esther…she won his favor…so he made her queen.”
“Two of the king’s officers…conspired to assassinate King Xerxes. Mordecai found out about the plot and told Queen Esther, who in turn reported it to the king,….”
“When Haman saw that Mordecai would not kneel down or pay him honor, he was enraged…. Dispatches were sent…to all the king’s provinces to DESTROY, KILL, AND ANNIHILATE ALL THE JEWS.”
“‘Queen Esther, what is your request?’ Queen Esther answered, ‘…spare my people,… for my people have been sold for destruction, slaughter, and annihilation…. The king’s edict granted the Jews… the right to assemble and protect themselves….”
“Mordecai [and Esther] worked for the good of [their] people and spoke up for the welfare of all the Jews.”
Was Esther a radical? “Thank God Almighty,” yes, she was!
In Philippians 4:8, Paul says, “Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable — if anything is excellent or praiseworthy — think about such things.”
Consider most of today’s music, most of today’s movies, most of today’s television programs. Consider many of today’s politicians. Consider many of the discussions that occur behind close doors in many of the boardrooms of large corporations and governmental agencies. Consider the topics of conversation discussed in classrooms and cafeterias by not only today’s teens but also today’s elementary school children. Are these discussed topics “true and noble and right and pure and lovely and admirable”? Was Paul a radical in advocating that first century Christians “…think about such things”? “Thank God Almighty,” of course, he was! Could Paul, who previously thought as Saul, not be more than capable of listing those things which are right as opposed to those thoughts and actions which are wrong? “Thank God Almighty,” of course, he could!
And in the year 2008, because his thoughts deviate from the “usual or traditional” would Paul be regarded as a radical when he says in Galatians 5: 19-23 “The acts of the sinful nature are: sexual immorality, impurity, debauchery, idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies and the like”? If Paul were living in the year 2008, would he feel like the “voice crying in the wilderness”? Would he feel like the “salmon swimming downstream”? In the year 2008, isn’t that which is abnormal, as proclaimed by God’s word, that which is considered normal? What about the antithesis of the “acts of the sinful nature,” the “fruits of the Spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control”? Abandoned? Ignored? Forgotten? By many, but not by all. Why not? Because the words of the radicals like Martin Luther King, Jr., Esther, and Paul remain for “those who have ears to hear and eyes to see” to peruse, to consider, to practice.
Jesus proclaimed as recorded in Matthew 5: 29-30, “If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out…. If your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off….” And still in Matthew 5 but in verse 44, He says, “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” Were Jesus’ tenets radical when He spoke them as well as being considered radical today? Most assuredly!
In John 15:13, Jesus tells His disciples “Greater love has no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.” And He suffered excruciatingly and hung and died on the cross. In the epitomy of love and unselfishness, He died on the cross for me and for all. Was Jesus a raidcal? “Thank God Almighty,” yes, He was!
In their time, were Martin Luther King, Jr., Esther, Paul, and Jesus radicals? Yes! Why? Because they cared about and loved the people whom they defended. Did they jeopardize their lives and, in several cases, sacrifice their lives because of their radicalism? Yes! Would they say and do the same things over again if they had a chance? Unequivocally yes! Their heart would let them do nothing less. Are their words and actions for naught? No! Why? Because I am a radical! A radical because of each of them! A radical because they are my role models. A radical because their “voices are crying out in our wilderness” for someone to stand up, for someone “to stand up for Jesus,” for someone to not only proclaim but also live a radical faith and accomplish a radical life’s purpose filled with radical optimism, radical love, and radical service for “all of God’s children.”
The Constitution grants me and everyone “Freedom of Speech.” This country’s laws grant me and everyone freedom from censorship. This country’s laws grant me and everyone the right to speak and write that which we want as long as we do not slander or libel.
But I, as Thoreau said, “March to the beat of a different drummer.” I “march to the beat of” the Bible that tells me to “…speak with the boldness of Peter” and “…to set an example for the believers in speech, in life, in love, in faith, and in purity” (1 Tim. 4: 12). A Bible that in Deuteronomy 11: 18-19 tells me to “Fix these words of Mine in your hearts and minds…. Teach them to your children, talking about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up.” A Bible that, in 1 Corinthians 14:19 through Paul’s proclamation to those Christians in Corinth, enables and encourages me to say, “I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue.” Paul’s proclamation admonishes me to make sure, even if it is through the use of the word “radical,” that those “five intelligible words,” which I choose to “instruct others,” will be radical enough to bring about a radical transformation in a world that desperately needs numerous Christian radicals speaking “…with the boldness of Peter.”