Like me, I’m sure that
most of you have seen or heard on the news lately about one of the designers of
the health care law being caught on tape explaining how they disguised their
words in writing the law so that it would get passed without people really knowing
what it said. That the wording had to be cleverly designed to hide what
it actually was, what it did and what its cost would be or people wouldn’t
accept it. That it was designed to NOT be transparent, meaning it was to
be confusing and cloudy, thus misunderstood as to the actual ramifications of
it.
Here’s another situation
I’ll use today to make a spiritual point. I was listening to a radio
program involving a discussion with a panel of “experts” on a new movement
afoot, apparently proposed by some other “expert.” That movement
advocates that children should not use the terms “Mom and Dad” towards their
parents. Instead, they should call them by their “first names.”
I’ve got to admit that
it’s beyond my mental fathomability (I know that’s not a word, but I like it,
so I’ll invent it) to figure out where ideas like this come from. As to
this particular silly concept, I don’t know where it originated, but I do have
an opinion on what effect it will have. It will lessen the lines of
authority within the family and, in the area outside the family, it will make
some other things that require an authority less so.
Let me give you one more
example of the height of absurdity brought forth by so-called educated
people. You probably recall hearing this on the news also. An
elementary school, somewhere in the mid-west ( I think Nebraska?) has come up
with the plan to call students “Purple Penguins” instead of “boys and
girls.”
Like I did upon reading
about this, you probably wondered, “Why would they want to do this?” Here
is the given explanation for their rationale (if there could be anything
rational about this whole concept). Because some students might be confused
as to what their gender might truly be, we won’t refer to them as “boys
or girls.” We’ll just make all the students in our school gender-equal by
calling them “Purple Penguins.” By doing this, the ones who might be
confused as to whether they are a boy or a girl, won’t be offended or even more
confused. (Apparently they don’t care what the penguins think about it).
Well, the Bible has a
word in it that speaks directly to these sorts of actions and that word is: “dissimulation.” It’s
only found twice in the New Testament and I think it would be a good idea to
take a few minutes and draw up a little lesson on it.
In Rom. 12:9 we read: “Let love be without dissimulation...”
The Greek word used there means “feigned” so therefore, Paul is talking about
“unfeigned love.” In other words, to “feign” love is to “dissimulate.”
Now, lets look at the
other scripture wherein we find this word “dissimulation.”
Turn to Gal. 2:11-14 and in the situation given there we can see the words of
Romans 12:9 put into action and the “Why?” of its usage. I should note
before we get into discussing this event here, that the Greek word used in
verse 13 means “acting.”
The “Why” is because
Peter practiced a “dissimulation”
by changing his conduct with the Gentiles when some Jews showed up. His
“acting” had an effect on others present which caused them to “act” the same -
to “dissimulate.”
Paul called Peter out on his behavior (see verse 11) and he tells us why he did
so. It was because Peter, in his “dissimulation,”
wasn’t “walking uprightly
according to the truth of the Gospel.” (Vs. 14) IE: Peter was
“feigning love” towards the Gentiles.
OK, let me make some
points about our lesson word “dissimulation”
and then we’ll close. We looked at three examples of how man “dissimulates.” How
they act or state something in a way that covers up the truth of the
matter. Or, confuses and lessens the reality of something. Bluntly
speaking, they most certainly are NOT letting their Yea be Yea nor their Nay be
Nay.
When Christ spoke His
words in Matt. 5:37 He went on to explain why it’s necessary to always be
forthright in our “communications.”
And this covers all forms of “communication”
doesn’t it? Absolutely! He said that it’s necessary “for (because) whatsoever is more than
this comes of evil.” (ESV) It becomes the cause
of unrighteousness. Precisely what we saw in Paul’s confrontation with
Peter.
If you turn your Bibles
to James 5:12 you’ll see that James amplifies the words of Jesus by saying that
if our “Yea isn’t Yea”
and our “Nay isn’t Nay”
we “fall into condemnation.”
I think that we can draw
a simple conclusion to this little lesson and that is - those who “act” one way
while they’re really something else, or speak with “dissimulation” should immediately repent of those
practices “lest they fall into
condemnation.” Which simply means: lest they condemn
themselves by their dissimulating behavior.
An old
comedian/commentator was once asked if he didn’t have to watch what he
said. He replied, “No, I just watch what I think.” I mention this
because I used the word “repent”
in the above paragraph and I think the actual definition of that word is
applicable here. It means: change your thoughts, or change your way
of thinking.
All of our actions come
from our thought processes, our “spiritual hearts,” first, so if we are to
control “dissimulation”
or any other sin in our lives, we have to control our “thinking.”
Paul, in Phil. 4:8 tells us what things we should be “thinking on.”
Ron Covey
No comments:
Post a Comment