The deconstruction of language, the perversion of language has never occurred at a faster rate in human history than it has over the past few decades and this erosion of language only accelerates.

A couple of months ago I got into a wee bit of trouble with a pastor and a very young elder at the pastor’s church when I sent an email to the young elder asking him why he conformed to the world and used the word gay in referencing homosexuality in a small group setting comprised of nine believers and himself rather than saying homosexual. I was called into a meeting that lasted an hour and forty-five minutes that was conducted more as an employer dressing down an employee than what is to take place between two believers where a disagreement may arise.

First, it should have been addressed and resolved between the young elder and me, Scripturally, without the pastor getting involved that called me strident no fewer than about nine times, arrogant a few times, and totally took out of context the apostle Paul’s addressing the Athenians, saying to me, was the apostle Paul conforming to the world by quoting a Greek poet? What? Totally out of context and unrelated to using the world’s word for a homosexual to diffuse, deflect and detour the mind from the reality of the act. When I mentioned the history of the word being supplanted for the word homosexual, which is historical, and factual, I was interrupted and told no fewer than three times repeatedly by the pastor, “That’s your opinion.” to which I replied, “No, it’s actually factual. You can do the research.” To which he replied, “That’s your opinion,” one more time.

The young elder said to me, “Well, you’re old. Homosexual is the word you grew up with and I’m young and I grew up using the word gay, and it’s just the EVOLUTION of language, that’s all”

It was in reality a professed Christian pastor and his very young elder defending the use of the word gay to describe homosexuality and determining I was a big problem and in the wrong for bringing this up to the young elder in an email asking him why he chose to use the world’s word rather than the appropriate word, especially in a small group wherein everyone present was a professed Christian.

I was told that if I wanted to become a member of that church I would not be permitted to contact the pastor, or any elder at any time about anything via email. For at least a year. Then I would be considered for possible membership. All because I wanted to know why a professed Christian elder chose to use the world’s word, actually the word the homosexual community chose for the world to use, rather than the actual word. I had no interest or desire in becoming a member of the said church after about five minutes into that meeting when the pastor showed up. Prior to the pastor showing up the young elder and I had a good conversation between the two of us. But that didn’t suit the pastor’s plan and agenda.

An hour and forty minutes later…

It IS NOT THE EVOLUTION of language.

No, it’s the DECONSTRUCTION of language. The EROSION of language. The PERVERSION of language. The NUMBING of the mind by the misuse of the tongue and the words uttered.

It was a learning experience. My wife and I had considered attending the church where the above pastor presided as it is only about an eight-minute drive from our home rather than the forty-minute or so drive we had been taking to the church we’d been attending for the past five years. Needless to say, after the above experience my wife and I prayed and came to the understanding and determination that proximity to a church ought never to be one of the main reasons for attending a church. If the church is genuinely Bible-teaching and preaching, Bible-abiding, alive with the Spirit of God, of nothing but sound doctrine that ought to be the priority — needless to say, my wife and I returned at once to the church that is a further drive but more abiding in the Word of God where the senior pastor is one of the most gifted men of God, by God, for God that I’ve ever heard preach. And THAT is what is most important. To glorify the Lord, to praise Him, honor Him, and to hear His Word preached soundly with a pastor asking the Holy Spirit to provide the words on the Lord’s Day, where the language is most important.

Just as every word uttered throughout the week ought to be by every tongue, heart, mind, and individual professing to be a disciple of the Lord Jesus Christ, as a peculiar, separate from the world people.

We’re not here to accommodate, appease or please the world. Or sin. Or sexual perversity and immorality. We’re here to be a light unto the world — not recite their darkness appearing no different.

Ken Pullen, A CROOKED PATH, Monday, January 23rd, 2023


Cambridge Dictionary Un-Defines ‘Man’ and ‘Woman’


December 14, 2023

By Josuha Arnold

Reprinted from The Washington Stand


After 813 years, the second-oldest English-speaking university has reinvented itself as an institution devoted to un-learning. Users of the Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary awoke this week to find that the dictionary had added strange definitions of “man” and “woman” to appease transgender ideologues.

In addition to “an adult female human being,” Cambridge University now defines “woman” as “an adult who lives and identifies as female though they may have been said to have a different sex at birth.” In addition to “an adult male human being,” Cambridge now defines “man” as “an adult who lives and identifies as male though they may have been said to have a different sex at birth.”

The Cambridge Dictionary already had a plain, functional definition of “woman” as “an adult female human being,” exactly the same as Collins Dictionary, and virtually equivalent to Oxford Learner’s Dictionary (“an adult female human”) and Merriam-Webster (“an adult female person”). Evidently, such clarity and utility are no longer desired.

Cambridge is mimicking the wokeness of other dictionaries like Merriam-Webster, which added a definition of “female” as “having a gender identity that is the opposite of male” in July 2022. The dictionary modifications followed closely on the nomination hearings of Associate Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who infamously refused to answer the question, “What is a woman?” by irrelevantly pointing out that she is not a biologist. Merriam-Webster was happy to provide cover to Brown Jackson by changing the definition of “female.” But when they did so, it put pressure on other dictionaries to make similar changes.

The strangest part about the Cambridge Dictionary change is that it chose to add a whole new definition. Thus, it implied a new use to the word, distinct from that described by “an adult female human being.” A person cannot become something he is not — heir to the British crown, an extraterrestrial lifeform, or six inches taller — simply because he “lives and identifies as” such. In fact, the definition all but admits to describing a non-female in the words “different sex.” Despite their best efforts, Cambridge cannot erase the fact that they now define men as women.

The last part of Cambridge’s contrived definition — “may have been said to have a different sex at birth” — deserves special ridicule, because normal people don’t and shouldn’t talk this way. Proper editing would pare these 11 words to two: “[though he] is male.” What is “a different sex” from female? Well, there are only two, so the process of elimination leaves us with “male.” How is a person “said to have” a certain sex? By corresponding physical characteristics, well-known to doctor and layman alike. These people say a person has a certain sex because they recognize that the person “is” that sex, and it is a truth so self-evident there is no point in lying. A person’s biological sex cannot change over time, so “at birth” can be struck as redundant. The conditional construction “may have been” is also redundant because another definition covers females.

Alas, the powerbrokers of our Era of Insanity deny that there are two sexes, that the sexes have corresponding physical characteristics, and that sex cannot change over time. So, such confused definitions are only what our culture deserves.

Cambridge’s new definition of “woman” is not a definition so much as propaganda. To “define” means “to explain and describe the meaning and exact limits of something,” per the Cambridge Dictionary. Its old definition of woman, “an adult female human being,” fulfilled this objective admirably. Every word except the article adds to the meaning by setting limits as to what “woman” does not mean. The word “woman” does not refer to non-adults, non-females, non-humans, or non-beings. How simple is that?

In contrast, Cambridge’s new definition capitulates to each individual’s momentary whims. It admits that at least some of the defining limits of “woman” are flexible — that the word has lost some of its meaning because it has lost some of its clarity. It is quite literally the un-definition of “woman.”

Cambridge Dictionary’s heterodox re-definition threatens its own purpose for existence. What is the point of a dictionary if definitions are unfixed, if words can mean everything and nothing at any given moment, if a passing emotion supersedes the authority of a printed and published volume? Or, alternatively, what is the point of a dictionary that doesn’t understand the fixed meaning of words? What use can it possibly serve to anyone?


Joshua Arnold is a staff writer at The Washington Stand.