I Was Just Thing About - - -
Several years ago, I was called as a witness for the Defense of an institution where a temporary employee had become angry, slammed his coffee cup down on a file cabinet and announced: “I quit! Don’t expect me to return.” The position held had to be immediately filled so the institution could legally perform its services. His lawsuit indicated: (1) The institution should’ve known that I was under contract!” And (2) Even though the institution informed me that due to my announcement, my services were no longer required. they should have known that (3) When I said I would not return was just a statement I made in anger.” When I was called as a witness, I was administered the oath: “Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?” It was actually a chilling moment! Why? Because the Lawyer representing his client against the institution was very well qualified and had skillful mastery of the English language. It is at this point when obfuscation can become a factor.
What is obfuscation? It is: “the act or an instance of making something obscure, dark, or difficult to understand.” When an oath is taken to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, careful attention has to be given to the content of a question and any employment of nuances (a subtle difference or distinction in expression, meaning, response) with words that are employed. It is equally important to listen for and measure any inflection (modulation of the voice) that occurs when a question is being asked. The Grammatical explanation of the affect when inflection is present is stated to be: “A change in the form of a word, usually modification or affixation, signaling change in such grammatical functions as tense, voice, mood, person, gender, number, or case” (Dictionary,com). Why is any of this important?
There is an obvious illustration from the world of politics. Comedians have used the line: “It is easy to determine if a politician is lying - if his lips are moving, he’s lying.” Generalizations need to be understood for what they are, an exaggerated comment being made to prove or disprove a given point.That which causes a basis for the comedic statement is the reality that most politicians, seldom, if ever, are willing to give a direst “Yes!” or “No!” answer to a question asked. This parlance (a way or manner of speaking; vernacular; speech, especially in a formal discussion or debate) is almost uniformly employed by and in the political class.
Sadly, in this day of mega-churches and large media-ministries, obfuscation is part of the structure for many of them. Ministers in these ministries have usually taken a vow to “tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth” prior to their ordination.
- How many of them speak of a very real Hell reserved for those who come under the judgment and condemnation for their persistence in their sin and continual rejection Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord?
- How many of them reference Romans 1 and God’s condemnation of homosexuality?
- How many address the pericope of Romans 3:9-20(NIV) and the clear defining of sin versus righteousness?
- How many echo the words of Jesus Christ: “If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.”
- How many expand on the “truth that will make one free” by the clear presentation of the Gospel as recorded in I john 5:9-12 (NIV), “We accept human testimony, but God’s testimony is greater because it is the testimony of God, which he has given about his Son. Whoever believes in the Son of God accepts this testimony. Whoever does not believe God has made him out to be a liar, because they have not believed the testimony God has given about his Son. And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life.”
No comments:
Post a Comment