Vain Jangling
I identify as someone or something I neither am nor can be.

Today’s society is very much concerned with self-identity.
Who am I? What do I aspire to be? How do others see me?

There is discussion about finding oneself, seeking self awareness, being true to oneself. Often these can be discovered and lived out by true self examination, self discipline, and self sacrifice to pursue dreams and hoped for accomplishments.

However, there is a limit to the thought:
“You can be whatever you want to be when you grow up.”

Sometimes the term identify is used to look outside of oneself. One may try to identify with the person they are trying to minister to. One might try to identify with the victim or suspect in a case. This is not to become that person, but rather is meant to try to understand another person or situation. A “put yourself in their shoes” mentality, not in actuality.

Sometimes the term identify can be used by actors and actresses. They will spend time and energy studying a script and the who or what they are to portray. Sometimes the character is real, other times they may be fictional, but in either case, neither the actor nor actress ever truly become the other person, place, or thing. They are merely acting like.

However, today, some wish to identify as—not to understand or to play the part, but rather to become—what they neither are nor can be. Procedures, no matter how minute or extensive, may change the outward appearance, but no amount of medication, surgery, or rhetoric can make someone what they are not. It is merely vain jangling to appease a soul with such unbiblical (and unscientific) ideals, when it is in direct conflict with truth. Especially, when limits are still set—for who can identify as who or what—in this alternate reality.

Vain Jangling
My truth. I believe. I feel.

Personal or relative truth is an interesting canard, and too vast to cover in its entirety here. So, we will take a gander at the lightweight version just to give us something to think about.

Personal or relative truth has its foundation or basis in the individual or individuals who choose to believe it. However, belief—by person or persons or even society as a whole—alone does not prove or make something true. It may very well be based on ignorance, stupidity, misunderstanding, or outright rejection or rebellion against truth.

How about we use a simple example: 2 + 2 = 4

There may be an individual who has never formally learned numbers or basic math, so they created their own system to live by.

There may be an individual who has a disability or special needs that hinders them from fully understanding the concept of math.

There may be an individual who rejects the idea, because they feel or believe (for various reasons) 2 + 2 should = or can also = 5.

The first can be taught, the second can be helped, but the third is lost unless they repent (turn away from) their personal or relative truth which opposes absolute truth. In this case, mathematical truth. For the third to demand the rest entertain, accept, or approve of the lie (they claim to be a personal truth) is absurd, and for anyone to do so is folly.

Vain Jangling
Woke.

In today’s society, there is so much that could be said about one simple word: Woke. “Are you woke?” “They aren’t woke enough.” “That business is too woke.” “Stay woke.” What is your wokeness?

By standard definition, woke means: awake, as in, “I woke up.”

Of course, who really goes by standard definitions today? We like to redefine terms at will—usually to our own liking, to fit our own narrative—which ultimately makes discussion regarding a topic or topics somewhat difficult or virtually impossible. Why? Because we can be using the same word or words, having totally different meanings, thus speaking past or around, over or under one another, with nothing being understood or settled, since our arguments never really meet on the same plain, with single, understood, agreed upon terminology. (Well, that was an unexpected mouth full.)

In the Christian sense: Woke could express the idea that one has been awakened to the gospel of Jesus Christ. (i.e. new life, salvation) One having ears that hear, eyes that see, verses one still spiritually dead. However, the term woke is usually not used.

In the Social sense: Woke may refer to an awareness of social and racial justice—or injustice. It has been noted that the term is slang from a dialect called AAVE (African American Vernacular English), with “Stay woke” being a statement for those (in the black community) who are self-aware of injustice or racial tension, along with a call to action (namely with BLM, Black Lives Matter).

The vain jangling of the term “woke” comes in because of the varying world views and narratives used in today’s world. What is usually meant by “woke” is, “Are you woke (in agreement) to my view?” Woke to the gospel, woke to systematic racism, woke to the liberal or conservative platform, and the list could go on. Whether one is considered awakened to the modern Woke narrative or awakened from it. Then comes the name calling, backbiting, shaming, slandering, silencing, rioting, etc. often based on vain janglings, not truth.

Vain Jangling
Defund the police.

The word “defund” is defined as [to prevent from continuing to receive funds] and thus illogical when the implications of defunding the police are considered. Although some suggest by defund they do not mean to “completely” defund the police, this only muddies the argument by trying to play with or redefine words. To defund the police would be to withdraw all funds from the police, thus instantly (or slowly) make the police extinct.

John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Honestly consider the crime in America with police and then imagine it without police. If there are those who still ignore and fight against the (good) laws of the nation today (which there are), to remove what stands in their way (i.e. the police) will not somehow convert or conform the lawless. They, along with the whole of society, will only get worse. For if the lawless could govern themselves, they would.

To defund the police—the individuals and institutions tasked and paid to ensure the safety of all persons, places, and things—will not stop the loss of life. It would only increase it. Even the “partial” defunding [some claim to call for] would lead (even if inadvertently) to less necessary training, gear, and the best individuals to have a safe, fair, trained police force. To defund the police would deprive moral citizens of an institution God purposed for protecting the innocent and punishing the evil doer.