Michael Kaarhus
00:14 Friday, July 4, AD 2025 GMT
Shangri-La
The overlooked norm comes from observing this Gospel Instruction:
Jesus said to them, ‘Give back to Caesar what belongs to Caesar – and to God what belongs to God’. This reply took them completely by surprise. (Mark 12:17, JB)
Part of “what belongs to God” are names of God and words that translate to God.
Normally, people use such names and words only in reference to God. That is a little way of giving to Him what is His, just as Jesus instructed.
What then if someone were to redefine a word normally reserved for God so that it would refer to some worldly or godless thing?
They would be taking from God what is His, and redefining it to mean something worldly or profane. Such a practice is fine with the world—the academy, governments, modernists, education administrators, the MSM, etcetera. Over time, however, inasmuch as no one objects to it, this appropriation of what is God’s becomes a cultural and journalistic norm.
Consider, for instance, DEI. Everyone thinks they know what it means. It’s in common use throughout the U.S.A.
At acronymfinder.com, these are the first seven results for DEI:
DEI Divide et Impera (Latin maxim; game)
DEI Direction de l'Environnement et de l'Intervention (French...)
DEI Declaration of Energy Independence (slogan)
DEI Directed Electronics Inc.
DEI Dayalbagh Educational Institute (India)
DEI Dutch East India
DEI Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
But there’s another DEI. It’s a Latin word that means God. It is normally reserved for references to Him. So why is it that whenever people see DEI, their first thought is diversity, equity and inclusion?
Here I argue that it’s intentional. There has been a push to flood our screens, newspapers, magazines and journals with the acronym DEI. It seems to me that the intention of the push is to replace the Latin word for God with an acronym that excludes God.
That’s right. Supposedly inclusive minds stole a term from God, and made it into an acronym that excludes Him. This appropriation is part of a larger effort to make us godless by making godlessness seem cool, avant-garde and normative.
The above acronyms would be better if they were EDI, EID, DIE, IDE or IED—anything besides DEI.≺𝟏≻
My favorite is inclusion, equity and diversity (IED). Did not this term burst onto the scene all of a sudden? Is it not exploding in our faces everywhere on the web, in the news and in journals? And is it not blowing up people’s knowledge of the Latin word DEI?
It is! If you want to use the word DEI now, you have to specify, "By that I mean the Latin word for God, not that other thing you see all over the place." Is not this displacement of the word DEI intentional?
According to dictionary.com, the acronym for diversity, equity and inclusion has been in use only since 2015-2020. A Forbes article on its history does not use the acronym in its timeline until it gets to the 2020s.
The Latin word DEI has roots going back to the Roman Empire. Do you think it wise to abandon an old friend for some flash-in-the-pan acronym?
Some may object that Latin is a dead language, and that they are thereby free to make novel acronyms, even if they trample a Latin word meaning God.
People can give the word DEI profane meanings, but it’s unwise; it fails to follow Jesus’ plain instruction in Mark 12:17. And yes, Latin is a dead language, except in the Roman Catholic (R.C.) Church. But even if it were dead there too, we would still use English words formed from Latin roots.
For instance, from the Latin root DEI we use the following English words today:
deicide
deicides
deify
deific
deification
deifications
deified
deifier
deifiers
deifies
deifying
deiform: conforming to the nature of God: having the form of a god
deism: Belief in God based on reason rather than revelation or the teaching of any specific religion is known as deism. The word originated in England in the early 17th century as a rejection of orthodox Christianity. Deists asserted that reason could find evidence of God in nature and that God had created the world and then left it to operate under the natural laws devised by God. By the late 18th century, deism was the dominant religious attitude among Europe’s educated classes; it was accepted by many upper-class Americans of the same era, including the first three US presidents.
deisms
deist
deists
deistic
deistical
deistically
deity
deities (from merriam-webster.com)
All of the above use the root dei rightly—to refer to God. So I have no objection to them.
Similarly, the R.C. Church has long published its official works in Latin. Their titles are in all caps, and some of them include the Latin word for God. Consequently, the word DEI appears in the titles of at least fourteen R.C. Encyclicals, Apostolic Letters or Constitutions dating from AD 1775 to 2002:
SUMMA DEI Dec. 25, 1775
Pius VI. 1775 - 1799
BENEFICIA DEI June 4, 1871
Bl. Pius IX. 1846 - 1878
IMMORTALE DEI Nov. 1, 1885
INSCRUTABILI DEI CONSILIO Apr. 21, 1878
MAGNAE DEI MATRIS Sep. 8, 1892
MISERICORS DEI FILIUS May 30, 1883
SANCTA DEI CIVITAS Dec. 3, 1880
Leo XIII. 1878 - 1903
PACEM, DEI MUNUS PULCHERR. May 23, 1920
Benedict XV. 1914 - 1922
ECCLESIAM DEI Nov. 12, 1923
UBI ARCANO DEI CONSILIO Dec. 23, 1922
Pius XI. 1922 - 1939
MEDIATOR DEI Nov. 20, 1947
Pius XII. 1939 - 1958
AETERNA DEI SAPIENTIA Nov. 11, 1961
John XXIII. 1958 - 1963
ECCLESIA DEI July 2, 1988
MISERICORDIA DEI Apr. 7, 2002
John Paul II. 1978 - 2005
All of the above DEI mean God. So again, I’m fine with them. I object only when people give the word or acronym DEI a profane meaning.
The cultural appropriation of the word DEI is apparently an attempt not only to make the culture less Godly, but also to attach the Godly connotation of the word DEI to a novel and profane trinity: “diversity, equity and inclusion”.
What are we to conclude, except that the socialist academy, like Soviets deifying Vladimir Lenin, sees a need to associate warm and fuzzy religious sentiments with the godless cultus that they make themselves into? It tries to make its cultus popular, so that everyone would accept it, instead of the true cultus of Our Blessed Trinity.
Another Godly word routinely misapplied is theocracy.
etymology.com gives this definition:
theo-
word-forming element of Greek origin meaning "god, gods, God," from Greek theos "god,"...
The above Gospel Instruction applies here as well: the word theocracy belongs to God; its first element means God. So we give it to Him; we use it to describe His Government, or a just Government under one of His prophets.
We do not use theocracy to describe a government run by cruel men that murder or mistreat their brothers or sisters, and thus cannot truthfully say that they love God or keep His Commandments (See First John 4: 20-21).
Here is where the word theocracy came from:
In Θεοκρατΐα as a Concept of Political Philosophy: Josephus’ Presentation of Moses’ Politeia by Yehoshua Amir, we find that the word Theocracy was coined by Flavius Josephus, a First Century AD Jewish historian. He was writing a work in Greek, contra Apionem, to explicate to Greeks the nature of Moses’ "politeia", that is, of Mosiac government.
The word Theocracy was originally in Greek, "Θεοκρατἱα", which is anglicized as "Theokratia". It was a "neologism", as the Greeks at that time had a Platonic concept of government by a god, but no word for it (Yehoshua Amir).
Josephus wrote,
Now there are innumerable differences in the particular customs and laws that are among all mankind, which a man may briefly reduce under the following heads: Some legislators have permitted their governments to be under monarchies, others put them under oligarchies, and others under a republican form; but our legislator had no regard to any of these forms, but he ordained our government to be what, by a strained expression, may be termed a Theocracy...≺𝟐≻ (from contra Apionem, ¶17, Translated by William Whiston)
Theocracy, as Josephus intended it, referred specifically to Jewish prophets and judges invoking the Hand of God in Jewish affairs, and obtaining the Mind of God in Jewish law and revelation. Note that he capitalizes it, apparently out of respect due to the definition of theo-.
The scope of the word theocracy does not extend beyond Judaism unless we extend it. Because of what Jesus did for us that believe in Him, we can extend it.
By His Execution and Resurrection, Jesus tore down the wall separating the Jewish people from us that believe in Him; He destroyed the emnity between us. The Church of Jesus Christ is thereby brought into the Commonwealth of Israel, and the Covenants thereof (See Ephesians 2: 11-18). We are grafted into the olive tree that represents Israel as a people especially cared-for by the Most High God (See Romans 11: 15-25).
Since God extended the Covenants and commonwealth of Judaism to Christianity, I extend the scope of theocracy to include Christian theocracies.≺𝟑≻
Now the word theocracy is rightly extended to instances in Judaism or Christianity wherein a people were or are led by Moses, a Moses-like prophet, or God Himself (for instance, as the Ruler of Heaven, or Jesus leading individuals that want Him to be the Lord of their lives). But it is not rightly extended beyond those.
Even so, today’s academy extends the term theocracy to refer to any government that is run by religious authorities. For instance, it is extended to legalistic, cruel and harsh governments run by Ayatollahs, Imams, Mullahs, etcetera.
Apparently, as far as the academy is concerned, there is no distinction between unrighteous and righteous religious people that run governments; all are evil, all are called theocrats. But it is out of keeping with both the original and literal meaning of theocracy to refer to a cruel, unrighteous or hateful ruler as a theocrat.≺𝟒≻
The theocracy that Josephus had in mind was not despised or hated. It might correctly be called authoritarian, as both God and Moses truly are and were authorities. But They were and are admirable, revered and just, not hateful, despicable or unjust. If its theocrat is Christlike, the theocracy is also most likely merciful, kind and beautiful.
Therefore, no despicable, hateful or unrighteous government qualifies to be called a theocracy. For such, I suggest a “strained expression”, for instance, religiocracy, fanaticracy, hereticracy or zealotocracy.
The ultimate Theocracy is the governance of God over Heaven. But in human history, we don’t have an example of His direct governance, except for when our first parents resided in the Garden of Eden. So we need to believe that life under the ultimate Theocrat will be greater than we can conceive.≺𝟓≻
It is easier to obtain such Faith if the cultural norm is to use theocracy only in reference to Godly, righteous, Jewish or Christian governments, and some “strained expression” for unrighteous governments that try to pass themselves off as righteous. _____________________________
Notes
𝟏. In researching this I stumbled upon one academic Department that uses one of the “better” acronyms mentioned above. The U Dub’s Epidemiology Department has an EDI Committee, which publishes a glossary of EDI terms! EDI does not trample the word DEI. [return link]
𝟐. “our legislator” above refers to Moses, who is today referred to as “a seer, a revelator, a translator, and a prophet...” (from Doctrine and Covenants 107: 91-92). It must be understood, however, that First Century Greek prophets did not run governments. Maybe Josephus wanted to make it clear that Moses ran the government, and so Josephus wrote, “our legislator” rather than “our prophet”. [return link]
𝟑. This inclusion of former Gentiles into His People, this equity that God bestows on former pagans and former neo-pagans, this diversification of the People of God, is the inclusion, equity and diversification that people need to seek. Forget academic versions. In sending His Son to open up to His Church Covenants He made long ago with Israel, God does a truly great Work for us Christians, and of course also for Jews that believe in Jesus. [return link]
𝟒. etymology.com defines theocrat as “one who favors a system of theocracy”, and theocratic as “of, pertaining to, or of the nature of theocracy”. These terms actually need the word theocracy for their definitions. etymology.com does not say this, but it follows that the moral sense of the three words is the same; theocrat and theocratic inherit from theocracy its moral sense: Godly, noble and just. [return link]
𝟓. The Apostle wrote,
... but just as it is written, “Things which eye has not seen and ear has not heard, and which have not entered into the heart of man, all that God has prepared for those that love Him.” (First Cor. 2:9)
Saint Anselm wrote,
And so, Lord, do thou, who dost give understanding to faith, give me, so far as thou knowest it to be profitable, to understand that thou art as we believe; and that thou art that which we believe. And indeed, we believe that thou art a being than which nothing greater can be conceived. (from Proslogion, Chapter 2)
The prophet Lehi famously said, “Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy” (Second Nephi 2:25, Book of Mormon).
All the above suggest that life in Heaven will be greater than we can conceive. [return link]
Ϯ