Christian "Political Correctness"

"Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ and behold, the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye." (Matthew 7:3-5)


I've been hearing for 30 years...everyone in America has been hearing...the repeated incantation of "political correctness" as a criticism of...you name it. Criticism of anything in our national life that smacks of bending-over-backwards fairness or sensitivity to the feelings of others. The take-away is that "political correctness" is stupid because it sometimes goes to ridiculous extremes. That it is specifically liberal stupidity, because that faction makes the biggest show of its civic inclusiveness. And that "politically correct" treatment of "them" (here's the real sting) victimizes US and deprives us of our "rights."

Somebody else can hash out the relative value and the relative threat of "political correctness." That's not my concern, and indeed seems rather pointless.

What seems very much to the point is that Christians (who often squawk the loudest against anything they perceive as "p.c.") operate by their own politically-correct mindset. Doing so is, in fact, part of how we're expected to signal our membership in the "Christian" club.

Far from a comprehensive catalog, and in no particular order, the attitudes and thoughts of "politically correct Christianity" include:


that the world's "conservative" faction is our friend:

that Christianity is ITSELF, in fact, "conservative;"

that "liberals" and all their works are therefore evil;

that "liberals" are flesh-and-blood enemies of Christianity;

that "the media" is "liberal," and always lies (Fox "News" excepted);

that America's "activist courts" are "liberal" and anti-Christian;

that "conservative" political and legislative action can bring America back to God;

that God is served when we support "conservative" candidates and causes;

that our "liberal" enemies are out to take away our God-given "rights."


"Christian p.c." is a complex of many other pervasive attitudes. I could mention the "American Christian Heritage" historical lies of professional "conservative" operative David Barton and others; false patriotism, and adulation of the military; contempt for science as "anti-Christian;" and unthinking acceptance of unscriptural "conservative" positions on every other current "issue" (gun-control, global-warming, small government, etc., etc.). Those attitudes all have their political repercussions, of course, and may even (as with Barton's lying "history") be intended primarily for political ends. They are not, however, strictly political beliefs in themselves: so I don't regard them as core "Christian p.c."

Each above belief of "Christian political correctness" is quite simply false, and based on a lie. That in itself should give any thinking Christian pause, knowing who Jesus said is "the father of lies." I've written many times in this blog about most, if not all, of those lies. I hate lies, every denial of "The Truth," as must anyone who believes Jesus IS The Truth. But that's not my point here.

The fact is that "political correctness" is predicated on a righteous ideal: kindness to others. But as with all human-devised systems, its implementation becomes ineffectual, ridiculous...and ultimately destructive of the righteousness it intends. But that's not my point either.

The point is that Christians despise "political correctness," and those (whom they perceive as their "liberal" enemies) fostering it.

At the same time, Christians follow their own lock-step "political correctness" in the image of the world's "conservative" faction; and regard "Christian p.c." as a prerequisite for membership in their religious club.

The first (but only the first) problem there is that Christians accept in themselves what they condemn in others. Jesus rightly calls that hypocrisy. (Matthew 7:5)


May the American Church repent its gross hypocrisy !!

Two Kinds of People...

No human being is one-dimensional. Any single person, at any given moment, may be kind, judgmental, anxious, funny, assertive, clever, careless, vulnerable, out-going, suspicious, angry, reserved,... It's every individual's free-will choice. We can also choose to scale and combine any of our responses in any given circumstance, or in relation to any specific other individual(s).

But we like to believe other people are one-dimensional. That their responses are wholly pre-determined by our (OUR !!) perception of them as "one of those people." They always talk that way, think that way, and act that way because they are (take your choice, or add your own) Italian-American, "conservative," a druggie, Catholic, a union-member, white, a mother, an academic, an immigrant, wealthy, a hunter, a New Yorker, oriental, a veteran, an attorney... And because they are "one of those people," they will never be (like us) honest, well-intentioned, trustworthy, loving, right-thinking, decent people.

God...Himself the Creator of all human beings, all their diversity, and of free-will...has a different criteria. He looks among the billions of human hearts to find one which is completely His; who knows Him, loves Him, obeys Him.

"There are only two kinds of people." We have our human thoughts and ways of sorting them out. God has His. If it's not already completely obvious, He tells us straight-out that our thoughts and ways are not His at all (Isaiah 55:8-9).

Can two walk together unless they are agreed ? (Amos 3:3) They cannot. But God delights to walk with any who will agree in His thoughts and His ways.

Wisdom for our course

Here is wisdom.


No worldly political faction is a friend of God's Kingdom.

No worldly political faction loves The Truth.

No worldly political faction has any heart-motivation except seizing political power for themselves.


So why is the Church in America in bed with a worldly political faction ?

Why does the Church in America cling fanatically to a faction whose ways are rebellion, saying that "government IS the problem" ?

Why does the Church identify with a faction which teaches blasphemy, that "America is the light of the world" ?

Why does the Church follow a faction which puts forward a priest of anti-Christ to lead America ?


Two reasons.

Because, as Jesus warned us, the enemy will do everything in his power "...in order to lead astray, if possible, the elect." That is exactly what he has done, and is doing.

Because the Church has chosen to be spiritually blind. That is exactly what Christians have done, and are doing.


May the Church in America immediately repent !!

The Church of Limited Jesus

There's a pervasive problem in the thinking of America's current unbelieving Church. They know Jesus is in the Bible, and consider He's inside their church' walls. They don't really believe Jesus is in the world...even though they'll make a big pious deal in a couple months of celebrating that God came to earth in human flesh.

But few believe that fact in the scriptural sense: that it changes their daily operative thinking.

It's easy that they see Him in the natural world. Many quote the scriptures about God's power being manifest in creation, and smugly marvel that unbelievers can't see Him there. But man is also God's creation, and bears His "image" in a way nothing else does. The Church' unbelief is that it cannot see His image there.

The Church is spiritually blind to Jesus' Presence in the "world" of human society. Indeed, following the teaching of their "Christian" and political mis-leaders, they view "the world" as irremediably evil, and its people as flesh-and-blood enemies. It's one of the major ways these deceivers have fostered their thinking in the Church' heart, thinking contrary the mind of Jesus.

I see Jesus every day. He's more often in "the world" than in the Church' superficial religious club. It is Jesus when the parents of a murdered child tearfully forgive her killer: it cannot be any other. When a drug-addict of 40 years turns from that destructive life, it is Jesus. When the convenience-store clerk returns an overpaid quarter, a man smiles and stops to talk to a filthy homeless person, a child spontaneously hugs a playmate: that's Jesus, whether or not any of the people themselves are formally members of the Christian club.

He is not among individuals only. He rules over all human works as well. When a journalist busts his ass to make sure he's got the facts right, a judge agonizes to make a decision that is both just and merciful, a scientist spends his life trying to discover how nature truly works: their standard is Jesus. But the Church, as it's been taught, hates "the media," hates government, and despises science as anti-Christian.

Jesus is here. He's among people, between people, and IN people. But the Church' "Christian p.c." thinking blinds their spiritual eyes to seeing Him.

How then can the Church worship One Who is not in their hearts ? More to the point, how can they follow Him they can't see ?

"Rightly dividing the word of truth"

It’s been suggested that the kind of worship outlined in I Corinthians 14:26ff was only directed to the church in Corinth in Paul's time. But this teaching about the proper use of prophecy in worship ends with the words “as in all the churches of the saints.” If these teachings apply to how “all the churches of the saints” use prophecy in worship, clearly all the churches worship this way.

The implication is that all the churches of the saints should worship this way. Paul's opening words in v. 26 flatly state "When you assemble," this is how you worship. I take his words there as prescriptive, with a descriptive example.

I also take it as a given of Biblical teaching that, if we truly believe the Bible is God's written word to man, it applies to us. This is the absolute mindset of the Bible, affirmed in numerous scriptures. Several which stress the universal applicability to believers of scriptural teachings are found in I Corinthians. That's probably significant, since the teachings of I Corinthians (particularly chapters 12 and 14) are the primary ones which some want to disallow.

In I Corinthians 4:17, Paul says he sent Timothy to them “…to remind you of my ways which are in Christ, just as I teach everywhere in every church.”

All should remain in the circumstances where God called them (specifically marriage), he says in I Corinthians 7:17, “And so I direct in all the churches.”

Women should cover their heads when praying or prophecying, I Corinthians 11:16: “…we have no other practice, nor do the churches of God.”

Rather than tailoring his message to the Corinthians and their church, Paul seems to go out of his way to stress that his teachings to them are the same he gives in all the churches. The criteria he holds before them is the Godly practices of all the churches.

We know Paul’s letters to the Corinthians addressed specific problems in that church, in their cultural context, at that time. We could say the same about (for example) the Old Testament prophecies God directed to the Jews, and their culture, in their time. The problems God addresses in those portions of scripture may or may not be present in current-day believers, or our culture, or our time. But I doubt the nature of the human spirit, its temptations and sins, have changed since those scriptures were written.

There’s an argument to be made that, regards human cultural and temporal situations, God has sometimes been merciful to “wink” for a time at mens’ ignorant unbelief (Acts 17:30). Jesus said God let some religious traditions grow up because of our “hardness of heart” (Matthew 19:8). But note that in both cases, these words were followed by a call to repent.

We also know that Paul carefully distinguishes between what he "received of the Lord" and what is his own opinion. In I Corinthians 7:12, for example, he says, "But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not leave her." Similarly, in v. 25 of that same chapter, he writes, "Now concerning virgins I have no command of the Lord, but I give an opinion as one who has had mercy shown on him by the Lord to be trustworthy."

Taking all of that into account, the big question here is what principle we will choose to bring to understanding scripture. I'd expect any believing Christian would start from the premise that scripture's words are God’s word to us, and apply to us.

God doesn’t change. It’s possible He may mercifully temper His words to the cultural or temporal (mis-) understanding of specific people He’s addressing. The teaching that women should cover their heads when praying or prophecying may indeed be such a case, specifically tailored to the cultural understanding of Christians in First Century Corinth. But deeming we may set aside His teachings for any reason should be approached with fearful and absolute humility, and only under the Spirit's express leading.

The typical argument for what some call "cessationism" is usually predicated instead on some element of pride. It seems extremely presumptuous to set aside scripture's teaching, for example, on the supposition that our Twentifirst Century understanding grounded in American culture is superior to that of First Century Corinthians for interpreting God's intent. Making such an argument probably evidences that it is not of God: God is fiercely opposed to the proud. (James 4:6 and elsewhere.)

Perhaps some incidental scriptural teachings may be less than universal and absolute commands for all times and places. I doubt that God's endowing His followers with charismata to edify (build up) the Church is ever incidental. Nor is scripture's instruction about Spiritual gifts' use in worship. I Corinthian 14's portrayal of the Spirit operating in worship through His gifts seems rather to correlate scripturally with what Jesus commends as "worship in Spirit and in truth." (John 4:23-24)

If we're unsure whether a Biblical teaching is incidental, and applicable or inapplicable, we probably need to be wise as well as humble. On any such question, simple wisdom would be to err on the side of being scrupulously obedient to God’s teaching, rather than running the risk of offending and disobeying The King. Especially is that true when the teaching is based specifically in God’s unchanging Nature. That’s the case in I Corinthians 14:33, where prophecy’s use in worship is governed by the fact that “…God is…a God of…peace.”

But the bottom line is not yet.

After all these considerations weighing against a "cessationist" interpretive-system, the fact is that there's no real scriptural evidence for it. God can be expected to do things we don't expect: new things that we find hard to believe, even when He tells us. (Habbakuk 1:5) But in His mercy we CAN expect Him to tell us, in an unmistakable way, when He is pleased to guide us into His new way. Jesus is THE prime example of His setting forth His new Way in the full Blaze of His Glory.

In the 40+ years I've been a Christian, the "cessationist" theorists have never been able to present a scriptural basis for their contention that, after scripture was completed, God's new way is to remove Spiritual gifts and ministries from the Church, or that God intends we worship without them.

That's the bottom line for me. I consider it the absolute criteria on which any believing Christian should weigh any interpretive theory.

Amen.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Interestingly...I don't believe in "coincidences"...I hadn't heard anything about John MacArthur's new "cessationist" volume, in which he removes all charismatics' names from the Lamb's Book of Life, until last week. At the time, I was already working through a scriptural consideration of the proposition put forth in our Sunday School class the preceding week, that I Corinthians 14's teachings about gifts and worship don't apply to Christians today.

I've heard that proposition ever since I became a Christian over 40 years ago, and it's never seemed to me to hold up to honest scriptural scrutiny. But I wanted to re-check my thinking against scripture, and bring to class the scriptures that seem relevant.

At the start of Sunday School yesterday, I gave a very abbreviated summary of the above post. Simply saying that it was central to how we will interpret the Bible, I quoted the four scriptures in I Corinthians (above) against the idea that its teachings were applicable only to First Century Corinthians. (I consciously avoided saying that its teachings apply to us: it's God's part to convince any hearts that will receive His words.)

The responses were illuminating, as to what "spiritual strongholds" exist among everyday evangelicals.

I was told first that what I said was only my opinion. (That those scriptures are relevant, I presume.)

Someone else said that was the problem with our Sunday School class, that it became a forum for people's opinions and got away from what the Bible says. (!!)

(These reactions were from two older sisters who primarily offer opinions in class, often opinions based on the week's news-stories.)

The first added that it was legalism to teach that you're not a Christian unless you follow certain rules.

Someone else suggested that we should use an approved study-guide, preferably from our denomination, to keep from being led by opinion.

I asked if that isn't just following someone else' opinion ? Yes, she said, but they're trained in theology and interpretation. I said the first rule of Bible interpretation is that "scripture interprets scripture;" and we can all do that by reading the cross-referenced scriptures on any verse we're trying to understand. She said her Bible doesn't have cross-references.

It all struck me as a bit surreal. And I couldn't help thinking that sometimes the "sweet old ladies" of the congregation can be the most deep-dyed rebels. LOL.

Reaganites, Repent !

America’s government is operating again: for now. But the faction that wanted it shut down promises they’ll try again.

They illustrate the fact that people's acts reflect their deepest beliefs. Scripture puts it well: “as a man thinketh in his heart, so is he.” (Proverbs 23:7)

The shut-down faction’s operative principle is hard-core Reaganism. That President announced at the start of his first term his principle of governing: that “government IS the problem.” His followers embrace the same principle. They wish to shut down our government because they, like Reagan, view government as inherently evil.

I've said it before, and it's still true: that principle has insoluble problems.

First, that it is illogical. Anti-government governance is impossible in reality.

Second, that it's the foundational principle of anarchism. (see Point One.)

Third, that it contradicts America's founding principle, that “We the People” ARE the government. In Reaganism, America's government is an extraneous predatory force, and "We the People" its prey.

But Reaganism's greatest problem is that it contradicts scripture's principle: human government is put in place, and endowed with God's authority, under His mandate to be “a minister of God to you for good.” (Romans 13:4, my emphasis). Human beings fail to meet God's standard: that's a given. But the fact of human failure hardly negates God's characterization or intent.

Scripture's judgement of those who operate on the anti-government idea is that they "oppose...the ordinance of God." (Romans 13:2) That's sin. Not just a sin: it's satan's own heart-motivation, rebellion against the Great King's rule.

America has just had a small real-world preview of what results from following Reaganism's doctrine. That experience affirms another scriptural principle: acting in accord with an evil idea produces bad results.

Reaganites and those who elect them need to re-examine their operative ideas. If they’ve learned anything from the harm they've caused America thus far, perhaps they’ll change their thinking.

Scripture has a specific word for “re-think and change your mind.” It's exactly the right word for America's anti-government faction. Followers of Reaganism must repent.

Government Shutdown

American government’s mandate is the good of its citizens. The preamble to our constitution outlines the purposes of our government, among them "to promote the general Welfare.” For Christians, this is also the scriptural mandate of government: to be "a minister of God to you for good" (Romans 13:4). (Which operative idea is much more a "Christian heritage" of America than the lying "history" of David Barton and others who claim our deist "founding fathers" were devout Christians.)

So when our government ceases to function as intended, it harms us all. And each political faction blames the other.

But it couldn't be clearer where the blame truly lies. The faction whose guiding principle is that "government IS the problem," is not invested in the constitutional (and scriptural) purpose of government, doing good toward its citizens. That faction's “good” is rather that government cease functioning: as we now have.

All of Kansas' Congressional delegation (and most of our state government) is of that faction. My own Congresswoman, Lynn Jenkins, approvingly quoted the Reaganite anti-government principle in last year’s campaign; but all her factions espouses it. And it becomes clearer every day that their philosophy of anti-government governance is unworkable, and harms our country.

During Vietnam, I held that view for a few years. It made a lot of sense to me at the time that our government was the source of all America's problems. But my thinking reached a point where I couldn't deceive myself that it was a viable philosophy. I had to admit anarchism was a dead-end principle, and give it up.

When I became a follower of Christ, I also came to understand anarchism as a great spiritual evil, in flat contradiction of scripture's teaching. Accepting scripture's characterization of government as a "minister of God...for good," I could see many examples of human government failing in that God-given mandate: but I could not regard government as essentially evil. Nor could I deceive myself that anarchism's spirit of extreme rebelliousness has any other source than satan, the father of spiritual rebellion.

I'd hope for our country's "general Welfare" that the current anarchist faction disavows its principles. Politicians often do.

But in the meantime, blaming the other faction for government shutdown is de facto acknowledgement that Reaganism's bad principles cause harm...for which Reaganites don’t want the blame. Congresswoman Jenkin’s website, for example, recently claimed she is "fight[ing] to keep the government open:” contrary the evidence of her votes in Congress. But again, she’s hardly alone in that hypocrisy.

William Penn on Economic Inequality

"It is a reproach to religion and government to suffer so much poverty and excess"

-- William Penn, 1693

Christian Slavery

“I have found that, to make a contented slave, it is necessary to make a thoughtless one. It is necessary to darken his moral and mental vision, and, as far as possible, to annihilate the power of reason.”

-- Frederick Douglass, from Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass


Douglass' truth probably goes to the heart of the Church' problem in its "Christian p.c." thinking. Group-think takes over when individuals fail to think. And group-think enslaves its followers, incapacitating them for any but programmatic thought, and conditioned response.

But independent thought in itself doesn't make us free (indeed, it can be its own snare). Everything depends on the end to which we set the thoughts of our hearts. Only Truth (Who Jesus said He IS) makes people free.

Prize Pumpkin

Competitions for the "largest pumpkin" produce some amazing results. Last year, for the first time, the winning pumpkin weighed over a ton. It broke the record not only for largest pumpkin, but also for the largest fruit humans have ever grown.

It goes without saying that prize pumpkins are tasteless and inedible. They're only grown for their size; every other quality (including all those for which pumpkins are normally grown) is sacrificed to that single purpose.

The "evangelical" distortion of Christianity puts the Church in the same game. A Church whose goal is "saving souls" easily adapts a fleshly criteria of success: how many souls ?

There can only be one "world's largest church" but thousands of others share that criteria. Every city has its big church trying to be a bigger church, and maybe even a mega-church. To the extent they buy into the "evangelical" delusion that success is a matter of size, these might be called "Prize Pumpkin" churches.

Jesus' has a different criteria: whether His church has "lost its savor," become tasteless. If so, He says, "...it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men." (Matthew 5:13b)