It was 9 AM and the first of two morning services was about to begin. After the choir's rendition of Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty and some announcements from the church secretary about various events happening throughout the city and within internal church ministries, Pastor John Peterson walked onto the stage as he always did with his Bible in his hand and his sermon in his brain. However unlike every other Sunday morning before where he opened his mouth and said something provocative to capture the attentions of tired brains, he just stood in front of the pulpit and stared at the crowed. The people in the pews were all attentive at this unexpected sermon introduction as they stared right back at their senior pastor. This staring contest went on for about five minutes and then Pastor John, picked up his Bible off of the pulpit turned and walked off the stage siting down in the first row of seats with his beautiful wife and their 11 year old son.
The stage stayed empty for about 30 seconds before Pastor John stood up and walked back onto the stage. Still attentive to his most unusual and out-fo-character conduct, the crowd was hoping to hear an explanation for his behaviour.
"This week I got five complaints, from 15 people within our local church body" he said. "These complaints varied in nature," he continued. "I got one complaint about a word that I tend to use when I describe someone with a physical aliment of sorts - crippled," he explained. "Apparently the word offends one of you. Another complaint regarded a point that I made last week about homosexuality being sinful and my associated encouragement of everyone here to speak out against it with prejudice; apparently I can't say such things as there are people here who might believe differently than I on this issue." He continued to explain. "A third complaint I received was about how I walk on this stage and how I move my hands as I teach a 40 minute sermon; and the other two complaints pertained to how raise and lower my voice; apparently there are some people who feel confronted by the way I lead a sermon and they don't like being confronted," he concluded. "I have considered these complaints with sincerity and I have chosen to respectfully decline changing how I walk and talk and the messages teach. So as your senior pastor what would you like me to do? I do not wish to, but I would be willing to step down as the senior pastor of this church and leave," he said and then turned and walked off the stage.What would be going through your head if your pastor made such a decision? "What decision?" you may ask as Pastor John made two decisions: 1) to step down and leave without argument if that was the consensus of the church body and 2) to ignore the complaints voiced by the 15 offended people. Would you expect your pastor to change as a preacher and a Bible teacher or leave the your church or would you vote to keep him (or her) despite their views (of which some you may agree with and others you may disagree with) and mannerisms.
Political correctness: a philosophy that encourages the practice of being "...careful to not use language or behave in a way that could offend a particular group of people."[i] Political correctness is a relative social phenomena as what one society may be offended but another may not be. For an example a subculture within a society e.g. the disabled community may be offended by being labelled the crippled community yet the same subculture in another society may not take an offence with such a characterization as the term crippled-community is a grammatically correct term to describe a body where the members of that body are physically disabled. So it is important to note that something to be politically-correct does not mean that it is correct; and conversely something deemed as politically-incorrect (or socially offensive) doesn't mean that, that something, is incorrect and should be offensive. So a person with a physical disability should not be offended by being called 'crippled' as that is what they are. Calling a disabled person crippled is not wrong.
However political-correctness has become the backbone for Western Society. This as such has had a grave effect on society as now truth is being compromised as the truth about anything offends someone somewhere; so it is best to not tell the truth about anything and allow someone's views to be equally true even though their views are in logical conflict with the view/s that offends them; and this has also been applied to doctrinal issues such as homosexuality and claiming that Jesus is the only way to heaven, thus condemning contrary beliefs as wrong. This is something I will touch on in a future post. As such critical thinking skills has taken a serious hit. Returning to the example of offensive words: why should one whose ears are hurt by a perfectly acceptable term like crippled expect to win victory in a complaint thus forcing the offender to change what term they use? As I will show in a future post there is nothing but irrationality being played out here. What is one to do then? Should a Christian minister like Pastor John be expected to bend to the will of those whose sensitivity-meeter is on overdrive and thus are offended by perfectly acceptable words and teaching styles? No.
However what is the cost of fighting political-correctness without any room for any level of compromise? Of course compromising on God's word is non-negotiable but is there not some wisdom in accommodating people's feelings and points of views in what one does and says and how they do it and say it? In discussing the dietary laws for Jewish converts to Christianity the Apostle Paul addresses the Christian response to those who are sensitive to the freedom that Christ brings in not keeping kosher. He states:
Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them. - Romans 14:1-3In application to being offended by benign terms like crippled a Christian should not judge another because they are irrationally sensitive towards the term when it is used to describe a disable person. Moreover that same person should not be so sensitive with perfectly acceptable words so it is at the level of irrationality. But the one who uses the word should not fluff off the offended party as mere overly emotional. And in talking to such people Paul states:
If your brother or sister is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy someone for whom Christ died. Therefore do not let what you know is good be spoken of as evil. - Romans 14:15-16.In the same way then if your brother or sister is distressed because of a term that you use you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your usage of a known relatively offensive term destroy someone for whom Christ died. Therefore do not let what you know is good such as an acceptable term be spoken of as evil. So in another way, the answer to the question above: Yes, Pastor John as a pastor would be wise (if not commanded by the nature of Christianity) to accommodate his choice of words for the sake of those who are the overly-sensitive by being characterized as crippled. Submitting to this compromise is a submission to political correctness, however it is a surrendering in a battle that will aid victory for the Gospel. How? It shows those who are sensitive that you care about them to make yourself approachable of which will make the Gospel message something they may want to listen to.
___________________
[i] - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/politically%20correct - accessed July 14, 2014
No comments:
Post a Comment