Better to offend or be politically correct?

[Ohorseman]

That definition will do. As a Christian, I try not to tell racist or sexist jokes, or to use insulting terms to describe people's ethnicity or gender. For that matter, I also try not to use insulting terms to describe gay or gender-nonconforming people, and I try not to tell jokes at their expense. I think this is a good policy for all Christians, regardless of your views on same-sex marriage or gender roles.

I agree that "political correctness" becomes a problem when it silences differences of opinions. But even there, it's best if we as Christians can find ways to express those differences of opinions with empathy and respect, and without insulting those we disagree with.

Sometimes it is impossible to not insult someone. If a gay man is interested in talking to me about my Faith and asks how I view his same-sex marriage, I will have to say to him that it is a sin based upon the way God defines marriage. This may insult him. Really, that would be more about the gay man - about his sinfulness against God and unwillingness to accept any message that suggests that he is living in sin. From my observation, many Christians, even Preachers, will not speak on such things because they are afraid of the consequences. Not only would they not die for the faith, they will not even speak up for their faith.

 

[CaspianSails]

Better to speak the truth in love. Being politically correct as we call, can and does in many instances mean to leave the truth of the Gospel behind. To leave sin and redemption as meaningless. This I cannot do and be a follower of Christ. We are called to be light and salt to the world. Salt in the open wound of sin burns and offends. The teaching of the cross is an offense to the world. I think that sums up where I am on your question.

 

[Quartermaine]

Sometimes it is impossible to not insult someone. If a gay man is interested in talking to me about my Faith and asks how I view his same-sex marriage, I will have to say to him that it is a sin based upon the way God defines marriage. This may insult him. Really, that would be more about the gay man

I doubt he would take offence. As a gay man he would have been subjected to decades of assaults and insults and lies and obscenities and threats all directed at him and his family what you are saying would hardly register.

I good friend summed it up when he wrote "I don't care about what some stranger thinks what the bible says. Their prejudice doesn't diminish or erase my 32 year marriage, it's doesn't make my children orphans. My family exists no matter what anyone's opinion is. I don't care about anyone's approval, i don't care if people like me. I don't want any of that. I do however want to be able to send the kids out the door without the worry that some hater is out there clutching a bible and a gun."

 

[RDKirk]

Sometimes it is impossible to not insult someone. If a gay man is interested in talking to me about my Faith and asks how I view his same-sex marriage, I will have to say to him that it is a sin based upon the way God defines marriage. This may insult him. Really, that would be more about the gay man - about his sinfulness against God and unwillingness to accept any message that suggests that he is living in sin. From my observation, many Christians, even Preachers, will not speak on such things because they are afraid of the consequences. Not only would they not die for the faith, they will not even speak up for their faith.

So, is there any other area besides homosexuality that you feel hamstrung as a Christian against "political correctness?"

Because if "political correctness" is only an evangelistic problem in one or two specific areas, it's not advantageous to rail against "political correctness" in general...because the Lord urges us to make sure our "conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt," so we can't throw out all "political correctness" and become "clanging cymbals."

Rather, be precise. And be even more precise.

It's worthless talking to an unbeliever about any particular act that for a Christian is sin because it would make no difference in the gospel even if he stopped performing that particular act. Being sexually straight won't get an atheist into heaven.

The problem with Christians going around pointing out other people's sins is that we don't know what is anyone's point of conviction is. We only know what we overtly see on the outside.

If we see a prostitute on the street, we can rail at her about the sin of prostitution, but she already knows about that and she's built a bulwark of rational to support what she does. What we don't know is her point of conviction--the weak spot in that bulwark of rationale.

I've told this testimony before. I know a woman who is now a dear sister in Christ, but who had been a prostitute. She'd heard many street preachers tell her she was going to hell, and her basic attitude was that her life was already hell.

But then our church had begun a street ministry in the red light district, and on their very first night, they caught this woman's attention. When the pastor finished his sermon and the group was packing their van to leave, this woman walked right up to him, put her finger on his chest, and demanded: "What you said about everything in Christ being new and all the old going away...is that the truth?"

You see, nobody had ever preached before that she could drop the baggage. That was her point of conviction.

For Zaccheus, the point of conviction was that he could end the social solitude of being a tax collector and enter a body of fellowship. For the Samaritan woman at the well, the point of conviction was that she could end her own social isolation and enter a body of fellowship. Jesus did not immediately speak to their particular sinful acts, He first touched their points of conviction.

 

[Ohorseman]

So, is there any other area besides homosexuality that you feel hamstrung as a Christian against "political correctness?"

Because if "political correctness" is only an evangelistic problem in one or two specific areas, it's not advantageous to rail against "political correctness" in general...because the Lord urges us to make sure our "conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt," so we can't throw out all "political correctness" and become "clanging cymbals."

Rather, be precise. And be even more precise.

It's worthless talking to an unbeliever about any particular act that for a Christian is sin because it would make no difference in the gospel even if he stopped performing that particular act. Being sexually straight won't get an atheist into heaven.

The problem with Christians going around pointing out other people's sins is that we don't know what is anyone's point of conviction is. We only know what we overtly see on the outside.

If we see a prostitute on the street, we can rail at her about the sin of prostitution, but she already knows about that and she's built a bulwark of rational to support what she does. What we don't know is her point of conviction--the weak spot in that bulwark of rationale.

I've told this testimony before. I know a woman who is now a dear sister in Christ, but who had been a prostitute. She'd heard many street preachers tell her she was going to hell, and her basic attitude was that her life was already hell.

But then our church had begun a street ministry in the red light district, and on their very first night, they caught this woman's attention. When the pastor finished his sermon and the group was packing their van to leave, this woman walked right up to him, put her finger on his chest, and demanded: "What you said about everything in Christ being new and all the old going away...is that the truth?"

You see, nobody had ever preached before that she could drop the baggage. That was her point of conviction.

For Zaccheus, the point of conviction was that he could end the social solitude of being a tax collector and enter a body of fellowship. For the Samaritan woman at the well, the point of conviction was that she could end her own social isolation and enter a body of fellowship. Jesus did not immediately speak to their particular sinful acts, He first touched their points of conviction.

Point of "conviction". I don't think that word is even in the Bible. Whereas the word "sin" is in there over 400 times. That said, this so-called point of conviction would be in response to sin. And in your examples from the Bible, each one of those individuals were sinning and Christ addressed this in a direct and plain manner. These stories tell the sin of those individuals. I read nothing about conviction points. I am sure you mean well... but this is what I am talking about. Talking that way I think is the problem with churches today and it has resulted in liberalism taking over. It makes things gray, watered down. Salt that has lost its saltiness. I don't exactly mean to be talking about your comments specifically, but more about the failure of Christians to directly talk about sin.