Should Christians be Politically Correct?

[AlexDTX]

As I understand what political correctness means, we are not to offend anyone by using positive sounding euphemisms. Is there a time to call a spade a spade as a Christian, or should we be so sensitive to other people's feeling we should walk on eggshells in an effort to offend no one? Was Jesus serious when he said:

Mat_18:7 Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!

What did he mean by offences? Was it an offence when Jesus called the Pharisees snakes and vipers? How can a Christian speak the truth if he has to tip toe around everyone? Is it love to be silent and let people go to Hell? You tell me.

 

[timewerx]

Yea, Jesus offended a lot of people, probably the majority of the Jews since the majority voted to crucify Him.

And obviously not all under the other religions will be saved. Those who won't be saved will be judged....That's far from being politically correct, even God isn't politically correct!

 

[Sarah G]

Matthew 7:12 New Living Translation (NLT)
The Golden Rule
12 “Do to others whatever you would like them to do to you. This is the essence of all that is taught in the law and the prophets.

 

[AlexDTX]

Yea, Jesus offended a lot of people, probably the majority of the Jews since the majority voted to crucify Him.

And obviously not all under the other religions will be saved. Those who won't be saved will be judged....That's far from being politically correct, even God isn't politically correct!

I agree. All who live godly will suffer persecution.

 

[AlexDTX]

Matthew 7:12 New Living Translation (NLT)
The Golden Rule
12 “Do to others whatever you would like them to do to you. This is the essence of all that is taught in the law and the prophets.

I agree with the golden rule, too. However, I don't think it applies to political correctness, since political correctness has an agenda contrary to the golden rule. Political correctness is Orwell's 1984 Newspeak which gives positive names to gruesome activities.

 

[Rubiks]

No one should try to offend another person, but sometimes people don't want to hear the truth. Jesus was very blunt sometimes. It could even be argued that Jesus discouraged people from following him; he told people the plain truth of what it means to be a disciple of Jesus.

 

[Sarah G]

I agree with the golden rule, too. However, I don't think it applies to political correctness, since political correctness has an agenda contrary to the golden rule. Political correctness is Orwell's 1984 Newspeak which gives positive names to gruesome activities.

Oh I thought we would be using the actual definition of it:
political correctness
noun
noun: political correctness; noun: political correctitude

1. the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against.

That makes your question trickier as I consider excluding, marginalising or insulting groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against to be a gruesome activity.

 

[Rubiks]

Matthew 7:12 New Living Translation (NLT)
The Golden Rule
12 “Do to others whatever you would like them to do to you. This is the essence of all that is taught in the law and the prophets.

The golden rule is just an easy to remember adage, not an encyclopedia on every possible issue. The fact that I like dinosaur chicken nuggets would not mean that I would serve a vegan dinosaur chicken nuggets. (I'm sorry if that's a stupid example )

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

You tell me.

No, I don't think they should be politically correct.

 

[RogerRoger]

I agree with the golden rule, too. However, I don't think it applies to political correctness, since political correctness has an agenda contrary to the golden rule. Political correctness is Orwell's 1984 Newspeak which gives positive names to gruesome activities.

I understand that this is where you're coming from, but that's not entirely true.

For example, when I was growing up the big political correctness issue was calling people with developmental disabilities "retarded". This fits the original definition, that @Chosen_and_blessed posted:

1. the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against.

This change is not politically motivated to give "positive names to gruesome activities", instead it is working to avoid insulting a group that is historically disadvantaged. I think Christians would do well to avoid using that word in that way.

So when it comes to your other definition, you are painting the whole idea of "political correctness" with the most extreme negative angle, when I think we can agree that there are cases, like the one I've just described, where your definition doesn't apply.

 

[AlexDTX]

No one should try to offend another person, but sometimes people don't want to hear the truth. Jesus was very blunt sometimes. It could even be argued that Jesus discouraged people from following him; he told people the plain truth of what it means to be a disciple of Jesus.

This is my point, thank you. I totally agree that no one should deliberately try to offend people, but speaking the plain truth should not be prohibited. I realize that this forum is an international forum with believers from all over the globe. So I am not trying to promote a misunderstood concept of American free speech. Free speech does not mean we can cry, Fire in a crowded room when there is no fire. So free speech has its boundaries, too. But God is higher than any political government. We have the right to speak his Biblical truth regardless of culture and governments.

 

[AlexDTX]

Oh I thought we would be using the actual definition of it:
political correctness
noun
noun: political correctness; noun: political correctitude

1. the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against.

That makes your question trickier as I consider excluding, marginalising or insulting groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against to be a gruesome activity.

What you call the actual definition is not the same as the actual practice of it. I am in agreement that we should never exclude, marginalize, insult nor discriminate against anyone. But it is naive to think that is the agenda of political correctness.

 

[com7fy8]

Yes, we are to do to others as we want them to do to us. And if we are honest, we want others to help us to receive real correction so we can better find out how to love. So, telling someone the truth in order to help them to know Jesus and how to love would be good . . . being honest with others as we want them to be with us

But in case someone does not want us to so talk with them, possibly we do well to not push things, but pray for the person. With God, we can pray and do what He has us do.

Also . . . 1 Peter 3:1-4 shows how Christian wives "without a word" can help a wrong husband to become obedient to God. Be His example, including being a sample of how we become in God's gentle and quiet love.

So, even if we don't say anything, our example can be used by God.

 

[AlexDTX]

Thanks for your response.

I disagree though - what you attribute to euphemisms and realization is often just the natural progression of language. Retarded means slow, or delayed. However, when it began to be used in a derogatory way, and when used to insult people both with and without developmental disabilities, It no longer had the same meaning.

I don't really see how your point disproves mine. The meanings of words change, and that's something that I think you know, because you are arguing against a definition of political correctness that is not the one in the dictionary.

Yes, language changes from generation to generation. My contention with political correctness is the deliberate intention of changing the meaning of words. I took a class on pro se litigation just to try and understand the court systems. It is shocking how we understand the meaning of words is quite different from what lawyers understand for those same words. Consequently we get taken advantage of by the legal system, at least in the USA.

I do not advocate being rude, nor insulting people. I am addressing the influence of political correctness on the body of Christ and how it subtly undermines the Gospel.

 

[AlexDTX]

Yes, we are to do to others as we want them to do to us. And if we are honest, we want others to help us to receive real correction so we can better find out how to love. So, telling someone the truth in order to help them to know Jesus and how to love would be good . . . being honest with others as we want them to be with us

But in case someone does not want us to so talk with them, possibly we do well to not push things, but pray for the person. With God, we can pray and do what He has us do.

Also . . . 1 Peter 3:1-4 shows how Christian wives "without a word" can help a wrong husband to become obedient to God. Be His example, including being a sample of how we become in God's gentle and quiet love.

So, even if we don't say anything, our example can be used by God.

Well said, com7fy8. Although our example online is limited to the words we speak.

 

[RogerRoger]

Yes, language changes from generation to generation. My contention with political correctness is the deliberate intention of changing the meaning of words. I took a class on pro se litigation just to try and understand the court systems. It is shocking how we understand the meaning of words is quite different from what lawyers understand for those same words. Consequently we get taken advantage of by the legal system, at least in the USA.

I do not advocate being rude, nor insulting people. I am addressing the influence of political correctness on the body of Christ and how it subtly undermines the Gospel.

That's a great point about the legal system, although I don't necessarily think the intention is to take advantage of non-lawyers (full disclosure, I went to law school, probably biased). To me, the use of precise legal language is just the best available solution to epistemic problems of language. In the pursuit of legal certainty, I'd rather have this than overly ambiguous but simpler terms.

 

[AlexDTX]

That's a great point about the legal system, although I don't necessarily think the intention is to take advantage of non-lawyers (full disclosure, I went to law school, probably biased). To me, the use of precise legal language is just the best available solution to epistemic problems of language. In the pursuit of legal certainty, I'd rather have this than overly ambiguous but simpler terms.

Sorry, for making it sound like I was bashing lawyers. My primary thinking is the U.N. Many of the powers that be in the U.N. want to destroy families and marriage because they understand loyalty. If a marriage is strong the family will be strong. If the family is strong their loyalty will be to the family and their local community. Destroying traditional families will shift loyalties to a national and global allegiance.

As Christians our allegiance is to the Kingdom of God. We are here to be salt and light. When we use politically correct speech we are endorsing that agenda, even though the surface agenda may be noble. They can not sell their real agenda without some kind of noble agenda attached to it. So, yes, we do not deliberately insult people, but we should not lose our language either.

Television portrays casual sex as a normal and natural activity. Our hearts have hardened so much because of that exposure I rarely hear anyone take offense at fornication. But it is extremely damaging. Adultery is just as common as fornication and it is utterly destructive to families. Children born out of wedlock were called bastards, but now that has so much stigma attached to it, parents of bastards take great offense. The offense is there because they have brought children into the world in a greatly disadvantaged way, and the word reminds them of the harm they done to their own children.

Again, I do not advocate deliberately insulting people, but I think the truth still needs to be told, and speaking the truth in love sometimes means tough love.

 

[archer75]

I don't think anyone should be politically correct in their speech and writing, if "politically correct" means "using euphemisms to make something that is wrong or unpleasant sound good or neutral." Example: "Department of Defense" is a euphemism for "Department of War." "Correctional facility" is a euphemism for "prison." "Execution" is a centuries-old euphemism (although it may have grown out of a legal usage that wasn't euphemistic, exactly, in its origin) for a certain kind of murder. "Abortion" is a politically correct euphemism as well. We know what we're talking about when we say these things.

I do think it's a good idea to avoid using crude insults when possible. For example, older folks remember when there were in polite speech certain terms for US citizens of fairly recent African descent that are now heard as fairly crude insults. It's nice to use terms that don't make you sound like a jerk, if you don't want to sound like one. Again, we know who we mean (more or less) when we use these words.

Then there's a whole class where it's not certain what the term actually means. Sometimes, alt-right means a reasonable group of people with a presence online who would prefer not to see their world gutted as it has been, slowly, over the last several decades. Sometimes, alt-right means someone who is just ITCHING for a legal way to join a death squad and start busting heads. So, is using that term politically correct? Or not? Not so clear.

 

[sethrak]

Politicaly Correct, that I think is: When facing a great number, who are strong and/or angry and willing to hurt or kill you```You say nothing or only what pleases them~so they don't take your job``or your life~or expel you from a forum```

Eat the bread and salt,,but speak your piece~

 

[~Anastasia~]

Language indeed changes over time. However, I wonder if people realize how much language shapes our very thinking, which I think is at the heart of this question.

If the word being discussed is offensive because it is used to hurt and demean people, then the word should not be used.

However, if the word being discussed is one that is used in order to normalize sin, then by all means we should use the properly descriptive word, even if it offends people. To give sin a new label to make it more acceptable, will make sin itself acceptable and "normal" in the eyes of people who grow up in the language structure, and we should guard against this.

So really, it depends on which "politically correct" terms you mean, but by and large, "political correctness" has led to both good and bad changes, and should not be used as a single framework to approve any and all changes. The real question is, WHY are we changing the word, and what does the new word mean, and what did the old word mean? If we can answer these questions with honesty and wisdom, we will know how to speak with Godly speech.