Politically Incorrect


     A study of sayings and pithy expressions that often guide people in their beliefs and choices in life is very interesting. Each generation has historically had such catchy sayings. In our generation, one phrase that has not only become popular but also binding is the expression, "politically correct." Many are now using the saying as authority for what is religiously believed, taught, and practiced. If a matter is not politically correct, then it is automatically wrong. In fact, there is a large influential movement in America today that not only wants "politically correct" to be influential in shaping beliefs, but they also want to legalize the saying to the point that any deviation from politically correct is civilly illegal. Hence, civil law is viewed as the determination of morality.

     Allow me to say at the onset that the Christian is to submit to civil law (I Pet. 2: 13). However, when there is a conflict between civil law and God's law as such (the Bible), God's law must take priority (Acts 5: 29). God's word is the sole authority for religious belief and practice (I Pet. 4: 11). In fact, God's word is so important that to go beyond Jesus' teaching means that one does not have God (2 Jn. 9-11). Let us now turn our attention to some politically incorrect matters.

     We are politically incorrect in that we practice discrimination. Please pay special attention to what I am saying. In one sense, God is no respecter of persons (Acts 10: 34, 35). It matters not if one is white, black, or green, if one seeks and obeys God, that person is accepted by God and is to also be accepted by God's people (Phile. vs. 5). However, what we have in America today is distorted reasoning regarding discrimination. If there is a standard set for passing a test and the teacher fails those who do not come up to the standard or criteria, then we hear the cry, "discrimination," especially if one of a minority class is involved in the failure. It has reached the point that businesses are often "forced" into hiring incompetent workers based on, "You must not discriminate." In this sense, God does discriminate. God shall judge all men based on their works, according to Romans 2: 6. Man deems such politically incorrect, alas.

     Total unqualified allegiance to God. The scriptures are very clear in teaching that half-hearted service to God is not acceptable. One is to, "Seek first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness…" (Matt. 6: 33). Jesus said, "No man can serve two masters…Ye cannot serve God and mammon" (Matt. 6: 24). A large number of religionists practice religion, but up to a point. They view the belief that God comes over all else as radicalism and even a threat to the "powers that be." To be fully dedicated to God is, therefore, considered politically incorrect.

     The husband is the head, the wife is to be in subjection. The scriptures teach the subservience of the wife to her husband (Eph. 5: 22, 23). To the dismay of moderns, the scriptures teach in plain language regarding wives, "…obedient to their own husbands…" (Tit. 2: 5). The husband and wife are over the children in the family unity. I am sure that I do not have to tell you that such teaching is considered politically incorrect.

     As you ponder the foregoing teaching, there is not a hint of any contextual influence to limit, modify, or weaken the teaching. In other words, such teaching regarding headship in the family was not just a First Century matter and therefore inapplicable today.

     There is one church. Americans, politically considered, are to be broad minded and tolerant. To believe that there is only one true church in view of the many thousands is simply not "politically correct." In Ephesians four, Paul enjoins religious unity (vs. 3). To provide the means for such unity, Paul presents the seven ones. The very first "one" is, "There is one body…." (vs. 4). The "body" is the church, the spiritual body of Jesus (Eph. 1: 22, 23). The American idea of a diversification of religions, all teaching different and opposing doctrines to one another and to the scriptures being acceptable to God is fallacious (cp. Jn. 17: 20, 21, 2 Jn. 9-11). One may be civilly entitled to one's beliefs, but such does not mean that one is spiritually right in believing just anything (Jn. 4: 24).

     Withdraw from those who break ranks. The very idea of a church withdrawing from a member is repulsive to the modern, yet, such is undeniably taught. Paul taught, "…withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us" (2 Thes. 3: 6). The term "disorderly" has to do (the Greek) with breaking ranks. When spiritually applied, the idea is one who goes against the scriptures and practices sin (see context, vs. 8, 11, 14). Churches have been civilly sued because they practice discipline regarding disorderly members. Some even in the church argue against withdrawing. What is the source of their opposition? They are heard saying, "We cannot practice 2 Thessalonians 3: 6 because it is not 'politically correct' to withdraw."

     No give away programs. It seems that everybody is out for a freebie these days. I am told that the main feature people seek in a church is what they will give them. Free daycare, entertainment for their children, dating services and the like are very much in demand. However, the church that Jesus built is not into such giveaways. In fact, Jesus emphatically discouraged people from following him for "loaves" (Jn. 6: 26). Jesus placed the focus on spiritual matters (Jn. 6: 28).

     If a church does not offer freebies today they are labeled as "politically incorrect." The government is presently attempting to force more churches into open welfare programs. One reason for this is that the government wants out of the relief business. Such programs encourage laziness and lack of profitability. The scriptures teach, "…if any would not work, neither should he eat" (2 Thes. 3: 10).

     Openly teach the whole counsel of God. Most religions selectively teach the scriptures. Regarding salvation, it is common today for salvation by grace only to be taught. Grace only is a popular doctrine in our age of selfishness because it relieves man of any responsibility. "Jesus died and did it all, there is nothing for me to do," is consoling to the spiritually lazy (see Eph. 2: 10).

     Many today, in view of "political correctness," just do not know any more if certain matters are sin. For instance, shacking up is becoming socially and religiously acceptable. Some preachers are saying, "We must accept shack up couples and say nothing against it." Why is this the case, I ask? In order to be "politically correct" is the answer. Fornication remains fornication, political correctness to the contrary, notwithstanding (I Cor. 7: 1ff.).

     Homosexuality is addressed in the scriptures and irrefutably said to be a sin (cp. I Cor. 6: 9-11, Rom. 1: 25-28). As a rule, homosexuality used to be publicly taught against, but not now. What has brought about this omission in teaching? The influence has not been some "new understanding" of the scriptures, but the "politically correct" criteria.

     Those who are really interested in serving God are not affected by the world and its trends and influence. They are also unimpressed with capricious politics, knowing that political values and norms change depending on the contemporary demand.

     In our present environment, I would go so far as to say that sound biblical teaching is often politically incorrect!