Menu

52 Sermon Illustrations on Political Correctness

52 illustrations Page 2 of 2

Political correctness in Christian preaching addresses society's inclination to avoid offense by altering language and customs, often at the expense of biblical truth and witness. Illustrations commonly depict conflicts between cultural sensitivity and gospel proclamation, such as the suppression of Christian expressions in schools, media, and public holidays (Acts 4:19-20). This subject challenges believers to balance grace with boldness in a world increasingly hostile to faith.

Which Words Best Describe the Trinity?

Luke 10:21

When referring to the Trinity, most Christians are likely to say “Father, Son and the Holy Spirit.”

But leaders of the Presbyterian Church (USA) are suggesting some additional designations: “Compassionate Mother, Beloved Child and Life-giving Womb,” or perhaps “Overflowing Font, Living Water, Flowing River.” Then there’s “Rock, Cornerstone and Temple” and “Rainbow of Promise, Ark of Salvation and Dove of Peace.”

The phrases are among 12 suggested but not mandatory wordings essentially endorsed this month by delegates to the church’s policy-making body to describe a “triune God,” the Christian doctrine of God in three persons.

The Rev. Mark Brewer, senior pastor of Bel Air Presbyterian Church, is among those in the 2.3-million-member denomination unhappy with the additions. “You might as well put in Huey, Dewey and Louie,” he said.

Others include “Sun, Light and Burning Ray” and “Speaker, Word and Breath.” The wordings are meant to reflect particular aspects of worship, so a prayer noting God’s “wrath in the face of evil” might use “Fire That Consumes, Sword That Divides and Storm That Melts Mountains.” Some of the suggestions are familiar ones, such as “Creator, Savior, Sanctifier” and “Rock, Redeemer, Friend,” which other denominations already use.

“Any time you get together representatives of 2 1/2 million people, you get some really solid people and some really wacky people,” he said, referring to the delegates who attended the 217th General Assembly in Birmingham, Alabama.

Although the delegates did not officially adopt a report recommending the new designations, after extensive debate they voted 282 to 212 to “receive” the document. By not rejecting the report, the delegates essentially allowed individual churches to decide how to use the new phraseology.

Written by a diverse panel of working pastors and theologians, the report noted that the traditional language of the Trinity portrays God as male and implies men are superior to women. “For this and other distortions of Trinitarian doctrine we repent,” the report said.

Daniel L. Migliore, a member of the committee that spent five years crafting the report, said critics miss the point. “What we are speaking of is supplementary ways of referring to the triune God — not replacements, not substitutes,” said Migliore, professor of systematic theology at Princeton Theological Seminary.

And the Rev. Rebecca Button Prichard, pastor of Tustin Presbyterian Church, who headed the panel that wrote “The Trinity: God’s Love Overflowing,” strongly defended it as theologically sound. “What people are afraid is that they think we are taking ‘Father, Son and Holy Spirit’ away from them,” she said. “We’re not. What we want to say is that no words can fully describe God. And so we want people to seek a variety of expression, so we can do justice to the greatness of God.”

The concept that the omniscience of God is beyond comprehension — and, hence, human language — dates to antiquity. In ancient Israel, Jews did not dare to invoke the name of God — Yahweh — who declared in the Decalogue, “You shall have no other gods before me.”

But critics of the new designations say the wordings are confusing and reflect a concession to touchy modern sensibilities.

“They’re attempting to be politically correct, and unnecessarily so,” said Hank Hanegraaff, president of the Christian Research Institute in Charlotte, N.C. Hanegraaff contends that the report is based on a false premise that Christianity is patriarchal, an assumption he called “an urban legend” being circulated with increasing frequency. “Jesus Christ comes into a culture in which women are considered to be on the lowest rung of the socioeconomic ladder ... and makes women his disciples,” he said. “Women are the first to bear witness to the empty tomb, which is central in Christianity. The Bible says in Christ there is neither male nor female. We are one in Christ.”

Like many longtime Presbyterians, Sherie Zander, a Brentwood psychotherapist, has followed the General Assembly’s actions. She worries that the report on the Trinity will further divide her denomination, already polarized over issues such as the ordination of gays.

“It’s very odd and bizarre,” she said. When she first heard about the report last week from a friend who called her from Birmingham with “You’ve got to hear this,” she burst out laughing.

“It’s very clear that God refers to himself as the father,” she said. “Jesus, when he walked on the Earth, referred to himself as the son. All through Scripture, the Holy Spirit is referred to as the spirit. What would give any of us the right to change that?”

This is the 300th anniversary of American Presbyterianism. Presbyterians tend to be well-educated and middle- or upper-middle-class, and they place an emphasis on studying Scripture.

The Presbyterian Church (USA), the largest of the three Presbyterian groups, has traditionally been part of mainstream Protestantism, though it has tended to take liberal stands in recent years.

The church, which like other mainline denominations is losing thousands of members a year, is encouraging its 11,000 congregations to employ the Trinity designations except in baptism, which will continue to use “Father, Son and the Holy Spirit.”

The report will be made widely available “for study and reflection,” and study materials will be prepared for dissemination in congregations.

The Rev. Jonathan Lovelady, senior pastor of Westminster Presbyterian Church in Waynesboro, Va., said the panel made a noncontroversial matter into a controversy, adding that decisions like this encourage some churches to consider leaving the denomination.

“The report creates confusion for the name of God, by making a name equal with analogies and/or metaphors for God,” said Lovelady, a member of the General Assembly’s committee on theological issues. He sought to file a minority report against the recommendations, but it was rejected. “Is Father, Son and Holy Spirit interchangeable with Rainbow, Ark and Dove, or Compassionate Mother, Beloved Child and Life-giving Womb?” Lovelady asked.

Bishop Steven Charleston, president and dean of Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, Mass., where inclusive language has been used for three decades, said he respects what the Presbyterian Church is trying to do. “When I saw the language that is being suggested here, I really understood it as a search that many Christian communities are undergoing now, to find more inclusive ways of referring to God,” he said.

The Rev. David M. Scholer, a professor of the New Testament at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, said this is a difficult task. “We don’t want to do things that perpetuate patriarchy,” said Scholer, an ordained American Baptist minister who supports inclusive language. “On the other hand, we don’t want to use terms that take away from awe and transcendence of God and what was accomplished in the life, death and resurrection of Christ.”

Bel Air’s Brewer also warned against over-familiar language. A child calling parents “Father” and “Mother,” he said, is far different from calling them “Billy and Betty.”

==============

The ideas come in threes

The Presbyterian Church (USA) is encouraging its members to use new wordings to reflect the Trinity, in addition to “Father, Son and the Holy Spirit.” A church report suggests how to phrase prayers, such as “The triune God is known to us as ‘Speaker, Word, and Breath.’ “

The specific references to the Trinity in the report:

Sun, Light and Burning Ray

• Compassionate Mother, Beloved Child and Life-giving Womb

• Giver, Gift and Giving

• Rainbow of Promise, Ark of Salvation and Dove of Peace.

• Lover, Beloved and the Love, and Binds Together Lover and Beloved

• Overflowing Font, Living Water, Flowing River

• One From Whom, the One Through Whom, and the One in Whom We Offer Our Praise

• Rock, Cornerstone and Temple

• Fire That Consumes, Sword That Divides, and Storm That Melts Mountains

• Creator, Savior, Sanctifier

• Rock, Redeemer, Friend

• King of Glory, Prince of Peace, Spirit of Love

• One Who Was, the One Who Is and the One Who Is to Come

________

Source: “The Trinity: God’s Love Overflowing,” a report by a committee of the Presbyterian Church (USA)

________

Note at end of article, by truthandgrace.com editor: "Heretics are replacing nouns with adjectives thereby eliminating the Persons of the Trinity."

Why We Should Defend the Right To Be Be Offensive

Acts 4:17

A British defense of free speech.

________

To people like me, educated in post-war Britain, free speech has been a firm premise of the British way of life. As John Stuart Mill expressed the point:

“The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.”

That famous statement is not the last word on the question, but it is the first word and was, during my youth, the received opinion of all educated people. The law, we believed, would protect the heretics, the dissidents and the doubters against any punishments devised to intimidate or silence them, for the very reason that truth and argument are sacred, and must be protected from those who seek to suppress them.

Moreover, public opinion was entirely on the side of the law, ready to shame those who assumed the right to silence their opponents, whatever the matter under discussion, and however extreme or absurd the views expressed.

All that is now changing. Under the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006, it is an offence to stir up hatred towards religious and racial groups. “Stirring up hatred” is an expression both loaded and undefined. Do I stir up hatred towards a religious group by criticising its beliefs in outspoken terms? Under the terms of the act, I would have to use “threatening words and behaviour” and also intend to stir up hatred.

But is giving offence a reason to convict someone of a crime? The robust English view used to be that the correct response to offensive words is to ignore them, or to answer them with a rebuke. If you invoke the law at all, it should be to protect the one who gives the offence, and not the one who takes it. Now, it seems, it is all the other way round.

At the time of the attacks on the twin towers, many expressed their shock at the gratuitous murder of 3,000 innocent people, blaming doctrinal Islam for the perversion of the criminals responsible. Immediately a new word entered the public discourse - Islamophobia.

The religious fanaticism of those who had flown into the twin towers and the so-called Islamophobia of their critics were both represented as crimes, hardly distinguishable in their destructiveness. The main purpose of future policy, it was implied, must be to ensure that neither crime is committed again. Pressure mounted to forbid Islamophobia by law - and in its way that is what the Racial and Religious Hatred Act has tried to do.

Ed Miliband promised last April that a future Labour government would make Islamophobia into an aggravated criminal offence, and meanwhile the consequences for a civil servant, a policeman or a teacher of being accused of this fault are serious in the extreme.

This takes us back to what John Stuart Mill had in mind. It is not falsehood that causes the greatest offence, but truth. You can endure insults and abuse when you know them to be false. But if the remarks that offend you are true, their truth becomes a dagger in the soul - you cry “lies!” at the top of your voice, and know that you must silence the one who utters them.

That is what has happened in the case of Islamophobia. Muslims in our society are often victims of prejudice, abuse and assault, and this is a distressing situation that the law strives to remedy. But when people invent a phobia to explain all criticism of Islam it is not that kind of abuse that they have in mind. They wish to hide the truth, to shout “lies!” in the face of criticism and to silence any attempt at discussion. In my view, however, it is time to bring the truth into the open, including the truth about the Holy Book itself.

The classical Islamic philosophers, the early jurists and the Sufi poets all tried to interpret the Koran so that it would be compatible with life in the real world. But their efforts were increasingly disapproved of, and now it is widely held among orthodox Sunnis that interpretation is no longer permitted - or, as the saying goes, “the gate of ijtihad is closed”.

None of the real difficulties are to be discussed. And yet it is just now, in Islam’s encounter with Western democracy, that discussion is most needed. Muslims must adapt, just as we all must adapt, to the changed circumstances in which we live. And we adapt by putting things in question, by asking whether this or that belief is true or binding, and in general by opening our hearts to other people’s arguments and attempting to meet them with arguments of our own.

Free speech is not the cause of the tensions that are growing around us, but the only possible solution to them. If the government is to succeed in its new measures to eradicate Islamic extremism, therefore, it should be encouraging people to discuss the matter openly, regardless of who might take offence.

In 2008 it also became a crime to stir up hatred against groups defined by their sexual orientation. The orthodox liberal view is that homosexuality is innate and guiltless. Like the Islamists, the advocates of this view have invented a phobia with which to denounce their opponents. Deviate in the smallest matter from the orthodoxy, and you will be accused of homophobia and, although this is not yet a crime, it is accompanied, especially for those with any kind of public office, by real social costs.

The fear of accusation, of standing aside from the crowd, of not being impeccably on the side of the received opinion, explains much of the legislation attacking free speech in this country. Politicians have not sufficiently examined what they meant by “stirring up hatred”. They have been too keen to show that they are on the side of Muslims and also of homosexuals notwithstanding the manifest conflict between the two.

It is precisely for this reason that they should have been careful about introducing vague phrases that could be used to silence discussion. We may disapprove of the view that homosexuality is a sin, but it does not follow that the street preachers who have recently been arrested for saying so are stirring up hatred. However misguided their opinion might be, it is a legitimate contribution to a much-needed public debate - a debate that will not now occur, so fierce is the condemnation of those who deviate from the one permitted opinion.

What, then, should be the role of the law in policing the forum of public debate? It seems to me that it should not criminalise opinions that give offence, but protect those who express them. In the age of the internet, the Twitter crowd and social media, however, it is increasingly difficult for the law to intervene - abuse and persecution rapidly become widespread and anonymous, avoiding all punishment and blame.

A recent example illustrates what I mean. In the course of a scientific conference in Korea, Professor Sir Tim Hunt, the Nobel-prize winning biologist, said that when “girls” were present in a research laboratory “you fall in love with them, they fall in love with you, and when you criticise them they cry”.

As a result of the ensuing witch-hunt, Sir Tim was forced to resign from his professorship at University College London, the Royal Society (of which he is a fellow) went public with a denunciation, and he was pushed aside by the scientific community. A lifetime of distinguished creative work has ended in ruin.

The orthodox view today is that sex is in every respect irrelevant to the pursuit of a scientific career. I don’t know whether that view is true, though I doubt that it is, and clearly Sir Tim does not entirely endorse it either. How would I find out who is right? Surely, by considering the arguments, by weighing the competing opinions in the balance of reasoned discussion, and by encouraging the free expression of heretical views.

That is what free speech is about, and why the law has set out to protect it. Truth arises by an invisible hand from our many errors, and both error and truth must be protected. The heretic, however, is now exposed to public intimidation and abuse on a scale inconceivable before the invention of the internet.

Of course, we have moved on a bit from the Middle Ages. It is not the man who is assassinated now, but only his character. But the effect is the same. Free discussion is being everywhere shut down, so that we will never know who is right - the heretics, or those who try to silence them.

________

A selection of reader comments:

To try to shut down a debate by simple condemnation or personal abuse is a sign of intellectual laziness and moral cowardice. It is very disturbing that apparently intelligent people can resort to bullying rather than considered discussion and tolerance of an opposing view.

-- David Jackson, Henley-on-Thames, UK

This is not philosophy; it’s a straight, white man defending his privilege. Because he is not a member of a group that has been oppressed and vilified, he cannot comprehend what he is defending. Black people don’t just hear hate speech when they hear the N word; they hear the credible threat of assault, murder or false imprisonment. Gay men who hear the F word are all too familiar with the punches and kicks that follow it. Hate speech IS an assault. It’s a shame that Mr Scruton can’t muster the empathy needed to understand that basic fact of life that many of us face every day.

-- John Edward, USA

Free speech must be upheld and protected by law. It is only through free speech that society can progress and achieve harmonious agreement on ethical standards which are the essence for a fair society and acceptable to all. Those who preach that there is ‘only one right way’ need to be constantly challenged.

-- Nicola Maurer, Bedford, UK

If our society is to continue to thrive and develop it is absolutely imperative that individuals are able to debate beliefs and ideas without fear of persecution. The stifling of philosophical thought and debate will lay us prey to narrow and unchallenged ideologies and create generations afraid to question and challenge ridiculous superstitions masquerading under the protective banner of religion.

-- Sally, London, UK

The gradual erosion of our liberties by political correctness, driven by who shouts loudest, is not the open society that I value so highly.

-- John Gallacher, Cardiff, UK

Free speech allows me to insult anyone. Can I go up to a complete stranger and insult his or her mother and then expect no retaliation? Can I go up to a police officer and swear at him or her and expect no consequence? Technically I could say that I am expressing my opinion in both cases. No: both cases are disrupting the peace and in both cases I should be duly punished. Free speech does not exist in the real world but respect for others should.

-- Zain Patel, Stafford, UK

The big flaw in Roger’s ‘obviously correct’ argument is that we are rarely dealing with people who can adopt the requisite dispassionate and objective views. For a start, over half the world is religious. Where will you find interested truth seekers in that population? Even among those only socially religious, there are still far too many people swayed by instinct and emotion rather than logic and reason.

-- Brian Boru, USA

Free speech must be upheld and protected by law. It is only through free speech that society can progress and achieve harmonious agreement on ethical standards which are the essence for a fair society and acceptable to all. Those who preach that there is ‘only one right way’ need to be constantly challenged.

-- Hugh Collins, Cheltenham, UK

Preachers standing on the street yelling that homosexuality is a sin are not making a “legitimate contribution to a much-needed public debate”, and saying something so ridiculous really undermines the position being presented. Yelling on street corners is not a public debate, and you’re ascribing values not once but twice by first declaring that society absolutely needs to debate whether homosexuality should be accepted or not, and then labelling this action as ‘legitimate’. I support the right to free speech, including posting ridiculous articles like this, but I reserve the right to critique them.

-- Emmy, Crawley, UK

Everything we make is available for free because of a generous community of supporters.

Donate