Political Correctness in the Church
Recently I attended an event that was geared toward increasing Sunday School attendance. And even though I have attended other seminars or trainings, I find it harder and harder to understand what is going on. It’s not that the material was difficult or that the instructor was not clear. It was just that I don’t understand many of the new terms anymore. It seems that every where I look changes are being made. Now I’m all for change when there is a need. I think that too many times we stay with the “that’s the way we always have done it.” It has become the traditional way of doing things. Change in many cases is good.
But, and of course there has to be a ‘but’ to this blog. I just don’t understand making changes for change sake. I’m happy with the term Sunday school. I guess “life groups” is fine for some, but I like Sunday school. I’m not ready to go to war over using Sunday school or life groups, but I do not understand changing a person’s position from “sinner” to “pre-Christian.” What is wrong with the word sinner? After all “sinner” is used everywhere in Scripture. I don’t see one instance in the Bible, where the word ”pre-Christian” is used.
I’d like to know the thought process that went into making this change. I’d like to try to really understand why somebody would change the word from “sinner” to “pre-Christian.” The reason I heard was that the word sinner tends to offend people, and therefore they might not return to church. I find this hard to understand as the Scripture clearly defines mankind, as sinful. I am a sinner! I sin! I do not have a problem with this word. I understand that ‘sin’ is disobedience to God. The word ‘pre-Christian’ doesn’t have the same power. It simply means someone who isn’t a Christian yet. But in the interest of getting people to come to church, the decision has been made that if we don’t offend people by calling them sinners, they might come back. “Give us time to work on them and they might become a Christian.” That seems to be the consensus. Changed the nomenclature in order to present a better model. For me, that is the crux of the problem. Man continually leaves out the work of the Holy Spirit and in its place put the power of man. So what if a person becomes offended at the word of sin. Isn’t that the essential work of the Holy Spirit; to convict of sin?
I read the following article recently.
Ever in the vanguard of political correctness, the Church of England has been debating the best way to refer to the Three Wise Men. A committee of that church’s current Synod charged with rewriting the prayer book yet again, has changed “wise men” to “Magi,” on the grounds that, as a spokespedant for the committee explained, “the visitors were not necessarily wise and not necessarily men.”
I looked at this and said, WHAT? Why would anyone spend time trying to make the very Word of God ‘politicaly correct’ to suit their own needs or wants. The Word of God will offend! That is a fact. Jesus said, “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.” (Matthew 10:34) The Gospel is supposed to convict man and that conviction would bring an understanding of the the sinful nature that we all have. Some will accept the Book of Romans in that “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;” (Romans 3:23)
Jesus clearly talked about sin. John 8:34 “Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.” John the Baptist stated, “The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.” (John 1:29)
The revisionists are already at work on a ‘gender neutral’ Bible so as not to offend anyone. The revisionists that want to make everything politically correct will have to change the Bible where it talks about man being a sinner and change it to “pre-Christian.” They could start with Romans 3:23, ‘For all have been ‘pre-Christian’ and come short of the glory of God.”
That is my opinion, what is yours?