Articles
The Danger Of Watering Down The Gospel
As we all know, our culture is hypersensitive to political correctness. Certain words are declared “off limits” because of the potential for hurt feelings. If a single person complains about something, the whole company policy may change.
Perhaps the most ridiculous example of PC is the mute elementary school student in Nebraska who must sign his name, Hunter – which in sign language happens to be the forming of the hand into the shape of a pistol. You guessed it – the school outlawed the boy from signing his own name because the gesture of a “firearm” wasn’t “appropriate” in school. That’s how idiotic this PC thing can be.
While it is reasonable to treat all people with due respect, I believe the PC movement is being exploited for sinister purposes. It is a tool to suppress or attack others for being judgmental or narrow-minded or discriminatory, and there’s no one more guilty of those things than Christians – in the minds of many.
And all that is to be expected, for we understand that the Lord long ago warned the apostles – and, by extension, us – that such persecution would come (John 15:18-20; Acts 14:22). But of greater concern is the seeping of these attitudes into the minds of Christians and their capitulation to the values of the world.
More specifically, I have heard increased criticism through the years of preaching that “calls names.” It is thought that we should never publicly mention those who are in error, who promote false teaching and who lead multitudes into eternal destruction. And why not identify them by name? Because someone might get offended and close their minds to the gospel.
While we should not be callous about the feelings of others and deliberately close the door of opportunity, I believe this outlook is misguided for several reasons:
-
It will result in watering down the gospel. The gospel is confrontational. It is not smarmy, feel-good-about-yourself cheerleading but “living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart” (Heb. 4:12). The word of God is designed to cause discomfort leading to self-evaluation, and if we dull its edge to the point that it won’t cut through melted butter, then we rob it of its power.
-
People often miss subtle references. When the Lord spoke indirectly using figures of speech or implication, His hearers often missed the message (“destroy this temple …”; “beware the leaven of the Pharisees …”; “you must be born again”; etc.). Some people don’t know the doctrines of their own denominations, and sometimes it needs to be pointed out that “the Methodist Church teaches so-and-so.” And why should this offend a Methodist anyway?
- It does not fit Biblical precedent. Does the preaching of Paul follow this “no-confrontation” concept? Paul had tact, and so should we. But while he gently introduced a knowledge of the true God in contrast to their idolatry, he said, “the One whom you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you” (Acts 17:23). Jesus said to the Samaritan woman, “You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews” (John 4:22). Stephen exposed the stubbornness of the Jewish council, infuriating them to the point of his own execution (Acts 7). Paul directly challenged his Jewish brethren in Damascus, Thessalonica, Jerusalem and Rome in an attempt to break through their hard-heartedness.
The prophets of old spoke directly to the people and often, like Stephen and John the Baptist, were murdered by those they made angry. Shall we say that if they had been a little wiser and softer, they would not have brought such trouble upon themselves? If people hear the truth, spoken with kind clarity, and are offended by it, the fault is not the speaker’s. It is the hearer’s.
