DOES JESUS EMBARRASS YOU?
Reflections on "Political Correctness"

B y The Rev. Dr. Oscar Cole-Arnal

Over the last few years I have heard students from time to time preface their remarks with comments like this: "well, this may go against 'political correctness' but...." Invariably they follow such words with some challenge to supposed values and practices of movements dedicated to gender, racial, ethnic or sexual orientation rights. In this respect they pick up on constant messages from the media that both America and Canada are in thrall to strident feminist, gay, lesbian, native, black and trade unionist activists who dominate our respective societies over against a more moderate majority. We hear horror stories of feminists harassing male teachers even to the point of job loss over the most trivial words or actions that violate the narrow-minded codes of what Rush Limbaugh calls the "feminazis."

Similar accounts emerge of Afro-Americans dominating university campuses and departments compelling them against their constitutional rights of free expression to adopt the "black" agenda. Given that this epithet "political correctness" is used almost exclusively against those forces in society struggling for rights and dignity over against the establishment mainstream, it should come as no surprise that the term was coined and used extensively by the "powers that be" to trivialize and marginalize their critics. What is so tragically ironic is that well-meaning and progressive people have adopted rather uncritically both the term and its targets. Perhaps it is time for prophetic Christians and their justice-seeking allies to expose the oppressive agenda of the phrase by turning it around and by exposing what our society and mainline churches mean by "political correctness."

Above all, by its very nature the phrase serves as a defining marker between "insider" and "outsider." Consequently the politically correct meet the standards of the dominant and defining group; they are insiders and are, by definition, "politically correct." Those who either resist or cannot meet these standards are outsiders and hence must be labelled "politically incorrect." So we can say with ease that within a group of feminists any one who advocates any form of male dominance in society would be politically incorrect. That's obvious. Likewise an open member of the Ku Klux Klan would not be recruited by the NAACP. One need not be a rocket scientist to make such an assessment. At this level, it strikes me that such a state of affairs is both normal and acceptable.

The two above examples serve to define and clarify the orientation and commitments held by the members of such groups. Part of life's meaning involves the delineating of boundaries. Can you imagine someone coming to your church and saying, "Hey, I'd like to join your church, but I think this Christ guy is totally irrelevant and stupid!" It just makes no sense to seek to belong to a group that either holds no interest for you or stands in antithesis to your values. Of course, things rarely emerge with such simplicity. The insider/outsider dialectic all too often requires finding external scapegoats to reject. For example, when I attended Thiel College (1959- 1963), students received the tacit label of "outsider" if they did not belong to either a fraternity of sorority. Not surprisingly these exclusive clubs sought out the most popular, most successful and most confident students The "Political Correctness" slogan is a weapon created by the establishments of our societies to keep critical groups on the margins through the mechanisms of trivialization, innuendo and cheap humor. .

Every year numerous people, so eager to belong, were rejected and suffered serious and devastating emotional stress. And, of course, the unwritten code was there: "Jews and blacks need not apply." In fact, the creation and extensive use of the term "political correctness" emerged as a reaction against oppressed and marginalized groups determined to resist this denigration and exclusion. The "Political Correctness" slogan is a weapon created by the establishments of our societies to keep critical groups on the margins through the mechanisms of trivialization, innuendo and cheap humor Nonetheless, there are within our society and churches serious standards of "political correctness" that need exposed and challenged, and they are so politically correct that many of us live and recite them as part of the residue we call natural law, common sense or stuff that "everybody knows." I believe that our Christian gospel calls upon us to unmask and challenge these.

Let's look at a few in the following two categories:

Within Society: Some of the major sources of "political correctness" in our society (and for this article I will use exclusively American sources) come to us regularly through the earnest looking anchors on the TV news. The three traditional TV networks plus CNN are purveyors of "political correctness" on a daily basis. Add to that the talk show hosts (radio and TV) from the crypto-fascism of Rush Limbaugh to the syrupy liberalism of Oprah Winfrey, and we have a sense of the pundits of "political correctness." To a person, their differences notwithstanding, they are prophets of the power, wealth and success-oriented god of American militarism. At most they offer minor critiques about this or that behavior, but none provided depth or serious reflection around the events of September 11th and the war in Afghanistan. I heard few voices against President Bush's trivial remark that the terrorists acted out of envy for our freedoms, nor have many cried out against the rising assault upon these same cherished freedoms by the Bush administration under the "politically correct" rubrics of security and national interest. Certainly no critical voice was raised by the mainline media pundits in any form. This anti-Gospel political correctness has weasled its way into our churches as well. Put bluntly "Political Correctness", as employed in both the United States and Canada, underscores the alliance of corporations and the political elites that serve and are rewarded by them.

For example, the Institute for International Economics, a think-tank promoting NAFTA and corporate globalization, published a book entitled Toward a North American Community in 2001 which combines free-market theology and propaganda into a book-length defense of "political correctness." For example, the book's author applauds the NAFTA agreement as a deal which "has generated spectacular growth in trade and investment while improving national productivity and competitiveness (pp. 1- 2)." Although he acknowledges glitches in the NAFTA effort, he never challenges his fundamental "religious principle" that western hemispheric globalization is the yellow brick road to a golden era for all citizens. Under the rubric of "The Strategic Challenge of the 21st. Century" he had this to say: "Since the Second World War, the world has witnessed a remarkable expansion of free markets and trade. This has been both cause and consequence of the transfer of technology, the compression of distance and communications, the spread of universal values of human rights and democracy, and the strengthening of the rule of law within countries and among them. People, businesses and societies have connected with each other in ways that have permitted the quality of life to improve demonstrably in all but the most isolated, poorest nations of the world. A global system has been created by private initiative and by decisions of nation-states p. 185)."

This hymn of praise for "global capitalism" is promoted as fact in all our major media rather than as the summary creed of corporate "Political Correctness." Poor nations are dismissed as a footnote or minor glitch, and we hear no mention of community devastation, loss of democratic rights, police repression, environmental disaster, nuclear build-up, massive increase of global wealth disparity, wars and rumors of wars. I suppose we can write these off as minor bumps on the journey to the globalized promised land. In fact, this "politically correct" creed so dominates our social landscape that we can list some of the salient principles of this creed. One of the periodicals I receive regularly (CCPA Monitor) had an article in its Dec., 1999/ Jan. 2000 issue called "The Market God's 10 Commandments" (p. 7). This spoof on the corporate agenda contains that which has become "politically correct" conventional wisdom in our society, so much so that one must search extensively to find alternatives to these values. I quote from this list:
"1. Thou shalt honour Me as your one true God and have faith in my religion of globalization, individualism, free trade, and private ownership.
"2. Thou shalt accept the impoverishment of the many for the enrichment of the few, for greed is to be valued over social equity, and competition over cooperation.
"3. Thou shalt not oppose the demise of democracy. I will allow you the illusion of democracy....
"5. Thou shalt not tax my corporations beyond the limit of their tolerance, for the taxation of profit and wealth is the greatest evil....
"6. Thou shalt not hamper my corporations with restrictive rules and regulations....
"9. Thou shalt bear without question the social costs of my New World Order.... The strong must flourish and the weak fall victim to poverty, hunger and homelessness....
"10. Thou shalt obey these commandments implicitly, knowing that they have been passed down from on high to my apostles on Bay Street [read Wall Street if in U.S.] and to my loyal mass media owners. They have been entrusted with the crucial task of spreading my free-market religion far and wide."
Now, those beliefs stand out as "politically correct fundamentals." They govern policy, serve as basic fare parcelled out by media pundits to all who watch and read the news, and scorned, rejected, even fired or jailed are the rewards for those who resist. Remember that neither John the Baptist nor Jesus were ever accused of "political correctness."

And the Church? Since the Gospel, as embodied in Jesus of Nazareth and proclaimed by Paul, calls all this imperial "political correctness" into question, surely one would expect the church of Christ to stand apart from and challenge this "politically correct" gospel of wealth, power and success. Not so fast! Sadly the truth is much more complex. This anti-Gospel political correctness has weasled its way into our churches as well. I cite two examples, both experienced by the Confessing Synod's predecessor body the Denominational Ministry Strategy (DMS). The three traditional TV networks plus CNN are purveyors of "political correctness" on a daily basis. Add to that the talk show hosts (radio and TV) from the crypto-fascism of Rush Limbaugh to the syrupy liberalism of Oprah Winfrey, and we have a sense of the pundits of "political correctness." (Page 8)
1). Most Protestant faiths in the U.S. and Canada repeat the phrase that since "the church and state are separate... religion should stay out of politics," a statement bandied about as unassailable wisdom. When the Lutheran notion of the "two kingdoms" rears its head, it seems that this conventional "political correctness" is underscored all the more. Indeed, one alleged reason for dumping Doug Roth at Clairton was that he dared to mingle religion and politics. In reality religion and politics have always co-mingled. The issue remains as to how they mix. Do they mix in a Gospel-oriented way, or do they mix over against the Gospel? After all, the crucifixion stands out as an incredibly political act, and its centrality highlights the commitment of the Gospel to the weak, powerless and marginalized. By adopting this cruciform stance for the unemployed beyond words into action DMS incurred the wrath of western Pennsylvania's economic, political and ecclesiastical elites. Although it stood for "Gospel Correctness" it certainly was not "politically correct" and so paid the price.
2). The second unforgivable sin of the DMS churches was their refusal to accept the canons of politeness as Gospel truth. During the troubled years of DMS witness we heard ad nauseam the phrase, 'well, I agree with their principles, but I can't accept their tactics." America's favorite "gun-tottin'" cowboy Charlton Heston asserted that "political correctness is just tyranny with manners." Now, I am not eager to put forward Mr. NRA as American sage, but his quip does speak well to this obsession with "going through channels" and politeness that afflicts a church on its way to blandness and self-induced irrelevancy. To be honest, I found most of DMS tactics courageous, creative, Biblically solid and in line with prophetic symbolism both Biblically and in church history. Sure, there was the odd tactic here and there that I found offensive, but far more offensive to me was a church and society callous and dismissive of the pains of the unemployed who fell and still fall victim to corporate greed. And even when I found something offensive in DMS tactics I reminded myself that Jesus said, "love your enemies" rather than "treat your enemies by the canons of Emily Post and middle-class politeness." "Up close and personal" tactics fly in the face of "churchy" political correctness, but it does stir up the dust and forces people to pay attention to issues that can be easily dismissed in "wine and cheese" chit-chat. Remember that neither John the Baptist nor Jesus were ever accused of "political correctness." Instead they said of John, "he has a demon", and of Jesus they muttered, "Look a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and whores (Matt. 11:18- 19)." So much for "political correctness."