Political Correctness and Pastor Joel Osteen

Let me share with you an answer to the below question I had to formulate for a church history class I am taking through LBTS:

What political developments of the 20th century had the greatest impact on the church?

Is it possible that the spirit and endeavor to be politically correct can be classified as a political development? If this in fact can be seen as a political development, then I certainly would like to argue that this is the development that has had the greatest negative effect on the collective church.

By church, I presume the definition is limited to evangelical and fundamental assemblies. I certainly would not think that anything associated with Rome or anything that exalts a mother as another mediator could be part of the body of Christ. Furthermore, I would think that the church could not include any religious entity that denies the only begotten Son of God as God Himself!

Yet it appears that the political correctness that permeated our society has secretly infiltrated into the studies and pulpits of pastors all across America who no longer proclaim the exclusivity of Christ to the exclusion of anyone who doesn’t exalt Christ and Christ alone. (Think about the number of times you have heard LDS referred to as Christian by the mainstream media.)

The fear of offending a visitor or the desire to be politically correct when referring to sin and sinners has so affected the thinking of church leaders that churches are actually classified as seeker-sensitive. In these institutions of social networking (churches), the gospel is difficult to find because there isn’t anything politically correct about “repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit!”

The Apostle Peter wasn’t concerned about being politically correct; he and the apostles chose to obey God rather than man without regard to who their message of repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus would offend.

Billy Sunday told people unabashedly that outside of Christ they were dying and going to hell—it almost sounds like, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.” But it simply isn’t politically correct to tell homosexuals that their perverted sexual activity makes God sick! It isn’t politically correct to tell Governor Mitt Romney that his brand of Christianity is a cult. Pastor Joel Osteen refuses to tell his congregation that they sin and their sin separates them from a holy and righteous God outside of the shed blood of the Lamb of God. Larry King presses him to tell the world what happens to people outside of Christ when they die, and Joel isn’t willing to be anything but politically correct; so this son of a Baptist preacher misses a glorious opportunity to preach the Word and let the world know that God will sort that out. Check it out for yourself and see how the political correctness of the 20th century has so affected Joel in this You Tube clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfwYU2pmWYQ.

God has already revealed His plan of sorting things out—His plan is called the gospel, but the exclusivity of the gospel is not politically correct. Jesus said it like this: “if you don’t repent you will perish” and then as though they perhaps didn’t get it He said it again (Luke 13.3). Joel knows that the Apostle John’s message in 1 John 2.23 that if you don’t have the Son you don’t have the Father will not go over well in India—it just isn’t politically correct to go to a foreign country and tell them they are heathens. Someone should have told William Carey that “heathen” isn’t very politically correct.

No, the political correctness of the 20th century has so infiltrated evangelical and fundamental Bible believing churches that in the 21st century people are now offended at absolute truth.

One can only wonder about how complicit the church has been in setting the conditions for the denial of absolute truth by being politically correct in the 20th century.

Historical Fundamentalism

In the day and age when fundamentalism means a particular translation, preferred music and ladies only wear dresses it might be good to read an article about historic fundamentalism.

This article is worthy of the time it will take for you to download it and read it.

www.dbts.edu/journals/1996_2/NonIssue.pdf



If the hyper link doesn't work copy and paste this URL into your browser and download the pdf article that it links to.

For those who have time the footnote are very educational.

Sectarian Fundamentalism I

Are you aware of how fundamentalism seems to be becoming a denomination? Some Baptist fundamentalists are becoming increasingly sectarian. This should be of great concern to Disciples of Christ who are baptistic in their understanding of the Bible. Independent Baptists have from the beginning advocated a position of independence that permits each congregation to govern themselves as they see fit; yet, sectarian fundamentalists are increasingly judging other churches and refusing to fellowship one with another based on differences of opinion on things that are not a fundamental of the faith. Classic or historical fundamentalism was not focused on methods, but key doctrinal points that are not negotiable when it comes to the validity of Christianity.

Independent Fundamentalists are not supposed to be sectarian. Each independent Baptist church is permitted to govern itself as it sees fit and choose how they apply the Word of God to their congregation most especially in the areas in which the Bible is not as clear as some would like it to be.

Sectarian Fundamentalists judge other churches which do not hold to the same level of convictions to the same degree as themselves as truly NOT fundamental.

The fundamentals of the faith are expanding into areas which are not fundamental. Fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, may I encourage you to be very careful when you refer to something as a fundamental of the faith that isn't. Know what fundamental is and isn't.

The verbal inspiration of the Word of God is a fundamental of the faith—a favorite, preferred, or best translation is not a fundamental. It can be a preference and even a mandate but not a fundamental. Let's be careful; words mean something. (There is a difference between a conviction and preference.)

Dr. Mark Minnick in SC is a Baptist fundamentalist that uses the NASB instead of the KJV; those who refuse to fellowship with another fundamentalist because of a divide over a non-fundamental of the faith are sectarian. A fundamental of the faith is something that significantly alters the orthodoxy of Christianity.

And the more they divide and isolate into sects, the more fundamentalism looks like a particular denomination within the Baptist flavor of Christianity. A denomination that is more likely defined by music, dress and a translation than the non-negotiables of the faith.

We are slowly losing our independence to the sectarians who determine what is acceptable from seats of power in larger churches normally associated with colleges. The competition between schools requires (or so it seems) lines to be drawn which are not necessary and the East, Midwest and West compete and divide into sects which ignore God's mandate for unity in the body of Christ. (Read John 17—twice.)

Fundamentalists are no longer fighting the liberal influence of other Christians and now fight each other over things that will not amount to anything when we stand before our Lord at the Judgment Seat of Christ.

Ecclesiastical Separation from a Fundamentalist

The URL below will take you to a great audio interview between two doctors of theology who agree on many aspects of the faith and are both very Baptistic ,yet they have a different perspective on this issue. I hope you enjoy listening to it as much as I did.

http://resources.christianity.com/details/mrki/20080525/21e4a8b5-9f3a-44e2-86c7-884ff1a01a4b.aspx

 

Let me know what you thoughts are—send me an email.

I really respect both these men and both are making a huge difference.

Dr. Minnick is a great representative for fundamentalism.