The Church’s Real Political Correctness Problem

The religious right has created a mirror image PC complete with cancel culture and performative anger.

By
91

I’m increasingly convinced that the first rule of our modern political and religious disputes is “every overreaction is answered by overreaction.” Error is answered by error. And so it is with political correctness.

I’ve been meaning to write about political correctness and the church for some time, but I was moved to put virtual pen to virtual paper this week by a poignant tweet from a friend. Karen Swallow Prior is a Southern Baptist professor. She recently announced she was leaving Liberty University to join the faculty of  Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. Karen is a faithful Christian woman who engages the world with an open heart and an open mind. She’s also Bible-believing, she’s pro-life, and she upholds biblical sexual ethics. 

She also has a tragic and heroic story. She’s back on her feet, teaching and writing, after nearly losing her life in a fluke bus accident in 2018. 

Yet this week she tweeted this, a transparent reflection on her personal pain:

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
91
By
Comments (91)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. David B.

    Excellent article! Glad I joined and am able to support this effort.

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Nathan

    I partially agree about MacArthur, but a friend of mine was at that conference and he claims that the full-length rebuttal of Moore had happened in previous sessions on previous days. I agree that MacArther was foolish to do the word-association performative segment, but I also think it's unfair (and typical of online debate) to excerpt a small bit of a multi-day conference and build arguments on that alone.

    Your way of framing these things --- as political correctness for the Christian right --- seems exactly right. I'll probably be adopting this language.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Donny from Queens

    David,

    I’ve chewed on this for a good while now and honestly for the better part of the 20-teens. How do you engage this in a constructive and charitable way without becoming cynical and inimical to people? You know, this “turn the other cheek” and “humility” business is pretty stinkin’ hard for me. I’d have been a son of thunder no doubt.

    Maybe we don’t engage, we just watch and pray? This is what my wife and I landed on a few weeks ago.

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Lawrence D'anna

    I get what you're saying with your little glossary. There are right wingers that use those terms as if they mean what you say they mean. I've seen it, we've all seen it.

    But I think it's important to point out that that is not actually what they mean. "Woke" is not any left-wing critique of America or American Christians. Wokeness is a particular cluster of ideas that is popular on the American left today. The Democratic Party of the 90s had a left wing critique of America, but it was not woke. The Chinese Communist party has a left wing critique of America, but it is not woke.

    "Virtue signaling" does not mean making a moral argument contrary to right-wing conventional wisdom. It means making a moral argument in order to be admired for it, rather than because it is true.

    Yes these terms are overused. But if they actually meant what you say they mean, there would be no point in overusing them. They are often rhetorical cheap shots. They are used to imply someone is disingenuous, or an ideologue. Well, dishonest and ideological people do exist. It's not meaningless to say so. Although it is often impolite.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photocircle-angle-nib
      David French vertical-nib Author

      Yes, the terms have other meanings. No doubt! But that's how the terms are used within right-wing PC culture to dismiss opposing ideas. If you can fling those terms, you can often avoid debate. There's a proper use and a bastardized use, and the PC right specializes in the bastardized use. That was the point of the glossary!

      Collapse
  5. Paul M.

    Before this column, the only thing I had ever heard about Ms. Swallow Prior was from this article (https://www.theaquilareport.com/a-follow-up-about-the-karen-swallow-prior-kerfuffle/), which describes the controversy purely in theological terms.

    I have no doubt that David is incorrect that there were other factors that explain the opposition to her. And I wholeheartedly agree with his point about tone.

    But it does seem that those who have opposed her have some legitimate theological concerns. Her statements on the Revoice controversy are ambiguous. This is a debate within the SBC, the PCA, and other groups over "side-B" gay Christianity -- "side-A" says homosexual practice is fine for Christians; "side-B" says it's fine to identify as gay, that this identity should be embraced, and that there's no need to struggle against homosexual desires. Revoice advocates side-B, and KSP has supported (and may still support? it's ambiguous) Revoice. There are many within the PCA and SBC who are understandably opposed to side-B. Can Christ change our sinful desires, or are they immutable (this is the argument of those who oppose Revoice -- that He can!)? It may cause the entire PCA to split within the next few years.

    Similarly, Dr. MacArthur's tone is obviously wrong, but he has a legitimate gripe about Beth Moore's preaching. He's merely reiterating standard conservative Evangelical theology.

    All I'm saying is that opposition to these people does have some degree of theological legitimacy. That needs to be remembered. People don't only oppose KSP because she's anti-Trump.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photocircle-angle-nib
      David French vertical-nib Author

      Karen is certainly happy to engage on substance, but what triggered my piece wasn't the substance but the manner of the response. Just like the authoritarian PC left, once the authoritarian PC right decides it's correct about something, the "engagement" devolves into name-calling, sneering condescension, and (at worst) efforts to destroy careers.

      Collapse
      1. Paul M.

        Oh, I agree. I was just saying that some people are disagreeing with her purely on substance.

        Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Smitty

      I agree. But I'd like to add that Dr. MacArthur's, "go home" comment was extra-biblical. Nothing in 1 Timothy 2 requires it.

      Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    William Cotton

    If all of the requisite truths are contained within scripture then it should hold that all of the worldly distractions and falsehoods are contained without. As an agnostic I know I've felt closer to God's love since deleting my Twitter and Facebook accounts and keeping a study Bible on my desk. I'm not sure that I'll ever be a true believer but from a philosophical standpoint I do not see the populist and commercial internet as being compatible with the essence of the one God, the one Church and the one Book.

    Collapse
  7. Sean

    How about the person who uses the epithet “transactional” to disparage Christians who vote for Trump? Is this an example of cancel culture? On what side of the resounding gong or clanging cymbal is the person who insinuates that those who prefer a politician who supports virtuous policies such as pro-life are hypocrites if the politician has fallen short on his personal virtue? On what grounds is such a person to be distinguished from the critics of Karen Swallow Prior?

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      RandyMc

      I don't think of it as an epithet. I think we should be transactional with our leaders, support them when we agree and oppose the policies of which we disagree. This is regardless of the person in office.

      I just think there's a sharper transactional point with this president for conservatives.

      Collapse
      1. Sean

        I am referring to the practice by some Christians of characterizing a vote for Trump as “a transactional approach,” a term intended as shorthand for the notion that a vote for Trump constitutes “Tolerance of serious wrong by leaders [which] sears the conscience of the culture, spawns unrestrained immorality and lawlessness in the society, and surely results in God’s judgment.” https://www.christianpost.com/news/how-has-president-trump-changed-white-christians-views-of-morality.html Is such a criticism different in kind from the criticism of Karen Swallow Prior by some for saying that abortion is not “murder” since it is does not violate the civil law, and for saying that she does not see opposition to abortion as properly rooted in Christian belief but rather in social justice? What are the criteria for determining whether a denunciation of beliefs or practices crosses the line?

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          RandyMc

          Well, I would suggest that they come up with a better alternative than voting for a person that generally agrees with our positions but we find a cad or just staying at home. Andrew Yang seems like a lovely person. President Obama seems like a tremendous father, husband, etc. I could never support their policies and would never vote for them.

          I guess I'm just not inserted into the circles where I care anymore what a religious leader thinks of how I vote and I certainly no longer require religious purity in those that I mostly agree with on matters of faith. Murder is a legal term. I can use any other term that's acceptable that adequately describes what abortion does to the baby, the mother, and society.

          Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Nick H

    I agree with 90% of what David has written here, but I'd push back against saying that the terms "woke" and "virtue-signaling" are exclusive to right wing PC culture. One does not have to be a PC warrior on the Right to recognize that the PC culture on the Left demands that people conform to certain positions. Using the term "woke" to describe someone who makes sure to always fit into that left-wing box is common across the political spectrum. Likewise, "virtue-signaling" is a pretty common term to describe a person or organization who's actions are motivated by how they'll appear more than any genuine conviction. Yes, there are examples of right-wing PC trolls using these terms maliciously, but that doesn't mean we should concede to using their definitions any more than we should let white nationalists claim the okay sign as a white power symbol. Every group tries to define themselves as being the centrists and their opponents as being extremists. Letting them define the terms we use is giving them a victory they don't deserve.

    Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Paul Montagu

    First Kanye, then Bieber. That's kind of amazing.

    Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    cheerio

    It is a horrible experience for anyone to have, right or left. I suppose it is probably harder for those on the Christian Right as their church is their community and it must feel as if one were exiled. I am surprised at the lack of insight in their behavior being similar to those in cults with the shunning of people who disagree with the leader. On the flip side, I see it in the way I am spoken to by some/many Bernie supporters when I opine that he is as casual a liar as any other politician and has many similarities to Trump.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Stephanie

      It's that same tribal instinct. Could we call it the effect of demagoguery, and that it extends also to some religious activists. David French actually was the one who recently described the "Flight 93" argument as expressed by Michael Anton in 2016: possibly not an exact quote but: "2016 is the Flight 93 election: charge the cockpit or you die. You may die anyway. You—or the leader of your party—may make it into the cockpit and not know how to fly or land the plane. There are no guarantees." There's a similar sense of desperation no matter if you listen to Bernie supporters, Trump supporters. Is this desperation really warranted? Does the Revolution *have* to happen just as a sensible alternative to the Trumpian presidency is needed?

      Collapse
Load More