Paul, Corinthians 8:13 and political correctness

[askandanswer]

Our Sunday School lesson today included a discussion of 1 Corinthians 8. A closer than usual look at verses 7-13, particularly verse 13  led me to think that Paul, by refusing to do something simply because the doing of it might cause offence to someone in general, is endorsing and practicing political correctness.

 

 7 Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.

 8 But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.

 9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.

 10 For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol’s temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols;

 11 And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?

 12 But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.

 13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I willeat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.

 

But maybe he was just being mindful and responsive to the sensitivities and frailties of others? But perhaps that is what political correctness is? What do you think? Was Paul practicing political correctness here? If not, how was what he did different from political correctness? If it was political correctness, where/how do we draw the line between helpful and less helpful political correctness?

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

I like this question.  I have often wondered if I'm missing something about "political correctness".   If it means, as I think it does, calling people by the name or label that they prefer, then why do people hate it so much?  If a man's name is Robert, but he prefers to be called Bob, no one cares.  But if a group of people prefers to be called Native Americans rather than Indians, people balk.  Why?  

Another area of political correctness where I think there is much ado over nothing is holiday greetings.  Unless I missed something, it is only employees of certain companies that are asked to say "Happy Holidays"...only the employees and only certain companies.  So if I work for Bob's Superstore as a cashier and he asks me to say, "Happy Holidays".  I will.  Or if that bothers me, "I'll just skirt the issue and say, 'Have a nice day.'"  As a customer, at Bob's Superstore, when a cashier says to me, "Happy Holidays", I am free to say, "Merry Christmas!" in response.  I don't see that as a big deal.  When you agree to work for a company you agree to keep their standards, just as you agree to a Dress Code at BYU.  

 

What Paul is offering here is a much bigger deal.  Political correctness has to do with language. Paul is offering to change his diet.  Changing one's diet is a huge sacrifice.  They say: you can change a man's religion but you can't change his diet. 

[Average Joe]

A thought that comes to mind is that the church of Paul's day is much like the church of today - made up of more converts than those born in the covenant. What he says here he wrote elsewhere as: 

 

"Abstain from all appearance of evil." (1 Thessalonians 5:22)

 

What is "evil" here? Any stumbling block you place by your actions [you who know better] before those who are weak in the faith/knowledge of the gospel. So I don't see this as political correctness as much as live what you preach.

[spamlds]

We have to look at the context of the situation Paul presents.  The gospel going to the Gentiles was a new thing.  The Jews who had accepted Jesus as their Messiah tended to hang on to their traditions, like circumcision.  They had a strong revulsion against anything having to do with idolatry.  The Gentiles didn't have this aversion as part of their culture.

 

The first controversy in the Church was over whether Gentile converts needed to be circumcised.  In the minds of some, Christianity was a revision or reformation of Judaism.  Thus there was an anticipation that the Gentiles needed to be circumcised and follow the other parts of the law of Moses.  The Church had to resolve it in a conference in Jerusalem.  The counsel that was given by the apostles to the Church is contained in Acts chapter 15.

 

28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;

29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

 

This was a struggle for many who were Jewish converts.  It was a culture change that was appalling to them because they had to let go of certain prejudices against Gentiles and their ways.  For example, a Jew would never eat the leftover food from a feast where that food had been offered to an idol.  Even if they didn't participate in the sacrifice and offering to an idol, they would not want to even be associated with it after the fact.  A Gentile wouldn't have that aversion.

 

Sometimes social situations would occur that tested the saints and even the apostles in this regard.  Being sensitive to Jewish opinion in Antioch, Peter avoided entering into the houses of Gentiles.  Perhaps he didn't want to stir up persecution or he may have been concerned for offending potential Jewish converts.  Paul took him to task for it.  Paul's devotion to "equality" was admirable, but the Church's leaders took a more conservative approach at the moment so as not to offend many.  (Hmmm, sound like the priesthood ban to anyone?)  

 

11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.

14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

 

The "political correctness" involved here was downplaying the liberality of the gospel so as not to offend conservatives.  It can also work the other way.  Today we might be the minority, conservative opinion on issues like abortion or gay marriage and in some situations, it's better for us to not cause strife or contention, even while we don't yield on our values.  We have to make the judgment call whether or not we should be strident and offend or quiet and not offend.  Situations vary.  We have to use discretion.  There is a time when life demands that we take a stand and challenge others to make their decision for Christ and another time where we might quietly keep our standards and avoid forcing a decision on those who are not yet ready to be challenged in such a manner.

 

In all things, we keep the commandments.  The need for discretion occurs when and how we declare that other people need to keep them.  

[Ironhold]

I like this question.  I have often wondered if I'm missing something about "political correctness".   If it means, as I think it does, calling people by the name or label that they prefer, then why do people hate it so much?  If a man's name is Robert, but he prefers to be called Bob, no one cares.  But if a group of people prefers to be called Native Americans rather than Indians, people balk.  Why?

There's actually a lot more to political correctness than just this.

Wikipedia's got a primer on it, but I can give you a bit of a nutshell.

PC is when people demand that you go above and beyond in order to not offend anyone.

Even under normal situations, political correctness can disrupt or even quash open discussion of various (often uncomfortable) topics. For example, a bit back reporter and advice columnist Emily Yoffe recommended that young women avoid alcohol in certain situations, noting that alcohol was a factor in many of the campus sexual assault cases she researched as part of an article. In response, numerous pundits wrongly accused her of saying that the women brought about their own victimization.

When taken to extremes, it can lead to full-fledged legal battles (such as Gratz vs. Bollinger, in which the University of Michigan awarded select minorities additional points on its entrance exam simply for being minorities) or even fatalities (Lt. Kara Hultgreen's flight instructors declared her an unsafe pilot due to her constant violation of safety regulations, but the Navy allowed her to fly anyway because they were under pressure from Washington to integrate the F-14 fleet).

Anyway...

(No, I'm not trying to offend anyone here. I'm simply responding to a question.)

[Vort]

But maybe he was just being mindful and responsive to the sensitivities and frailties of others? But perhaps that is what political correctness is? What do you think? Was Paul practicing political correctness here? If not, how was what he did different from political correctness? If it was political correctness, where/how do we draw the line between helpful and less helpful political correctness?

 

In general usage, "political correctness" is a pejorative term pointing out the whininess and brittle foolishness of those who insist on taking offense at some small verbal offense. Specifically, most who decry political correctness do not begrudge careful language or politeness, but rather chafe at the restrictive yoke imposed by those who seek to criminalize language they don't like, or at least ensuring devastating social consequences for such language. This is as anti-American a practice as anything that readily comes to mind.

[Just_A_Guy]

I would further suggest that Paul is not talking about "political correctness", which is externally imposed; but by "common courtesy" or "Christian charity", which comes from a sincere internal desire for the welfare of one's fellowman. 

 

As I recall, most rules of 18th-19th century European etiquette on some level boiled down to "consider the feelings of your guest, and act accordingly."  I don't think it's coincidence that political correctness becomes more pervasive as past practices of etiquette and common courtesy fade.  The former is an imitation of the latter; engineered (IMHO) largely by people who remember how nice it is to receive courtesy but who, themselves, can no longer be troubled to give it.

Edited September 21, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

There's actually a lot more to political correctness than just this.

Wikipedia's got a primer on it, but I can give you a bit of a nutshell.

Thanks, that was helpful. I really appreciated your nutshell explanation. It was much better than wading through the tome on Wikipedia.

[Guest]

In the Corinthian passage verse 13, the gist of Paul's teaching is in insisting on our religious practice in a way that causes somebody to offend.  This is not the same as somebody taking offense like in the political correctness kind of way.  Rather, it is getting the opposite result of what you intend - instead of bringing somebody closer to Christ, what you did was cause somebody to even be more resolute in getting farther from Christ.

[prisonchaplain]

I have to admit, I was intrigued when I found a discussion on PC in Paul's writings. 

[Irishcolleen]

Political correctness is in the news a lot in these parts.  Living in Virginia, people have strong feelings around the Confederate flag (or as I have been corrected, the battle flag of northern Virginia).  Many people here fly it as a matter of "southern pride". and the argument that the Civil War (or as it is called here- the War of Northern Aggression) wasn't entirely about slavery.  I know many people, including my in-laws, who fly the battle flag and a few that fly the confederate flag.  They are not racist and I firmly believe they have a first amendment right to fly it.

 

However, we would never fly it out of respect for my African-American neighbors who see it as a painful reminder of what happened to their ancestors.  If we flew it it might make them feel bitter and make it difficult for them to forgive.  In short, it might become a spiritual stumbling block. Love seeks other's well being first.  So we will not exercise the right my family has as descendants of Confederate soldiers, to fly the flag that may offend others.

 

But, I do think political correctness can be taken too far. Especially when we are told to be "sensitive" and "tolerant" of sin.

 

These are things I have to think of being married into a family that has lived in Virginia since the 1600s.

Edited September 22, 2015 by Irishcolleen

[The Folk Prophet]

Haven't read the whole thread, so if I'm repeating any ideas...apologies.

 

I do not believe Paul was addressing political correctness. Political correctness does not equal common courtesy. It is something more. How do I mean? I know very few waitresses who, uninfluenced by some politically correct ideology, would consider being called a waitress rude. The ideology stems from elsewhere first, and then permeates into the culture, and then takes on a life of it's own. Using the term "server" instead of waitress as a general policy is politically correct, and it's bunch of bogus nonsense. Using the term waitress instead of server to someone you know will be offended by it, regardless of the reason behind the offense, is rude, and watching yourself in that regard is not bogus nonsense. Paul is speaking of the later, not the former.

[Ironhold]

Political correctness is in the news a lot in these parts.  Living in Virginia, people have strong feelings around the Confederate flag (or as I have been corrected, the battle flag of northern Virginia).  Many people here fly it as a matter of "southern pride". and the argument that the Civil War (or as it is called here- the War of Northern Aggression) wasn't entirely about slavery.  I know many people, including my in-laws, who fly the battle flag and a few that fly the confederate flag.  They are not racist and I firmly believe they have a first amendment right to fly it.

 

However, we would never fly it out of respect for my African-American neighbors who see it as a painful reminder of what happened to their ancestors.  If we flew it it might make them feel bitter and make it difficult for them to forgive.  In short, it might become a spiritual stumbling block. Love seeks other's well being first.  So we will not exercise the right my family has as descendants of Confederate soldiers, to fly the flag that may offend others.

 

But, I do think political correctness can be taken too far. Especially when we are told to be "sensitive" and "tolerant" of sin.

 

These are things I have to think of being married into a family that has lived in Virginia since the 1600s.

I've lived in Central Texas ever since 1990.

I don't mind the Confederate flag, in and of itself. The issue for me has always been the context.

Someone wants to do their car up like the General Lee? Must be nice having money to burn like that.

Someone wants to signal their Southern heritage? Fine by me.

Someone wants to use their flagpole as a club to beat people with? That's when I tell folks to go get a life.

This is why the current flap over the flag has me riled. People are so quick to ditch the flag in favor of not offending anyone that folks are going overboard. Amazon.com actually de-listed a "Civil War" - themed Stratego game because it had a Confederate flag, for crying out loud. (I'd love to know how they think people should do Civil War re-enactments without the Confederate flag...).

[Blackmarch]

Our Sunday School lesson today included a discussion of 1 Corinthians 8. A closer than usual look at verses 7-13, particularly verse 13  led me to think that Paul, by refusing to do something simply because the doing of it might cause offence to someone in general, is endorsing and practicing political correctness.

 

 7 Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.

 8 But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.

 9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.

 10 For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol’s temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols;

 11 And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?

 12 But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.

 13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I willeat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.

 

But maybe he was just being mindful and responsive to the sensitivities and frailties of others? But perhaps that is what political correctness is? What do you think? Was Paul practicing political correctness here? If not, how was what he did different from political correctness? If it was political correctness, where/how do we draw the line between helpful and less helpful political correctness?

political correctness is the enforcement of an extreme view of "being sensitive" or at least that is what it has become in our day.

[Ironhold]

Another real-world example:

If you'll recall, a few months back several employees of French satire publication Charlie Hebdo were slaughtered by people who felt that the paper had made fun of their religion.

Those of us who supported the paper's right to publish "objectionable" material were immediately slandered as "haters". The logic behind the slur was that by saying the paper had the right to publish the material we were supposedly supporting the material itself. In reality, most of us also found the material to be objectionable, but we recognized the right to publish it anyway.

[Vort]

That's exactly why I didn't join in the stupid "Je suis Charlie Hedbo" campaign. I may defend their right to publish hateful material, but that doesn't mean I approve.

[Ironhold]

That's exactly why I didn't join in the stupid "Je suis Charlie Hedbo" campaign. I may defend their right to publish hateful material, but that doesn't mean I approve.

Touched on that in the column I did in response to what happened.

As I noted, there are plenty of perfectly legal ways in which to protest objectionable content, including letters to the editor, cancellation of one's subscription, word-of-mouth, and even peaceful protests.

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

As with anything related to politics, there is more than one point of view about "political correctness".

 

To someone who endorses politically correct language and actions, they see it as extending courtesy and avoiding unnecessary offense. To use TFP's waitress reference, calling someone a waitress who you know would be offended by it is rude - but what if you don't know? Do you call her a "waitress" and risk offending her? Or do you play it safe and call her a "server" knowing that is less likely to offend anyone?

 

To someone opposed to political correctness, calling someone a waitress shouldn't be offensive in the first place, and trying to avoid offending people gets carried to unreasonable extremes. There's also the sense that extreme political correctness infringes on basic personal rights or liberties, or that political correctness imposed rather than voluntary.

 

There is truth in both views. There is also a growing counter-culture that is encouraging people to "be yourself" and "don't care who you offend". This is sending the message that being offensive is OK or even desirable. "You shouldn't change yourself to please others." Which is, frankly, a pernicious and false doctrine. (We should change to please God, and we're instructed to not compromise our morals or principles to please "the world". Satan's corrupted this truth into avoidance of any kind of personal censorship.)

 

The Savior summarized the doctrine of the matter in Matthew 18:7 "Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!"
My exegesis of this is that offense is going to happen so we shouldn't get bent out of shape over it, but we should also go to great effort to avoid causing offense.

 

As to Paul's reference in Corinthians - the modern day equivalent might be that if your friend is starting a vegan diet, you shouldn't eat a 20oz prime rib steak right in front of them. And if a ward member in Sunday School is allergic to certain colognes, you shouldn't pour on a whole bottle of Old Spice every Sunday morning. (That's a real example - my dad's bishop recently asked the ward to not wear cologne or perfume anymore because a member of the ward was allergic. My dad got rather bent out of shape over the "extremism of political correctness". Personally, I think Jesus would prefer we all smell bad rather than send a ward member into an allergic asthma attack.)

[The Folk Prophet]

As to Paul's reference in Corinthians - the modern day equivalent might be that if your friend is starting a vegan diet, you shouldn't eat a 20oz prime rib steak right in front of them. And if a ward member in Sunday School is allergic to certain colognes, you shouldn't pour on a whole bottle of Old Spice every Sunday morning. (That's a real example - my dad's bishop recently asked the ward to not wear cologne or perfume anymore because a member of the ward was allergic. My dad got rather bent out of shape over the "extremism of political correctness". Personally, I think Jesus would prefer we all smell bad rather than send a ward member into an allergic asthma attack.)

 

I'm not sure comparing a vegan being offended by meat and someone being actually allergic to something works. Asking others to not do something for medical reasons of any sorts is not political correctness. You dad was a bit off the mark in his complaint there.

[Guest]

As to Paul's reference in Corinthians - the modern day equivalent might be that if your friend is starting a vegan diet, you shouldn't eat a 20oz prime rib steak right in front of them.

 

Uhm, I don't think this is correct as the point of Paul's letter to the Corinthians.

 

Let's adjust the example to be more appropriate to the gist of the passage.

If you're trying to teach your vegan friend that God commanded us to eat meat (which God didn't technically do so, but let's just say He did for the purpose of this example), you don't do it by shoving the meat down his throat because... he's just going to end up offending God by shooting you with his Glock (or some such).

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

I'm not sure comparing a vegan being offended by meat and someone being actually allergic to something works. Asking others to not do something for medical reasons of any sorts is not political correctness. You dad was a bit off the mark in his complaint there.

Mark this day on your calendars! TFP and I agreed on something! Yes, my dad was off the mark. IMO, I think most complaints about political correctness are somewhat off the mark - usually at least as extreme as the political correctness itself.

 

Uhm, I don't think this is correct as the point of Paul's letter to the Corinthians.

 

Let's adjust the example to be more appropriate to the gist of the passage.

If you're trying to teach your vegan friend that God commanded us to eat meat (which God didn't technically do so, but let's just say He did for the purpose of this example), you don't do it by shoving the meat down his throat because... he's just going to end up offending God by shooting you with his Glock (or some such).

Clearly you and I interpret that scripture VERY differently.

But I'm glad you used the word "technically", because I LOVE getting technical!

God did command Israel to not eat food sacrificed to idols. Paul is saying that whether you eat it or not has absolutely no spiritual impact at all whatsoever (or about as much spiritual efficacy as the Law of Moses). But if your Israelite neighbor sees you doing it, it could cause problems and he might lose his testimony, so you probably shouldn't eat food sacrificed to idols. In fact, you probably shouldn't do anything that might cause a crisis of faith for someone else.