SOME OF THE PUZZLING DILEMMAS many constituents face within the Southwest Region Conference community concerning political correctness or incorrectness lies within them. These puzzling dilemmas arise when many constituents of the last days, remnant body of believers get caught between “cooperate honestly” and “inaccurate accountable reporting of the facts.” These two polemics seem to constantly collide with each other whenever they face off.
The “spin” to defend the decisions by the President, Secretary, Treasurer, and the Ministerial Leader, who seek to be perceived as politically correct, leaves most of us as bewildered voting constituents to decipher between what we might label as “righteous doing” and “unrighteous cover up.” Could it be that the leaders that we have trusted for almost four years are out of touch with the mainstream of church members, because they are doing the only thing they can do: sell their angle of political correctness?
Recorded history of the past in just about any not for profit organization reveals that this type of attitude by follower’s results in being “shafted” by and through a well packaged corporate political correctness. You can believe this: that all the administrator’s stories are pre-set as to what should be said or not at all revealed to you. The recent Town Hall Meetings are “peep shows” that reveal only what they want you to know and not the “rest of the story.” This is why these meetings and others like them are scheduled at such a time to have the least of you there. The Town Hall Meetings are exhausted with sessions until the very end leaving little time for questioning and contemplation over their presentations to you. And then, you just walk away understanding very little accepting their political correctitude.
So, you should not become overwhelmed with disgust when that moment comes, after an administration is not returned and you later find out what the leaders got away with. The Brown Bomber’s famous statement, “You can run but you can’t hide” cuts two ways: first at leaders who run from revealing the truth, or the constituents who run from wanting to know the truth. Both groups might be politically correct at the same time but also wrong.
THE PROBLEM THAT LIES WITHIN occurs when too many times many members have given in to such expressions like, “God will work it out.” Or, “don’t touch the anointed of God” as if ministers are incapable of doing wrong. Shucks, because ministers are human and are responsible for the people they lead, ought to tell all of you that spiritual leaders are more accountable than most professionals because of the sacred office they have sworn to uphold. But when political correctness sneezes on people, then service is only self fulfilling.
The worst disgusting message that I have ever heard from educated ministers says: “I don’t believe in politics!” And for these lunatics, everything that is not politically correct to them is of the devil. Yet if just one of those self seeking leaders becomes elected to serve in the office in any way, it will be by a political process. What a contradiction in their belief system. How selfish of their political correctness to use others while they demur with silence letting you fight for their promotions.
But here’s a politically correct statement that really gets me, “Just take that move. It’s God’s will and all will be well.” To do as blindly as the person suggests would mean a minister would be politically correct. But Mr. or Ms. Lunatic, how do you know that “going” is not the will of God and that “staying” or “seeking” another option might be God’s Will? I have listen to admissions from so many of our repressive leaders, pastors and the so called erudite educated elite, that when confronted with such a career relocation, become deeply depressed knowing that they would have to start all over again. Because career moves for better or worse as I have just mentioned are devastating to marriages, families and are often political and motivated out of disagreement between a worker and those who lead. Unfortunately, political correctitude is killing off ministers early. The “shrinkage” of ministers I find to be heartless management and gutless leadership to say the least.
TO EXPLAIN POLITICAL CORRECTNESS OR INCORRECTNESS the dilemma that we face really has to do with a “who does” ideology. Let’s face it, we take sides on issues based on a preconceived ideology that often defines and challenges what someone wants us to become. A preconceived ideology may very well determine how we look at the decisions that leaders make that affect us. For instance, if you come from a background that believes in the notion that God will “work it out” and God expects you to do nothing—then you will do nothing. You will walk away from corruption because God will work it out. We all lose!
The problem with the present Conference leadership points to an awareness that this kind of ideological attitude that some people have, will carry them all the way to constituency meeting untouched. For a second or more, stop and look at it like this: It’s like having a million dollars in cash in a brief case and you gave it to a friend to take to the bank with the attitude, “that God will work it out.” Doesn’t God expect you to determine the background of the person first? To consider the method of how the money will get to the bank? Or just maybe use an armored vehicle with licensed, bonded and insured people?
WHAT DOES POLITICAL CORRECTNESS OR POLITICAL CORRECTITUDE REALLY MEAN? My research has uncovered that the term political correctness means an “attitude or policy of being careful not to offend or upset any group of people in society who are believed to have a disadvantage.” Research says, “The mainstream usage of the term began in the 1990s by right-wing politicians who used the term as a shorthand way of conveying their concerns about the left in academia and in culture.”
Furthermore “Political correctness was a term coined in Nazi Germany. It basically means that you are expected to hold views and voice statements in line with current government thinking and legislation. It does not allow for the moral rights or wrongs of a situation and it actually goes against true democracy.” A politically correct statement represents (or otherwise pleases) the most, while offending the least.”
You can gleam from the above that, to be politically incorrect would be the opposite. To be politically incorrect would mean to say something against the leadership such as our local conference and leaders. It means that something is phrased in such a way as to possibly cause offense.
An example might be referring to African-Americans as Colored People or the President as Big Dawg; or Executive Committees as minions. Or those who feel they are considered the elitist politically correct people such as Frank, Dino and Jerry—even though comically it satirically characterizes how politically wrong they are.
Another example might be when the President allegedly referred to a woman as “sweetheart” in a recent meeting. The use of “sweetheart” was politically an incorrect loaded word even though the President may not have had any ill will in the term. Lawyers are careful what they say in court. That’s why you see them writing all the time before they get up and say something off the cuff of their heads even if they don’t use their notes because words mean something and people can interpret what they say in a wrong way. A good leader should be a person who talks less, articulates the facts well, combined with listening carefully rather than a story teller.
TO MAKE MY POINT FURTHER, The Forgotten Shepherdess, my blog, would be perceived by the politically correct to be politically incorrect because if you are running for reelection, you want to win the most votes (please the largest number of people), without exposing yourself to the risk of offending or relegating any persons or demographics, or otherwise inciting controversy or negative review—which would mean that you want to say all the right things to be politically correct. So quite naturally some might say to their congregation not to participate because the blog questions leadership’s political correctness. In theory, any statement or action that exposes one to the risk of offending another is politically incorrect. That’s why many ministers watch the Bill Mahr show because it questions the “Right” and their ideology in relationship to the decisions of elected conservative leaders. The viewer should be adult enough not to believe in everything that Bill says as absolute truth especially when he gives his monologue at the beginning of his program or new rules.
FINALLY, “TOLERANCE” can be a peculiar word very often misunderstood. Its first meaning is the “capacity to endure pain or hardship”; its second meaning is to “show sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one’s own.”
So this means that the politically correct avenue for the present leadership to take after their misfortunes in the past months would be for them to sell you a “white horse” labeled with all the most positive achievements they have made—never making a politically incorrect statement that refers to all their mismanagement issues. Leadership just throws a blanket over the bad parts knowing the white horse is a sickly looking one.
Herbert Douglas, author of Red Alert: Hurtling into Eternity says, “In recent years, this second meaning has segued into an atmosphere that forbids open discussion of one’s personal views, if those views differ from a militant minority. If so, those views are considered automatically intolerant! The expression of opposing views, for many, becomes “hate speech”; thus, the expression of different opinions (no matter what the evidence is) reveals intolerance!”
This explains why the present leadership of our Conference would enact legislation or guide the Executive Committee with crafted policies to restrict workers from speaking out against their leadership and their recent decisions. Is this God’s will? Suppression of accountability! Recently, workers have been untruthfully characterized in negative descriptive language so the politically correct can present a sleazy case for termination, in the so called upper room. Would this unchristian approach be God’s Will?
If you have bought into all their decisions as God’s Will, then, as Douglas explains: “All this leads to a society (local conference included) so “tolerant” that legitimate discussion regarding biblical morality would quickly move beyond free discussion to political incorrectness, to coercion and oppression. In the context of the great controversy, such a strategy by Satan is exactly what might be expected in the end time, even in a land that probably has the strictest “free speech” laws in the world! How would one have the freedom to discuss historical accuracy and biblical interpretation regarding the Sabbath-Sunday issue, in a society that forbids any negative remarks about anybody else’s religion.” —See: Red Alert: Hurtling Into Eternity, Herbert Douglas, p. 173-174
SO WE MUST BE CAREFUL about the attitudes that some leaders have prostituted, because they are currently being discussed as God’s Will in an upper room, fomenting with political correctitude. This selfish cover-up when brought to the surface, reveals to you a paradox that lies within your human mind to speak out against political correctness when it hurts people, damages them holistically, terminates good workers, covers up selfish decisions and seeks to silence those who are not afraid to be politically incorrect—while doing their best to remain a faithful Christian.
P.S. My job my only desire for this blog is to inform and create a healthy forum of reasonable expressions and discussion. Anger is frustration is healthy as long as it is delivered with respect and integrity, thank you viewers for keeping it real and healthy!