"Political correctness" is the art of saying something without offending anybody, even if it doesn't make any sense. With media or opponents eager to "scoop" an inadvertent oversight or gaffe, people in public life don't dare say anything without being highly prepared, rehearsed and polished.

The "sound bite" generation (that's us, by the way) has an attention span of about 10 seconds; after all, that's about how long I wait for a web page to appear before hitting "stop." Life is busy and we have a lot to do, so we want the info and we want it now. If it takes more than 10 seconds, we don't want to take the time to think about something. So the media gives us our cravings-- bite-sized snippets that reduce complex issues and events to slogans and quips. What we have is a contrived show from public figures, designed to create the sound bites and photo ops we crave without the "down side" of exposure to negative references.

Then there is "spin." Spin is the art of making "A" look like "B." It's "The Emperor's New Clothes" in every day life, a lie dressed in a coat and tie. What we hear in public discourse is spin and political correctness from those that think the more people hear something, the more they are likely to think it is true. These techniques have moved from the arena of public relations and have infiltrated every area of modern life. At work, at home, on the town-- we spin our way through life. However, I am afraid that with these "advances" in the art of public discourse, we run the risk of becoming a generation of self-deceived liars.

Image and the Modern Church
The church faces a dilemma in this image-conscious era. Does it go along with the culture and play the game of image, or does it refuse to play the game at all? Some churches, like the Willow Creek church, have gone whole-hog with marketing their quasi-evangelical message to the "unchurched Harry's" of the world. I recently read G. A. Pritchard's "Willow Creek Seeker Services" book, an informative and critical review of this new marketing-driven approach. They use surveys to find out what their target audience wants, and then they provide it-- unashamedly. They've added thousands of what they call "unchurched Harry's" to their membership, but the plan (as with any human plan) has its drawbacks, also-- valid questions about shallowness, warping the gospel to satisfy public perceptions, etc.

In the International Churches of Christ, we've taken some of these contemporary approaches with innovations like women's days, men's nights, "felt need" series, musical and dramatic performances, testimonies, etc. In church meetings, publications, websites and KNN videos, we attempt to bring the message of Jesus in ways that connect with the people we are trying to reach.

Jesus did this, too. For example, the parables were dramatized stories about things his hearers could relate to that also taught spiritual lessons. So we needn't be restricted to hillside sermons, walking around in ancient garb or handing out Scriptures on parchments; we can tell the message in contemporary ways. But in changing with the times, there are obviously some things we need to be careful about.

Christian Concepts of Image and Biblical Communication
We shouldn't let our technology-based "modern snobbery" make us think that the ancients didn't have their own concepts of "image." They might not have had CNN and the internet, but they certainly had their ways of social communications. We see this in the gospels, where Jesus and his followers were the subject of gossip and public discussion. We also see it in the early church, where all sorts of things were said about them quite widely.  Let's take a look at how they "managed image" in their day and age.

The pages of the Bible are filled with the honest truth about its players. If the Scriptures were written without the negative aspects, I think we'd be down to a couple of pages total. (We could read the whole Bible in a day!) No Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit-- we don't want to be negative about the first parents. Forget Cain and Abel, nobody is built up telling that story. And we'd better skip the whole time up to Noah-- if God was grieved, we'd better not tell that story, either (not to mention that we should avoid talking about the flood and other miracles). Ditto for the faults of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph and his brothers. Israel in the desert, the time of the judges and kings. What a bunch of sin and sinners. Ignore the negative aspects and we'd have a very short Bible.

But the sin of the sinners is the key part of the story. If the point of the story was man's righteousness, then these details would be damaging. But if the point of the story is God's grace and sovereignty and purpose, then the "dirty details" are the key to the story. Without them, God's plan means nothing. A righteous race doesn't need a Savior.

Speaking of the Savior, the Scriptures are frank about one particular incident that might have been ignored if the gospels were written today. The night before the crucifixion, Jesus didn't think it was a very good idea. He wanted nothing to do with it. The Scriptures tell us the rest: "Not my will, but Thine be done."

As the Hebrew writer said, "We do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin." The sacrifice that brought salvation is well known, but with apologies to Paul Harvey "now you know the rest of the story."

The point here is that the Bible consistently defies concerns for image and shows the "unpleasant" side of incidents:

• Unified People Sometimes Disagree. There is no greater example of unity than the Father and the Son. Yet, they disagreed. If unity means 100% identical, they were clearly not "unified."
• Disagreements Are Not Sinful. Jesus never sinned. His difficulty in the garden of Gethsemane was not a sin.
• Disagreements Were Discussed Among Involved Parties.  Jesus didn't just "knuckle under," nor did he rebel. He was open about how he felt, in the security of a close relationship. His prayer is no sign of weakness; it is rather a sign of enormous courage. We don't have the Father's answer to the prayer but it probably sounded a lot like, "Son, there is no other way."

Temptations To "Spin" in the Church Today
From a "Bible" standpoint, we're glad when the unsavory details of the humans of the Bible are told. We can relate. Who hasn't read of the failures of past men of God and been inspired by their faith and God working in them anyway? We even take heart when we see Jesus had his own struggles. This openness spurs us on-- in our churches you will hear ministers and members alike be open about personal struggles.

But a certain class of struggles and problems still bother us. The flaws of high-level leaders. Flaws in our approaches or "system." Maybe there are some decent reasons for this-- perhaps we've seen these things done destructively and rightly want no part of that; maybe we want to follow the instruction to concern ourselves with "whatever is pure and noble," and avoid the rest. However, the early Christians clearly addressed the all flaws and disagreements in a righteous way, even when they were church-wide or pertained to high-level leaders. I am concerned that our desire for a positive image in these areas has more to do with our culture than Biblical example.

It's one thing to "put our best foot forward," but let's not deceive ourselves and others into thinking that's our only foot! On one hand, a "spin" can simply be the telling of a story or event with a positive focus, ignoring irrelevant negative aspects of the story or incident. I've done it-- we've all done it, no harm there. But when the "spin" omits significant aspects of the story because they are "negative" or don't fit the image, it is deceptive. When it is partisan, it is prejudiced. An act of hypocrisy. Attempts to shade stories or hide unpleasant and relevant facts under the guise of unity or "building up" are misguided and inconsistent with Scripture. These are "lies in a coat and tie." Unfortunately, I've done this too, and I know I'm not alone.

A Paradigm Shift Is Needed
We somehow think disagreements and the "dirty details" should be hidden for the sake of "unity" or "righteousness."  Some examples? High-level leaders relieved of duties for vague or unspecified reasons. Decisions expressed with vague remarks and the passive voice ("It was decided..."), with no one taking responsibility for the decision. Plainly obvious but controversial matters are dodged. We protect the image and tell ourselves, "We don't want to cause anyone to stumble." But this approach is at odds with the Scriptures.

With our mentality, the apostles would have censored the gospels. Imagine the gall of recording all of their failures! "We can't let the church read this negative stuff about the leaders of the church!" But the apostles didn't just "let people read it"-- in the case of Matthew and John, they actually wrote it themselves! And it is Scripture-- the very word of God!

We need a paradigm shift in our communications if we are going to communicate like the Bible does. Facing a new era of the church, there are too many issues facing us where good communications are imperative; how can we address issues if we can't even communicate clearly about them? Can we even tell ourselves the truth about these issues?

The Scriptures give us numerous guidelines for communications. I can't begin to address or enumerate all of them here, but some are especially relevant to the issue I'm addressing:

• Truth should be told with respect for God and the facts. The Bible writers as simply told facts with respect and fear of God.
• Truth should be told without prejudice or partisanship. Prejudice is a bias or shading opinion, partisanship favors one man over another. The opinions of men ("spin") are generally absent from the pages of Scripture. Expressing an opinion with facts is one thing, but let's not confuse the two. Facts speak for themselves, and people hearing the facts can interpret facts for themselves. They might even have legitimate and differing opinions! Coloring facts with opinions or a "spin" is prejudice, something absent from the Biblical pattern of communication.
• Truth should be told without concern for image. God is glorified not in the managed image of perfection presented to the world, but in the truth about human failings and blunders and God's grace and work in spite of them. Attempts to present a "perfect front" are futile, they only make wise people wonder what you're hiding. The Bible writers didn't worry about anyone's "image."
• Truth should be told in love. The point should never be about tearing down men but glorifying God. Love will not tear down men in telling the truth, though it may reveal negative things about them. When we read negative things about the apostles, we relate more closely to them instead of thinking poorly of them. People in the New Testament who disagreed or discussed "negative things" did so with love and respect for each other, not with ultimate concern for their own egos. They recognized problems but worked for solutions that built unity and glorified God. When we disagree, let us do so without being "disagreeable" and also work towards true unity. When negative things need to be discussed, let's not avoid them, but let's face them openly and let God be glorified in doing his work among us.
• Truth should be told in humility. We don't like being called "sinners" (but that is what we are, 1 John 1:8). Sin may not fit the image we work to build, but it sure fits the reality we live in. Let's remember we're all subject to the same things and discuss these matters in the spirit of humility.

Copyright © 2000 John Engler. All rights reserved. Send a letter to the editor concerning this article