In Part 2, he takes this a step further, even towards a state of chaos, where one might exist where each person determines their own "disposition". To initiate the discussion, he quotes Amy Shank of Christian Today who reported on the Duchess of Cornwall's comment on political correctness. The London Daily Telegraph reported that the Duchess was speaking at the London Press Club awards and addressed issues such as race and sexual equality without feeling "inhibited" who said freedom of expression was "at the heart of our democratic system". Political correctness she said "is as severe a form of censorship as any." (au.christiantoday.com)
Clearly it is obvious to everyone that in a civil society, the laws are there so that school children do not abuse their teachers; or work hands do not swear at their supervisors; or that politically motivated community leaders do not shout inciting comments against rivals from another racial and or national background. On the other hand, we realise that these laws get broken.
Moreover those individuals with "an agenda" have the ability to convey quite false impressions against a business competitor, or against intellectuals speaking out about government policy, or community leaders using legislation to hide offending texts from their own holy book. There is nothing new in this. Civil society's laws try and hold a society together, by imposing legislation that functions with the good-will of its citizenry.
As a result, this sort of bad civil behaviour is damaging to the whole society as it is very difficult to call such comments to account. The drama of a court case is costly. When individuals determine their own disposition, ignoring any "so called politically correct social manipulations", and those who wish to impose such society agendas, stand their ground, there is inevitable conflict.
The reality is that we are free to make comments, or make a humorous TV show about this type of language, and it is already being done everywhere to the extent that the term 'politically correct' is in disrepute. Try defining it and who determines it? The question therefore becomes, "What are my own dispositions?" In whatever I do as a Christian the three issues are - my credibility, integrity and civility which "value adds" to those around me.
So Mark Tronson undertook this exercise, and considered "what governs his philosophy for life.? For him it is the authority of the Bible. He rightly says, that no "atheist journalist" determines his society as to what is correct and right. Nor does someone from the latte set. Nor someone from some other religion.
Mark Tronson said that he determines these things. The question is whether this is chaos in the making?
He would argue that it is the other way round, that the civil society has been so swayed by those who would argue against the Scriptures as a basis for living that therein lies the essence of chaos. Christians are being browbeaten into thinking that the civil society works best without reference to the Word of God and claim they "have a right" to set the agenda.
Mark Tronson has one word for this: Poppycock! And refers to the Scriptures:
Ecclesiastes 12 verse 11 "A wise teacher's words spur students to action and emphasise important truths. The collected sayings of the wise are like guidance from a shepherd." (NLT)
Matthew 12 verse 37 "For by thy (your own) words thou shalt be justified, and by your words shalt thou (shall you) be condemned.
Therefore, these three are even more critical - credibility, integrity and civility which as Christians "value adds" to those around us.
