One of the biggest problems affecting “conversation” and “dialogue” between progressives and conservatives, especially when Christians are involved, is that no one seems to understand the difference between social ethics and Christian morality.
The left is convinced that the church needs to adhere to contemporary Western culture’s ethical standards. Wherever they go, the church should go as well. The right is likewise convinced that the church needs to make society conform to (its particular version of) Christian morality. Both sides are wrong.
“Do not be conformed to the pattern of this world…” Paul’s statement in Romans is something that progressives would do well to focus on. The left wing of the church is getting co-opted by liberal ideals. Pluralism, feminism, reversed or merged gender roles and altered gender identity…all these have moved from society to the church.
There’s no place in the church for the acceptance of other gods or religious practices. And for any official church leader to say that there is salvation outside of Christ is…brace yourself…heresy. We don’t like to use that word; there’s just something about clearly calling out someone’s error that bothers our contemporary sensibilities.
God lays out pretty particular roles for the genders. They’re clear in Scripture and biology. Men are called and created to lead, protect, to be the head of woman as Christ is the head of the church. There’s more, but that argument is for another place. Western feminism though, is pushing for not only gender equality, but for the total interchangeability of the sexes. That’s led to the progressive Christian movement ordaining women as a norm rather than an exception, against the example of Scripture.
As with Newton’s Third Law (”For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction”), the right has done the same type of stupid stuff. Pushing for things such as school prayer, making same-sex unions illegal, and making women feel as though they “should” (read: must) be stay-at-home moms are ridiculous intrusions into the pluralistic world of civil ethics.
Ethics deals with right and wrong in our society, which is a mishmash of cultures and religions, and we need to be conscious of those around us with different beliefs. Christian morality is based in the Bible, and for believers there can be no other standard; but while that standard comes from the God of all mankind, we only apply it to those who’ve heard and accepted His truth, because the unregenerate mind is incapable of accepting it.
These two concepts can interact just fine in society today. For me it looks something like this: The Bible speaks negatively about the issue of homosexuality. It receives no positive treatment in Scripture. On top of that, the examples of Scripture support a marriage of one man and one woman (1 Cor 7). However, I can think of no ethical reason to deny homosexuals the right to enter into a contract similar to marriage. But the church should not bless same-sex unions. This is just one example.
My biggest pet peeve is that both sides claim the moral high ground in living as Christ wanted, but no one is following the most important of Jesus commands. The right would say that the most important part of Christianity is to “be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect,” while the left would say loving our neighbor is most important. They’re both wrong.
“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied: ” ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’This is the first and greatest commandment.” Matt. 22:36-38
Loving God is more important than loving our neighbor. It’s more important than personal holiness. Without a surpassing love for God, neither of those things means anything. How do we love God? We obey His commands. We glorify His name. We love the good, shun evil, and devote ourselves entirely to the Kingdom.
Loving our neighbor is an idol to the left. It’s taken on a whole new meaning. To the progressive movement it means accepting them and their sins. But if we truly love them we’ll confront their sinfulness, so they can repent and turn to God. Holiness is an idol to the right. But it manifests itself not in true holiness, which is characterized by servanthood and humility, but in the self-righteousness of the Pharisees. Pretending to have no struggles is not holiness.
Both sides have a long way to go in understanding the meaning of love and holiness.
“For what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses or forfeits himself?” If we raise someone out of poverty, but don’t teach her to love and follow God, and to keep his commands, she is still lost to eternity. Likewise if we teach someone to follow all of the rules but they don’t have love for God or compassion for others, he is also lost to eternity.
Until we start talking about the same things, our debates will continue to be meaningless posturing and shouting matches. Let’s get on the same page.
The comparison is getting old. “Oh, you think homosexuality is wrong…what about divorce?” Gene Robinson says that his favorite way of combating arguments against homosexuality with other Christians. It usually shuts them up, and with good reason. It’s a perfect example of someone looking at the speck in another’s eye, and ignoring the plank in their own. But should we really be using that argument as a way to make another sin acceptable?
Maybe we should be using it to talk about marriage. Because few people take marriage as seriously as they used to. Some people think harder about a tattoo than their potential spouse. There’s [almost] no getting rid of a tattoo. But if we stopped accepting divorce as just a part of modern society, people might start thinking harder about getting married. Divorce used to hold some stigma. But now it only does if you’ve been married 3 or 4 times. It should hold some disrepute. It’s a bad thing. It’s sin unless your spouse was unfaithful. We should treat it as such.
So, I was looking into the ELCA’s Study on human sexuality and noticed this same thing in one of the 2005 Churchwide Assembly’s resolutions. This paragraph follows a position statement describing homosexual activity as a sin:
Every minister of the Church is a sinful being. This church in its structures of oversight makes decisions about every person who presents himself or herself for the rostered ministries of this church. Where this church judges that a person might serve the Gospel and mission of this church well, she or he is approved for ministry. The most instructive parallel for this moment may be clergy who are divorced and remarried, a condition specifically condemned in Scripture by Jesus. Without contradicting scriptural teaching, this church examines such persons and their witness, and may endorse their call to ministry. In a similar way, this church could agree to a particular review of partnered gay and lesbian persons called to specific contexts, and agree that they may be able to serve this church and the Gospel well. Leaving the language reflective of the traditional view intact and requiring the additional steps for granting exceptions respects what this church believes to be the extra-ordinary nature of these calls.
Well, does the divorced and remarried minister understand that his action was sinful? Did he repent? Does he intend to repeat it? If the answers are yes, yes, and no, then there is no reason, Scripturally, that he should be prevented from serving. Conversely, I’m fairly certain no candidate for ministry who is actively involved in a committed same-sex relationship will say that his actions are sinful, repent of them, and have no intention of repeating them.
Plus, there are questions such as who initiated the divorce, and whether the previous nuptials ended due to unfaithfulness, that could determine whether the action was sinful in the first place. And even then, is the current marriage a sin after there has been repentance? These questions don’t exist for those in same-sex relationships. There are simply no biblical guidelines for acceptance of these situations, like those for accepting divorce.
We need to stop wallowing in our own mediocrity. Instead of using the prevailing acceptance of one sin to gain acceptance for another, we should be trying to eliminate sin in our lives and communities. Not to gain salvation, because Christ alone offers that, but to show our gratitude, and to show our faith. We are called to holiness, and we should strive for it.
Related: Across the Board, On the Narrow, Sin and the Sinner, Religious Left, You Call That Protection?
The Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin hasn’t officially separated from the national church, but they’ve taken the first steps. I’m really impressed with the coverage in the Reuters article. The AP’s piece, however, left me underwhelmed.
The Fresno-based Diocese of San Joaquin voted Saturday to affirm its membership in the worldwide Anglican Communion, in what diocese leaders called a first step toward a formal break with the national church over the ordination of gays and women.
If only that were the truth of the matter. Reuters hits it dead on with this:
“Homosexuality is just one symptom of how the church has lowered its view,” said McCalister. “The key issue, however, is the ecclesiastical structure that recognizes the authority of the Bible, as it has for about two millennium. We’re not bringing in anything new.”
This is the heart of it. The upper echelons of Episcopal Church authority have begun to set the Bible’s “lesser teachings” aside in favor of a policy that goes something like, “Love your neighbor, even if that means ignoring some of Jesus other commands.” I don’t know what other issues will arise in the future, but right now we have a large number of Christians who believe everyone on earth is saved, regardless of their acceptance or rejection of the Gospel; many who believe that the idea of Jesus’ divinity was added in later. This break isn’t about ordination, it’s about theology and the position of the Bible in the church.
The Bishop Schori has a wonderfully deceptive response:
“Our task as the Episcopal Church is God’s mission of reconciling the world, and actions such as this distract and detract from that mission,” she said.
But who’s really “breaking away” here?
The Episcopal Church is a branch of the 77-million member Worldwide Anglican Communion, a loose federation of national churches around the world. Jefferts Schori leads 2.4 million followers in the United States.
At the San Joaquin diocese’s convention on Friday, Bishop John-David Schofield said, “The Episcopal Church walks apart from the Anglican Communion, but accuses us of leaving the church.”
The ECUSA is abandoning the centuries old view of the Bible as the infallible Word of God. As a Christian, that should be tantamount to apostasy.
I hate to use attendance statistics to suggest the health of a church, but if you check out the “growth” reports about the Episcopal Church from 1992-2004, you’ll see that only one diocese increased it’s membership relative to the population. Many actually lost members despite 10-20% population gains. That is not a good sign in a country that generally views Christianity as a good thing, with anecdotal evidence that points to a growth in overall church membership.
Like I said though, that’s not the way to determine whether a church is doing God’s will…just a fun fact. In the end what matters is this: The only tangible connection we have with Jesus’ teachings is the Bible. We have the Spirit and we have prayer, but those things are intangible. If we are to believe in him we have to trust the Bible to guide us to him.
Even Luther says in his Disputation on the Divinity and Humanity of Christ that when a dispute arises between our perception of the truth and the Bible’s declaration, the Bible’s language should prevail. The church fathers went to Scripture to guide practice. And Scripture testifies to itself, the Bereans searching the Scriptures to be sure the Apostles teaching was correct. I hope the leadership of the Episcopal Church remembers that, before the cookie falls apart in their hands.
Bob posted an interesting blog about an article in today’s LA Times. Find it here.
This speaks to a problem we have in society: the inability to separate a person from their past. If someone has sinned in a way that we find unsavory at any time in their past, we treat them as though they’re a threat to do it now. The subject of the article was convicted 13 years ago. He’s served his prison time, paid his debt to society, and now he’s just trying to get on with his life. But his neighbors won’t let it happen.
There’s no mention in the article to whether or not the neighbors are Christian, but judging by the demographics in the US, there are some there. Hopefully they’re the ones trying to be at peace with him.Jesus encountered a lot of sinful people in his life. Well, since everyone who has ever lived (with the exception of him) has been a sinner, then he only encountered sinful people. And he forgave. Tax collectors, zealots, prostitutes, adulteresses, blasphemers, liars…and he forgave every one of them who asked. He still does. In order to receive his grace, all we have to do is repent and confess, then ask for it.
Paul was a murderer of Christians before he became one. And Jesus sought him out to take the message to the Gentiles. If that man could be forgiven, why not this one? We have to do a much better job of separating the sin from the sinner, because with the measure we judge with, we will also be judged. If you hold someone’s past sins against them, yours may be held against you.
The Feminarian posted something similar, but she deals directly with the church. She discussed the views of Cyprian and Augustine in dealing with the lapsed (those who recanted during persecution, then came back to the church) and those in schism. The crux of her argument comes down to this:
The question of who is a schismatic is interesting for my denomination right now. By the standards of Cyprian, those who have defied their bishop’s authority and broken communion with the wider church are worse sinners than those living immorally. In our diocese, that means those who will not ordain gay and lesbian priests are worse than those who are inclusive, if they have broken relationship with our bishop (and a few have). [A note: Cyprian assumes the lapsed will repent, and the gay members of the Episcopal church are not considered sinners, which adds another layer of confusion to this question.] However, those in schism from the Episcopal Church are still in communion (theologically, at least) with the majority of Anglicans and other Christians worldwide. So in truth, it is probably the Episcopalians supporting gay priests who are the true schismatics and if living in gay relationship is sinful, then our priests and bishops have a double whammy of both schism and lapsing.
Yet despite all of this, Augustine would still affirm the effectiveness of their ministry, because God worked in their ordination, and God will continue to work through their sacramental ministry. And so even those of us under the authority of bishops like mine can take heart that we are not completely lost. I have personally witnessed the Spirit’s effectiveness in the lives and ministries of gay people. Even if they are sinning, Augustine must be right that God will still work through them!
I can’t say that I agree that this sort of division is worse than the sin in question, but it does weaken the Church in certain ways. I also agree that the condition of the minister will not affect the grace imparted on those he ministers to. But does that make it okay for said minister to live in sin? Scripture tells us that sexual immorality is one of the things that makes a person unclean(Mk. 7:21). It tells us to flee from it(1 Cor. 6:18), and to expel those who live in it (1 Cor. 5).
While the minister’s sin will not directly affect the salvation of his congregation, what does it say of the hearts of those who allow him to continue in it? Aren’t we supposed to work towards the purity of the church, as well as the unity? This doesn’t mean expelling a sinful brother or sister outright, but following Jesus teaching in Matt. 18, if they refuse to repent, they should be put out. Of course, he says to “treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.” I think that means you should put him out of the body, and re-evangelize him. Teach the basics, showing God’s offer of forgiveness and grace.
It would seem that Cyprian and Augustine wrote at a time when the laity had little say in the operations of the church. Once someone was put in charge of a parish, the congregation had no other options (”Nothing outside a man can make him ‘unclean’ by going into him…”). So this made sense then. But today, the people are in charge of the church hierarchy, so the outward condition of the clergy is a direct reflection of the laity (”Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him ‘unclean.’” Mark 7:15).
I think that since we live in an era of the church where we are in control of who leads us, we need to be very careful about the people we elevate.� We must even be careful of those who seem to be elevated by God.� Jesus said in Matthew 24 that “false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect�if that were possible.” If we aren’t diligent, those false prophets will deceive us, and though their sinfulness won’t affect our salvation, the fact that we chose them to lead us and allowed them to continue belies our internal condition.� The enemy waits to ensnare us, and he’ll use anything he can exploit, including love and tolerance, to reach his goal.
I think that the church should take a more Biblical stance on sin. We tend to single out sexual sin as the only one that is bad enough to keep people out of the church: homosexuality, promiscuity, adultery. And adultery has to be really egregious to get real attention. In my very first post I mentioned a friend who had recently found out his youth minister had taken advantage of as many as 8 girls in his time at the church. When the news broke in the church, it was received in such a way that he can still be a part of the congregation, but the one girl who was named had to leave. That’s just ridiculous.
I think we should take the stand that if you are found to be in a cycle or pattern of sin, you should have to repent and commit to change or be put out of the fellowship. Jesus gave us the guidelines in Matthew 18. We should apply it to all sin, not just the ones that we don’t plan on doing ourselves.
If you get divorced for any reason other than adultery and are remarried, you should have to confess and repent. I don’t think you should have to end the latter marriage, but you should confess that you sinned and live up to your vows. If you refuse, you should be put out until you relent.
This should go for everything: rotten business practices, abusing your family, drunkenness, lying…whatever else we can think of. I’m not saying that if you stumble you should be kicked out, but if you continue in sin, unrepentant and without remorse, then you should be put out, according to Jesus’ command.
This, of course, would apply also to the sexual sins mentioned above. It would hopefully curtail two things: the level of hypocrisy in our churches, and the practice of people joining churches and subscribing only to the teachings that they like. For the life of me, I can’t understand how people can say that their behavior isn’t sin, even though the Bible calls it such. This is probably why the Bible says that we shouldn’t trust our own hearts.
Blogs4God
