I don’t think we spend enough time thinking about that little gem at the end of Romans 3 - “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” At least, not while considering this at the end of 1 John 1: “If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.”
Today I came across an AP religion column about Donald Miller, author of Blue Like Jazz. Kelli Kennedy wants us all to know that “Donald Miller still loves God and Jesus…His problem is with Christianity, at least how it’s often practiced.” To him Christianity seems to be about “conservative politics, suburban consumerism and an ‘insensitivity to people who aren’t like us.’”
The column goes on to paint this image of traditional Christians as ultraconservative, totally intolerant, and shallow in their spirituality. I don’t want to critique the article here; I just want to lament the truth in this image of Christianity in America. (continue reading…)
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?
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.
The Episcopal Church USA’s new presiding bishop is Katharine Jefferts Schori. She is the first woman to head any member of the worldwide Anglican Communion. Doctrinal questions of women in leadership aside, this could be the end of the Episcopal church as we know it…
Jefferts Schori has some not-so-well-received ideas about the church. The one that gets the most press is that she is pushing for the full acceptance of homosexuality in the church. She says that “she won’t impose her views on others” and that the US church will compromise to stay united with the worldwide Anglican Communion…”for a season.” But she says that when it comes to the other denominations theological qualms with women’s ordination, “they’ll have to ‘get over it’.” See the AP story here.
She wants to pursue peace and healing, and is even willing to compromise, but she will have her way. She’s like a spoiled 3 year-old making a power play. Is this the application of liberal tolerance? That she is moved to include everyone, as long as they agree with her?
That problem is bad enough. But the position that you won’t hear much in the mainstream press, is that she doesn’t think that Jesus is the only way to God.This isn’t a big deal in the world. Most people think there are other ways to God. But for the primate of a denomination of 2.4 million people, this is blasphemy.
That word doesn’t get tossed about very much, as well it shouldn’t. It’s a serious charge that in centuries past has resulted in charred bodies tied to stakes. But what else can you call it? Misguided? No, the idea that God will give you every selfish request is misguided. Deceptive? No, telling someone that you have no sin is deceptive. Mistaken? No, saying the Great Commission is in Malachi 28 is mistaken. This is what Paul called preaching another gospel. This is blasphemy.
“If we insist we know the one way to God,” she said, “we’ve put God in a very small box.”
“It’s this sense that one person can have the fullness of truth in him or herself, rather than understanding that truth is — like God — more than any one person can encompass.”
Those are her own words. She says this despite the fact that Colossians 2:9 says, “in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form,” and Jesus’ own declaration that “no one comes to the Father, except through [him].” She is unconcerned with what the Bible teaches, and decides for herself what is right and wrong. She has taken to leaning on her own understanding.
Some of you who are reading may not be Christians, and probably think it’s great that someone is coming in and going against the grain. You may not think it’s legitimate to hold to such old teachings, and that it’s good that someone is thinking outside of the text. The only problem is that the Bible and it’s teachings are what hold Christians together in this world. Belief in Christ, as the Scriptures tell him is what we are based on. Schori is free to believe that Jesus is only one of many ways to find God, but she shouldn’t have a leadership role in an organization that is based on the belief that he’s the only way.
This post from Get Religion tells the story well, including this incredible insight from an email:
A pastor is married for years, has children, runs a successful church, advances in his denomination/sector of Christianity, and then “finds himself” and abandons wife and children for a live-in situation with another man. His reward? Consecration as a bishop in the Protestant Episcopal Church of America and wide-ranging media praise. LATimes, I believe, had a nice kiss-up interview with Gene Robinson just this week.
Another pastor apparently is married for years, has children, builds and runs a a successful church, advances in his denomination/sector of Christianity, fights temptation and loses, stays with his family, and when the dam breaks, is crucified in the press as his reward.
If you’re unaware, V. Gene Robinson is the gay Episcopal bishop who was consecrated in 2003, with praise from the media. The second story is of Pastor Ted Haggard, of New Life Church in Colorado, who was fired on Saturday following his scandal. I don’t think this email is saying anything to the effect that Haggard should have been allowed to stay, only that the media swing is amazing.
As it says in this article, Jefferts Schori’s comments are in line with what she has said before and with ECUSA leadership. And this is only a symptom of the new forms of Bible interpretation that take the stance that the text contains God’s truth, but not explicitly. This stance holds that the entire Bible, every story, is a metaphor. With this idea of the Bible nothing is certain. There are no concrete facts or commands.
When you reduce the whole of the text to metaphor you can support anything. Despite there being no Biblical support for the idea that God sanctions monogamous homosexual relationships, and concrete evidence that we were intended for monogamous heterosexual relationships (Gen 1, 2; Mt 19, Mk 10, 1Cor 6, Eph 5), you can say things like, “God loves us, why would he create someone as a homosexual if it was a sin?” And no matter what I say, you can refute it, because you don’t believe the Bible is true word of God.
What these groups don’t realize, is that when Jesus argued, he argued from Scripture. A lot. He is constantly referencing the Old Testament. When Satan tempts him he responds by quoting scripture. When the Pharisees confront him about his disciples picking grain on the Sabbath, he uses Scripture. But if take their position, scripture comes second to reason.
I’ve gone through this before, in the posts On the Narrow, and On the Narrow (pt. 2).
What will become of the true Christian faith? How long will it be before the idea that Christ is all, that he was truly God in the flesh, is all but gone in our society? There’s a lot of talk about the growth of Christianity in the global south. Will it become the new center of Christendom when intellectuality takes over the church in America?
The advance of this mindset in America’s large denominations, particularly the PCUSA, ECUSA, and ELCA is frightening to me. We need to separate this “Christian Spirituality” or “Christian Universalism” from Christianity, and quickly.
“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.
“Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
Matthew 7:13-23
Blogs4God
