A List of Acceptable Sins

Tags

Christianity, Church, Cultural Engagement, Evangelicalism, Faith, Gospel, Homosexuality, Jesus Christ, Repentance, Sin, Society, Truth

I have recently encountered a couple of incidents where a selectively ‘inclusive’ welcome was offered to people, and thought they might be worth reflecting on for a minute, because of who was welcomed and who was not.

The first comes from an event held back in October, the second annual “Evolving Faith” conference–which, it appears to me, would probably be more accurately named something like the “Rejecting God” conference.  As reported by Religion News Service:

During the opening session, Christian author and journalist Jeff Chu…welcomed a long list of groups ranging from introverts to the disabled, from the “frozen chosen” to the pansexual, from “you who do sex work to pay the bills,” Chu said, “and (to you) who are clutching your pearls because I just said ‘sex work.’”

“You who doubt, you who struggle, you who feel lost, you are loved.” Chu continued. “Atheists, agnostics, seekers, you are loved.”

Now, I want to make the significant caveat that this is not a full list of who Chu welcomed to the conference, which the report calls “a long list of groups”.  So it may be that they were far more inclusive than the RNS report gives them credit for in what groups it mentions.

But, as far as the RNS report goes, the list of who is welcomed is as significant for who is unmentioned as for who is mentioned.  Perfectly innocuous personality traits, such as introverts, are acknowledged, together with sins such as atheism and sexual immorality–not that the people at Evolving Faith would see these as sins.

And, indeed, even people with a more conservative worldview receive a welcome (of a sort): those who don’t approve of prostitution are given the backhanded welcome of being classified as elitist prudes.  Already the ‘inclusivity’ seems a little thin.

But what about all the sins that the Evolving Faith people would actually consider sinful–apart from the fairly banal ‘sin’ of prudery?  Perhaps they were included, but not mentioned by RNS.  Or perhaps the Evolving Faith welcome didn’t mean to include anything they regarded as sin; given their openness to atheism, the category can hardly apply in any strong sense.

These observations are really only prelude to the more interesting ‘inclusive’ welcome I encountered recently.  The more interesting welcome was found outside the doors of an evangelical church.  A large placard posted on either side of the door welcomed all sorts of people to the church, expressing delight to have them there.

Now, a placard welcoming people to the church is a wonderful thing.  All kinds of people should be welcome in the church.  All kinds of sinners should be welcome to come and be loved and hear the gospel.  But when you begin to list who is welcome, it raises certain difficulties: who do you list, and who do you not list, and what message is being sent?

This church’s placard included numerous innocuous personality characteristics, such as liking lattes or NASCAR.  But it also included a smattering of sins: divorce, homosexuality, gambling, and substance abuse.  Nothing on the placard suggested that they regarded these things as sins, but knowing the church’s institutional affiliation, I think they probably do.

But this is a very interesting selection of sins to include, and it is very interesting to think of some of the sins that aren’t included.  The sins mentioned are all ones you can safely put on a placard without a hint of disapproval, because our culture’s disapproval for them is tenuous at best.  Our culture outright celebrates homosexuality, sees divorce as perfectly permissible, is overall favorable towards gambling, and substantially regards substance abuse as something to be pitied as much as to be condemned.  In short, this is basically a list of socially acceptable sins.

So we may ask, why didn’t the church include more unsavory sins in their ‘inclusive’ welcome?  Why are not white supremacists, child abusers, and rapists welcomed?  Where is the greeting for human traffickers and pedophiles?  Are these not also sinners who need Jesus?

I don’t think that if I sat down with the elders and asked why these groups weren’t on the list, that the honest answer would be “we certainly would have included them if we’d thought of it.”  I think the honest answer would have to be something more like “that would make people uneasy about coming to our church” or “listing those things together with a bunch of innocuous characteristics in a welcome message might suggest that we don’t strongly disapprove of such acts.”  Precisely.

A list of acceptable sins may be good PR, but as far as the message of the church, it either says too little or too much.  As far as the actual radical welcome of the gospel, it says far too little: it is not only socially acceptable sinners, but also radically unacceptable ones, who need Jesus.  But as far as the church’s social stance goes, it says far too much: lumping sins together with neutral differences of preference and personality weakens the prophetic stance of the church in calling sinners to repentance.

The church has a different standard than the world.  We can’t give a list of acceptable sins, because there are no acceptable sins.  Welcoming select sinners sends the wrong message.

The gospel is utterly inclusive of all sins and all sinners, and utterly exclusive, that all who would be saved must come to Jesus Christ in repentance and faith.  Paul says to the church in Corinth:

“Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God?  Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.  And that is what some of you were.  But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor. 6:9-11).

There the gospel declaration and the prophetic witness of the church meet.

Beyond the Gates

Tags

Courage, Death, Defiance, Devil, Fear, Hope, Literature, Satan, Tolkien

In J.R.R. Tolkien’s tragic fantasy The Children of Hurin, there is a scene towards the beginning where Hurin, the mighty warrior, is disputing with Morgoth–an evil power, who is a figure of Satan.  Morgoth has just dealt a terrible blow to the forces of good, and has Hurin for prisoner; but still Hurin defies him.  Among his words of defiance is this statement of transcendent hope:

“Beyond the Circles of the World you shall not pursue those who refuse you.” (65)

Truly, the great struggle of the soul is confined to this world, and this life.  Satan’s power cannot reach beyond the gates of death.  And those doors, so fearful, have been by Christ transformed.  Though shadowed still by uncertainty and limned with grim finality, they mark nothing terrible for those who belong to the risen Lord Jesus Christ.

For the Christian, death is the passage to everlasting joy in the presence of the Lord, the departure to be with Christ and abide with Him until the day of resurrection, when all things are made new.

In this life there is much we might fear.  But courage comes with the conviction of certain vindication.  For the present, Satan has been allowed to act, even though already decisively defeated at the cross.  But his power stops at the gates of death.  He cannot pursue those who refuse him.

Approval vs. Forgiveness

Tags

Christianity, Church, Forgiveness, Homosexuality, LGBTQ+, Reconciliation, Repentance, Restoration, Secularism, Sexual Revolution, Sin, Society

I saw an article the other yesterday on a liberal news venue, pushing back against a conservative church’s attempt to influence their community.  Several observations might be made, but one will suffice for the nonce.

One of the reasons this church’s influence is so objectionable to some is the church’s promotion of Christian sexual ethics, particularly their opposition to homosexuality.  Christian sexual ethics are considered intolerant to secular society.  But, interestingly, another objection cited in the article was that the pastor had officiated the marriage of a man who had a different area of sexual immorality in his past, of which he had repented.

That is to say, part of what some people find so offensive about this church is that it does not approve of sexual immorality (of the kind society presently approves), and another part is that the church believes in restoration for people who have engaged in sexual immorality (of the kind society does not [presently] approve).

I think this is an interesting observation, that can be seen in society at large, at least to some degree.  Tolerance is aggressively (intolerantly?) promoted by de-stigmatizing of numerous immoral behaviors.  Acceptance is the order of the day.  But there are still numerous things that are not tolerated, not accepted; and for these things, forgiveness and restoration for the repentant can be in very short supply.

The Christian church calls sin what it is, but preaches that anyone can be forgiven their sins if they will repent and place their faith in Christ.  It should not be surprising that the secular world, which finds the conviction of sin offensive, sometimes finds forgiveness offensive as well.

Regressing

Tags

Books, Christianity, Culture, Humanity, Media, Paganism, Secularism, Society, Truth, World

I read old books, and learn interesting things.  Sometimes you see things that were common knowledge a hundred years ago, but not so well known now.  But today I saw a rather sobering instance of the reverse.

In a book from about a century ago, I saw that the author felt the need to explain the concept of a horoscope.  Now, perhaps astrology was better known at the time than she thought, but perhaps this is a pointer that paganism was not so mainstream then as now.

We like to think that we are enlightened, sophisticated, and so on; but in some ways we seem to be regressing into ignorance, both intellectual and moral.  The rise of paganism in postmodernity is a sobering reminder of what G.K. Chesterton so aptly said,

Every man who will not have softening of the heart must at last have softening of the brain. (Chesterton, Orthodoxy, 42)

History does not advance at an ever upward climb.  Enlightenment is not guaranteed to increase over time.  Sometimes light grows dimmer, and hearts and minds become darkened; and our society loves the darkness.  Those who think of themselves as progressive are in some ways most prone to regress.

But while enlightenment is not guaranteed, it is also true that regress is not inevitable.  The light still shines in the darkness (Jn. 1:5).  We do not have to become ever more mired in paganism.  Revival can be had; but you have to want the light.

Reasoned Faith

Tags

Atheism, Christianity, Faith, Life, Meaning, Paganism, Reason, Truth

Blaise Pascal, in his uncompleted notes known as the Pensees (“Thoughts”), mulled over the relationship of reason to our understanding of truth.

“Submission and use of reason; that is what makes true Christianity” (83).

There is such a thing as a reasoned faith.  And, despite protests that some atheists might make, that is what the Christian tradition offers.

Faith does not jettison reason.  The truth that is communicated to us by revelation is sensible and usually comprehensible–if sometimes, especially in the doctrine of God, it may only be understood analogically.  To believe is not the opposite of to think.

But reason does not eliminate the need for faith.  There are truths beyond any real human comprehension, which can only be grasped by faith and understood by analogy.  There are mysteries to reality.  And reason itself supports the idea that this great cosmos, let alone its Maker, should be beyond the scope of our intellects.

“If we submit everything to reason our religion will be left with nothing mysterious or supernatural.  If we offend the principles of reason our religion will be absurd and ridiculous” (83).

The truth is neither mundane nor absurd.  These are the extremes to which people are pushed when they reject the truth.  Atheism is mundane to the point of utter nihilism.  Paganism is absurd.  But the reasoned faith of Christianity is both intelligible and supernaturally significant.

Yet there are reasons for the escape into rationalism or irrationality.  The reasoned faith of Christianity shines the harsh light of conviction onto our lives of darkness; it confronts us with the high drama of reality when we would rather be befuddled by entertaining triviality; it summons us to take up our cross.  In short, the road of faithful reason calls for courage.

But the reward is infinite bliss.

 

———————————————-

Quotes from Pascal’s Pensees taken from the Penguin Classics edition (London & New York: Penguin, 1966), translated A.J. Krailsheimer.

 

The Last Hot Day

Tags

Tea

Weather.com has solemnly promised me that today is the last burning hot day for the foreseeable future (the foreseeable future is ten days).  I do hope that this is so.  Autumn is officially here, and its about time the weather got with the program.

The main thing wrong with hot weather is that it makes it more difficult to enjoy hot tea; and without hot tea, what separates us from the barbarians?

No, Do Think About It

Tags

1 Peter, Celebrities, Eternity, God, Gospel, Jesus Christ, Life, Truth

The Christian Post had a little piece about actor Brad Pitt no longer ‘identifying’ as an atheist, which contained a couple of interesting lines.

Towards the beginning, Pitt reflects on his prior claims to atheism, saying, “I called myself an atheist for awhile, just kind of being rebellious.”

Well, yeah.  I mean, that’s the heart of the matter, isn’t it?  Atheism is the staunchest sort of rebellion, the aggressive denial that there is no God: no one made us, we aren’t here for anything, we’re not going anywhere, and the only laws that mean anything are the laws of nature–all the rest we just made up.

After a little bit, the article refers back to an earlier interview from 2009, apparently during Pitt’s atheist-agnostic phase, where he said, “I don’t think anyone really knows.  You’ll either find out or not when you get there, until then there’s no point thinking about it.”

Au contraire.

That kind of logic only applies if the issue is already decided in favor of atheism.  If there is no God, then there is, indeed, no point in thinking about it.  There’s no point in anything, and thinking about God would be one of the things in which there is no point.  There’s also no point in being kind or helping others; everything on our planet will die with the sun (if not sooner), and if by some unlikely chance humanity has developed sufficiently to escape that fate, ultimate dissolution still follows eventually.

But…

If there is a God, then there is a future, an eternity, worth thinking about.  If there is a God, there may well be a point in doing and thinking a whole lot of things.  Kindness may actually count.  If there is a God, then we ought to think about sin and righteousness and judgment.  If there is a God, we just might need Him to save us.

The Christian faith is profoundly transcendent.  This life isn’t everything, so it means something.  The gospel message matters, and so we proclaim it even to people who must face death–because death is not the end.  “For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead, so that they might be judged according to human standards in regard to the body, but live according to God in regard to the spirit” (1 Pet. 4:6, NIV).  From an atheist perspective, true Christianity looks like a bad deal: you give up a lot of what you might have squeezed out of this life.  But from the perspective of eternity, it means true life, spiritual life by the power of the Holy Spirit, and resurrected life when Christ returns.

God sent His Son to bear our sins upon the cross, and rise so that by faith in Him we may be forgiven and receive eternal life.

It bears thinking about.

The Children’s Crusade

Tags

Activism, Children, Ecology, Education, Family, Media, Truth

I saw a clip of that poor girl at the United Nations.  She said something very true at the beginning: she should have been in school.  The fact that adults have done a singularly bad job at addressing pollution is not a good reason to be putting children in the spotlight as activists.

Children are to be taught, nurtured, loved, protected.  They are not to be killed in abortion clinics, mutilated as experiments in a social agenda, or sent out as soldiers in a culture war.

I do not mean that children shouldn’t learn about civic responsibility and social work.  By all means, take them with you to serve at the local food shelf.  Let them march beside you–let them learn under your wing.  But don’t hold them up with a microphone to spurt angry recriminations at their elders–even if those elders are guilty.  I don’t think it helps your cause; more importantly, I don’t think it does their souls any good.

We have developed an activist culture that thrives on outrage, substitutes sloganeering for critical thought, and is riddled with a self-aggrandizement.  I would like for future generations to be wiser, kinder, more generous, and more socially conscious than generations before; I would like for them to step forward boldly and repair the damage that others who came before them have done.

But I do not think it is likely, not if we continue on this present course.  Sending children out to be young crusaders is no way to teach them how to be good men and women.  Our grandparents knew more about community, charity, generosity, and honor than we do.  If we teach our children to scorn the past, we will not prepare them to make a better future.

I do not blame the young activists.  They are teenagers, moved by that glorious youthful drive to take the world by the horns; it is a beautiful thing.  I do blame the parents, who have not the wisdom to protect their children and guide them into adulthood.

She should have been in school.

A Father for Us

Tags

Christianity, Depression, Faith, Father, God, Hope, Life, Media

It is easy to become overwhelmed by the tragedy of life.  Every day the news tells us about losses, griefs, horrors and inhumanities.  We have each our pains, and if our hearts are not hardened we have others’ pains to bear as well.  How can we face this world of sadness and separation?

We need a Father who can make everything all right.  Those who have had good fathers know something of this: he seems able to do anything and knows everything, he can pick you up and make you feel safe, he’s your protector and provider.  Those who have tried to be good fathers know that this is what you give to your children: you make for them a world within the world, a world of love and safety and joy, a world where they are protected and provided for and loved.

But we outgrow our fathers, even the best of fathers.  We discover the world outside the world they made for us, and we make our way in that world and come to know its darkness and danger and despair.  We come to see that our fathers were pointing us towards someone bigger than themselves, that fatherhood is a picture of the ultimate human need, natural for creatures and tragic because of sin.

We need a King who can put things right.  We need a Savior who can forgive us.  We need a Father, who can enfold us in His embrace and wipe the tears from our eyes, who can make things okay.

We need God.

And God has reached down to us.  “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” (Jn. 3:16, NIV).

There is a King; He has come, and He is coming again.  His kingdom is among us, and it will be complete.  He is going to fix things.  “‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes.  There will be no more death’ or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away” (Rev. 21:4).

There is a Father for us.

Fighting the Last War

Tags

America, Bible, China, Christianity, Culture, Culture War, Education, Freedom, Hong Kong, LGBTQ+, Liberty, Secularism

As I look back over American history, and the radical cultural upheaval we have seen, I am reminded of the old saying in the discipline of military history, which goes something to the effect that ‘generals are always fighting the last war.’  What it means is that it’s hard to predict how things are going to be in the future, and trying to learn from the past all too easily takes the form of preparing to meet the next challenge as though it were going to be like the last one.  The result is wrong preparation, and a shock when the new challenge turns out to be truly new.

The classic example of this is the Maginot Line.  After the trench warfare of WWI, the French built a massive line of fortifications against German invasion.  It would have been great, if the next war had simply been a replay.  As it was, WWII began with a display of unprecedented mobility, as the Germans invaded through the Low Countries and the Ardennes Forest and swiftly overcame the French.  The mighty Maginot Line was obsolete, because it was built to fight the last war.

What is the relevance of this to America?  It seems to me that our founders did not take adequate steps against the threats of secularism and paganism, because those threats were hardly on the horizon at the time.  The threat from which our founders sought freedom was sectarian Christian persecution, the battles between Catholics and Protestants and the oppression of an official state church.  So they saw the need for a separation of church and state.  Very good.  And, indeed, it may be fair to say that they were not fighting the last war, but the current war; all the same, they did not anticipate the next war, and the protections they laid down may prove to be something of a Maginot Line in the defense of freedom.

For a simple glance over our nation’s history makes it quite clear that they did not see the separation of church and state as incompatible with having–and pursuing–a Christian nation.  They taught the Bible in Christian schools for most of our nation’s history; for example, Bible reading was still mandatory in Pennsylvania schools until a supreme court decision in 1963.  Freedom of religion and the separation of church and state were designed to prevent the rise of a repressive state church, not to make room for militant secularism to suppress religion in the public square.  It was assumed that the nation would be explicitly Christian in its worldview and morals.

It was assumed that the next war would look like the last war.

But what do you do when you realize you’ve been outflanked?  How do you address it, when you find that your protections against oppressive religious sectarianism have proved weak against militant secularism?

I think the first step is for Christians to see clearly through the secularist charade.  There is a pretended neutrality about secularism that many Christians have uncritically accepted for far too long.  Secularism may oppose all religions evenly, but it does not create a space that is worldview-neutral.  On the contrary, it creates a space that is either functionally atheistic or functionally pagan–perhaps an odd and contradictory admixture of both.

Don’t fall for it.  The flag of neutrality is waved hard for long enough to get the Bible out of schools.  Then, suddenly, the flag of neutrality disappears, and the rainbow flag of paganism is being hoisted instead.  And, in their audacity, the secularist still claims this is the flag of neutrality.  But we know it’s not.  We should have realized that the flag of neutrality was always a false color.  But better late than never.

It is clear now that the steps taken at America’s founding were insufficient to properly ground freedom against its enemies.  For, make no mistake, the secular revolution, advancing primarily as a sexual revolution, is an enemy of freedom.  The lawsuits against Christians trying to conduct their business as Christians continue, and will continue; but these are just early rumblings.  The direction to which secularism heads is more appropriately forecast by looking at nations such as China.  There are environments in which freedom may flourish, and others in which it will not.  Christianity and freedom properly go hand-in-hand.