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.

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.

 

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.

Wrong Tree

Tags

Christianity, God, Gospel, Idolatry, Liberalism, Nature, Nonsense, Panentheism, Theism, Theology, Truth, Union Theological Seminary, World

Union Theological Seminary is back in the news, with another display of the theological deterioration that liberalism brings.

I trace the progression something like this: the failure to hold to the truth about God as revealed in Scripture leads to an over-emphasis on the immanent, on the matters of this world; accordingly, the Divine transcendence collapses into immanence–aided by the feminist impulse, which takes umbrage at the masculine personalism of God in the Bible, and pushes either in the direction of goddess-worship or a loss of God’s personalism (or, paradoxically, both); the result is a slide from theism into panentheism, the conflation of Creator with creation.  I’ve read that Paul Tillich, possibly the most renowned 20th-century American liberal theologian, came to the point where he couldn’t really pray, but only meditate in or upon nature; God had ceased to be personal in his conception.

What I’m saying is that when your gospel becomes too this-worldly, so does your picture of God.

I am not saying that Union has arrived at panentheism yet, only that they are perhaps on the road there.  They have certainly arrived upon a place of absurdity; what else can you call a worship service involving confession to plants of mankind’s sin against creation?

To quote Union’s widely-circulated tweet:

Today in chapel, we confessed to plants. Together, we held our grief, joy, regret, hope, guilt and sorrow in prayer; offering them to the beings who sustain us but whose gift we too often fail to honor.

What do you confess to the plants in your life?

It is not entirely clear whether they prayed to plants (i.e., regarded them as divine) or simply whether they prayed about their misdeeds towards plants or prayed with plants to God, so I give them the benefit of the doubt that they didn’t actually worship the plants.  But they did confess to them, regarding them as “beings who sustain us.”

It is one thing to poetically address plants as a sort of metaphor, or to speak about how they reveal God, as in Psalm 19 or my own poor poem from yesterday.  It is quite another to confess our sins to plants, as though they were personal beings and as though it were them, not their Creator, who we have offended by our wasteful destruction of the environment.  It insinuates devotion to Gaia, rather than to God.

Faced with criticism over this debacle, Union has defended their decision by pointing out that they weren’t exactly committed to wholehearted devotion to the one true God anyway.  As their statement is reported in the Washington Examiner article linked above, in their chapels:

“One day, you may come in to find a traditional Anglican communion, another day you may enter into a service of Buddhist meditation or Muslim prayer,” the spokesperson continued. “Another, you may find a Pentecostal praise service or a silent Quaker meeting. We create a home where people can worship side by side, in traditions similar to and very different to their own. Through this process, we learn from our neighbors and discern our own faith more deeply.”

That does fill in the picture, but its hardly comforting for anyone concerned about the students’ souls.

There is a God, a righteous and holy God, a jealous God–the God who says, “I am the LORD; that is my name!  I will not yield my glory to another or my praise to idols” (Isa. 42:8, NIV).

You must know Him; that is the single most important thing in this life.

There’s no absolution from confessing your sins to a fern.  It can’t forgive you.  It’s not the tree of life.  You have to bring your sins, instead, to Christ who bore them on the cross.  “He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness.  By his wounds you have been healed” (1 Pet. 2:24, ESV).

But when you turn away from the cross, you can get so lost you find yourself talking to trees.

 

Real Nonconformity

Tags

Celebrities, Christianity, Culture, Happiness, holiness, Life, Media, Righteousness, Society, Subversion, Truth

Nonconformity is all the rage these days.

Except that it isn’t, of course.  It can’t be.  If it becomes popular, it’s no longer nonconformy–it’s just conformity.

So I think it would be more accurate to say that the idea of subversion is very popular, while actual subversion never can be.  This is a point that it would be nice to see impressed, somehow, upon certain populations, such as the literary industry.  If all the cool kids are waving your flag, you might be in rebellion against God, truth, nature, and so on, but you’re not ‘speaking truth to power.’

Real nonconformity is never fashionable.  But it can be righteous.  In Romans 12, the apostle Paul exhorts Christians, “Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind” (v.2, NIV).  There is a godly nonconformity, the transformed living that comes from the Holy Spirit’s sanctifying work.

This nonconformity doesn’t parade its transgressiveness, but quietly displays its virtue.  Its hallmark is virtue, not virtue-signaling.  Its the nonconformity of the man who doesn’t swear and the woman who dresses modestly–the people who get mocked for their respectability, rather than lauded for their scandalousness.  The pattern of this world urges greed, pride, lust, and anger; the Spirit-transformed life displays charity, humility, chastity, and peace.

Clothed in the right amount of virtue-signaling, the pattern of this world may get you headlining music festivals and photographed on magazine covers.

But the transformed life is usually happier now, and eternity awaits.

Rejecting Young Lives

Tags

Academia, Christianity, LGBTQ+, Secularism, Sexual Revolution, Society, Truth

Famously liberal Religion News Service gave an unintentionally apt title to a recent article: “Duke University’s student government rejects Young Life over LGBTQ policies.”  It would have been even more apt had they not capitalized “Young Life.”

The story is an old one by now: supposedly tolerant university decides that, in the wake of the sexual revolution, the standard Christian morality that has been a cornerstone of two millennia of Western civilization is no longer to be tolerated.

Not surprising, since Duke University is a very prominent academic institution, and therefore expected to yield immediately to inane cultural movements.

Interestingly, Duke’s motto is Eruditio et Religio, “Knowledge/Learning and Faith.”

The eruditio is hard to dispute, but I have a question about the religio–namely, what religion would that be?  Not the Methodism of the school’s history.  Some sort of paganism, apparently.

In their privileging of sexual deviancy above Young Life, Duke’s student government has shown they do not understand what will really nourish the minds and souls of young lives.

One more reminder that secularism is a mask for anti-Christian ideologies, and not the neutral force it pretends to be.

The Price of an Immoral Society

Tags

Censorship, Christianity, Culture, Education, God, Government, Gun Control, Humanity, Law, Liberalism, Liberty, Media, Security, Society, Truth

Gun control has been in the news a lot lately.  Partially this is due to recent tragedies, and partially due to the season of political campaigning–gun control being a highly politicized issue.

The politicization of it suggests a certain disingenuous flavor to much of the conversation.  On a roundup of today’s liberal opinions, I observed both the contention that because of the Trump presidency we are on the verge of becoming a fascist totalitarian state, and various calls to disarm the American populace–both of these ideas being promoted from the same side politically.  Surely this is an odd juxtaposition?  When reality imitates parody, how can we take such people seriously?

I would like very much to live in a safer world.  I see the suffering, and the violence that continues to unfold.  But I am concerned that the way all of this is being discussed points not to safety but to slavery.

So Beto O’Rourke said, with damnation-invoking enthusiasm, “Hell, yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47.”  I don’t have either of those, but I do wonder what might be taken from me a little bit down the line.  Freedom of speech, conscience, assembly, religion, perhaps?

‘Nonsense,’ you say.  ‘Conservative fear-mongering.  Slippery-slope fallacy.  All the liberals want is a reasonable assault-weapons ban, nothing more.  Pinky-swear.’

Maybe; but I doubt it.

For one thing, conservative fear-mongering is a difficult charge to make in light of recent history.  Ten years ago, saying ‘if we legalize gay marriage, Christian bakers and photographers and others will find themselves being prosecuted for not wanting to participate’ would have been called ridiculous fear-mongering.  Five years ago, ‘teachers will be fired for refusing to call boys girls’ would have been called fear-mongering.  Radical social shifts happen awfully fast these days, and the unthinkable can become the standard before you know it.

But back to the point at hand.  If the gun control debate were really just about some background check laws, or banning AR-15s, we could have that conversation.  But I really don’t think it is.  I think the debate we are seeing in America is not about controlling guns but controlling people.

There are two reasons I think this.

The first is simply my observation that the defining feature of the left is centralized control.  You wouldn’t think that, given the fact that we call the political left “liberals” and “Democrats,” but it’s true.  Their center is big government, and a substantial amount of their power comes from big business, big media, etc.  Increasing government control over various areas of life is at the heart of a lot of their policies.  Their radical wing is socialism.  So the left’s position on gun control must be seen in the big picture of their general approach to society.

The second is that, by contrast, the constitutional freedoms of American society have a sort of coherence, and those who attack one are likely to attack others.  I am not fear-mongering, just observing.  In a recent interview, UCLA professor Douglas Kellner underlined this, saying, “I don’t see the Second Amendment as absolute, just like I don’t see the First Amendment as absolute.  In both cases, there need to be qualifications in certain contexts.”  The first amendment, just like the second one, may be subject to “qualifications” for the purpose of addressing gun violence; we should further regulate what people are allowed to say.  Given the rather broad scope of what the left is willing to label as hateful, harmful, or extremism, the implications of this kind of thinking are considerable.

Ultimately, I think that what we’re seeing from the left in the gun control debate is the offer to trade freedom for safety.  An unhappy trade, but I understand why people would be interested in making it.  It should be noted, of course, that when societies give up freedom in pursuit of slavery, they sometimes end up both enslaved and unsafe.  But, however we go forward, we should go forward with open eyes.  Safety, as being dangled before us, has slavery attached down the line.

Yet there is a third option.  I’ve said this before, so I hope I don’t sound like too much of a broken record.  Instead of chaos or control, we could choose Christ.  It is possible to have both a great deal of freedom and a great deal of safety–if you add to the mix a great deal of virtue.  Instead of giving up the right to keep and bear arms–and the right to free speech, and freedom of conscience, and probably a few other things–we could give up paganism.

Give up paganism?  I know, it’s a big ask to a lot of people, but we could do it.  We could put the Bible and prayer back in the schools, and the Ten Commandments in prominent public displays.  We could stop watching movies and TV shows filled with violence and vulgarity and nudity, thus compelling Hollywood to produce edifying entertainment instead.  We could stop listening to musicians whose music, apparel, or conduct are indecent.  We could stop letting the rich rob the poor with cigarettes and slot machines.  We could stop killing babies, and show that we actually value human life.  We could teach children–in the public schools–that life has a transcendent meaning, that God their Creator is holy and loving, and that they, too, should do good and love one another.

With a culture-wide embrace of virtue, grounded in God, we could be able to be both safe and free.

Or we could keep our paganism, and choose between anarchy and slavery.

Immorality comes with a high price tag.

Love Indescribable

Tags

Christ, Christianity, Cross, Culture, God, Gospel, Jesus Christ, Life, Love

So many things are advanced under the banner of ‘love’ these days, and such a variety of things are condemned as hate.  As a culture, we are deeply confused about love.

But there is a transcendent standard, if we will look to it: “God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom. 5:8).

Love is a self-giving for the other, and there has never been such a marvelous demonstration of love as when God the Father sent His Son to die in our place, the Savior of the world.

We were not good and worthy of saving.  We were His enemies, not His friends.  He wasn’t in our debt; we already owed Him everything, and had reneged on our obligations towards Him.  Any attempt to see us as deserving of salvation cheapens God’s grace and undercuts the matchless mystery of His redeeming love.

Christ died for us because God is love.  God is so consummately loving, that He gave His only beloved Son for our redemption.  God’s love was demonstrated, enacted, incomparably displayed, upon the cross where Jesus died for us.

Love indescribable, wonderful and wild, extravagant and incomprehensible.  This is the majesty of divine love.  This is love that shakes the world.