When Christians talk about sin with people outside the Church (and sometimes inside), they're often perceived as prudish, hypocritical or arrogant.
When is this an accurate perception and when is it not? When is it appropriate for Christians to protest sin in the larger culture and when is it inappropriate?
MM
7 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Although the purpose and message of this weeks sermon was a valid one and one we need to hear and be reminded of, I have to comment on your use of the word liberal in a negative way. The first time I heard this I let it go but now I am speaking. I consider myself to be liberal or open minded concerning some things and conservative (another term I try to avoid using negatively) in others. Neither makes me more or less a Christian. On another note, poor Bill Clinton has been forgiven by his wife. Why are his sins always the ones used as an example and not for instance Frank Gifford? He too has been forgiven by his wife and the world has let it go. I know your point was a valid one concerning sin in our culture but the example used was in its own way bending to that culture. We are all sinners. Isn't that the point?
Thank you for your comment. This is is just the type of discussion I hoped the blog would accommodate.
The word liberal can be ambiguous . Perhaps I should have clarified the sense in which I meant it.
In light of the whole sermon on sin, I applied the word to perspectives on morality. In this context liberal is synonymous with moral permissiveness. Generally, it is the view that each person has the “liberty” to determine his or her own moral standard, and that there is no over-arching standard to which (or to Whom) all people are accountable.
As I mentioned, pop icons like Madonna or Ellen DeGeneres are good examples of this type of thinking. In the political realm, people like Bill Maher and Nancy Pelosi are models of this view. This is a very popular approach to morality in Western culture, but it is completely incompatible with following Christ. This was my target of critique in the sermon. (Not that I am assuming, by any means, that you embrace this position).
In referencing Bill Clinton, my main point was to show how some tried to argue that what he did was less serious than first thought by showing that many others had done the same thing.
There are a few reasons I mentioned him and not others who are guilty of the same thing:
1)Everyone is familiar with Bill Clinton (I had to think for a minute to remember who Frank Gifford is).
2)His repentance is suspect because he only apologized after being forced to by undeniable evidence, and his apology came after blatant lying.
3)His lying, adultery, and desecration of the highest office in America has apparently not diminished his credibility as a champion for his political party—a fact which, itself, is symptomatic of the larger problem of allowing image and pragmatism to eclipse the much more important issue of moral character.
I am very grateful for your comment on the blog. This type of discussion within the Church is extremely valuable and too rare.
When we communicate the subject of sin to the world, our greatest critique is made self-evident by our actions. How we live shows what we value.
Similarly, when we talk about the issues of sin, we need better metaphors: "Missing the mark" and similar visual ideas don't signify the relational harm that Sin is: Damaging our relationship with other humans and especially God himself.
When it comes to responding to the sins of the world:
I think that Paul summarized it well when he basically said that we're to refrain from judgment of unbelievers (since they're obviously not in a covenantial relationship with God) and to only offer judgment to those within the Body (I would add that this includes especially those with whom we're sharing accountability and are in intimate acquaintance with).
Once again I point out, the sermon itself was a good message. It's examples unfair and stereotypical. Ok, can't remember Frank Gifford? How about John McCain who is aspiring to the highest office and also had numerous affairs, one of which was with is current wife. How about religious leaders such as Ted Haggard, also recently in the news and quickly forgiven and forgotten. In response to #2 on your list, do we know the heart of Bill Clinton any more than that of John McCain? I thought only God knows people's hearts and we are not to judge in that way. On another note, there was a teenage girl in church that day who had never been to church and all she mentioned afterwards was that Bill Clinton was used as a bad example. She missed the message because of the way it was delivered.
Thanks again for sharing your thoughts. Hopefully this will be a discussion that generates clarity for all of us.
First I want to make a clarification about allegiance to political parties. I make a conscious effort never to endorse any one party over another. I fully believe that equally committed Christians can vote Democratic or Republican. I'm sure there will be authentic Christians voting on each side in the coming elections. In the minds of some, the Democratic party is seen as the non-Christian party because so many Democratic leaders believe abortion and homosexuality to be morally acceptable. Though such a stand is incompatible with Christian morals, some very thoughtful Christians deem it unwise to base one's vote on only one or two issues.
Your point about McCain and Ted Haggard are well taken, though this is the first I've heard of this about McCain. I believe Ted Haggard's actions were actually worse than Clinton's, because Haggard claimed not only to be a Christian, but a Christian leader. It is with such people Paul tells us we should not even eat (1 Corinthians 5:9-11). But Haggard would only be a true parallel of Clinton if now, after all he did, he was still held up as a champion leader of Evangelical Christianity, as Clinton is for his party. We don't, of course, judge the outside world with the same standard as we do those in the Church, but there must be some general standard which all people hold to.
As for judging people's hearts, you are right in saying this is only for God to do. But the fact that we cannot judge people's hearts does not mean that we should not make moral judgements about human behavior. It's also important to keep clear the distinction between personal, eternal forgiveness (available to all), and the social and professional consequences that do not (and sometimes should not) go away with the forgiveness of our personal sin. If Clinton truly seeks Christ in repentance, then he is just as forgiven and just as much a child of God as anyone else. But it does not follow from this that he should avoid the proper social consequences, just as a repentant murderer will be forgiven by God, but must still serve prison time. As I said earlier, his prominence as a champion for his party—after an apparently forced repentance—seems to place much greater value on image and pragmatism than on moral character.
Also, just to reiterate, my original point in the sermon was not meant to focus especially on Clinton over anyone else, but rather on the way some in TV media tried to justify his behavior by appealing to large numbers of others who had done the same thing.
I am very grateful for your candor. I believe it is a sign of great strength in a church when Christians can have these types of debates on a basis of trust without demonizing or jettisoning the other.
I will comment one last time and give up my anonymous self. I also don't want to focus on political figures and your points are well taken. I see your point in judging hearts and judging human moral behavior which I agree should at times be done. I also agree that what is portrayed in the media and what is idolized in our culture is too often not in line with Christian morals. However as Jesus reminds us, we should remove the plank from our eye before trying to remove the speck from our brother's. We are often so quick to point out the flaws and sins of others, especially when they are always flashed before us on our TV screens. Forget sexual immorality, look at spending. How much money is spent every year on the Super Bowl for instance? We have Americans living in poverty with no health care and poor education yet obscene amounts of money are spent on entertainment. This too is a moral dilemma for me. Sin is everywhere but thankfully so is God with his mercy and forgiveness. Lastly I really like this forum also and appreciate the ability to question, comment and learn from each other.
7 comments:
Although the purpose and message of this weeks sermon was a valid one and one we need to hear and be reminded of, I have to comment on your use of the word liberal in a negative way. The first time I heard this I let it go but now I am speaking. I consider myself to be liberal or open minded concerning some things and conservative (another term I try to avoid using negatively) in others. Neither makes me more or less a Christian. On another note, poor Bill Clinton has been forgiven by his wife. Why are his sins always the ones used as an example and not for instance Frank Gifford? He too has been forgiven by his wife and the world has let it go. I know your point was a valid one concerning sin in our culture but the example used was in its own way bending to that culture. We are all sinners. Isn't that the point?
Thank you for your comment. This is is just the type of discussion I hoped the blog would accommodate.
The word liberal can be ambiguous . Perhaps I should have clarified the sense in which I meant it.
In light of the whole sermon on sin, I applied the word to perspectives on morality. In this context liberal is synonymous with moral permissiveness. Generally, it is the view that each person has the “liberty” to determine his or her own moral standard, and that there is no over-arching standard to which (or to Whom) all people are accountable.
As I mentioned, pop icons like Madonna or Ellen DeGeneres are good examples of this type of thinking. In the political realm, people like Bill Maher and Nancy Pelosi are models of this view. This is a very popular approach to morality in Western culture, but it is completely incompatible with following Christ. This was my target of critique in the sermon. (Not that I am assuming, by any means, that you embrace this position).
In referencing Bill Clinton, my main point was to show how some tried to argue that what he did was less serious than first thought by showing that many others had done the same thing.
There are a few reasons I mentioned him and not others who are guilty of the same thing:
1)Everyone is familiar with Bill Clinton (I had to think for a minute to remember who Frank Gifford is).
2)His repentance is suspect because he only apologized after being forced to by undeniable evidence, and his apology came after blatant lying.
3)His lying, adultery, and desecration of the highest office in America has apparently not diminished his credibility as a champion for his political party—a fact which, itself, is symptomatic of the larger problem of allowing image and pragmatism to eclipse the much more important issue of moral character.
I am very grateful for your comment on the blog. This type of discussion within the Church is extremely valuable and too rare.
Good questions!
When we communicate the subject of sin to the world, our greatest critique is made self-evident by our actions. How we live shows what we value.
Similarly, when we talk about the issues of sin, we need better metaphors: "Missing the mark" and similar visual ideas don't signify the relational harm that Sin is: Damaging our relationship with other humans and especially God himself.
When it comes to responding to the sins of the world:
I think that Paul summarized it well when he basically said that we're to refrain from judgment of unbelievers (since they're obviously not in a covenantial relationship with God) and to only offer judgment to those within the Body (I would add that this includes especially those with whom we're sharing accountability and are in intimate acquaintance with).
Once again I point out, the sermon itself was a good message. It's examples unfair and stereotypical. Ok, can't remember Frank Gifford? How about John McCain who is aspiring to the highest office and also had numerous affairs, one of which was with is current wife. How about religious leaders such as Ted Haggard, also recently in the news and quickly forgiven and forgotten. In response to #2 on your list, do we know the heart of Bill Clinton any more than that of John McCain? I thought only God knows people's hearts and we are not to judge in that way. On another note, there was a teenage girl in church that day who had never been to church and all she mentioned afterwards was that Bill Clinton was used as a bad example. She missed the message because of the way it was delivered.
Thanks again for sharing your thoughts. Hopefully this will be a discussion that generates clarity for all of us.
First I want to make a clarification about allegiance to political parties. I make a conscious effort never to endorse any one party over another. I fully believe that equally committed Christians can vote Democratic or Republican. I'm sure there will be authentic Christians voting on each side in the coming elections. In the minds of some, the Democratic party is seen as the non-Christian party because so many Democratic leaders believe abortion and homosexuality to be morally acceptable. Though such a stand is incompatible with Christian morals, some very thoughtful Christians deem it unwise to base one's vote on only one or two issues.
Your point about McCain and Ted Haggard are well taken, though this is the first I've heard of this about McCain. I believe Ted Haggard's actions were actually worse than Clinton's, because Haggard claimed not only to be a Christian, but a Christian leader. It is with such people Paul tells us we should not even eat (1 Corinthians 5:9-11). But Haggard would only be a true parallel of Clinton if now, after all he did, he was still held up as a champion leader of Evangelical Christianity, as Clinton is for his party. We don't, of course, judge the outside world with the same standard as we do those in the Church, but there must be some general standard which all people hold to.
As for judging people's hearts, you are right in saying this is only for God to do. But the fact that we cannot judge people's hearts does not mean that we should not make moral judgements about human behavior. It's also important to keep clear the distinction between personal, eternal forgiveness (available to all), and the social and professional consequences that do not (and sometimes should not) go away with the forgiveness of our personal sin. If Clinton truly seeks Christ in repentance, then he is just as forgiven and just as much a child of God as anyone else. But it does not follow from this that he should avoid the proper social consequences, just as a repentant murderer will be forgiven by God, but must still serve prison time. As I said earlier, his prominence as a champion for his party—after an apparently forced repentance—seems to place much greater value on image and pragmatism than on moral character.
Also, just to reiterate, my original point in the sermon was not meant to focus especially on Clinton over anyone else, but rather on the way some in TV media tried to justify his behavior by appealing to large numbers of others who had done the same thing.
I am very grateful for your candor. I believe it is a sign of great strength in a church when Christians can have these types of debates on a basis of trust without demonizing or jettisoning the other.
I will comment one last time and give up my anonymous self. I also don't want to focus on political figures and your points are well taken. I see your point in judging hearts and judging human moral behavior which I agree should at times be done. I also agree that what is portrayed in the media and what is idolized in our culture is too often not in line with Christian morals. However as Jesus reminds us, we should remove the plank from our eye before trying to remove the speck from our brother's. We are often so quick to point out the flaws and sins of others, especially when they are always flashed before us on our TV screens. Forget sexual immorality, look at spending. How much money is spent every year on the Super Bowl for instance? We have Americans living in poverty with no health care and poor education yet obscene amounts of money are spent on entertainment. This too is a moral dilemma for me. Sin is everywhere but thankfully so is God with his mercy and forgiveness. Lastly I really like this forum also and appreciate the ability to question, comment and learn from each other.
Kelly,
I couldn't agree more with your point about spending.
Thank you for all you comments.
Post a Comment