It seems that God is so opposed to sin because it goes against his nature, and implicit in that, is that the sin is harmful to the human soul and psyche made in the image of God, and this grieves God, because he loves us so.
Why then should it be any different for us?
“Don’t judge me” is the common cry of the person being called out on their sin. I always saw that as a cop-out, but maybe it’s not.
So many times when the crowd of Christianity points out the sin of others, it’s to say “See! They’re bad. We’re good.”
This isn’t just recognizing sin, it’s veiled judgement, the kind reserved only for God. When we take judgement upon ourselves we’re telling God that we can do a better job.
This past week in my town, pro-life protesters sang Amazing Grace. In response, pro-choice protesters yelled “Hail Satan.” And Christians took to social media to let the world know the story.
The message was clear, “They’re bad. We’re good.”
I wonder how things would be different if the message matched the heart of God.
If the instead the message was “this thing you’re hanging onto is bad for you, and we love you and want good things for you,” and if we earned the right to speak into someone’s life first, before pointing out what’s weighing them down.
The point, I believe, is that we are prohibited from judging others, but obligated to judge each others’ actions.
Example: Am I prohibited from judging the act of murder? I think not – and actually I am obligated to do so.
The same applies to theft and lying – and tens of thousands of other actions for which we have laws and for which we don’t.
(And in the case of abortion – it is murder since there is a child involved.)
Except in the case of abortion, since so many people will take umbrage at the suggestion that it’s “murder”, everything is clear with respect to actions that are prohibited, regulated and/or otherwise governed by actual laws.
The issue becomes very cloudy, though, involving issues for which there are no laws: gossiping, pre/extra-marital sex, modesty, cursing, music styles, caffeinated drinks, alchohol, whatever.
The thing we must observe in this case is authority.
This is something like what you say above where you say we need to “earn the right to speak”.
I would translate that to say, “Do I have the authority to make a statement, exercise influence, etc.?”.
If I do, then I have to then gauge how much authority I have. A little or a lot.
After that I have to gauge how much of the authority I have is it appropriate for me to exercise at a given point in time/circumstance.
<deep breath> So, yeah, it’s complicated.
Complicated, but not unmanageable (with prayer, practice, experience, counsel and time!!).
God has clearly awarded *everyone* authority over their own lives, bodies, personal space, etc.
We must respect what God has done.
God has also designed us to live in community with each other with the ability – and responsibility – of influencing each other.
He has also given us two legs, two ears, two eyes, etc. to help us understand how to manage opposing forces.
It is in this balancing act that we find our individuality. One person chooses to exercise influence more aggressively than another, who chooses a lighter – and perhaps deeper, more intimate – touch.
One is not right and one wrong.
They are just distinct and diverse.
Both are needed.
The “wrong” comes in when we find ourself completely, for example, neglecting our right leg (speaking metaphorically).
Choosing the context of abortion to illuminate these principles, I believe, muddies the issue because in abortion there is a 3rd party, an innocent party, a hearing, thinking, feeling, sensing party – indeed a fully human party – that is kind of left out in the cold. In my opinion.
Nevertheless, it is a great question and segues well with your topic of diversity of, I believe, yesterday.
@Mike Kemp
>> “God has clearly awarded *everyone* authority over their own lives, bodies, personal space, etc. We must respect what God has done.”
This is true, but I take the point of Shane’s piece (though I wouldn’t presume to speak for him) to be that there are far too many ‘Christians’ who are presuming they have authority over the lives, bodies, personal space, etc., of others too and thereby attempting to pass judgment on a case that has already gone thru the sentencing phase.
God has already judged and pronounced the sentence on abortion — and every other sin known (and unknown) to mankind. Feeling a need to pronounce judgment again speaks negatively to both the offenders and to the judge. First, as Shane writes, we make it clear to the offenders that we are better than they are. But we also say to the Judge, “You didn’t do a good enough job of explaining the offense here…I can do it more effectively.”
Imperfect people will take imperfect actions. Sinners will sin. There’s no ‘obligation to judge’ those actions…because they’ve already been judged.
Beyond that, though, is the root problem: we humans are selective in our judgment. It’s easy for me to excuse the sin of gluttony because I can personally attest to how impossible it is to resist that second bowl of ice cream. It’s easy for me to excuse lying because I know that there are times when the truth would be too painful to communicate. But I can easily pass judgment on someone who fights for a woman’s right to abort a life in her womb because that concept is foreign to my personal sensibilities.
In reality, I think the actions and attitudes that God has obligated us to spend the most time judging are our own…’work out your [own] salvation with fear and trembling’…and not those of others.
While I don’t presume that this applies to you, I know that the cause of Christ is harmed more by professing Christians who have sabotaged the Rescue Mission we’re called to by instead deciding that we’re on a scorched-earth, seek-and-destroy tour of duty.
@bigdaddy3lk
Not sure exactly what a good summary of your commentary would be – but “bigdaddy3lk”. I like the screen name, so we’re off to a good start even before the commentary begins.
And, please, feel free to make whatever presumptions you wish about me. Come on – I know you dont’ know me so judge me (oops) on what you do know – what the heck. I promise to keep everything in context and especially, to not cry if the presumption you make is not complimentary 🙂
Also – very much like the way you respond: By accurately quoting me, documenting the quote, then responding to what was said, as opposed to flying in some weird direction talking about your personal biases which would be based on what you presume about my character. What a relief my good man!!
So let me respond in kind fashion:
==> [there are far too many ‘Christians’ who are presuming they have authority over the lives, bodies, personal space, etc., of others too and thereby attempting to pass judgment on a case that has already gone thru the sentencing phase] <== OK, yes. Sure. HOWEVER – the MOST judgmental people, historically and at present, I would argue, are not believers, but unbelievers. Ever try to talk about religion or morality with an agnostic/atheist? Completely intolerant – totally – to any point of view but their own. I do not pronounce them, therefore, to be “evil”, I just make observations about their behavior – and occasionally, character. In terms of history, the church has certainly had its offenses. We all know the litany: The Crusades, the Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials, etc. But who murdered 60Mn people because they didn’t conform to *their* dogma? It wasn’t Martin Luther – it was Zedong, an atheist. This principle can be documented dozens and dozens of times over. Where will you – today – be imprisoned, raped, starved and enslaved because you don’t “conform” to the dogma of the region and the powers that be? It’s not Christian Europe, America, South Korea or Australia. It is … for the sake of sensivity … we’ll say: “other places”. Communist …. and … otherwise (again, for the sake of sensivity).
So – it *seems* – you want to say “too many Christians” are bad, bad, bad for … what? Speaking their minds? Last time I checked, “speaking your mind” or even “singing a hymn” was hardly a violation of human rights.
On the issue of abortion, it is not sufficient to say, “Ah well, imperfect people will make imperfect choices.” – so, too bad, little baby, so sad – looks like your day to die is here when you haven’t even had a day to live yet. Too bad, so sad. Buh-bye. That is no more sufficient than the Pharisee passing the looted man on the side of the road because he had to get to church on time. If you think that being a Christian means never getting your hands dirty with the difficult Work of God, then you’ve embraced the supposedly mild-mannered, blue-eyed, caucasian, long-haired Jesus depicted in so many churchs, but neglected the one That Was before Abraham was. They are one and the same and to embrace one while rejecting the other as being too “yucky and mean” is to commit idolatry by worshipping a Middle Eastern male of about age 30 who was born of a virgin and died at approx. age 33.
@bigdaddy3lk
Sorry but I meant to say that the reference to the Pharisee and the looted guy (obviously from the story about the Good Samaritan) is in reference to helping *the baby*, not the mother (specifically in this case at the place in the conversation – in the sum of things in real life, obviously, *both* should be helped).
Women suffer greatly as a result of abortion as well (not all, but many and possibly most) – but this is another conversation altogether.
@Mike Kemp Thanks for the thoughtful response. I think you and I have much more common ground than proprietary turf…still, you’ve opened up way too many goodies. No way to discuss them all at one time. 🙂
I think our varied perspectives are probably shaped by our personal experiences, which would no doubt take way too much space here to detail for backstory purposes. Suffice it to say, my experience appears to be similar to Shane’s: I’m not near as sure I have all the answers as I was 10-15 years ago.
Perhaps the eagerness to embrace the idea of the age of grace that you perceive comes from people whose experiences in Christian and/or church environments have been so devoid of grace. Can’t speak for them, but I know that to be true for myself.
I realize that we tend to swing like an unwieldy pendulum too far to the opposite side when we are trying to run from legalism, but I stand by my original assertion that God hasn’t called any of us to be his Michael Clayton (aka, “fixer”).
Besides, isn’t our assignment, as those who have first-hand experience of the power of grace over sin (“it is by grace you have been saved, through faith —and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God”), to attempt to get as many others on board that same train?
Just because all things are lawful to me (“speaking my mind” or “singing a hymn”) does not necessarily mean that those lawful things are expedient or move the cause of Christ forward.
To echo your original summation: “Yeah, it’s complicated.” And I too feel a long, foggy journey waiting ahead of me as I try to center this pendulum.
There’s no doubt that the irony of our current culture of ‘tolerance’ is the intolerance of those want the right to deny the existence of God. I don’t dispute that. Rather, my position is that Christians should go out of their way to avoid any appearance of that same characteristic.
“Abstain from all appearance of evil.” I believe that if we can agree that the denial of the existence of God is inherently evil and the resulting words, attitudes (intolerance for any point of view but their own) and actions of that atheism are also evil, then Christians are instructed to not look anything like that.
Without knowing the details of what happened in Shane’s example, where pro-life protesters sang Amazing Grace and pro-choice protesters yelled “Hail Satan,” I’ll concede it is impossible for me to know exactly how either side appeared. BUT…from his account, it sounds like BOTH sides pretty much mirrored each other — “we hate you”…”well, we hate YOU more!” And I don’t think Christians should mirror the world in any way.
I think your examples — the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials, etc. — prove my point. Boil those incidents or eras down to their basic elements and they are composed of the the same things as Naziism, fascism, etc.
Again, my core problem with making observations about the behavior and/or character of others is that it is almost always applied selectively. (There I go, making a presumption…) Whether intended or not, the message delivered is always, “My badness is not as bad as your badness.”
If you’ve mastered the art of observing/evaluating and not pontificating, then I bow to you, sir. I can say that most of the common lot of ‘Christendom’ has not.
PS — we all know Jesus looks like Jim Caviezel. (Just kidding!! Please don’t write me off as a heretic!)
@bigdaddy3lk @Mike Kemp
==> [Suffice it to say, my experience appears to be similar to Shane’s: I’m not near as sure I have all the answers as I was 10-15 years ago.] <==
Well it is obvious I cannot out-pontificate you (and I attach no negative implication to the notion of “pontificating” as you appear to do – no debate there, just and observation). I must now, instead, try to use better judgment (my better judgment, not my judgment which is better than yours as if to imply some kind of competition).
Let me, instead of making my case, let me try to make yours – I mean, agree and add to yours, and then see if we can agree that I can speak to your point of view agreeably on my own, in my own words, without quoting you directly. Clearly you need no help whatsoever making a case – but if I can speak to your point of view on my own, and you agree that I do it well, then we both will know that I understand where you’re coming from.
It just occurred to me: In the time of Christ, there was *no* sin occurring then that is not occurring now, and vice versa – including the thorny sin of abortion. And yet, how much time did Jim Caviezel – I mean Jesus – haha – spend “cursing the darkness”, as it were? Sadly, none. I only say sadly because this little factoid uproots a great deal of my persona and I fear I will miss it very much.
So how did I do?
@Mike Kemp @bigdaddy3lk You’re close to my point…close enough that I can get there from here…
If it makes you feel better (want to reciprocate your kindness in making my point), I think one could argue that Jesus did ‘curse’ the darkness (he rebuked Peter’s attempt to make his kingdom into something less than it was meant to be and called out that idea as being from Satan himself), he lashed out against the darkness (messing up the furniture over the money changers in the temple) and he shed some tears over it (“Oh Jerusalem, Jerusalem…”)
But then he faced the darkness of sin head-on, died to deliver mankind from it and then arose from the dead to overcome it. He resolved the sin problem.
I still don’t see where he gave any of his followers a mandate to spend time cursing a problem that he resolved.
In fact…as I meditate on it for a few minutes, I can’t think of any time Jesus spoke out against “darkness” other than when he was railing against the religious folk of his day. He seemed to be fairly understanding and forgiving of regular ol’ sinners.
Thanks for helping me make my point. 🙂
@bigdaddy3lk
Well look now that I’ve disavowed my rabble-rousing, mean-spirited, in-your-face, speak-it-first-and-check-for-the-love-later ways, the only things that’s left of me is 3 brain cells and piece of a fingernail. That’s it man!!
Putting words together on keyboard with those sparse resources is TOUGH, I’ll tell you that.
But I’ll get there with what I have left.
I appreciate the support returned – and yeah, much to think about here, and infinitely more to do.
Think less and do more – that’s what I keep telling myself, but I’m still afraid my tombstone will say – if it’s an honest one – “He Always Thought About Doing the Right Thing – but never got far with it”. LOL …
@bigdaddy3lk
Daaaaaaa!! I can’t shutup. No need to make that presumption about my character: I freely confess my flaw.
On the issue of the pre-Abrahamic Jesus vs. the Nazareth … uh … version? I would just like to say it is most interesting (to me) the task here is, again, one of balancing (reconciling? harmonizing?) opposing forces.
And as for me on this issue, I can only see a journey of 10,000 miles ahead of me and I am still on the ground after having taken the first step, stumbled and fallen down.
It is a difficult task.
I see among this circle of Christians here in this blogosystem (ref.: ecosytem) local to Shane an eagerness to embrace the idea of “age of grace”. They may all be correct in their enthusiasm. I may be wrong, but my opinion at the moment is that this perspective is far too sanitized, far too easy, far too one-sided and … and … and … and … uh, yeah. That’s it. Basically not right. Some right, obviously, just not “right right”. There’s something missing.
The answer, I think … blahhhhhh!! OK, I’ll shutup now (but I do have some thoughts on that …LOL).
http://spokanefavs.com/culture/social-issues/satanists-decry-pro-abortion-hail-satan-chant-as-diabolical?utm_source=buffer&utm_campaign=Buffer&utm_content=buffera1bec&utm_medium=twitter#sthash.csrMeDlq.dpufhttp://buff.ly/12kqzhb
==> [Spontaneous demonstrations like this are not uncommon at abortion protests, but the chants caught many by surprise.
“I’m guessing that even the Horned One would regard association with the US abortion industry as bad PR,” Tim Stanley wrote at the UK Telegraph.
“I meant it as a joke but, er, it turns out I was right,” he added on Friday.
“You know the abortion proponents have gone too far when even lovers of the Devil himself are disclaiming the comments,” wrote Life News’ Steven Ertell.
– See more at: http://spokanefavs.com/culture/social-issues/satanists-decry-pro-abortion-hail-satan-chant-as-diabolical?utm_source=buffer&utm_campaign=Buffer&utm_content=buffera1bec&utm_medium=twitter#sthash.csrMeDlq.dpufhttp://buff.ly/12kqzhb
Spontaneous demonstrations like this are not uncommon at abortion protests, but the chants caught many by surprise.
“I’m guessing that even the Horned One would regard association with the US abortion industry as bad PR,” Tim Stanley wrote at the UK Telegraph.
“I meant it as a joke but, er, it turns out I was right,” he added on Friday.
“You know the abortion proponents have gone too far when even lovers of the Devil himself are disclaiming the comments,” wrote Life News’ Steven Ertell.] <==
I’m banking on the fact that these chanters were more about being provocative and satirical than actually being Satan worshippers.
I can’t help but see some great irony here, and I love irony. The Church of Satan rebuking people for being “too evil”? What the heck?!! LOL…