All sin is equal -?

I have a problem with the way we think about sin.

I heard a podcast by the Evangelical Alliance the other day, commenting on The Apprentice. The writer was dismayed that Lee won, despite lying on his CV. Now, I don't think lying, even in a small way is a good idea. However, there is a sense in which, as one of the interviewing panel on the apprentice commented, lying on your CV is just 'not that big a deal.' Would we accept that?

This is not the problem I have though. The problem comes, not with how we classify sin, but with the way that we judge others.

See, if I believe God is perfect, and I should try to be perfect, then I'll try to root out sin in my life, and only do 'good' things. This is a GOOD thing. However, then, as a human being, I won't live in a state of constant guilt about my actions. SOME christians live in a state of constant unworthiness and guilt, but most don't - it's just too tiring.

This means that, although I may theoretically give assent to the fact that I am never worthy of God's grace, I will measure my actions with a yardstick that just about puts me above the bar in terms of my ethics, and so I will tend to walk around with a sense that I'm basically alright most of the time (unless I've just heard a sermon on sexual sin, the plight of people the third world, or the need to share the gospel with others, in which case I'll feel guilty for a few hours/minutes or until dinner, depending on how long it takes me to forget about it).

THIS means that if anyone doesn't cross the bar that I set for myself, they become a SINNER. And with a view of sin that says 'all sin is just as wrong in the eyes of God,' then I will be liable to treat them with either a sense of discomfort, or mild patronisation, or the cold shoulder.

I think that this is part of the reason why non-Christian communities are more accepting (about SOME things) than Christian ones. When I hang out with my musical theatre friends, I know that, were I a tattoo'd lesbian smoker, I would be completely accepted as 'normal.' I wouldn't be given sympathy; I wouldn't be seen as someone needing rescuing - I'd just be seen as a normal person, and expected to get on with playing my role in the show (probably Nancy in Oliver I should expect).

So are we surprised when gay people feel more comfortable in the gay community than in the church?! People have crossed the line from 'alright' to 'sinner' and are then given an identity as someone to be helped, avoided or vilified. Would you want to be part of a community that treated you like this? Can't we just see people - all people - as sinners who God wants to use to achieve his purposes?

I do of course accept that in a very real sense all sin IS equal in the eyes of God. But, what I do want to draw out is that we can very easily reject PEOPLE when really we should be helping them become righteous. Any hints on how to do that?!

A bit like me

Too much of a good thing

So, I get frustrated with Evangelical certainty as much as the next person (see post below. No, not the old person, the other one). BUT, I think there's a danger in uncertainty: when it comes to making moral choices, uncertainty about right and wrong can be the siamese twin of consumer choice.

To illustrate, here's a hot tip: next time you want to do something you think is wrong, don't bother trying to argue that it's right, just be uncertain that it's wrong! You'll soon be committing adultery / watching a whole series of lost back to back / making balloon animals and baptising them in tomato soup, with the best of them.

Or, if you can't wait to try it out, just use your imagination: How would asking these questions affect your judgement? (you can guess the scenarios)

- Does one more chocolate really make any difference?

- Is it all that bad to pull a sikkie?

- Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'? ("No Eve - don't do it!)

None of these questions provide a cogent argument for the 'wrong' behaviours being right - but as humans so often all we need is the question to give ourselves permission to act.

Being uncertain can be a smokescreen to let us do things we really think are wrong without feeling guilty. Where do you draw the line between too certain and not certain enough? I'll let you know when I'm less uncertain about it.

The power of old people

How to avoid doubt

I was surprised to read recently that internationally-renowned speaker and author Richard Foster - someone whose profound and thoughtful books are praised by people as diverse as Dallas Willard and Delia Smith (and many others in between) - is apparently an anti-christian false prophet, bringing evil into the body of Christ ( "The cult of guru Richard Foster" ).

It made me think - If you want to avoid the uncomfortable state known as 'doubt,' then here's a great tip for y'all: Discount anyone who thinks differently to you, and deny that there's integrity in their thought process. Of course doing this is easy - just make sure you don't listen to them, or, if you do, don't do it kindly. If you can label them with terms like 'apostate' 'heretic' or 'cult leader' then even better.

The trouble is, I think it's very difficult to do this to someone and love them at the same time. You can certainly love someone and disagree with them - but to disagree with someone lovingly involves understanding them, seeing where they are wrong, and challenging them incisively. It doesn't involve waving the heretic stick at them and bundling them off to 'you're talking nonsense' land.

So, if loving people means listening to them, and understanding them, and acknowledging that their point of view could be as coherent as yours... it means loving people also means being open to challenge... which means - being loving necessarily means doubting sometimes?