Is Our Perspective on Sin Warped?
Image
There are a lot of sins in the Bible. We don’t feel the same way about all of them, though, do we? Some sins trigger strong righteous indignation or an intense “ick” response. Others we barely notice.
We’re not entirely wrong to feel that way. Though there are not really any small sins, some are bigger than others. (See Bob Gonzales’ excellent study on that topic: The Greater Sin: Are There Degrees of Sin?).
But this range of reactions to different sins should prompt us to ask some questions.
- Why do we feel more strongly about this sin than we do about that one?
- Are our degrees of revulsion toward sins what they should be?
- How does God’s assessment of which sins are bigger compare to ours?
- How do we go about evaluating our attitude and emphasis in response to one sin vs. another?
These are important questions for so many reasons! For one, sin is always with us. Among humans, it’s as old as Genesis 3 and isn’t going away until God has transformed both us and our world. Our understanding of sin determines our view of why the world is in the mess it’s in, what separates man from God, and why we need a Savior. It’s at the heart of the gospel.
And the theological factors aren’t the whole picture, either. Our view of sin in general, and of specific sins in particular, shapes our emphases in ministry, from the conduct we expect of one another in congregations to what we preach and how often, and with what tone. It influences what foot we put forward in our interactions with the unbelieving.
A little story
One of the Christian elementary schools I attended as a kid had a noticeable sin emphasis. We had chapel services frequently, and every single sermon included at least one rant against rock and roll, blue jeans, long hair, and rebellion.
Yep. The seventies.
At first, I didn’t even know what rebellion was, but the amount of attention the topic received made me really sick of hearing about it. Then there was the sneering, obnoxious attitude of those who referenced it the most.
Maybe I’m remembering wrong, but I seem to recall feeling that if those guys were against rebellion, I just might be for it! Some of the older kids in the school definitely chose that path.
Observations:
- We can become obsessed with a handful of sins and let that warp our thinking, our communication, and our ministry to one another.
- Our perceptions of what sins matter most in a cultural moment can be wildly inaccurate.
- Our attitude and tone in response to specific sins can be counterproductive.
It’s well worth the trouble to take a fresh look at Scripture on the topic of how we evaluate the importance of one sin vs. another!
We can begin with a question: How do believers and ministries like the one I described above get that way? In other words, how does our estimation of the importance of one sin over another go wrong?
Some mix of three factors seems to drive it:
- Our personal bias
- Our tribe
- Our culture
Personal bias
Let’s be honest. We all have a tendency to view the sins other people commit as more serious than the ones we commit. As growing Christians, we’ve all had the experience of pondering a passage of Scripture and suddenly seeing ourselves in a different light. Then we have a “thou art the man” moment (2 Sam 12:7).
If a man after God’s own heart could be that incensed over someone else’s sin (2 Sam 12:5-6) yet so blind to his own, who are we to think we don’t have the same tendency?
The problem of personal bias—and resulting personal blindness—also underlies this humble prayer:
Who can discern his errors? Declare me innocent from hidden faults. (Ps 19:12)
Surely this tendency is also what Jesus confronted in Luke 6:41-42.
The influence of our tribe
Our tendency to see others’ sins as bigger than our own has a social form as well: the tendency to see the offenses of those outside our group as bigger than those inside our group.
It’s not a coincidence that the Pharisees exemplify these sin mis-evaluation problems. Matthew 9:10-13 is a memorable case. To the Pharisees, they themselves were the right people, and those outside their group were the wicked ones. Jesus didn’t agree!
This sin-perception problem takes another form. Not only do we tend to give our own group a pass and hold outsiders to a higher standard, but our group has traditions—it has a subculture. A result is that emphasis on certain sins becomes part of the oxygen at our gatherings. We’re unaware of it and never question it. The consequences can be serious:
But you say, ‘If anyone tells his father or his mother, “What you would have gained from me is given to God,” 6 he need not honor his father.’ So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God. 7 You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said: 8 “‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; 9 in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’” (Mt 15:5–9)
God gave the apostle Peter personalized training in overcoming this kind of tribal blindness (Acts 10:13ff, culminating in Acts 10:34-35).
Culture shock
Merriam Webster defines culture shock as follows:
a sense of confusion and uncertainty sometimes with feelings of anxiety that may affect people exposed to an alien culture or environment without adequate preparation
We usually assume culture shock happens when someone relocates to a different culture, but what if they stay put and a new culture comes to them?
Few, if any, question that American culture has changed rapidly over the last decade. My unscientific impression is that nearly everyone also thinks it has changed for the worse, though opinions range widely on the specifics of what has gotten worse.
I believe many conservative Christians are experiencing culture shock. So much of what we care about has changed so quickly and—as the Webster definition has it—“without adequate preparation.”
One result is that our sense of which sins seem huge and which seem smaller—to the point of being nearly insignificant—has been influenced.
The culture factor, then, takes two forms:
- The tendency to absorb our culture’s ideas of right vs. wrong/sinful.
- The tendency to identify what’s changing in our culture as the thing most worthy of our concern.
We’re all well acquainted with the first of these. We can quote Romans 12:2. The second is more complicated. Sometimes what’s changing really is most worthy of our concern and emphasis—at least for a while. But are we getting it right? To return to the title of this post, is our perspective on sin warped?
Hopefully it’s evident at this point that we’re never getting it entirely right, and our perspective is always at least a little warped. In a future post, I hope to explore some ways to challenge ourselves and maybe do a little better.
Aaron Blumer 2016 Bio
Aaron Blumer is a Michigan native and graduate of Bob Jones University and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He and his family live in small-town western Wisconsin, not far from where he pastored for thirteen years. In his full time job, he is content manager for a law-enforcement digital library service. (Views expressed are the author's own and not his employer's, church's, etc.)
- 397 views
....has got to be "is it sin?". When we're talking about blue jeans and the like, I'd argue that we're talking about things that, strictly speaking, are not sin. Maybe if Mom and Dad prohibited wearing them, it would be sin to disobey Mom and Dad, but I'm at a loss to figure out how the Sears "Toughskins" jeans I wore as a kid were sin.
Really, a lot of the biggest arguments I see are about things that are not sin per se, but too many people try to ban "precursor behaviors" Really, a lot of is the same kind of thinking that gave us the Talmuds; we can't just prohibit cooking a baby goat in what should have been its own dinner, we've got to separate dairy and meat altogether.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Yes, the “overemphasis on a sin of the moment” easily morphs into “emphasis on what is not even a sin at all” once we put reaction to culture behind the wheel.
So the trick is to be wise as serpents and harmless as doves by making good applications of principles to our (usually very temporary) cultural issues but giving our applications appropriate levels of (un)certainty.
I remember some of the rationale from those 70s days. Something like this:
- the hippie movement is all about rebellion against authority and rebellion against sexual ethics, along with just about all other social norms
- it’s not Christian to be in rebellion against those things
- therefore everything associated with the hippie movement is sin
There’s a bit of a gap between bullet 2 and bullet 3! … and “everything associated with” is inherently complex. There was a lot of inappropriate certainty due to high levels of revulsion and alarm toward things that were changing in American culture. It was very hard to tell what was important and what wasn’t. In retrospect, not very much was important.
How is our day the same… and how is it different?
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I think about the “what sin of my culture do I commit unknowingly” thing a lot. Solid Christian’s in the past supporting slavery/racism always makes me wonder where I’m getting it wrong.
“Whatever it is, I’m again’ it” is not much of an alternative.
For those they have not read it, Respectable Sins by Bridges was an eye-opener for me.
Good pts.
There’s two kinds of cultural blindness: the “blind spot” kind we don’t know is even there, and the “can’t see the forest for the trees” kind that happens when we’ve got a cultural issue so close we see little else.
I may have read Bridges on that topic. I’m not sure now. I’ve often appreciated his work.
I’m contemplating a Part 2 on this topic along the lines of “Unwarping Our View of Sin” but I should probably dig up Bridges for at least a refresh before I put that one to ink.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
- the hippie movement is all about rebellion against authority and rebellion against sexual ethics, along with just about all other social norms
- it’s not Christian to be in rebellion against those things
- therefore everything associated with the hippie movement is sin
Ok - modify...
- the NAZI movement is all about hate, freedom-quenching-Nationalism, etc.
- it’s not Christian to be associated with those things
- therefore everything associated with the NAZI movement is sin
This is the logic behind my conviction not to wear a swastika. And I think it holds.
The problem comes when one sub-culture (young) do not see the association that another sub-culture does see.
The key phrase in the conclusion is “therefore everything associated with… is sin”
In some ways, Naziism associated with Christian churches in Germany. They were associated with hard work. They were associated with pretty some amazing mechanical engineering. You only need 1 exception to invalidate “everything….”
And as soon as “everything associated with…” is off the table, you have to start trying to apply principles to discern what sort of “association” matters and what doesn’t, and how much, and under what conditions, etc.
It’s what Christians have always done—always imperfectly, sometimes more imperfectly than other times.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Aaron Blumer wrote: You only need 1 exception to invalidate “everything….”
When God put everything else in Jericho under the ban (Josh. 6:17-18) except for the specific exceptions that He explicitly made known to His people (Josh. 6:19), it meant just that--everything else. Achan learned the hard way that God meant what He said (Josh. 7:1, 21).
The Nazis ate bread, breathed air, and drank water. Should we abstain?
I think there is a huge difference between abstaining from the use of a symbol which has an almost exclusive use in the West as a symbol of murderous totalitarianism and the rejection of something like blue jeans because hippies liked them--along with farmers, ranchers, miners, and other groups who would have been amused to repulsed by the comparison. We might be able to draw a parallel if (this is closer to the truth) we asserted that hempen clothes were primarily used today by anti-God progressives, and therefore Christians would do well to abstain from that.
Well, that, and they generally are poorly made, look tacky, are generally horrendously uncomfortable and scratchy.....
Really, as the relative of some people who've worked in renaissance fairs, I think Christians are in general too hard on hippies. Yes, they (along with James Bond movies) gave us free love and a lot of drugs (as well as a bunch of others), but they also gave us the Jesus movement and a re-awakening of the need for human relationships (sorely tested by factory mindsets in the 1960s) and the knowledge of other cultures. Like most of history, it's a mixed bag.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
I’ll grant that the hippie movement was a mixed bag and not entirely devoid of some valid points.
What does that suggest about our current cultural moment?
When I look back at the fundamentalist movement of yore what I see, along with the battle for orthodoxy vs. “modernism”/higher crit., etc., is a whole lot of struggle to deal with cultural changes.
Our default attitude—probably the case for humans in general—is to view any change negatively, if it’s a change of something we like or have grown comfortable with/taken for granted.
As a thought experiment: what if tomorrow the sky was no longer blue by default, but purple? I’m pretty sure there would be a global freak out followed quickly by all sorts of efforts to blame someone for it. Few would think: “Well, it’s different, but does it really matter? Can’t we just get used to it?”
Eventually, though, that attitude would prevail.
Back to culture: it’s more complicated than the color of the sky because cultural changes come with lots of baggage. A lot of cultural features carry meaning for those in the culture (at least for a while). They sort of transmit messages. Clothing styles and hair styles and art trends can all be symbols for ideas.
Then you have the social baggage: what groups and individuals seem to be driving the change? If it’s people we don’t like, don’t trust, or view as ‘the enemy,’ the change carries a taint, whether it deserves that or not. It may well deserve it.
It’s complex, and we don’t have chapter and verse for quite a lot of the particulars. That’s application and a very human process.
What we can do, though, is improve our odds of getting it right by relentlessly reframing the present in the ancient and the timeless. If we keep refocusing on the big picture of what never changes and what changes very little, we’ll do a better job of staying balanced and on-task in the present.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Discussion