As America awaits for the articles of impeachment to be delivered to the Senate, Christians should be using this time for continued prayer for our political leaders as enjoined by Scripture. And as we pray, my hope is that we will be listening for the wisdom of the Holy Spirit with the same conviction that inspires us to petition God with our point of view.
In part one, I shared my belief that combating homogeneity should not come at the expense of moral compromise. In a recent message I preached that there are four questions one should ask when you feel that something may be a sin according to Scripture. We’ll use the fill in the blank method so you can practice this approach for questions you might have regarding possible sins. Is ________ a sin of commission or omission? This acknowledges that some sin is a wrong act committed while other sin is good act withheld. Cheating is a sin of commission. Not serving in the church you call home is a sin of omission. Second question, is __________ a sin of morality, conscience, or liberty? This is a little more complicated and Paul takes on the complexity of this question in Romans 13:8-14 and Romans 14. I like to use alcohol consumption as an example. There is no Biblical prohibition against alcohol use. But Scripture does make it clear that drunkenness and excess are both sins. So alcohol consumption is not what I would call a universal morality, wrong for all people for all time. But if it violates your conscience, you should abstain. And you should abstain in the presence of others who could be negatively affected by your liberty.
Our third question, is __________ a sin that is time bound? This makes people nervous but I like to remind people that if you ignore the complexity of something in order to simplify truth you inevitably create the confusion you were trying to avoid. Not every prohibition in Scripture was intended to be for all people for all time. How many of you require women to wear head coverings in your church? Why doesn’t Scripture take a more aggressive stance against human slavery, the trafficking of women, and misogyny? You will be hard pressed to not acknowledge that Scripture has both a cultural and historical context. Both of these help us to discern prohibitions that are not timeless and a lack of objection to behavior that is clearly reprehensible. Granted, these distinctions should be guided by trained theologians who have a proven record of utilizing a sound hermeneutical process. Otherwise Scripture that is supposed to be a source of wisdom becomes either an instrument of unintended permission or a weapon of abusive legalism.
This fourth question is equally vital. Is _____________ a sin that leads to death. 1 John 5:17 clearly indicates that the early church had an understanding that some sin is more egregious than others specifically because of its impact on the spiritual well being of the sinner. Protestant denominations have long avoided this teaching that has been central to Catholicism for centuries. My suspicion is that Protestants fear this teaching gives people a false sense of liberty to commit sins that may not be as detestable as others. My experience is that truth is always the best deterrent against sin so let us give people the full counsel of Scripture and trust the work of the Holy Spirit to convict people’s hearts. This last question is critical because it protects us from allowing sin that should be a universal morality from inappropriately becoming a matter of conscience or something time bound.
Let me share three very powerful lists found in Scripture: 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Galatians 5:19-21, and Ephesians 5:3-5. Any sin that is ever listed in Scripture with a stated consequence of spiritual death, eternal damnation, or the loss of Heaven as an inheritance can never be considered as a matter conscience or time bound. I am firm in my belief that every sin listed in the Scriptures above are sins that lead to death in the spirit of 1 John 5:17. I have read extensively and listened to points of view that differ from my own in regards to these verses and have never heard a convincing argument that would lead me to believe these sins are in any way permissible or ever should be.
St. Augustine reminds us that “any utterance, deed, or desire that is contrary to eternal law is a sin.” I suggest to you that utterances, deeds, and desires that lead to homogeneity are sins. If my behavior and attitude forces others to conform to my way of thinking when their point of view is equally valid and permissible, I sin. If my inaction permits this sort of intellectual abuse and spiritual control to occur, I sin. Homogeneity is the fruit found in a community of people who are neglecting the eternal law of Scripture that commands us to seek harmony. Harmony does not make room for immorality. And when there is a question of Biblical immorality, let us apply the four questions above and heed the timeless wisdom of Galatians 6:1-4 as we minister correction with grace to one another.
You can be a fully devoted follower of Jesus and want President Trump to be removed from office when the Senate votes. You can be a fully devoted follower of Jesus and want President Trump to remain in office when the Senate votes. Too many spiritual and political leaders are betraying our trust by inciting fear and promoting narratives that are often untrue and at best exaggerations. If the people you are listening to do not make room for differing points of view regarding this President’s impeachment, they are guilty of amplifying the sort of rhetoric that drives us apart and are working against the Holy Spirit’s effort in The Church to bring unity through harmony.
If you are looking for a great read that explores how even good, well intended people can become corrupted, check out Cal Thomas’ hard hitting book Blinded by Might. Let’s be the Christians Jesus intended, ones that are mighty and relentless in our pursuit of Biblical harmony who have an unapologetic distaste for disunity!
Pastor Fred