I’ve noticed a trend in evangelical preaching that bugs me.
I can summarize the problem with a hypothetical list of “Sermon Titles”
“Selfishness is Sin”
“Murder is Sin”
“Slander is Sin”
“Stealing is Sin”
“Idolatry is Sin”
“Lying is Sin”
“Greed is Sin”
“Drunkenness is Sin”
“Jealousy is Sin”
“Hatred is Sin”
“God Loves You and We Do Too! Very Much! We’re Not Perfect People Though. Everyone Sins. We Are No Better Than You. It Is Not Our Place to Judge or Condemn You. We Just Want to Love On You. Love Wins. We Apologize For Those Christians Who Have Hurt You. Don’t Let Them Push You Away From Jesus. Whatever Your Struggle, You Are Welcome Here. You Belong With Us. We’re All Broken People Doing Our Best. We’ll Get It Wrong Sometimes. Be Patient With Us! Give Us A Chance! We’re Not Like Those Other Christians! Remember, We’re No Better Than You! Homosexuality is Sin”
23 Responses
So a lack of solid Biblical context, expository preaching, sound doctrine, hermeneutics and last but not least a total lack of the gospel. Am I anywhere near the point you are trying to make John?
Does the type of sin give you the right to continue in it? We struggle against our sinful nature as a follower of Jesus. We share this struggle as a body of believers and I am told to put off my old self so how in good conscious can I not share the truth or let the person choose hell by not speaking. I once preached a message on Ephesians 5 where it talks about there not even being a hint of sexual immorality along with few other things and this is what people inside the church are supposed to be like. Do I expect the person who is entangled by homosexual desires be clean when they first come of course not. So while those aren’t my temptations as a brother in Christ I would expect them to give over those things and become a new creation. So they no longer describe themselves by their sexual orientation but their identity in Christ.Lastly 1 Corinthians 6 also reminds us such were some you.The moral authority will always be God.
I think I’ve been really blessed, because I never hear these kinds of sermons, but I hear about them from other people, so they seem real enough. Something that I really wrestle with is justice, discipline if you will. Some addict steals your stuff and we Christians are like, “we need to forgive the offense and pray for him.” Well yes, but first we need to catch him, confront him, kick his butt, get our stuff back, and maybe force him into drug treatment. That is actually what it means to love someone.
Actually, I think our culture is moving in a direction where we’re having to add these caveats with all the other topics at well. Not just homosexuality.
I mean, think about it… Being “preached at” is considered a bad thing these days! We have literally turned conviction into the MESSENGER’S fault, and it doesn’t matter what the topic is.
If I don’t want to be called out for my pet sin, I can tune out, blame the church for being judgmental, and then walk away.
Thanks, Modern Culture!
I would nuance it differently. The issue seems to be one of moral authority. A healthy assembly of believers requires submitting to each other to provide insight on sin issues we have. If there’s no submission, it’s pointless to assume any sort of authority when speaking into someone’s life.
I don’t think “conviction” is what gets pegged as the messenger’s fault. There’s no conviction, since there’s no recognition of moral failing. What gets pegged on the messenger is the assumption that the messenger claiming morally superior knowledge. Really, what we have here is a failure to communicate.
We need to agree on how to use Bible for moral claims. If there’s no agreement, there’s no recognition of authority to which one can appeal. As mama used to say, “it’ll make as much difference as a fart in the wind”
Failing to admit you’re convicted isn’t the same as not being convicted. 🙂
I am skeptical that people don’t recognize a morally authoritative claim when they hear it…
I think any sinner demanding “says who?” is simply deflecting so they don’t have to deal with the conviction. At least, that’s what I have seen happen more than a few times, when supposedly Bible-believing Christians spend years in church and then suddenly leave in a huff when their particular sin gets called out.
I’ll grant that we do often ignore conviction – but to pretend that we know someone is convicted in any given circumstance is very presumptuous. I mean, what’s that really saying? Do you get convicted every time sin is pointed to you, even if you don’t think it’s sin at the time? That doesn’t make sense. Further – if it’s an unbeliever, we can’t even claim the indwelling of the Holy Spirit as convicting them.
“Says who” is a valid question, when asked honestly. It’s not just deflection. I’ve had intuitions similar to situations you’ve described, but usually situations are more nuanced that what’s spread around the grapevine in a church. I don’t think it’s helpful to assume that position without really intimate knowledge of the situation – even then it requires caution in addressing the issue.
I feel like i may have been vague – but I’m multitasking right now… I can clarify as needed ^_^
My comments are based on observations of issues I’ve actually been party to, not simply heard about through others.
I try not to be presuptuous enough to make the final call about another person’s heart. (I recognize it’s not my call to make.) But I can’t help wondering at the end of the day if certain people were EVER indwelt by the Holy Spirit, or if they were pretending all along. That’s all it is–just a question I may never get the answer to.
But I believe God places the knowledge of right and wrong inside all of us–believers and unbelievers alike–and that all of us are without excuse. (I think I read that somewhere. 😉 ) That’s why, although I can’t make the final call, I tend to suspect that we don’t really need to convince most people if/when they are doing something wrong. They just know it.
And, hearing someone preach a sermon about that wrong will turn a Saint from the error of his ways…but it will only make an unrepentant sinner even more angry.
I understand the wondering about someone’s HS indwelling – I do that too. I don’t know that’s ever been helpful in determining a course of action is more the point.
I have a strong suspicion that MANY people could use some convincing that they are engaging in sin- but you need a common base for morality to which you can appeal (and I don’t think the internal conscious is a common base; granted, that’s just an assertion with which you can disagree) . Otherwise, there’s no convincing – just empty exchanges.
To your last point, that’s a nice sentiment, but there’s a lot of assumption in it. Presentation does matter – it’s not just a matter of calling sin “sin” and expect that God is working through you for doing that. I would argue that preaching is one of the least effective ways of getting people to change their minds about their actions.
Yeah–I guess I just disagree, then.
I think all of humanity already has a common moral base. We just KNOW selfishness is wrong. We just KNOW pride and arrogance is wrong. We just KNOW that we ought to think of others more highly than ourselves…
Furthermore, I suspect we just KNOW there’s a difference between love and lust, but we pretend otherwise when we’re enjoying our sin. *shrugs* At least that’s what I do.
Fair enough. I just think the influence of culture is too great in accounting for what pricks our conscience to appeal to any sort of common internal conscience. Otherwise, I think everyone who is serious about following Christ would have pretty close to consensus about what’s right and wrong – I don’t think we’re there (or, I guess you just assume that a VERY small minority of self-identifying Christians are serious). I think we’ll treat a person more righteously if we assume they are simply blind to their sin, rather than ignoring what they “must” know is sin.
Good discussion.
I’m not sure we need to have a consensus about specific situations in order to have a consensus about broad-picture morality. What I’ve proposed before is: perhaps motivation matters more than end result. So, maybe God “looks at the heart” and those who are seeking righteousness/goodness get “credit” for doing the best they can. (Romans 4:22 talks about that.)
I think all of us can agree that God’s Approval is our main objective, even if the sticky moral-dilemma scenarios still divide us. (Such as “would it be right to abort baby Hitler” type stuff.)
As far as being “blind” to sin, I think that’s an impossibility by definition. It’s like saying “accidental lie” or “accidental murder.” The thing that makes a sin SINFUL is the willfulness of it, isn’t it? When we are pretty sure we know what we’re supposed to do, but we refuse… Or when we know what we’re NOT supposed to do, and we go ahead anyway. That’s sin. But if you really, honestly don’t know that you’re doing something wrong, then how can it be wrong? Are my children sinning when they repeat a bad word they’ve heard? Am I sinning when a neighbor screams for help–and I don’t hear it?
I think sin is always intentional. It can’t be blind. And that parallels with what I’ve heard from former practicing-homosexuals or others who were once in rebellion: they usually testify that they always knew SOMETHING was unnatural and unhealthy about their former lifestyle.
Ah, the roots of disagreement come further to light. The sign of productive conversation! I disagree that the sin must be willful in order to be sin… at least without really stretching some definitions. If that were the case, ignorance would be just as valid goal as behavior modification (repentance). I guess at that point, you’ve already sort of said that ignorance would be impossible, since it’s written in our conscience.
In my understanding, sin is bad for me – not just because God says so, but ultimately when I sin, I’m the one who is disadvantaged the most in the long run. If I’m committing some sort of action that is bad for me – I’d like to correct it.
To stick with same-sex relationships, if it is sin for me to have sex with a man (I guess I should point out that I am a cisgender man ^_^), there’s some reason for it beyond “God said so and he’ll make sure the wages are paid.” I think there is truly something of a natural consequence that hurts me. At that point, call it sin, call it ignorance – I don’t care – I don’t want to in a worse position than I could be. I want to be “righteous” so I can experience more fully the blessings of God.
So to that end – I wouldn’t say God’s approval is my main objective… but if I’m accomplishing my main objective, it will line up with God’s approval.
Hopefully, this doesn’t scare off too many readers from this thread ^_^.
Amen! Amen! Amen! God has written it o our hearts. But the conscious can be seared.
“Do you get convicted every time sin is pointed to you, even if you don’t think it’s sin at the time? That doesn’t make sense. Further – if it’s an unbeliever, we can’t even claim the indwelling of the Holy Spirit as convicting them.”
Of course there’s no conviction when I don’t believe I’ve sinned. The point of a sermon (usually) is to articulate a truth (hopefully Biblical). When the truth is buried under a ton of caveats and qualifiers it gets muddled. While I can’t “know for certain” what’s going on inside another person’s head, I know what’s going on inside MY head. I tend to protest when I’m convicted. I’m don’t usually raise a fuss when my sins aren’t the ones being condemned.
“When the truth is buried under a ton of caveats and qualifiers, it gets muddled.”
Generally Agreed – which makes preaching a very difficult way to approach topics like this in any sort of effective manner. You’ll throw walls up with people by being blunt, you’ll lose others by beating around the bush.
RE: Conviction. I guess using our intuitions about how we think people feel in such circumstances is necessary to a degree- I just don’t think intuitions are trustworthy as a rule. I guess it’s just hard when protesting is both a reaction to conviction and honest denial. I don’t think it can be used as good evidence that it’s all the hearer’s fault in any particular situation.
“You’ll throw walls up with people by being blunt, you’ll lose others by beating around the bush.”
Indeed. This is the situation with all communication, not just preaching. Hyper-sensitivity makes communication difficult. When I’m critical of the methods or style of communication, I’m probably not thinking about what’s actually being said.
“I just don’t think intuitions are trustworthy as a rule.”
I think we’ll need to narrow what we mean by “intuition”. If we’re talking about some psychic sensation then I agree. If we’re talking about the sense that it is wrong to treat people badly then I disagree. Life is full of moral dilemmas that aren’t covered by specific Biblical mandates. I tend to think the Holy Spirit empowers our intuitions and makes them more reliable.
“When I’m critical of the methods or style of communication, I’m probably not thinking about what’s actually being said.”
Yeah, man. Critiquing methods of communication is pretty lame – you wouldn’t catch me writing a blog post about it ^_^. Though, to be fair, I guess you’re critiquing a type of critique – the extra level of meta justifies it a little better.
“I think we’ll need to narrow what we mean by “intuition”.”
That’s a good point. I suppose I mean the thoughts that we all have that are very difficult (at least in the moment) to describe or justify. So, I may feel that someone is lying that they feel no conviction, but I can’t really make a cohesive case for it. It could be vague psychic sensations, but I suppose it could range to movements from the Holy Spirit as well. I mean, I get the substantive difference, between psychic intuitions and the Holy Spirit, but unless you’re moved by the Spirit too, how does citing the Holy Spirit as my source help prove my case to you when I say “God’s telling me that you are convicted, but you’re just not saying it”. I guess if the person is consciously lying, it could prick them. But I would wager that more often than not, the person is not consciously aware of any sort of conviction (it’s either buried so deep they are unaware, or it’s just not there).
Maybe to be more pithy – the Holy Spirit only makes our intuitions more reliable the better we are at recognizing the Holy Spirit speaking. Maybe I’m just projecting myself onto everyone else, but I don’t think a vast majority of people are good at deciphering the Holy Spirit from other intuition-like feelings.
Ugh, sorry for the book of a post. >_<
Hmm…. with so many problems with modern day preaching, I’m surprised that you’ve cited this as “The” problem ^_^.
I actually, don’t think what you’ve pointed out is a problem – the related problem is the lack of clarity (or in too many cases, lack of sense) that Christendom has historically had in approaching homosexuality.
First, The distinguishing feature of homosexuality from the other listed characteristics is that it is the only one that people actually use as part of their identity in a non-negative way (that is, neutral or positive). In culture at large, almost all of the other characteristics are still widely considered to be negative. So, we can easily have a conversation that assumes those things are bad without walls being thrown up immediately. If you want to have a productive conversation about why homosexuality is wrong, I can’t see how you can avoid the caveats similar to what was listed above. To actually care about sin changing (rather than pointing out sin and washing your hands), you have to have the person actually hear you first – it is really hard to do that from a defensive posture.
Second (and is the drum I always beat with this topic), “Homosexuality” is too vague of a term to just condemn as sin. It sounds to a lot of people “Because I’m a dude who’s attracted to other dudes, that is sinful.” Clearly (at least, I should think), that is not Sin. The sin, at most, is engaging in sexual conduct with the same sex. I think that’s a large part of the defensiveness off the bat. I know the seemingly impossibility of the task “Stop finding sexy women attractive or you’re in sin” sounds to me. If that’s the level of task that gets heard more often than not, no wonder they tune out the conversation.
One problem I really see with homosexuality is that we’ve lost the moral upper hand. Some of our churches have really been rocked by scandal. So we have sexual abuse going on, pedophilia cover ups, leadership engaged in adultery, and then we go forth and try to lecture the culture about the sin of homosexuality. People look at the church and think why should I listen to you? Does dabbling in every imaginable sexual perversion yourselves make you experts on morality? I think in away it does, but culturally it’s a tough sell because the hypocrisy is clearly evident.
Not long ago, I heard a horrific sermon on the church at Corinth, about sleeping with your stepmother and how at least that sin was closer to the way “God intended us to sin.” Well, if you start rationalizing away incest, people are going to stop taking your word for anything.
That is a nuts sermon, indeed! Hehe
I think you may be right that hypocrisy has played a part in the down fall off the church. The only quibble if have with that is that certainly hypocrisy has existed for centuries, yet it seems that the church is losing moral authority at a much quicker rate. Maybe the internet is a big part in showcasing the hypocrisy? Similarly, I think church celebrity culture has maybe catalyzed the hypocrisy issue too. When we hold a man like a pastor up to impossible standards, it hurts that much more when he inevitably fails our expectations.
So more Jonathan Edwards and less Rob Bell.
So after further thought and actually understanding the point of the post. I will have to craft a better comment.