I'm not sure if anyone read the original post yet, but I have removed it. I have very strong feelings in the area of modern (aka liberal) Christianity and our readiness to grasp hold of anything that looks "effective". Example: seeker friendly churches, youth pastors talking with children on facebook, etc. These are all, in my opinion, symptoms of our lack of faith in God's prescribed mode and means of fellowship and worship for His people, and our desire to do what we think is the best way. We like to remain in control and we will argue with God over our methods till we are blue in the face. We say, "Yes God, but don't you see how much easier and more effective it will be if we do it my way? I can keep up with so many people so efficiently!" Am I suggesting that it is a sin to use facebook? I can't say no, but I can't say yes. As with many things in our modern, relativistic, idol ridden, and overly driven culture, I believe it depends on our motivation and where our trust is resting. I believe a small amount of though will lead you to the conclusion that it's really not necessary. If it's not necessary, then why do it? The reasons that have been given are reasons of efficiency and presence. In my mind efficiency = convenience = laziness. This is not absolute, but I believe it's the general progression of things. Our culture has never been so consumptive and under productive than we are today.
I conclude with a question. Is facebook really that great? Is it really such an innovation? Or are the words written in Ecclesiastes 1:9 really true today?
What has been will be again,what has been done will be done again;there is nothing new under the sun.
Sincerely,
John
28 comments:
I'm going to respond to this when I get a chance. Its going to take me a while to write it up.
unfortunately I have exams starting tomorrow so I do not have time to chime in. But keep just remember to keep it Christian and say everything out of love and nothing else.
Thank you heene. I certainly have issues in that area. I am conscious of and determined to resist my tendency to be divisive and retaliative (hence my removal and rewriting of my post).
King Leer: "Oh Consider not the need. Taken as a whole Man's needs are as bare as ghosts."
Point being that I think there is warrant for using things we don't "need" or could function without. The key is their purpose and appropriateness for that purpose. I use facebook to keep up with old friends that I don't get to see very often (purpose). I believe that to be an appropriate use of it as a tool (appropriateness). I think that really you're just arguing symantics if you use email and not facebook. Its a matter of degree not of kind. Its like saying that killing one person is ok but killing 20 isn't. Non Sequitur.
Lets question the use of this blog in fact. If you strike down Facebook on principle, then strike down the blog with the same sword.
I think you are trying to move something thats in the open hand into the closed hand.
My only encouragement is to call sin sin and wisdom (or lack there of) wisdom. I believe you CAN say that using facebook isn't sin. The Lord, not man, identifies sin in scripture, and identifies it specifically and clearly. Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries. In this we can attach actions to sin. In other words, leaving your infant in childcare all day is not a sin, but selfish ambitions of the mother can be.
I encourage us to use Scripture as the ruler.
I am responding with a such force because the backlash to my comments about facebook have been so extreme. It is as though I have claimed that the piano is unfit for worship, or that it is sin to sing anything but the Psalms in worship. I can't think of a good example, I'm just surprised how severe every one's response has been.
Blake:
If you would like to strike down this blog as well, I am all for it. I can let it go. I can walk away and feel no remorse. I merely chose to single out facebook because everywhere I turn it is on someones computer screen. Literally. And the fact that there was a sudden and unexplained silence from everyone on this blog.
Joey:
"Sin is any transgression of, or want in conformity to, the law of God." (WSC Q.14)
That is, any misdeeds done, and any good deeds done without perfect righteousness in ambition, desire and execution, are sin in the eyes of the Lord. If identifying and guarding against sin is as easy as you suggest, then why does the Apostle Paul exhort us to such constant vigilance against sin?
Love your neighbor as yourself! If you think that you are loving your neighbor as yourself by talking to them through the internet, you are sadly confused. If you are spending all your time, or encouraging others to spend their time on the internet rather than walking hand in hand with your neighbor, then you are in sin.
I am splitting hairs on this subject, I realize this. However, there is a logical point to my argument. Have we fallen into dependence on secular social entities because we were drawn in by the “convenience” and a carnal sense of effectiveness and value of such things? I don’t mean to sound snotty or arrogant, but my responses are intended to stir you to think. I beg you to think!
Email vs. facebook. Email is virtually a necessity for anyone in the professional realm. I am not arguing for the use of email, I use it mostly because I'm forced to do so. I never signed a contract that said that my school email address would be my primary mode of communication, but the Deans office, clinical coordinators, financial aid, student health, etc. all seem to think that it is. Still, email affords a more direct and personal approach to communication with individuals. It is analogous to hand-written correspondence. These new modes of communication (telephone, cell phone, email, AOL IM, blogs, myspace, facebook) are not truly greater inventions than face-to-face conversation. They merely offer efficiency and convenience. However, there’s a trade off. I believe that efficiency and convenience are inversely proportional to intimacy (not just in communication, but in merchandising, dining, etc.). With increased efficiency you get decreased intimacy. It is a fact that the further we walk down the path of dependence upon technologically facilitated communication the farther we will continue to drift from each other.
Sam has suggested two points of justification for the use of facebook; purpose and appropriateness. I will explore facebook from my standpoint…
Purpose: Keep in touch with old friends
Appropriateness: Tool to accomplish the “purpose”
How can one justification be dependent upon the first? Isn’t that assuming that the “purpose” is inherently appropriate? I questioned one of my friends down here about his reasons for using facebook. He gave the traditional example of keeping up with old friends. I ask again, of what value is maintaining daily (or frequent) superficial contact with distant acquaintances to the intimacy with the people with whom you are in direct contact? My friend also said something about being able to see how “those people” from high school turned out; kind of like a “Where Are They Now” for your old acquaintances. I suggest that this is a glorified form of gossip! You don’t need to know these things about people and I question your reasoning for doing so. It doesn’t matter if this person displays his or her personal life for everyone to see, I don’t believe that it is beneficial for us to view it.
I am challenging people to reconsider the default reaction to new, seemingly harmless ideas. That is the typical response of justification, saying “because it’s what everyone else is doing.” The absence of argument against a given action is not sufficient reason to justify its practice. Just because something isn't overtly sinful (by direct transgression of God’s Moral Law) does not mean it is beneficial and should therefore be approved of. Paul tells us in Romans that all things are permissible, but not all are beneficial. I would say, consider not merely the want of, or ostensible usefulness of something because you may be fooled into thinking that you weren’t content prior to its existence. Would you be discontent if there was no facebook? The folks behind the marketing of facebook made you feel that way to get you to sign up, didn’t they?
What I am advocating we consider is a mindset of “shooting for the stars and hitting the moon”, rather than “shooting for the moon and missing altogether.” I am encouraging us to strive for perfection and ultimately fail, rather than setting our goals at a reasonable and attainable height, but still falling short.
Being on facebook is not part of the law of God. You're identifying sin by the externals that our God never identified in scripture. Call someone using it excessively a byproduct of laziness, A SIN. But even hinting at the act of being on facebook a sin is walking a thin line of legalism.
John, maybe you can challenge each one of our motives for being on facebook. Maybe you can call me and ask "Do you ever struggle with the sin of idolatry when you are using facebook?"
Another example for you. Jack and Jill, Christian parents who send their kids to public schools are sinning. A case in point of unbiblical, dogmatic, man-created announcement of sin. Man does not have the power to create new sins. You must invest yourself with Jack and Jill and identify motives for their externals. Maybe Jack and Jill want their kids to learn about sex on the playground and not at home. The sin here is lack of conformity to Ephesian 6:4 and Proverbs 22:6, NOT sending their kids to public school playgrounds. Get it?
One more example (I could go on with these forever). A man who is consumed with excessive smoking and drinking. Well, this looks horrible and disgusting. Our first, and it's the easiest, reaction is to pronounce smoking drinking as wrong! Good, it's done and we can move on with life without those unnecessary evils! But what is the sin that God calls sin. What is the unconformity that WSC speaks of? What is the real transgression??? It's drunkenness, not drinking or alcohol. It's excessiveness, lack of moderation, NOT having a glass of wine. An extension: It's not facebook, it's one of the following:
Maybe my excessive use, my laziness, my abdication of community, my idolatry, my lewdness, my substitution of people for cyberworld, but not facebook. Facebook is not a sin. We can say that boldly.
Your quote for the Westminster does not negate my point. It actually supports it.
Read Martin Luther's quote and see that I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm only holding you to the boundaries of scripture. You can justly challenge facebook, but stay within the boundaries of God-identified sin. Challenge my heart. You will probably find darkness in every whole...
“We must not…reject [or] condemn anything because it is abused. This would result in utter confusion. God has commanded us in Deut. 4 not to lift up our eyes to the sun (and the moon and the stars), etc., that we may not worship them, for they are created to serve all nations. But there are many people who worship the sun and the stars. Therefore we propose to rush in and pull the sun and stars from the skies. No, we had better let it be. Again, wine and women bring many a man to misery and make a fool of him (Ecclus. 19:2; 31:30); so we kill all the women and pour out all the wine. Again, gold and silver cause much evil, so we condemn them. Indeed, if we want to drive away our worst enemy, the one who does us the most harm, we shall have to kill ourselves, for we have no greater enemy than our own heart, as the prophet, Jer. 17, says, “The heart of man is crooked,” or, as I take the meaning, “always twisting to one side.” And so on - what would we not do?” -From Martin Luther’s fourth Invocavit sermon from 1522, found in Works [American edition] 51:85
I am only challenging your written rhetoric...
"Am I suggesting that it is a sin to use facebook? I can't say no, but I can't say yes."
It sounds legalistic.
Anyway, loving you and loving the Good Life continues. Johnny, can I have your address so I can send you something special?
PS, thanks for the sharpening of the mind. Life continues because sanctification does. God bless you for that.
I completely agree with joey. I think you are wading in the waters of legalism on this one Johnny. Technology of any sort is not a sin. It may not be the most effective way to minister, but we CANNOT condemn it. We should be wise and disciplined in what we do and use, but we cannot condemn ANYTHING that God himself hasn't condemned.
Agreed, facebook carries with it the inherent temptation of technology(laziness, lack of intimacy etc.) just as drinking alcohol carries the temptation of drunkenness. It does not follow that it is itself bad per se. It is a tool nothing more. I do, however, very much appreciate John's charge to think through seemingly harmless things.
Thank you all for your comments. This is the "sharpening of the iron" that I miss from you guys. I love all of my friends down here, but much of the time we’re not on the same page because we’re not even reading the same book. Catch my drift?
I will attempt to defend myself and show that what I'm advocating is reasonable, very broadly applicable and certainly not legalism. I will expound on these issues at a later time, I will briefly comment now.
Much of the reason that I chose to attack facebook is because of the feverishly defensive responses I’ve received from Christians who use facebook when I’ve jokingly “poked” fun at it… I am deeply distressed at the laxity of so many Christians in defending each other and ourselves against the dangers and distractions of this culture. The problem I have is the justification that is given for defending the use of many secular ideas by Christians like, "Oh it's not that bad" or "It's not specifically prohibited.” Even if they are not specifically said in word, these motives are supported in thoughtless action. Aren’t we supposed to live as strangers in this land?
For me to even sign up for facebook would be a sin. Why? Because my conscience says that it is something that has absolutely no merit in my Christian worldview. Furthermore, I think it is detrimental to real personal relationships. A similar example would be someone who drinks alcohol under peer pressure, but truly considers drinking alcohol to be of no benefit to the Christian. I have a good friend down here that maintains this position, but will argue for anyone’s Scriptural right to drink. Many would argue against this “teetotaler” citing that he has weaker faith. However, would the argument come from meditation on Scripture or from a desire to subconsciously justify our wrong desires to defend our “right” to drink alcohol? I don’t think you have to get drunk to be in sin when drinking alcohol. Unfortunately, I think that Christians often get the “As long as I don’t cross that line I’m okay” in their mind and subconsciously live by that idea. God didn’t make his laws to be merely lines not to be crossed. They are general guiding principles for us all to live by and flow directly from His character. We just have to put the thought forth to apply them to every area of our life. David says in Psalm 119:97, “Oh, how I love your law! I meditate on it all day long.”
Jesus summarizes the commandments of God as “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength” and “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Notice there is no definitive point at which you can say these laws have been violated except for not following them perfectly. There is no, “don’t do this or that” in these commands. This supports the idea that merely a “want in conformity to” these two laws is what constitutes sin. You cannot just call sin something you can so easily point your finger at. It’s not just dissensions, orgies, etc. Sin is also not following God’s design and purpose perfectly. Therefore, we are responsible for being conscientious about every decision and action in life, and are to meditate on our desires and motives so the Spirit can instruct us. Now, before you flip your lid and call me a legalist again, let’s think about what the term “legalism” really means.
I believe that there is a misunderstanding regarding exactly what legalism represents, especially among the “reformed.” We are so afraid of being called a legalist that we would rather be found guilty of hidden sin. In order for me to truly believe and promote legalism, I would have to believe that my following a given code would give me some sort of merit before the eyes of Almighty God. I can assure you that is not the case! What then is legalism? Is it following rules because they are there? No, that’s Germanism (I’m guilty here!). Is it following rules (God or man-made) to merit favor before God’s eyes? Or is it following rules because God has commanded us to do so, and expecting blessing to come from obedience? I don't believe that following God's law to the strictest, most "fundamentalist" interpretation makes you legalistic. As long as it is done by faith, I think it makes you Christian. We must understand that God's laws were not meant to be merely moral rules not to be broken, but guides for our life. That is what we call a biblical world and lifeview.
To summarize if I may
It (facebook) is a danger and a distraction...
I would say it "can be" not "it is." Flaws in the use of something do not prohibit its use. Alcohol can be used to sin in a variety of ways but that doesn't mean that it isn't a positive good. God gave wine to make man's heart glad. Christ uses it as such...its kind of hard to argue that it isn't a positive good scripturally. There are many motives that I respect for not drinking and I don't think it makes you the weaker brother but that doesn't change the fact that it is an objective positive in scripture. Likewise, John, your choice to abstain from facebook is one I respect, but it is not one that you can project onto others who do view facebook as a positive good and have good reasons for using it.
People have poor justifications which indicate that they have not thought their participation through...
Epistemolgical laziness is a rampant problem among Christians but I don't think that everyone's participation in facebook represents that. YOu can't make a broad statement about a hypothesis based on a statistically insignificant population.
It is detrimental to real personal relationships...
Here, speaking for myself, I disagree. There have been many times on facebook that I have entered into a discussion forum or messaged back and forth with another person which resulted in a great time of strengthening in our relationship. It can't substitute for personal interaction of course but it doesn't weaken it, in my opinion. And facebook in many ways is the opposite of Gossip. You are getting your information directly from the source.
It violates YOUR conscience...
Agreed. ANd I respect your reasons but do not think you can make the claim that those apply to everyone who uses facebook. Therefore saying, " I John Germeroth cannot use Facebook because it is a sin for me to do so" Is a statement I'm ok with. However,"Facebook is a Sin." Is not a statement I agree with.
Right on with the legalism definition.
That is not a biblical definition of legalism. It is part of it, but legalism is ALSO adding anything to scripture that God himself has not added. You are adding to scripture in most of what you say and calling it obedient. You are not being obedient. You are making up laws and traditions that you like and making them the standard for everyone else to live by. You can't do that. You need to understand what true legalism is. I'm all for obedience to God's law to the fullest, but not adding to it just because I don't think something is wise. You need to sharpen your idea of obedience.
You are suggesting in your speech still that something is a sin that God has NEVER NEVER NEVER called a sin. The only time Jesus got pissed was when people did exactly what you are doing.
sorry, that last response was to John not Sam...
Well, I have nothing else to apologize. I only refer back to the Martin Luther quote and add this comment about his quote, from one of our teachers, Lori.
"Indeed, if we want to drive away our worst enemy, the one who does us the most harm, we shall have to kill ourselves, for we have no greater enemy than our own heart.
It's easy to nod in unthinking agreement with Luther's quote because his examples are so clear-cut (except for wine, which remains controversial in the American church).
It's another thing to fully realize the impact of what he's saying -- that to define sin correctly, we must localize it in people (namely ourselves) and not in things.
... but it's always so much easier to condemn things (or places or events) rather than deal with our own hearts and face our continual need for redemption, sanctification, and grace from a source beyond ourselves.
PS. I highly recommend Mark Musa's translation of the Divine Comedy. "
John, my dear,
I do say though, that I agree with MOST of what you're saying. Just the part on defining sin is what I am responding to.
I don’t want to offend anyone and I appreciate the help in working through this issue. I am simply working through a deeply distressing fear of loosing our future reformed leaders to societal pressures and ultimately to Christian liberalism. It really is a slippery slope when we stand so utterly dependent and unknowingly fond what the world says is good and wise. I may be opening another can of worms (oh I hope so!), but one example is that Loren told me on Sunday that Tim Keller's church (Redeemer NYC-PCA) installs women as deacons! Are we (those of us in the PCA) to follow in the path that the PCUSA has blazed 30 years before us? There are some things that culture does well, but on the whole I think culture takes something that is inherently good and twists it a little to make it more attractive to our carnal desires. Example, welfare or any government agency to provide for those among us living in poverty. However, I think it is wrong for we as Christians to support such entities because WE were the ones given the charge to care for the poor and needy! The church is failing, so we turn and support the government in doing our job. And what a wonderful job they do, right?
Globally, we are more connected than we have ever been. We are able to talk to our loved ones in Afghanistan via internet video chat. However, the problem I have is the idea that it is inherently good for us to keep up with all of our old friends. What are the names of the people who live to our right and to our left? What issues do they have? Is God so weak that He cannot take care of those outside of our everyday reach? Do we have to make up where God leaves off?
I believe that one isolated statement of mine has been taking and focused on so that all that can be thought of is legalism. However, most of the questions I have raised have failed to be addressed. These questions were meant to facilitate discussion in the general. That is, is facebook inherently good, is there inherent distraction no matter how much it is used, and have you guys really thought through anything on this issues. Read all of what has been written and comment on the grand scope of what is being discussed. I will deal with some of the statements that have been made in critique of my opinions, and many of those that question my theology. I will respond directly to several of Mark’s last statements, as well as some by Sam and Joey. It’s kind of sad that I’ve spent more time defending myself than actively participating in the discussion. Have no fear; I still have thoughts I have not yet shared. As I write such detailed ideas (and some being highly subjective) I can’t help but realize how ridiculous this really does sound. However, in all of this, I am merely attempting to challenge your subconscious presuppositions.
I am not expecting anything of anyone, nor am I writing to add to God’s commands. “Thine people listen to the prophet Johnny: ‘The Eleventh Commandment is, Thall shalt not use thine facebook.’” My intent was simply to question and to admonish us all to think. What Mark said, “We should be wise and disciplined in what we do and use”, is the essence of what I’ve be attempting to admonish us to do. However, like I’ve mentioned before, my continuing to dig deeper into this theological and philosophical question was “egged on” by some of the ideas portrayed in responses to my accusations. Some of the statements made were, I feel, a bit overboard (both on this blog and in personal conversations), and some of the ideas, like using facebook as a medium for ministry, have been severely problematic in my Christian worldview. We live in a time where true biblically living individuals are scarcely to be found. Furthermore, the infection of postmodern though and liberalism abound in the evangelical church of USA. It’s getting worse and will continue to do so if you and I are not “wise about what is good, and innocent about what is evil” (Romans 16:19). I think that knowing what is sin takes a great deal more thought and discernment than going grossly by the Ten Commandments or even the extensive (but dare I say not exhaustive?) lists of sins that Paul gives in his epistles.
Saying “use Scripture as the ruler” in some ways implies “use the Bible, not your mind.” This is like saying, “speak the truth, but don’t open your mouth!” God gave us reason and logic when He made us in His likeness, and these are absolutely necessary for the correct understanding of Scripture. Unfortunately, we reformed types sometimes think that our doctrinal beliefs are NOT based on our intellectual assertion and interpretation of what the Bible says: That is as if we are ALWAYS merely reading words from a page. You cannot avoid the use of your intellect when dealing with Scripture. Yes we must use Scripture as the ruler, but we cannot forget the limits of the interpreter. When presented with ideas different from our own we must be deal with them by first using Scripture, but we must also engage our intellect using reasoning and logic.
What is Legalism?
Most of what follows here are direct quotes from previous comments to which I will respond.
“Technology of any sort is not a sin.” I never said that it was.
“You are adding to scripture in most of what you say and calling it obedient.” Speaking in such general terms is of no benefit to you or me. I cannot be convinced that what I’ve said is wrong just because you say so. I’m sorry! I love and respect you, but you’ve got to put forth some effort before you can consider your argument sufficient. If you would think before you speak, you would have more to say. Not only more words, but more value. In your responses I see a thoughtless reflex to attack my position rather than encourage me to reconsider by using God’s Word, reason and logic. If you haven’t read all that has been written, I would encourage you to do so and comment on the global idea. Unfortunately, I believe that some of us get blinded by our own bias and are unable to rationally deal with a “new” concept when presented. Rather than listening, thinking and responding, many just react and seek to discredit the one asking the question. That is not good tactics in discussion, and it’s certainly annoying to anyone that has good intentions for bringing up a concern.
“You need to understand what true legalism is.” From where I stand it is you who needs to understand what true legalism is. I think that my definition of legalism is perfectly biblical, and more so than yours. Here’s why. Who were the legalists? The Pharisees, right? What did they do? They made laws for people to obey. Why? To earn merit before God. The Jews looked at the Ten Commandments and said, “Oh, I can do that!” And they did, by the loosest interpretation of the Law. However, Christ was quick to point out that their “obedience” was wholly inadequate because it’s not only an issue of outward, external action, but an issue of the heart and mind. Are you justifying useless behaviors in life before a Holy God? I know I am! I do it every day! I hate it and pray for deliverance from my heart that is so blacked with discontent.
“[Legalism is] adding anything to scripture that God himself has not added.” I’m not adding anything to Scripture. And no legalism is not adding to Scripture what God hasn’t added, that’s heresy! I am just splitting theological hairs and getting really, really technical in my thoughts. Just because people think about things more than you doesn’t mean they are legalists or fundamentalists. Adding to God’s law and applying that to self-righteousness and expecting to gain favor in God’s eyes is legalism.
“You are making up laws and traditions that you like and making them the standard for everyone else to live by.” No I’m not! This is yet another example of the numerous vigorous and undirected responses to this idea. I made a statement making fun of all you ladies that use facebook, and then I started to question whether anyone had really given it any thought. Is it my place to do such things? No, it’s probably not. I don’t want to elevate myself above you all, so if you feel like I have done so, I’m truly sorry!
“Being on facebook is not part of the law of God.” True, but your reasons, motivation and neglected duties are! Not just your execution and performance, but your desire and your heart. In this list of sins, you are suggesting that the law indeed is a written code that can be followed, but it’s not! It is a guide for a standard of life that you and I cannot and will not for one second attain on this earth! However, it should be our daily and feverish desire to live to God’s standards of perfection out of our gratitude to Him for doing what you and I could never have done for a microsecond throughout all eternity!!!!! What I am questioning is our culture’s reasons for saying this is objectively good, and more importantly why so many Christians are ready to go to bat for facebook. Is what facebook claims to help people achieve objectively good? Is it neutral? Or, is it sinful? Tough question to answer, eh?
“You need to sharpen your idea of obedience.” I would say that it is you who needs to sharpen your idea of obedience. Stop patting yourself on the back for obeying God’s laws you Pharisee! No adultery this week, CHECK! No murder this week, CHECK! You sound like the rich young ruler who said “I have kept these laws from my youth!” What was the final issue in this mans heart? It was his denial of Christ’s Lordship! He said to Christ, “I’ll do anything but that.” (And he sounded just like Meatloaf) I don’t know about you, but I do that on a daily basis by saying, “Not your way Lord, but mine.” What’s may point? The idea of obedience that I am proposing is that we are NEVER in obedience. However, we must strive with all our will to obey in every way. Not for the sake of the law by for the sake of our gratitude!
“You're identifying sin by the externals that our God never identified in scripture. Call someone using it excessively a byproduct of laziness, A SIN.” In my mind, ANY use of such a thing is a byproduct of laziness because you are using your time to keep tabs on only those who you WANT (aka easy) to keep tabs on and not the people God has sovereignly placed in your life as your real “neighbor.”
“I'm all for obedience to God's law to the fullest, but not adding to it just because I don't think something is wise.” Remember, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.” And you must ask, why do I think it is unwise? Is it based on objective, biblical standards that are violated through common acts in our culture of omission to follow God’s commands over personal pleasure?
“We cannot condemn ANYTHING that God himself hasn't condemned.” God never condemned pornography, specifically. Is it then okay for me to look at pornography? If I can look at pornography or go to a strip club without having an affair with the woman, then it’s okay because I would not be guilty of adultery by the loosest definition of the moral Law, right? However, Christ says that it’s our heart of lust that’s the issue. What about a homosexual looking at female pornography? Or what if an individual says that he is not lusting but “appreciating” the form of women? Is it sin even if he is not lusting? I would say yes! Placing your eyes on such a horrific mutation of God’s design makes you guilty because you have not hated something God Himself hates. God made women beautiful to men so that we would enjoy our wife’s body. What does He hate about people taking pictures of naked women (That is just the act of taking a picture of her)? It is that pornography is not using the beauty of a woman exactly the way God intended a woman’s body to be appreciated. It is exploitation. This is an easy example to argue and grasp. Not so easy is the point I have been attempting to make. Maybe I’m wrong?
What is sin?
Following God in His prescribed manner is what we should strive for. I brought up previously that I believe we tend to argue with God and rationalize things that really should be avoided as not being sin before Him. One example would be the Apostle Paul, the Hebrew of Hebrews. Shouldn’t God have sent Him to minister to the Jews? It would have made so much more sense to send in someone like Paul who knew the Jews inside and out. Think of how Paul could have reached them! Is it sinful to preach the Gospel? Is it sinful to use the most reasonable and efficient way to accomplish ones goals? Would have it been sinful for Paul to preach the Gospel to the Jews, and forget God’s purpose for the Gentiles? We think it's up to us to be rational and figure out what should be attempted and can "realistically" be accomplished. We forget that God Almighty can do all things. We are not responsible for the realization of our goals, just our personal behavior, motivation and performance in doing whatever we are doing.
Let God's power be proved by our “irrational” faith in Him.
The crucial question I am asking is, is sin merely categorized by our action, or is it also our inaction and thus logically our inadequate action? Is it that the law only functions as a line not to be crossed, where on one side is obedience and the other sin so that when we cross it we are in sin? If that were so, then isn’t there a possibility that we could become sinless? If we just “didn’t go there!” I would say that is totally unbiblical because you are denying half of the issue. You are suggesting that man simply stands in a neutral zone prior to sinning…. However, not only are we not to violate God’s law, but also we are to display all that is good in God. There is the negative (transgressing the law) and the NON-positive (want in conformity to the law) that constitutes sin. Another way to explain this is the idea that there are sins of commission (the active transgression of God’s law) and sins of omission (not living up to His standards). God didn’t just say, “oh yeah, and by the way…. I’m going to say this, those and that, and x, y, and z are all sin. Why? Because I am God and I said so.” God did not arbitrarily assign certain behaviors as being sin. His eternal stance on these issues flow directly from His immutable character.
I guess my honest question would be is our daily lack in perfection not considered sin? If not, what do we consider it? I always understood, “want in conformity to the law of God” to mean that when we did not perform an objectively good deed (loving your neighbor as yourself) to God’s standard of perfection, we were indeed in sin. Logically then, I believe God considers everything that is not perfect and sinless obedience to His will and character to be SIN. The only way for us to be loved based on personal merit is if we were to perfectly exhibit Christ-likeness. However, does it give us the right to say, “Oh, I don’t really have to strive to be ‘perfectly’ like Christ because He already accomplished it! Oh, and I sure don’t want to be called a legalist.” If we know what we are doing is not the absolute best we can do for Christ, we are no doubt in sin. Period! This is so because we are in essence saying to God, “You know I really don’t think you’re right. I’m going to do this my way because I am God and you’re not!”
At the Fall, we lost our ability to perfectly follow God’s law/design/purpose. We also gained the ability to transgress His Law (moral). We went from being perfect and innocent of sin, to being flawed and knowing good and evil. Therefore, in offering the Atonement for our sin, Christ not only never fell into sin (transgress the Law of God), but He also lived a perfect life as God Himself would live (perfect conformity to His will and design). I believe these two acts are separate accomplishments. That not only did He not violate God’s law, but He also did everything that God Himself (He who is the standard) would do. Christ said that He did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it!
“The Lord, not man, identifies sin…” and “use Scripture as the ruler.” I agree! I am genuinely trying to use Scripture as the rule. However, if you think that the lists the Apostle Paul gave are all that constitutes sin, I would say you have an inadequate view of sin. This is an extensive, not exhaustive, list of sins the Apostle Paul gives for emphasis, but I believe he left out “everything else.” Paul wasn’t intending this statement to be taken as an all-inclusive list. In claiming that it is you are leaving out the lack of perfection in everything we do. The laws of God must not be viewed as only lines not to be crossed, or as just moral standard to govern our life lest we become Pharisees! Following God’s moral standards do not leave us in a neutral, non-sinful, state. What I mean is that, we do not stand on neutral ground when we are not actively transgressing God’s law. We remain in sin if we do not fully move in the opposite direction to perfection. I believe that the standard is set so much higher than you give Christ credit for. God’s laws are also to serve as general guiding principles for our life, and they flow directly from God’s Holy, Almighty, and perfectly righteous character. God says be holy as I am holy.
God’s law is a standard of living that we cannot, even for one second, obey. The standard that God requires is sinlessness and perfection in every area of life: That is lack of transgression and perfect conformity to His will. Sin does not only encompass transgression of God’s law. We must remember that we will be held accountable for every misdeed done AND every good deed left undone or only partially done. It also includes willful and unknowing lack of conformity to His perfect design and will. If we are honest with ourselves we will have to say that we have never loved God as we ought. “You shall have no other God’s before me.” If we are really honest with ourselves (and God) we will admit that we have always been, and will always be #1 in our life. I cannot escape it! My self-worship is unending! Christ calls us to the perfect and true standard in Mark 12:30 when He says, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.” There has never been one single second where I have loved God completely with my entire heart OR soul OR mind OR strength. And the standard is to do ALL of these, with EVERYTHING I have, my ENTIRE BEING, perfectly, simultaneously, and unceasing. What hope do we have but in Christ?
Other comments
“The use of something”…. What are we “using” when talking on the internet? We are using communication, right? This is the same in concept as is “using” alcohol. There is nothing inherently bad about using alcohol, and I agree that it is actually a positive good. However, it is no longer just alcohol when you put Artemisia absinthium (wormwood) in to the mix. Now you’ve got absinthe. Justifying the use of this is a horse of a different color. Likewise there is nothing wrong with communication, and I believe that it too is inherently good. However, when you mutate something in a way that was not originally intended, you have to ask why are we doing it this way? What is the appeal? If we are to truly call people our friends, they deserve a phone call, a written letter, a visit when we are in town. We cannot treat people as though we will only deal with them when and how it is convenient for us. We must go out of our way to serve and love.
“It may not be the most effective way to minister.” God hates imperfection. If it’s not perfect, He hates it. That’s why everything we do and say requires the redeeming work of Christ to make them acceptable before the Throne of God. Willful denial of God’s right to the absolute 110% BEST of EVERYTHING we are and have in life is SIN (transgression). Therefore, if we know that we are not doing our best, and not doing anything to change it, we are in sin. If we attempt to justify anything before the Lord, we are in sin. When God places demands on us, our response should always be a verbal, “Yes Sir, Lord”, followed by action in exactly the way He requires. The most common defense against having to do this is to not think; to just go about our lives and not let our conscience get involved. If our conscience gets engaged then we have to stop and think, “Is this really God’s will for my life?” Then we have to pray for guidance, or repent if we’ve already failed.
“The only time Jesus got pissed…” The Pharisees were not the sole recipients of Christ’s anger. I recall Jesus getting mad at two specific issues, and I’m no expert so there may be more. One was the Pharisees adding to the law and the other was the money changers in the temple. I don’t know about you guys, but the pictures I have in my mind of what He did about the money changers seems that He got far more drastically upset at the money changers in the temple than He did at any of the Pharisees making up new laws. Jesus got physically violent at people who were using God’s house for means other than worship. I’m not justifying adding to God’s Word, but I just wanted to bring up that point.
Closing Remarks
If you still think that I am being a legalist please continue to explain. If you believe that I am adding to Scripture then please describe what exactly it is you think am I adding to Scripture?
I totally agree with your statements on legalism John. Failing to "measure up" is both a matter of actually transgressing and of not being able to do even the things we do right in a way that is pleasing to God.
Let me make this statement though: I think facebook would be wrong if it had the effects you suggest(not ministering to those around you, seeking comfort in easy relationships, laziness in relationships). I don't think its an either or kind of thing though. Its not either keep up with people on facebook or minister to my neighbors. Its both and. Keeping up with old friends is not a bad thing. Its a very good thing. For instance, when Natalie was in Russia, Facebook was literally the only way that she was able to keep up with her close group of friends from college. She could look up pictures of things they were doing, communicate with them, and stay involved in their lives. And it did not prohibit her from staying involved with people in Russia and ministering to those around her. Unless you're a very odd person electronic messaging will NEVER be an adequate substitute for personal relationships and if we use the one appropriately (i.e. in a limited way) it will not cut the other out.
If you haven't seen "No Country For Old Men" you need to. There's a line in the movie where one of the characters asserts that Evil hasn't changed. To think that it has is just arrogant (no I'm not talking about you John). I was telling that to my mom and she said, "no evil hasn't changed but the velocity of it has." The velocity of evil has dramatically increased. I think that the velocity of good might do well to keep up.
Well said. I concede. However, I'm not signing up. I still think you're a woman if you use it! Ha ha ha ha ha!
Here are some quotes from a friend of mine down here. He's an infantry marine. If you don't know a marine, especially one fresh from the infantry, you really should... It's a lot of fun.
"Facebook is a place where teenagers can hook up."
"Facebook flows from the feminization of men in our culture."
"Men use things like facebook because they are afraid to talk to women, or they want to talk to other women than their wife."
Seriously, though. I really hope you guys are careful. I know, for those of you who are teachers, I bet kids are asking to be you friends all the time. I just hope you aren't talking to teenage girls on the internet while your wives are cooking dinner, that's all.
Yes in the end taunting is truly the highest form of communication. So here goes...
-John I hope you're a fast typist because if not you probably haven't talked to your wife all day after that last post.
-Joey you couldn't fight your way out of a wet paper sack with a pitch fork
-Mark you're the baboonbuttheadface
What wife? I've actually been typing on many of these issues for over a week in Word. Yesterday was just cut and paste. Yes, yes... I know that makes me even more nerdy, but that's the only way I can think though my beliefs. I have to take the long road of rumination. That's the main reason why I'm so ineffective in verbal argument because I spend most of my time thinking.
I want to add something quickly to why I "conceded." I realized, as I wrote and thought, that my position is highly subjective and sometimes purely dependent on the heart issues of the individual. Sorry it took so long. There are areas that I still believe to be questionable as far as objectively true or false, but I will have to continue my discussion in my head. I may personally ask some of you guys for help in continuing to deal with this issue; meaning the broader issue of where does the Christian man/leader draw the line in accepting current cultural trends.
Is it truly our duty to stand at such firm opposition to the ways of the world that people know just by the smell of us that we're Christians; that we live so differently we are like a different breed? This would of course mean living amongst many hostile people with a big red flag attached to your forehead that says persecute me! Some are not comfortable with being obvious, some oppose the idea because it will "lessen the opportunity for evangelism", some don't want to be judgmental by their actions or beliefs. However, the over arching idea that I am working from is that we, the Christians of today, should look at and treat the Church Universal much as the Israelites were told to treat themselves and their nation. We are not citizens of this world, we are but travelers and sojourners who have no real place on this earth. I fear this increasingly pervasive idea in the church of "When in Rome, act like the Romans" or "When on earth, act like the earthlings."
"Go away or I will taunt you a second time, so called Arthur King and your silly kinnigettes!"
From Johnny's last post: "However, the over arching idea that I am working from is that we, the Christians of today, should look at and treat the Church Universal much as the Israelites were told to treat themselves and their nation. We are not citizens of this world, we are but travelers and sojourners who have no real place on this earth. I fear this increasingly pervasive idea in the church of "When in Rome, act like the Romans" or "When on earth, act like the earthlings."
Well said. I'm sure you have heard horror stories from other people about myspace and facebook and "cyber flirting." These things are real and truly sick. You stay on facebook too long, and like anything, it will start consuming you. Calvin said our hearts are idol factories. From Johnny post: "Seriously, though. I really hope you guys are careful." Thank you John, care and wisdom is a great charge for Christian men. I need this with my wife everyday.
We, with sin empowered, can warp any good thing into evil. This is not a dualistic world. All that we see is a mirror of good and beauty and truth. And sin can twist it. But, my brothers, it cannot destroy it. The Lord will be triumphant. "You crushed the head of the house of the wicked,
laying him bare from thigh to neck." Habakkuk 3.
Selah
Post a Comment