First, I freely admit that this is not an original title. I ran across this phrase earlier this evening as I perused my Facebook home page, trying to catch up on what is happening with my FB friends. There was the usual stuff: a new picture of my grand-nephew, P.H., a happy child of a fantastic mom; a rehashed obituary of the Pillsbury Dough Boy which still makes me laugh aloud [I refuse to use LOL -- oops -- I just did :( ]; an update from a musician acquaintance who writes often of sports (much better than getting it via television news) and church-related issues (sometimes funny, sometimes serious, generally thought-provoking); a couple of Friend Requests; more messages to which to respond than I really want to; you get the gist. Amidst those common tidbits was a post that dealt with one of the most controversial issues of the day with LIKES and COMMENTS that followed. Among those comments was a phrase regarding how we should define sin for a contemporary culture. That phrase has so haunted me that I have revisited that blurb several times now. It conjures up thoughts of recent discussions in my Sunday School class and Wednesday Bible studies at South Main Baptist Church (plug for SMBC).
Second, I also admit that this writing may offend others, including folks who may, loosely or sincerely, use the term friend in relation to me. My hope, however, is that as I respect their rights to believe as they wish, they will respect mine, and perhaps this is a point on which we may have to just agree to disagree.
Third, I freely admit that I am a sinner. I know guilt. And shame. Therefore, I judge no one; I condemn no one. Judgment and condemnation of others are simply not in my purview. It is enough for me that each morning and evening I can look in a mirror while brushing teeth and be grateful that God has given me another day for work on my own human failings. With that said, I freely admit, however, that some behaviors I simply hate: lying, stealing, killing -- you know -- the stuff of the Ten Commandments (which is also foundational stuff for our laws). Then there are also infractions like smoking, wearing fragrances ad nauseam, driving with a phone plastered to the side of one's face, and other behaviors that are a lot more than mere annoyances.
Okay, on their faces, the also infractions are not normally construed as sins; yet, they have the potential to cause irreparable harm to the body, and not just the body of the smoker, fragrance wearer, or telephone-talking driver, but others around them as well, and even death. For those who suffer with medical conditions caused through no fault of their own, to be subjected to the exacerbating effects of tobaccos and perfumes by people who put their rights to so engage themselves above all else is, to those who so suffer, a threat to their well-being. They think of terms like assault and attempted murder. Trust me; I know this to be true, and often have to work at stifling deep-seated anger and frustration, and the urge to kill them before they kill me. And statistics show that folks who drive while engaging in telephone conversations are more likely to be involved in vehicular crashes resulting in debilitating, life-change injuries, or death.
So much for the prefatory. The rest is pretty short, though not simple, and starts with a question. How does one define sin for a contemporary culture?
Short answer: I don't have a clue. I never gave a thought to sin evolving as mankind devolved.
Next question: Well, why not?
Well, how about this question in lieu of an answer: What makes one think that because the world has changed in technology, temperament and tolerance, that what was sin 4,000 or 3,000 or 2,000 years ago is different today?
Well, there are schools of thought that condone killing under certain circumstances.
Well, that may be true, and even while God gave the Word to the Israelites Thou shalt not kill, He also instructed them to kill all the people in the lands they were to occupy. It seems then, that there is killing, and then there is Killing.
And what about the scripture that says God "hardened" Pharaoh's heart?
Well, the Book does say that (Exodus 9:12). Does how the Creator uses His creation give the created license to act contrary to His instructions? I think not. This passage has often troubled me. Why would God harden Pharaoh's heart in such a way that ultimately led to Pharaoh's death? And on several occasions I have had to remind myself that God can use anyone or anything He wants to, in any way He wants to. In that regard I sometimes envision this scenario -- and while I cannot prove it was the way it happened, you cannot prove it did not:
After losing his son to the plague that befell all of the first-born in Egypt who were not protected, Pharaoh allowed the Israelites to leave, and in anger (and probably a lot of other negative emotions), pursued them until he, along with his followers, were consumed by the Red Sea. The aftermath: Pharaoh ascends to heaven and is welcomed by the Almighty for a job well done.*
As I said, I cannot prove it, but neither can you disprove it. Just admit it is something to consider (or not) and let's move along.*
And what is this DEVOLVING business?
Well, I'm glad you asked. A simple definition of devolve is to pass on or delegate to another. In the context of this little blog, mankind is ever devolving. The more knowledgeable and advanced we become, the more we shirk our responsibilities and commitments, passing them on into the ether where they become the responsibilities and commitments of some unknown force or entity as we continue to live in a foggy La-La Land, making excuses for our actions or lack thereof, buying into every frenzied trend of entertainment, including every gadget imaginable, 99.99999999% of which are made in other countries, providing jobs to others while 99.9999999% of corporate America embraces downsizing, rightsizing, cutbacks, layoffs and outsourcing, and any other gimmick one can envision, in the end making our country a slave to the rest of the world. (Sorry about the outburst; I'll have to save that for another time.)
So what does all that have to do with devolving -- and sin?
Such great questions you ask! Devolving and sin really go hand in glove. While in a state of devolution, one succumbs to any compulsion to say and do anything one chooses without regard to the rights of others or the Way of the Almighty. As Pastor Steve (www.smbc.org) might say, We live in God's world but not in God's Way. And when one chooses to live his own way, justifying whatever one says and does according to one's situation or circumstances, or the thorn in one's flesh,** one shuts the door on the Father's grace which is sufficient for those who believe.
Well, you really didn't answer the question and you definitely did not define sin for a contemporary culture.
True, and frankly, who can? Still, without judging or condemning any, loving all through Christ Jesus while hating the thoughts, words and deeds that are not of the Father's Way, I do commend all to Him, whose grace is sufficient for all, for His power is made perfect in weakness, even so-called contemporary ones.
The bottom line is this:
The advent of situational ethics did not rewrite the Bible; rather it just gave us something through which to ride our chariots when looking for a loophole. What the loophole does not account for, however, is the love that will make a parent suffer through disciplining, and even confinement in prison, of a child for the child's sake; or one not taking a life because one is not the giver of life.
Lying is still lying. Killing is still killing. Adultery is still adultery. Stealing is stealing, even though in our contemporary ilk stealing has all kinds of labels -- misappropriation and embezzlement, for instance. Covetousness -- well it's still that too, so if it's not yours, forget about it.
For this writer, who often drafts documents for others with revisions so numerous that they end with the year, month, day and time (for example, 2011 0325 2219 means the 25th day of March 2011, 10:19 p.m.), there are no revisions to sin. The 2000 AD version is the 2000 BC version.
So, dear ones, give yourself a break. All of that energy devoted to establishing some new benchmark for sin by today's standards might best be expended with the Father, Who is strength for today and bright hope for tomorrow. I dare you to try Him, even in your contemporary situation. His faithfulness was great whenever the book of Lamentations (3:23) was written, and, trust me on this, it's pretty great today, 2011 0327 2252.
To him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you before His glorious presence without fault and with great joy -- to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen. (Jude 24-25).
Praying that you lean and not stumble . . .
__________________
*A note to Bible scholars: This is my blog; these are my thoughts. Let's leave it at that.
**6 Even if I should choose to boast, I would not be a fool, because I would be speaking the truth. But I refrain, so no one will think more of me than is warranted by what I do or say, 7 or because of these surpassingly great revelations. Therefore, in order to keep me from becoming conceited, I was given a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me. 8 Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. 9 But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me. (2 Corinthians 12:6-9 NIV)
No comments:
Post a Comment