Skip to main content

The Scandal of Self-Denial

"Woe unto those who call evil good and good evil..."

Those are some powerful, frightening words.  They are also increasingly descriptive of the moral condition of the United States of America.

We live in a postmodern age (I suppose we're past postmodern by now).

Our religion is self.  Our ideals are happiness and personal fulfillment.  Our creed, so unyieldingly maintained, is "Be yourself!"

We glorify the present, the temporary, the vain.

We have institutionalized selfishness.  We are absolutely obsessed with ourselves.  We're so obsessed with self that we're obsessed with other people being obsessed with themselves.

Morality is relative, subjective, individually-defined.

It has become clear that the only immoral act, the only behavior that we will not tolerate, is that which elicits guilt.  Naked dudes dancing around child drag queens?  Yeah, that's cool.  Telling dudes that they're dudes and not girls?  Nah...that's intolerant!

You cannot condemn any behavior, lifestyle, or choice as immoral.  You cannot speak out against the evils of society.  You cannot, Heaven forbid, pass judgment.

We will not tolerate "intolerance."

It's peculiar, really.  We're so obsessed with tolerance that not only is "intolerance" intolerable, but so is self-denial.  We will not tolerate other people refusing to tolerate patterns of behavior in their own lives!

Self-denial is repulsive to those who refuse to practice it.  Gluttons hate to see people eating moderately.  Drunkards always encourage others to have that extra drink.

Self-denial is now itself offensive.

How dare you ask me to ignore my feelings?  How dare you ask me to refrain from indulging my lusts?  How dare you ask me to forego something that I want?  How dare you ask me to do something that is self-disinterested?

Self-denial has become scandalous.

Unfortunately, this thinking has infiltrated the Church itself.  Pastors preach self-help sermons designed to guide the hearer to a better "you."  Sermons are human-centric.  Talking about sin is the grand faux pas.  Declaring the justice, righteousness, and holiness of God, let alone His command for us to emulate His holiness, is out of style.  The pastor is there to fill seats and coffers, a spiritual CEO in a commercial Church age, not make people feel bad or compel them to change.  The call to self-denial has gone silent.   

If your pastor has never said something that makes you feel guilty, you need to find a new church.

Our Savior made it clear that self-denial is an integral part of salvation.  Self-denial is a definitive mark of the Christian life, and, therefore, the Christian himself.  Self-denial and cross-bearing are prerequisites to following Jesus Christ.  Never failing to practice what He preached, Jesus gave us the greatest example of this teaching imaginable in the Incarnation.

"Woe unto those who evil good and good evil..."

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

4 Reasons I Affirm Paedocommunion

If you have interacted with me on social media, you know that I have always been outspoken on the issue of Paedocommunion .  It is a theological position and a liturgical practice about which I am passionate.  Having been raised, and having raised my children, at the Table, I cannot imagine attending a church that didn't allow PC.  I hope that when I am old and gray, I will still be an advocate for bringing little children to the Sacrament. Throughout the 12 years that I have had this blog, I have written scattered thoughts on the topic, but it appears that I have never written a concise summary of my reasons for affirming PC.  I was thoroughly convinced that I had, but I can't seem to locate it, so I guess I never did.  So, to rectify the omission, here are four reasons I hold to PC. 1) Paedocommunion is Biblical.   Any discussion of the topic should start here, and I would hope that both sides of the debate would make this assertion.  However, l...

The Real Presence & Paedocommunion: A Deeper Rift Between Reformed Churches

You're going back to Rome! Theological disagreements within the Reformed world, especially those of the last half century, often devolve into these sorts of accusations.  As controversialists like Doug Wilson and Peter Leithart began to break away from the larger conservative Presbyterian and Reformed denominations, it became clear that the rift was deeper than semantics and systematic minutiae.  Much like the Reformation four centuries before, the Table was a primary point of conflict.   What does it mean?  Who may partake?  What do we call it?    These questions, along with a few more, divided Reformed brethren as the physical elements of our religion reflected deeper conflicts.  Good men began to understand that the problem wasn't just in our logos, but in our pathos and ethos, as well. Paedocommunion (hereafter PC) has been one of the hottest points of contention.  PC has always been normal to me as I grew up with it.  I underst...

Anglicanism, Paedocommunion, & Being Reformed

I consider myself Reformed.  I was baptized as a baby in a PCA church.  I grew up in a Reformed microdenomination that allowed its member churches to subscribe to any of the Reformed confessions (we subscribed to the Three Forms of Unity).  In many ways, whether I like it or not, I still think and act like a Reformed Presbyterian.   Some, however, would seek to deny me that label.  I suspect there are many reasons for this, but paramount among them is that I hold to Paedocommunion (hereafter PC), which, for some reason, is absolutely the worst thing ever to these people.  Some would go so far as to say that PC makes me a heretic, but they all agree that I am certainly not Reformed .   My recent engagement with these opponents of PC has caused me to reflect on what it means to be Reformed and what it means to be a Christian.  This online jousting has dovetailed well with some of my recent study, particularly  An Apology of the Church...