Legalistic.
Licentious.
Judgmental.
Worldly.
These are just some of the censorious terms tossed around when Christians discuss ethical standards. The pendulum seems to swing between extremes. Some people want to condemn you straight to hell for any failure to obey God's Word (or, usually, for any failure to abide by their own interpretation if it), while others use God's grace as an excuse for their sin.
As is normally the case, the truth is somewhere in the middle. The Bible proclaims God's grace for those who repent of their sin, assuring the penitent that there is no condemnation for those who believe in Jesus Christ, but we are warned against abusing the grace of God and we are unambiguously called to live in a way that is consistent with our calling as Christians. That means that, for the Christian, "this won't send me to hell" is not a valid excuse for indulging in behavior that is dishonoring to God. Christians don't look for excuses to disobey God. The Bible does not proclaim a grace that renders holiness obsolete. Instead, it proclaims a grace that encourages and empowers holiness.
But how are we to know what is right and wrong? The Bible delineates many ethical principles, but it certainly doesn't speak to every moral quandary the Christian will encounter. How are we to know what to do in specific situations?
Can we be sure that we are doing (or not doing) what is right? The simple matter of the fact is that we can't be 100% sure 100% of the time. There will be some situations where, even after we have made a decision and reaped what we have sown, we won't be confident that we made the right decision.
So are we to live in fear? God forbid! We are to live as children of a gracious Heavenly Father, confident that He loves us and will forgive us when we repent of our sin. Like children, however, we ought to be eager to please our Father and we should trust that His standards are best. Our attitude--the heart--is key here. We shouldn't live in fear that our shortcomings will condemn us, but we should strive to conform as closely as possible to our Father's will. Are we trying to find an excuse for sin? Or are we trying to obey God as thoroughly as we possibly can in our imperfect state?
Allow me to offer an illustration. A common issue debated today is the morality of watching films/TV shows that contain explicit sexuality/nudity. How are we to respond to this Biblically? Is it absolutely wrong? Or does the Christian have freedom here.
Well, firstly, the fact that we're even having such a conversation is indicative of the sad state of Christian ethics. We have failed to recognize both the holiness of God and the harmfulness of sin. I wouldn't feign to read the minds or hearts of my brethren, but it would seem that we're looking for excuses to indulge our lusts, rather than fleeing from them. We're trying to get as close to the edge without going over it. So, before we try to solve a moral dilemma, we need to make sure there is one that needs solving. Let each individual examine his own heart.
Secondly, we need to have a standard to apply to these questions. I recently began reading Thomas Boston's Human Nature in its Fourfold State. Boston reminds us that eating the forbidden fruit was not the only sin that would have led to the Fall. In fact, any sin that Adam committed against the moral law of God would have had the same result. It occurred to me that, when we find ourselves in a morally gray situation, we can ask ourselves, "If Adam had done this, would it have led to the Fall?" If the answer is yes, than the proposed act is obviously sinful. Ask yourself, "If Adam would have watched this R-rated comedy, would it have plunged mankind into sin and death?" Or, "Would watching Game of Thrones have compromised mankind's state of perfection?" Obviously, the creation of these programs would assume that mankind had already fallen, but you get the point. Would a perfect, innocent man be able to retain that state while participating in this questionable behavior?
Asking ourselves this question is akin to asking, "What would Jesus do?", but I think it hits a little closer to home. Jesus was a perfect man, but He was also God incarnate! Adam was created as a perfect man, but he was still just a man. He was capable of sinning.
I think this is a very revealing question, illuminating our tendency to turn black-and-white ethical questions into gray areas. I think it reveals the heart of the matter--of any matter. We have a tendency to view some sins as more egregious than others, with our pet sins firmly implanted at the bottom of that list. There is some validity to viewing sins hierarchically, but even the least of sins is still a sin. Remember, James tells us that breaking one commandment renders a man guilty of the entire law.
Lest you think I am picking on one issue, allow me to me clarify. We should apply this standard to all of our lives. When we're disciplining our children or interacting with our spouses, we should ask ourselves this same question. When we're doing business in the marketplace, we should apply this same concept. Anytime we are presented with a questionable practice or behavior, anytime we sense in ourselves a heart that is inclining towards behavior that is unbecoming of a Christian, we should ask ourselves, "If Adam had done this, would it have led to the Fall?" The answer to that question will often, though not always, make the path clear.
"Man," you might be thinking, "that's a strict standard!" It is. Perfection is a very strict standard, and one of which we are going to fall short, but it should be the desire of every Christian. Though we know that we will never be perfectly like Jesus, we ought to yearn to be so. We know that we will never in this life cease to be like our father Adam, but we should strive every day to deface the family resemblance. Jesus Christ came to reverse the Fall, not render it disregardable. Forgiveness does not render piety unimportant. Forgiveness motivates piety.
Licentious.
Judgmental.
Worldly.
These are just some of the censorious terms tossed around when Christians discuss ethical standards. The pendulum seems to swing between extremes. Some people want to condemn you straight to hell for any failure to obey God's Word (or, usually, for any failure to abide by their own interpretation if it), while others use God's grace as an excuse for their sin.
As is normally the case, the truth is somewhere in the middle. The Bible proclaims God's grace for those who repent of their sin, assuring the penitent that there is no condemnation for those who believe in Jesus Christ, but we are warned against abusing the grace of God and we are unambiguously called to live in a way that is consistent with our calling as Christians. That means that, for the Christian, "this won't send me to hell" is not a valid excuse for indulging in behavior that is dishonoring to God. Christians don't look for excuses to disobey God. The Bible does not proclaim a grace that renders holiness obsolete. Instead, it proclaims a grace that encourages and empowers holiness.
But how are we to know what is right and wrong? The Bible delineates many ethical principles, but it certainly doesn't speak to every moral quandary the Christian will encounter. How are we to know what to do in specific situations?
Can we be sure that we are doing (or not doing) what is right? The simple matter of the fact is that we can't be 100% sure 100% of the time. There will be some situations where, even after we have made a decision and reaped what we have sown, we won't be confident that we made the right decision.
So are we to live in fear? God forbid! We are to live as children of a gracious Heavenly Father, confident that He loves us and will forgive us when we repent of our sin. Like children, however, we ought to be eager to please our Father and we should trust that His standards are best. Our attitude--the heart--is key here. We shouldn't live in fear that our shortcomings will condemn us, but we should strive to conform as closely as possible to our Father's will. Are we trying to find an excuse for sin? Or are we trying to obey God as thoroughly as we possibly can in our imperfect state?
Allow me to offer an illustration. A common issue debated today is the morality of watching films/TV shows that contain explicit sexuality/nudity. How are we to respond to this Biblically? Is it absolutely wrong? Or does the Christian have freedom here.
Well, firstly, the fact that we're even having such a conversation is indicative of the sad state of Christian ethics. We have failed to recognize both the holiness of God and the harmfulness of sin. I wouldn't feign to read the minds or hearts of my brethren, but it would seem that we're looking for excuses to indulge our lusts, rather than fleeing from them. We're trying to get as close to the edge without going over it. So, before we try to solve a moral dilemma, we need to make sure there is one that needs solving. Let each individual examine his own heart.
Secondly, we need to have a standard to apply to these questions. I recently began reading Thomas Boston's Human Nature in its Fourfold State. Boston reminds us that eating the forbidden fruit was not the only sin that would have led to the Fall. In fact, any sin that Adam committed against the moral law of God would have had the same result. It occurred to me that, when we find ourselves in a morally gray situation, we can ask ourselves, "If Adam had done this, would it have led to the Fall?" If the answer is yes, than the proposed act is obviously sinful. Ask yourself, "If Adam would have watched this R-rated comedy, would it have plunged mankind into sin and death?" Or, "Would watching Game of Thrones have compromised mankind's state of perfection?" Obviously, the creation of these programs would assume that mankind had already fallen, but you get the point. Would a perfect, innocent man be able to retain that state while participating in this questionable behavior?
Asking ourselves this question is akin to asking, "What would Jesus do?", but I think it hits a little closer to home. Jesus was a perfect man, but He was also God incarnate! Adam was created as a perfect man, but he was still just a man. He was capable of sinning.
I think this is a very revealing question, illuminating our tendency to turn black-and-white ethical questions into gray areas. I think it reveals the heart of the matter--of any matter. We have a tendency to view some sins as more egregious than others, with our pet sins firmly implanted at the bottom of that list. There is some validity to viewing sins hierarchically, but even the least of sins is still a sin. Remember, James tells us that breaking one commandment renders a man guilty of the entire law.
Lest you think I am picking on one issue, allow me to me clarify. We should apply this standard to all of our lives. When we're disciplining our children or interacting with our spouses, we should ask ourselves this same question. When we're doing business in the marketplace, we should apply this same concept. Anytime we are presented with a questionable practice or behavior, anytime we sense in ourselves a heart that is inclining towards behavior that is unbecoming of a Christian, we should ask ourselves, "If Adam had done this, would it have led to the Fall?" The answer to that question will often, though not always, make the path clear.
"Man," you might be thinking, "that's a strict standard!" It is. Perfection is a very strict standard, and one of which we are going to fall short, but it should be the desire of every Christian. Though we know that we will never be perfectly like Jesus, we ought to yearn to be so. We know that we will never in this life cease to be like our father Adam, but we should strive every day to deface the family resemblance. Jesus Christ came to reverse the Fall, not render it disregardable. Forgiveness does not render piety unimportant. Forgiveness motivates piety.
Comments
Post a Comment