How have Christians acquired a judgmental character. It comes naturally to Christianity. It’s part of Christianity’s DNA.
A popular evangelism program of the recent past (and used in the CRC) asked the question, “If you were to die tonight and stand before God and he should ask you, “why should I let you into my heaven,” what would you say? The expected answer is, I’m not such a bad person; I think God will let me in. People, in general, think God will weigh both the good and bad a person may do, and probably most people will be admitted into heaven. But then the presenter of this evangelism program will explain from the Bible, that all fall short of God’s standard of perfection. All are sinners and fall short of God’s acceptance. As to salvation God does not count the good a person may do, but only the sin. This just does not correlate with natural reasoning. When we judge the people around us, we weigh both good and bad and usually the good wins out. Of the people we know and are close to, there are few that are serious criminals and deserving of any condemnation but in general of reward But according to the Bible, God weighs only sin and everyone falls short and deserves eternal damnation. This is what the Bible teaches. So the Bible presupposes a sinful humanity in contrast to popular opinion, as well as most other religions. Of course people will, in general, recognize that there are some terrible people in the world, but of the people they know, few fall into this category. Beside people, in general, would rather think of God as a forgiving and gracious God rather than a God who condemns most people to an eternity of damnation. So you see, this idea of Christians being judgmental comes naturally. If they look at people with the mind of God, they will look at them as sinners. That’s Christian DNA.
Sure Christianity offers an escape in Jesus Christ, but that is only if a person has heard the gospel message. Of those not hearing of salvation in Jesus (which is the great majority of the world’s population), they are also deserving of damnation, according to the Bible. That doesn’t put the Christian God in a very good light, and contributes to this negative and judgmental perspective of Christianity. I’m not sure what you mean when you say, we need to see others as God sees them.
I don’t know how the gospel of Jesus can be presented without first demonstrating one’s need for a Savior. That “need” is the fact of sin committed by all people (none is righteous and all fall short). So again Christians cannot get around the fact of sin, or pointing out that sin to others. So Christians may not have to specifically condemn a person, but a general condemnation is enough to put Christianity in a bad light. How do Christians choose compassion (Jesus’ challenge) without showing the need (sin) for God’s love in Christ? So you see, it’s natural for those outside the Christian community to think Christians are judgmental. It’s part of the Christian DNA.
Thanks John for your response. Thanks for trying to correct some of my thoughts. But I think you may have fallen short. Albert asked how those outside the church acquired an image that Christians are judgmental. He wasn’t asking what Christians think. Well, you pretty well answered the question yourself, John. You said, “God's demands are high. Very high. Much higher than we would like them to be. When we judge good and bad, we do it by our imperfect inadequate, barely passing grade standards.” In fact, according to the Bible, God’s standard is not just higher than we would like it to be, but is perfection, not just relatively good, or even very good, but perfection. That’s why the Bible teaches it is impossible to please God. This is why Christianity and Christians come off as judgmental. Christianity disqualifies any good a person may do or try to do in pleasing God and caring for neighbor. As to having acceptance with God, human good works count for nothing. If Christians are true to the Bible and the gospel message, they will tell the person on the street that nothing he does, no matter how good in his own eyes or the eyes of others, will contribute in the least toward salvation. And you think people on the street will agree with this? This simply doesn’t correlate with the human experience. And it doesn’t correlate with most other religions which understand God judging a person by his works. But according to the Bible, all people are deserving of eternal damnation in hell. Do you think this doesn’t cast suspicion on Christianity and the church?
The only place good works play a role in the Christian faith, is after one has come to faith in Jesus Christ. Then good works may count to a sense of reward. But before salvation they count for nothing, as far as God is concerned. As you say, John, “ every good deed was filled with selfishness or pride, even their good deeds were inadequate.” The Bible says they are as filthy rags. What the Bible teaches just doesn’t correlate or relate to human experience. People do good every day for their spouses, children, or neighbors, both near and far. But when it comes to having an acceptance with God these acts mean nothing? You think the world outside of the church doesn’t see this as judgmental? Most certainly, they do. And when Christianity teaches that the only good that counts with God is the good done post conversion, you think this isn’t hypocritical in the eyes of non Christians, especially when the actions of Christians are no better than those who are not? That’s why I said that if Christianity is perceived as judgmental, it’s because it’s part of its DNA, it’s part of what Christianity teaches.
Your illustration is also faulty, John. The person being judged for his act of murder is only being judged for the single act of murder in his 41st year, not for the previous forty years of good he may have done. That single act of murder was a heinous crime in itself and deserving of severe punishment. If the crime was a lesser crime, stealing, lying, cheating on taxes, etc., then we would likely judge that person, not just in regard to the one crime but by his whole life, good and bad. When God, according to the Bible, judges people (which he will) one sin, small or large, is enough to condemn them to an eternity in hell. The good he has done counts for nothing. No one will escape God’s wrath. God does not weigh both good and bad, as we do, but judges in regard to sin. In fact the good a person may do is only filthy rags. Again, this does not correlate to justice as most people consider justice, and makes Christianity perceived as hypocritical and judgmental. It’s part of the Christian DNA. At Christianity’s root it is considered faulty by most reasonable people outside the church.
You may think Christianity is reasonable, in its demands, and that’s ok. But Albert wasn’t asking what Christians think or what may be reasonable to them, but he asked why people are leaving the church and why the world looks at Christianity as being judgmental. I don’t know how you can change this perception that the world has, because this is just part of Christianity’s DNA. It’s at the core of Christianity itself.
As John suggests, "if Christians are perceived as less judgmental, then they will encourage people to wallow in their sin." So I guess Christians should continue in the tradition of Elijah in the Old Testament and John the Baptist in the New and preach a message of hell fire and brimstone, and reap the deserved criticism of being judgmental. Is there really an alternative?
Thanks John. Is McDonald’s statement similar to what Jesus said to the teacher of law, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” (Mark 12:34) Sounds like a compliment to me. Thanks.
Hi John and Albert. I think John is on to something. I like what you have to say about the Christian at the individual level as well as the church at an institutional level. I like what you have said, Albert, as well.
As to the individual level (this would be true, as well for the church), Christians need to demonstrate a more Christ like lifestyle, as you pointed out, John. Jesus related to all kinds of people without judging them or reminding them of the law. If you ask me, Jesus’ main thrust in nearly all of his teaching and example was getting at the motive behind a person’s action, and the only motive acceptable to Jesus was a motive of love for God and neighbor. That was the ultimate kingdom principle. He didn’t come to do away with the law because if a person is driven by love for God and neighbor then the law is already fulfilled without even having to mention the law. The law is fulfilled in the living of Christ’s teaching. But we somehow have to keep putting the law in face of church members. We read it nearly every Sunday (or at least, on many), as you, Albert, being from a Canadian church, know to be true. That (the reading of the law) is really a great invitation to visitors. Not. The Jews of Jesus’ day had all but lost this sense of motive. Ethnicity (pride) and a legalistic keeping of law had become the Jewish ticket. I could go on forever on this. The law is fulfilled when a sacrificial love (Christ’s love) is demonstrated. So I agree with you, John, at an individual level, we need to live amongst all people as Christ did. Of course that’s not easy. But Jesus didn’t say it was impossible. That’s how he called upon people to live.
As to the institution of the church, I also like what you suggest, John. There certainly is no reason to restrict the Lord’s Supper to CRC members. Such a policy definitely contributes to outsiders thinking the church is judgmental and superior. And certainly loosening the grip on the Lord’s Supper would go a long way toward young people feeling accepted and loved. I still see problems as to the institutionalized church.
I appreciate that you, Albert, want to see the church as a more inviting place for our own young people and for outsiders. You have a very difficult task ahead of you. For one thing, people are leaving the church in masses, as you say. The direction has already been set, and has been set for many years. It’s not easy to change a declining pattern. It’s like pushing a boulder uphill. People’s minds on the outside of the church have already been made up. The church is not a place that they want to drop into or be part of. For one thing, the formal setting of the church and church worship has little appeal to those on the outside. It seems to outsiders a thing of the distant past. Formal worship, to outsiders, feels archaic. To make this feel inviting won’t be easy.
Another thing you have to ask is, how many people are visiting your church weekly. If you have one visitor every other week (or less), that pretty well tells you that your community already has an impression of your church. And how will they know to change their impression unless people are already coming. How do you even get them in the door. People on the inside may recognize the change, but not those on the outside. Now Albert, this isn’t meant to be an insult. But I know you are up in the distant hinter lands of Canada. (I love Canada, eh) And you know that CRC churches are much more ethnic than in the states. It will take a long time for the Canadian CRCs to loose their wooden shoes. Non CRC people in Canadian towns refer to the CRC church as the Dutch church. And many people in town think the CRC church is an ethnic church for people of Dutch background. And, of course, this goes back to a much more recent immigration from Holland, post World War II (50s and 60s). In the past, and still in the present for many, the church has been a safe haven away from the world. People in your Canadian communities have felt this sheltering of the Dutch and exclusion of non Dutch for many years. So anything you do in your churches will not change the mind set of the community overnight. It will probably take generations. In the meantime, the organized church is continuing to decline. You have a difficult problem. So you better get on the stick quickly. That cloak of judgmentalism is not going to evaporate quickly. Of course a new church plant is a different story. They can begin without the wooden shoes requirement and begin with a much more casual worship setting that may feel comfortable to outsiders (no weekly reading of the law), and less formal restrictions, with an emphasis on sacrificial love for God and neighbor. Sorry about the lack of encouragement, but as John may have noted previously about me, I’m not overly encouraged by the organized church. Blessings to all.
Good thoughts John. The only hesitation I would have would be making mandatory a public testimony of faith for a new professing member. A written testimony, as you suggest, could be a step up for some people, in lieu of a spoken testimony. Some have a heightened fear of talking, even reading, in front of people. The fear is no different for some people as telling a person who is afraid of heights that they have to dive head first off the high dive into a swimming pool. Getting in front of people, other than a few friends, creates real panic for some people. It has nothing with their sincerity and dedication to God. Otherwise, good suggestions.
That is quite an array of statistics, Bev. I would imagine the statistics for women, whether in the church or outside, would not be nearly as alarming. Do you think there might be a reason for such findings? Is it just that men are generally scumbags and always have their minds in the gutter? Quite possibly there’s a reason and that should, at least, be taken into consideration.
As to psyche men and women are wired very differently. And this difference comes to expression in a host of ways. It’s why men tend to be the abusers in a relationship, or tend to be child molesters, or why the porn industry is aimed more at men than women. As to the sexual psyche, women are much more into building loving and lasting relationships. Men are more into immediate sexual gratification. And when I say this is part of the male psyche, it isn’t something that is easily controllable. It’s like natural instinct, the way men are wired. It’s not easily turned off, or maybe there’s not even an “off” switch. So men can more easily turn to pornography for sexual gratification, while at the same time it doesn’t do the same for women. You can take away the pornography but you won’t change the way men are wired or what they may visualize in their minds. I remember hearing a well known Reformed theologian comment on sin. He said, “if people really knew the thoughts that go through my mind they would be disgusted with me.” He was talking about sexual sin. That’s true of nearly all men. We’re wired differently than you women. It’s part of the male psyche and isn’t going away. You may think the Holy Spirit can change a guy so he will think pure thoughts and get his mind out of the gutter. Really. Just look at the statistics you gave for Christian men, which show a contrary message. The church can guilt the male members of the church, but guilt will just drive a guy into more hiding, as again your statistics show. So is this a problem that reveals hypocrisy in the church? Perhaps, especially if the church claims to be more wholesome than those outside of its doors. It is a problem both inside and outside the church, especially if it leads to abuse or unwanted behavior. But it is a problem that comes naturally to men. So begin with understanding, and then work on the problem from there.
Thanks for the response Bev. I don’t think my first response was all that helpful in your mind. But I would still stand by the final comment in my response, “begin with understanding, and then work on the problem from there.” Understanding goes a long way in trying to tackle any problem, otherwise the solution may be completely misdirected.
Understanding the male psyche is very important in tackling this problem. That’s where the problem lies (in the male psyche), more so than in the growth of the porn industry. The problems you associate with pornography have been around since biblical times and I doubt that the porn industry has made it any or much worse. The problem lies within people themselves. The fact that men are more open to reveal their secrets today is probably due to the more open society that we live in and this has spilled over into the church. In the past, Christian men would have seldom (if ever) admitted to viewing porn. Young teenage boys in Christian families were severely punished if they were caught with porn magazines (which were always well hidden) or caught masturbating. The guilt inflicted by parents was enough to keep a young person from ever again admitting to a sneak peek at porn. The past still affects Christian men today (perhaps your figures are conservative). So whether pornography is available or not, the problem of the male psyche is still there. The natural instinct (psyche) for men is different than for most women. And this male wiring is not so easy to change, even among Christian men, as is obvious from your statistics. Men, more so than women, look for instant sexual gratification. That is why men can so easily fall asleep once that gratification has been met. Mission accomplished. Men are wired differently.
You mentioned being created in God’s image, but you have to remember the fall has greatly marred that image. The human race has not only been credited by God with Adam and Eve’s original sin, but he has imputed to all of humanity a fallen sinful nature that will naturally gravitate to sinful actions. All people come into existence with this sinful nature apart from their own request. The apostle Paul talks about his own enslavement to sin, apart from Christ, and thinks of himself as totally miserable and helpless to remedy his situation. His thanks is to Jesus Christ, because he has forgiveness in Christ, and can move on from there. Recognize that just because a Christian is forgiven, it doesn’t mean he won’t still have problems with his sinful nature. The record of New Testament writing is a testimony of how prevalent sin continued to be in the church after Christ. So whether created in the image of God or not, we are stuck with a sinful nature that isn’t going away. Men, for the most part, are still stuck with a male psyche that craves instant sexual gratification. And perhaps porn helps to alleviate this craving.
You mentioned that porn contributes to the objectifying of women/people. You do realize Bev, that all sin objectifies its victims. Whether it’s lying, stealing, gossiping, slandering or murdering, sin always reduces the victim to a level below the victimizer. In one way or another the person committing the sin does not respect or look up to his/her victim. So to accuse pornography of contributing to the objectifying of people, then it is no different than other sin. So you may be right, but that is not a special characteristic that makes porn unique and more heinous than other sin. The church has been more guilty than most in the past at objectifying women with the degraded regard that it has placed on women (the women in office issue or voting issue in the more distant past, the submission of women to men in the church and home).
You suggest if we are wired that way (helpless fallen sinners) then something is seriously amiss. Of course it is. But what will help in dealing with this problem? Begin with some understanding of the problem. Then ask what is the most constructive ways others have dealt with this, whether in the church or outside. What will lead to the greatest good for the greatest number. In the past (within Reformed Churches) church discipline might have been the answer, but (with the numbers) that isn’t likely to be helpful at all, unless a greater sin (than looking at porn) has occurred. Perhaps the church needs to do better at being an encouraging community, a place where sinners can still feel secure, rather than having a alarmist mentality.
You suggested, as leading to a cure, perhaps we are not listening to the Holy Spirit or have quenched the Spirit. What does that mean? Does it mean that in some mysterious way the Holy Spirit will step in and change hearts and desires, if only we pray correctly or appease his wrath in some way? I’m always a little mystified when Christians talk about the Holy Spirit, as though he is going to supernaturally break into our lives and miraculously make changes. In our circles, we often talk about primary and secondary causation. God is always the primary cause, but most often natural means are the secondary cause. We go to a doctor or hospital to deal with cancer and when healed, we thank the doctors. But as to primary causation we give thanks to God. Are you looking for the Holy Spirit to work in some other way? Do you think that if we offer sacrifices to God, as did the ancients, then we can appease the Holy Spirit’s quenching? God wants us to look for honest and realistic ways for dealing with abuse that comes as a result of porn or a fallen male psyche. And then give him thanks. So the church needs to put its thinking caps on, maybe even look over the fence to see what is working elsewhere.
What do you suggest Bev, for getting to the bottom of this problem? What are some good starting points? What might be a God honoring way to get us started? Sorry for being so lengthy.
Hi again Bev, and thanks for your response. I don’t know if anyone else is looking in on our dialogue, but I imagine they could be wondering where each of us are coming from theologically. I’m guessing that neither of us fit perfectly in the CRC. I can tell you don’t. And because I know myself, I know I don’t. As to the Holy Spirit, I know for certain we are in two different places. My intention is certainly not to discredit you, at least hurtfully. I’m glad for your relationship with God, as I also am with mine. Both very different though. Which means we are looking at this porn problem differently.
Obviously, you are looking at this as a spiritual problem, and I’m looking at it more as a genetic or male psyche problem. There is no doubt in my mind that our male wiring is different from the female’s, and that’s in part what makes it difficult for women to understand the nature of the problem. Your husband and you may have had frank conversations that has led you, at least in part, to come to a conclusion that this is a spiritual problem and can be solved spiritually, whether through prayer or the guidance of the Holy Spirit. But then I would have to say, your husband is not typical. Certainly all men are not the same as to sexual drive, just as all women are not the same. But in general (and I mean a very large majority), men seek more of an instant gratification sexually than women who tend toward long tender, loving relationships. Women can almost be turned off by the thought of instant gratification, where that is not the case for most men. And that’s what the porn industry plays up to. It’s the reason that men are more drawn to porn and women are drawn to love novels. There are so many ways to explain this male psyche thing, but I don’t want to be offensive. I’m convinced that it’s not a matter of simply praying that God will take this desire away or asking the Holy Spirit to intervene and the problem would be gone. If that were the case, then God would have to change the male Christian genetically. I don’t think, even you, would want that.
Thinking this is a spiritual problem, creates the same kind of situation that “Christian help groups” have run into in trying to help gay people become straight. For some time, before realizing that being gay begins with a genetic make up that can only be changed by altering the genetics of a person (and that can’t be done), Christians thought a homosexual could be made straight by a commitment to Christ and through prayer. But now you realize that such Christian help groups have gone out of existence. They didn’t work. Now there are Christian support groups for gays, but they don’t try to pray these people out of gaydem. They support them and help them to cope. They teach them abstinence even though their genetic makeup continues to pull them toward same sex relationships. The church (at least the CRC) calls them to a life of celibacy while at the same time they have a sexual drive toward their own sex. To top this off, our churches call these people sinners if they act on their sexual drive which they didn’t ask for to begin with. You, no doubt, have read some of the horror stories of the torment some gays go through while being in the church. The reality is that most feel driven away from the church. Enough of that. In the same way, I want to assure you that men are different from women in their sexual drives. Genetically they’re different, like gays. If men aren’t turning to pornography to satisfy this need for instant gratification, then they likely have a great fantasy world. I don’t want to put you or your husband on the spot, but no doubt you have taken long driving trips. When things start to get boring you may ask him, “what are you thinking about?” And for most men, the answer will be “nothing.” Yah, right. I can tell you what he’s thinking about ½ the time, maybe more. Just asking the Holy Spirit to intervene will be no more helpful than asking the Spirit to change the gay person’s genetics.
Now here’s the good part, Bev. I have come up with some helpful remedies for the porn problem among Christian men. You may even want your husband’s comments on these. The first solution is castration. That definitely will remove the sexual drive. In past cultures, even in Biblical times, eunuchs (castrated men) were used to guard and protect a king’s harem. It has also worked well on dogs in order to remove their sexual drive. And I think it’s been used on repeat sexual felons. Jesus did say, if your hand offends you cut it off. And Jesus also did say, “For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 19:12) There you go, Biblical support. I think it could be an instant remedy to the porn problem, if you can get Christian men to agree to this.
Now a little less drastic, there has to be drugs that can be used to reduce or remove the sexual drive of men. If there are drugs to enhance the drive, there must also be the opposite. The military used to use saltpeter on its soldiers, until they found it was ineffective. This too may not exactly be a spiritual remedy. But on the other hand, I suppose a Christian guy might say he would do this as unto the Lord. Then all of a sudden it becomes spiritual solution.
Here’s another solution, and maybe this hits closer to home as to being a truly Christian remedy. The problem of porn among Christian men is really the female’s fault. Paul did warn the women of the church to dress modestly and to cover their heads. There is no doubt why he made these kind of comments. If they dressed immodestly it became a stumbling block to men. It was a form of pornography sitting in the pew in front of them. Today, Christian women dress no differently than women outside of the church. You and I, both, have seen some pretty provocatively dressed women in church. Short skirts and high heels are definitely a no no. Only turtleneck sweaters and they should be loose fitting, very loose. Maybe, better yet, the church should hand out large plastic bags with eye holes for the women to wear as they come into church. Actually, some of our Muslim brothers and sisters apply that very principle to their lives. You may have noticed that it’s only the Muslim women who are totally covered in black from the top of their head to their toes, including the burka with the veiled opening for the eyes. Along with doing this because of their love for God, they do it so as not to be a stumbling block to men, other than their husbands, by revealing their beauty in open company. It’s an awesome thought, but I would hate it personally. I love seeing God’s creative beauty in the variety of women I see everyday. I see a beautiful women and I say, thank you, Lord. But you can understand the Muslim concept in promoting the modesty of women in public. Should Christians follow suit and could the Christian community influence society by such practices? Again, I don’t think this would fly among our women. It would take a tremendous commitment to the Lord.
How about the Amish communities with their modest dress and separating themselves from the world and their worldly influences? Don’t they do this because of their love of the Lord and wanting to separate themselves totally unto the him?
Such approaches as these is taking very serious one’s relationship with God which include the desire to honor that relationship above all others. Or perhaps another approach is to simply pray to God and ask the Holy Spirit to remove this desire, despite being wired genetically in such a way that men have a strong physical attraction to women. What do you think, Bev? Maybe the prayer idea is better. Only it hasn’t worked yet, despite a lot of prayers that have been prayed. Let’s hear your thoughts as to a solution.
Thanks Bev for your latest response. I think you and I may be on two different tracks as to the use of porn by Christian men. In my last response I did give some possible solutions to the problems associated with porn. Of course those solutions were given with tongue in cheek. But I was quite surprised by your response. To simply say those possible solutions represented man’s ways or our own understanding? Did you not see a kernel of Biblical truth in any of them? Of course making eunuchs of our men doesn’t make sense, even though Jesus himself commends the man who would go to such lengths for the kingdom of God. If nothing else it seems to say Christianity is radical and Christ would commend the person who takes drastic measures. Or to call a separated life style (separate from the world), such as with the Amish, nothing more than a human solution? Certainly there is plenty of Biblical warrant for the Amish perspective. Do you think compromising with the world could be part of the problem of porn in the church? The same goes for Paul’s warning to Christian women to dress modestly. When women of the church dress no differently than the women on the outside, do you think that might not send a message to our men that they can also compromise with the world? If women can’t take a stand for Christ as to their apparel why should we expect men to do any differently? These are more than man’s ways, as you suggested. I do think that Christians today still take principles taught in Scripture and ask if there is an application for our culture today. Especially if there might be an objective lesson, something Christians can act on.
But then as I listen to your further reply, I realize you are much more experiential as to your faith, and less objective. I’m guessing you tend to be more subjective and abstract in looking for answers. Maybe you’re thinking that if Christian men have the right personal subjective faith experience, then the Holy Spirit will take care of other areas of concern, such as porn. I’m just trying to get a handle on your perspective as to a possible solution to the porn problem among Christian men.
I still think the church has to begin with understanding. Men are and always have been more visual than women, whereas women are more relational. . It’s part of the male psyche, Where men enjoy porn, women tend toward romance novels. Even the Song of Solomon (Songs) plays on the visual attraction of the author (perhaps Solomon). Perhaps the statistics you gave are not so shocking as you suggest. You, at least, would expect men to be pulled more in that direction (the visual) than women. And perhaps some of those suggested remedies that I listed have at least a kernel of truth toward helping with the problem
Now I really wonder what you might see as a solution to the so called porn problem in the church. Lots of prayer has gone out, and so far it hasn’t worked, at least as of yet. I’m still at a loss, as to what a prayerful Holy Spirit driven solution would entail or look like. But if its just an abstract solution, then I think you are barking up the wrong tree.
Good job Bev, on the subject of porn. Sounded much more concrete and objective than earlier responses. We may differ on some things but on porn we can find some common ground. As long as we don't throw out understanding as a beginning point. And yes, we are all different, one size does not fit all. What works for one, may not work for another. We need to look to our own heart and circumstances while asking what will be most effective for in my situation, and then trusting God to work in the choices we each make. Thanks again.
You may be on to something Albert. But I think there is much more, as to why the secular world and young people look at Christians as hypocritical. It has to do with Christian theology, maybe especially Reformed theology. The fall of all humankind does not strike a compelling note to the ears of non-Christians. Young people and secular society do not want to look at themselves as scumbags in the eyes of God. They may have done some bad things along the way, but those bad things don’t characterize their life (as Christians might suggest). They are loving toward family and friends and are more than willing to help someone in need. On a scale of one to ten, most will think of themselves as a seven or eight. To be told that God judges a person only by their sins and not the good they may have done sounds way out of kilter. God created us as people, not as gods, why would he expect us to be perfect, especially when we don’t judge each other by such a standard? My wife is a great wife, as well as my friends and family. But God doesn’t think of them the same way? They are sinners in the eyes of God and therefore condemned? So when a Christian tells me I’m a sinner (even though they put themselves in the same category), it doesn’t win any accolades. It sounds as though this Christian is putting me down. Such a perspective on humankind (depravity) is a slam on people in general and on the individual in particular. So our theology, although true to the Bible, doesn’t help the Christian message win approval. The message itself sounds hypocritical to young people . It’s the natural reason, as to why Christianity, is not necessarily a slam dunk. Add to this what you have said, Albert, and it only makes Christians look more hypocritical.
Thanks for your article, Larry, on the love of God. You are right when you say this is an overused statement. It’s overused not only by suggesting that many people and even many Christians don’t know how to define this love, but they also don’t recognize that God’s love in Christ is particular (a limited atonement). So what about those outside of the pale of the Christian faith, which is the vast majority of people. Does God even love them? It does seem as though Bill Wald has hit onto something when he suggests the “first person” pronouns of “we” or “I” indicates only those who are in Christ, or the “elect” or “chosen.”
It’s difficult to think of God loving those who have been chosen for destruction (Romans 9). In fact for those who are not the object of God’s love, he insures their destruction. We often speak of God determining, not only the ends, but also the means. If God has determined the means by which the chosen would come to salvation (election), he has also determined the means by which the lost would come to their destruction. He has credited the lost (as well, as the saved) with the sin of Adam. There is no way, anyone can claim to be righteous, even the newborn, for all have been credited by God with Adam’s sin. On top of that God imputes to all people a sinful nature, by which they can’t help but to sin. Paul talks about his own failure against sin in Romans 7. He says he is a slave to sin and an utter failure. And that’s the implication for all people apart from Christ. This sinful nature is given to all by God. On top of God crediting all with Adam’s sin and giving all a sinful nature, he gives a standard of perfection that is impossible to meet. As we have been taught from the Bible, “It is impossible to please God.” So God has determined the means (and insured) for the destruction of the human race. The sinful lost cannot even respond to the gospel without the Spirit's enabling. It’s seems difficult to understand why the sinful lost will be held responsible for their own sin, when God has determined the means by which they can’t help but to sin. Of course Paul criticizes anyone who would talk back to God or criticize his ways. God has a right to do whatever he wants with his clay.
So when God has determined the damnation of the majority of the human race, it is difficult to talk about the love of God flippantly. And even for those in Christ, who are to display God’s love to others, it would seem difficult to claim that love for oneself when Christians are no better than others at displaying love for God and neighbor. Just as the Old Testament Jews failed to keep God’s commandments, so also do Christians. So where does the assurance of God’s love come from, where is the proof of the Spirit’s working? This whole love of God seems very confusing to me (unless I should throw huge sections of the Bible away). Oops, we can't do that.
Posted in: Judgemental
How have Christians acquired a judgmental character. It comes naturally to Christianity. It’s part of Christianity’s DNA.
A popular evangelism program of the recent past (and used in the CRC) asked the question, “If you were to die tonight and stand before God and he should ask you, “why should I let you into my heaven,” what would you say? The expected answer is, I’m not such a bad person; I think God will let me in. People, in general, think God will weigh both the good and bad a person may do, and probably most people will be admitted into heaven. But then the presenter of this evangelism program will explain from the Bible, that all fall short of God’s standard of perfection. All are sinners and fall short of God’s acceptance. As to salvation God does not count the good a person may do, but only the sin. This just does not correlate with natural reasoning. When we judge the people around us, we weigh both good and bad and usually the good wins out. Of the people we know and are close to, there are few that are serious criminals and deserving of any condemnation but in general of reward But according to the Bible, God weighs only sin and everyone falls short and deserves eternal damnation. This is what the Bible teaches. So the Bible presupposes a sinful humanity in contrast to popular opinion, as well as most other religions. Of course people will, in general, recognize that there are some terrible people in the world, but of the people they know, few fall into this category. Beside people, in general, would rather think of God as a forgiving and gracious God rather than a God who condemns most people to an eternity of damnation. So you see, this idea of Christians being judgmental comes naturally. If they look at people with the mind of God, they will look at them as sinners. That’s Christian DNA.
Sure Christianity offers an escape in Jesus Christ, but that is only if a person has heard the gospel message. Of those not hearing of salvation in Jesus (which is the great majority of the world’s population), they are also deserving of damnation, according to the Bible. That doesn’t put the Christian God in a very good light, and contributes to this negative and judgmental perspective of Christianity. I’m not sure what you mean when you say, we need to see others as God sees them.
I don’t know how the gospel of Jesus can be presented without first demonstrating one’s need for a Savior. That “need” is the fact of sin committed by all people (none is righteous and all fall short). So again Christians cannot get around the fact of sin, or pointing out that sin to others. So Christians may not have to specifically condemn a person, but a general condemnation is enough to put Christianity in a bad light. How do Christians choose compassion (Jesus’ challenge) without showing the need (sin) for God’s love in Christ? So you see, it’s natural for those outside the Christian community to think Christians are judgmental. It’s part of the Christian DNA.
Posted in: Judgemental
Thanks John for your response. Thanks for trying to correct some of my thoughts. But I think you may have fallen short. Albert asked how those outside the church acquired an image that Christians are judgmental. He wasn’t asking what Christians think. Well, you pretty well answered the question yourself, John. You said, “God's demands are high. Very high. Much higher than we would like them to be. When we judge good and bad, we do it by our imperfect inadequate, barely passing grade standards.” In fact, according to the Bible, God’s standard is not just higher than we would like it to be, but is perfection, not just relatively good, or even very good, but perfection. That’s why the Bible teaches it is impossible to please God. This is why Christianity and Christians come off as judgmental. Christianity disqualifies any good a person may do or try to do in pleasing God and caring for neighbor. As to having acceptance with God, human good works count for nothing. If Christians are true to the Bible and the gospel message, they will tell the person on the street that nothing he does, no matter how good in his own eyes or the eyes of others, will contribute in the least toward salvation. And you think people on the street will agree with this? This simply doesn’t correlate with the human experience. And it doesn’t correlate with most other religions which understand God judging a person by his works. But according to the Bible, all people are deserving of eternal damnation in hell. Do you think this doesn’t cast suspicion on Christianity and the church?
The only place good works play a role in the Christian faith, is after one has come to faith in Jesus Christ. Then good works may count to a sense of reward. But before salvation they count for nothing, as far as God is concerned. As you say, John, “ every good deed was filled with selfishness or pride, even their good deeds were inadequate.” The Bible says they are as filthy rags. What the Bible teaches just doesn’t correlate or relate to human experience. People do good every day for their spouses, children, or neighbors, both near and far. But when it comes to having an acceptance with God these acts mean nothing? You think the world outside of the church doesn’t see this as judgmental? Most certainly, they do. And when Christianity teaches that the only good that counts with God is the good done post conversion, you think this isn’t hypocritical in the eyes of non Christians, especially when the actions of Christians are no better than those who are not? That’s why I said that if Christianity is perceived as judgmental, it’s because it’s part of its DNA, it’s part of what Christianity teaches.
Your illustration is also faulty, John. The person being judged for his act of murder is only being judged for the single act of murder in his 41st year, not for the previous forty years of good he may have done. That single act of murder was a heinous crime in itself and deserving of severe punishment. If the crime was a lesser crime, stealing, lying, cheating on taxes, etc., then we would likely judge that person, not just in regard to the one crime but by his whole life, good and bad. When God, according to the Bible, judges people (which he will) one sin, small or large, is enough to condemn them to an eternity in hell. The good he has done counts for nothing. No one will escape God’s wrath. God does not weigh both good and bad, as we do, but judges in regard to sin. In fact the good a person may do is only filthy rags. Again, this does not correlate to justice as most people consider justice, and makes Christianity perceived as hypocritical and judgmental. It’s part of the Christian DNA. At Christianity’s root it is considered faulty by most reasonable people outside the church.
You may think Christianity is reasonable, in its demands, and that’s ok. But Albert wasn’t asking what Christians think or what may be reasonable to them, but he asked why people are leaving the church and why the world looks at Christianity as being judgmental. I don’t know how you can change this perception that the world has, because this is just part of Christianity’s DNA. It’s at the core of Christianity itself.
As John suggests, "if Christians are perceived as less judgmental, then they will encourage people to wallow in their sin." So I guess Christians should continue in the tradition of Elijah in the Old Testament and John the Baptist in the New and preach a message of hell fire and brimstone, and reap the deserved criticism of being judgmental. Is there really an alternative?
Posted in: Judgemental
Thanks John. Is McDonald’s statement similar to what Jesus said to the teacher of law, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” (Mark 12:34) Sounds like a compliment to me. Thanks.
Posted in: Judgemental
Hi John and Albert. I think John is on to something. I like what you have to say about the Christian at the individual level as well as the church at an institutional level. I like what you have said, Albert, as well.
As to the individual level (this would be true, as well for the church), Christians need to demonstrate a more Christ like lifestyle, as you pointed out, John. Jesus related to all kinds of people without judging them or reminding them of the law. If you ask me, Jesus’ main thrust in nearly all of his teaching and example was getting at the motive behind a person’s action, and the only motive acceptable to Jesus was a motive of love for God and neighbor. That was the ultimate kingdom principle. He didn’t come to do away with the law because if a person is driven by love for God and neighbor then the law is already fulfilled without even having to mention the law. The law is fulfilled in the living of Christ’s teaching. But we somehow have to keep putting the law in face of church members. We read it nearly every Sunday (or at least, on many), as you, Albert, being from a Canadian church, know to be true. That (the reading of the law) is really a great invitation to visitors. Not. The Jews of Jesus’ day had all but lost this sense of motive. Ethnicity (pride) and a legalistic keeping of law had become the Jewish ticket. I could go on forever on this. The law is fulfilled when a sacrificial love (Christ’s love) is demonstrated. So I agree with you, John, at an individual level, we need to live amongst all people as Christ did. Of course that’s not easy. But Jesus didn’t say it was impossible. That’s how he called upon people to live.
As to the institution of the church, I also like what you suggest, John. There certainly is no reason to restrict the Lord’s Supper to CRC members. Such a policy definitely contributes to outsiders thinking the church is judgmental and superior. And certainly loosening the grip on the Lord’s Supper would go a long way toward young people feeling accepted and loved. I still see problems as to the institutionalized church.
I appreciate that you, Albert, want to see the church as a more inviting place for our own young people and for outsiders. You have a very difficult task ahead of you. For one thing, people are leaving the church in masses, as you say. The direction has already been set, and has been set for many years. It’s not easy to change a declining pattern. It’s like pushing a boulder uphill. People’s minds on the outside of the church have already been made up. The church is not a place that they want to drop into or be part of. For one thing, the formal setting of the church and church worship has little appeal to those on the outside. It seems to outsiders a thing of the distant past. Formal worship, to outsiders, feels archaic. To make this feel inviting won’t be easy.
Another thing you have to ask is, how many people are visiting your church weekly. If you have one visitor every other week (or less), that pretty well tells you that your community already has an impression of your church. And how will they know to change their impression unless people are already coming. How do you even get them in the door. People on the inside may recognize the change, but not those on the outside. Now Albert, this isn’t meant to be an insult. But I know you are up in the distant hinter lands of Canada. (I love Canada, eh) And you know that CRC churches are much more ethnic than in the states. It will take a long time for the Canadian CRCs to loose their wooden shoes. Non CRC people in Canadian towns refer to the CRC church as the Dutch church. And many people in town think the CRC church is an ethnic church for people of Dutch background. And, of course, this goes back to a much more recent immigration from Holland, post World War II (50s and 60s). In the past, and still in the present for many, the church has been a safe haven away from the world. People in your Canadian communities have felt this sheltering of the Dutch and exclusion of non Dutch for many years. So anything you do in your churches will not change the mind set of the community overnight. It will probably take generations. In the meantime, the organized church is continuing to decline. You have a difficult problem. So you better get on the stick quickly. That cloak of judgmentalism is not going to evaporate quickly. Of course a new church plant is a different story. They can begin without the wooden shoes requirement and begin with a much more casual worship setting that may feel comfortable to outsiders (no weekly reading of the law), and less formal restrictions, with an emphasis on sacrificial love for God and neighbor. Sorry about the lack of encouragement, but as John may have noted previously about me, I’m not overly encouraged by the organized church. Blessings to all.
Posted in: Judgemental
Good thoughts John. The only hesitation I would have would be making mandatory a public testimony of faith for a new professing member. A written testimony, as you suggest, could be a step up for some people, in lieu of a spoken testimony. Some have a heightened fear of talking, even reading, in front of people. The fear is no different for some people as telling a person who is afraid of heights that they have to dive head first off the high dive into a swimming pool. Getting in front of people, other than a few friends, creates real panic for some people. It has nothing with their sincerity and dedication to God. Otherwise, good suggestions.
Posted in: Hypocrisy
That is quite an array of statistics, Bev. I would imagine the statistics for women, whether in the church or outside, would not be nearly as alarming. Do you think there might be a reason for such findings? Is it just that men are generally scumbags and always have their minds in the gutter? Quite possibly there’s a reason and that should, at least, be taken into consideration.
As to psyche men and women are wired very differently. And this difference comes to expression in a host of ways. It’s why men tend to be the abusers in a relationship, or tend to be child molesters, or why the porn industry is aimed more at men than women. As to the sexual psyche, women are much more into building loving and lasting relationships. Men are more into immediate sexual gratification. And when I say this is part of the male psyche, it isn’t something that is easily controllable. It’s like natural instinct, the way men are wired. It’s not easily turned off, or maybe there’s not even an “off” switch. So men can more easily turn to pornography for sexual gratification, while at the same time it doesn’t do the same for women. You can take away the pornography but you won’t change the way men are wired or what they may visualize in their minds. I remember hearing a well known Reformed theologian comment on sin. He said, “if people really knew the thoughts that go through my mind they would be disgusted with me.” He was talking about sexual sin. That’s true of nearly all men. We’re wired differently than you women. It’s part of the male psyche and isn’t going away. You may think the Holy Spirit can change a guy so he will think pure thoughts and get his mind out of the gutter. Really. Just look at the statistics you gave for Christian men, which show a contrary message. The church can guilt the male members of the church, but guilt will just drive a guy into more hiding, as again your statistics show. So is this a problem that reveals hypocrisy in the church? Perhaps, especially if the church claims to be more wholesome than those outside of its doors. It is a problem both inside and outside the church, especially if it leads to abuse or unwanted behavior. But it is a problem that comes naturally to men. So begin with understanding, and then work on the problem from there.
Posted in: Hypocrisy
Thanks for the response Bev. I don’t think my first response was all that helpful in your mind. But I would still stand by the final comment in my response, “begin with understanding, and then work on the problem from there.” Understanding goes a long way in trying to tackle any problem, otherwise the solution may be completely misdirected.
Understanding the male psyche is very important in tackling this problem. That’s where the problem lies (in the male psyche), more so than in the growth of the porn industry. The problems you associate with pornography have been around since biblical times and I doubt that the porn industry has made it any or much worse. The problem lies within people themselves. The fact that men are more open to reveal their secrets today is probably due to the more open society that we live in and this has spilled over into the church. In the past, Christian men would have seldom (if ever) admitted to viewing porn. Young teenage boys in Christian families were severely punished if they were caught with porn magazines (which were always well hidden) or caught masturbating. The guilt inflicted by parents was enough to keep a young person from ever again admitting to a sneak peek at porn. The past still affects Christian men today (perhaps your figures are conservative). So whether pornography is available or not, the problem of the male psyche is still there. The natural instinct (psyche) for men is different than for most women. And this male wiring is not so easy to change, even among Christian men, as is obvious from your statistics. Men, more so than women, look for instant sexual gratification. That is why men can so easily fall asleep once that gratification has been met. Mission accomplished. Men are wired differently.
You mentioned being created in God’s image, but you have to remember the fall has greatly marred that image. The human race has not only been credited by God with Adam and Eve’s original sin, but he has imputed to all of humanity a fallen sinful nature that will naturally gravitate to sinful actions. All people come into existence with this sinful nature apart from their own request. The apostle Paul talks about his own enslavement to sin, apart from Christ, and thinks of himself as totally miserable and helpless to remedy his situation. His thanks is to Jesus Christ, because he has forgiveness in Christ, and can move on from there. Recognize that just because a Christian is forgiven, it doesn’t mean he won’t still have problems with his sinful nature. The record of New Testament writing is a testimony of how prevalent sin continued to be in the church after Christ. So whether created in the image of God or not, we are stuck with a sinful nature that isn’t going away. Men, for the most part, are still stuck with a male psyche that craves instant sexual gratification. And perhaps porn helps to alleviate this craving.
You mentioned that porn contributes to the objectifying of women/people. You do realize Bev, that all sin objectifies its victims. Whether it’s lying, stealing, gossiping, slandering or murdering, sin always reduces the victim to a level below the victimizer. In one way or another the person committing the sin does not respect or look up to his/her victim. So to accuse pornography of contributing to the objectifying of people, then it is no different than other sin. So you may be right, but that is not a special characteristic that makes porn unique and more heinous than other sin. The church has been more guilty than most in the past at objectifying women with the degraded regard that it has placed on women (the women in office issue or voting issue in the more distant past, the submission of women to men in the church and home).
You suggest if we are wired that way (helpless fallen sinners) then something is seriously amiss. Of course it is. But what will help in dealing with this problem? Begin with some understanding of the problem. Then ask what is the most constructive ways others have dealt with this, whether in the church or outside. What will lead to the greatest good for the greatest number. In the past (within Reformed Churches) church discipline might have been the answer, but (with the numbers) that isn’t likely to be helpful at all, unless a greater sin (than looking at porn) has occurred. Perhaps the church needs to do better at being an encouraging community, a place where sinners can still feel secure, rather than having a alarmist mentality.
You suggested, as leading to a cure, perhaps we are not listening to the Holy Spirit or have quenched the Spirit. What does that mean? Does it mean that in some mysterious way the Holy Spirit will step in and change hearts and desires, if only we pray correctly or appease his wrath in some way? I’m always a little mystified when Christians talk about the Holy Spirit, as though he is going to supernaturally break into our lives and miraculously make changes. In our circles, we often talk about primary and secondary causation. God is always the primary cause, but most often natural means are the secondary cause. We go to a doctor or hospital to deal with cancer and when healed, we thank the doctors. But as to primary causation we give thanks to God. Are you looking for the Holy Spirit to work in some other way? Do you think that if we offer sacrifices to God, as did the ancients, then we can appease the Holy Spirit’s quenching? God wants us to look for honest and realistic ways for dealing with abuse that comes as a result of porn or a fallen male psyche. And then give him thanks. So the church needs to put its thinking caps on, maybe even look over the fence to see what is working elsewhere.
What do you suggest Bev, for getting to the bottom of this problem? What are some good starting points? What might be a God honoring way to get us started? Sorry for being so lengthy.
Posted in: Hypocrisy
Hi again Bev, and thanks for your response. I don’t know if anyone else is looking in on our dialogue, but I imagine they could be wondering where each of us are coming from theologically. I’m guessing that neither of us fit perfectly in the CRC. I can tell you don’t. And because I know myself, I know I don’t. As to the Holy Spirit, I know for certain we are in two different places. My intention is certainly not to discredit you, at least hurtfully. I’m glad for your relationship with God, as I also am with mine. Both very different though. Which means we are looking at this porn problem differently.
Obviously, you are looking at this as a spiritual problem, and I’m looking at it more as a genetic or male psyche problem. There is no doubt in my mind that our male wiring is different from the female’s, and that’s in part what makes it difficult for women to understand the nature of the problem. Your husband and you may have had frank conversations that has led you, at least in part, to come to a conclusion that this is a spiritual problem and can be solved spiritually, whether through prayer or the guidance of the Holy Spirit. But then I would have to say, your husband is not typical. Certainly all men are not the same as to sexual drive, just as all women are not the same. But in general (and I mean a very large majority), men seek more of an instant gratification sexually than women who tend toward long tender, loving relationships. Women can almost be turned off by the thought of instant gratification, where that is not the case for most men. And that’s what the porn industry plays up to. It’s the reason that men are more drawn to porn and women are drawn to love novels. There are so many ways to explain this male psyche thing, but I don’t want to be offensive. I’m convinced that it’s not a matter of simply praying that God will take this desire away or asking the Holy Spirit to intervene and the problem would be gone. If that were the case, then God would have to change the male Christian genetically. I don’t think, even you, would want that.
Thinking this is a spiritual problem, creates the same kind of situation that “Christian help groups” have run into in trying to help gay people become straight. For some time, before realizing that being gay begins with a genetic make up that can only be changed by altering the genetics of a person (and that can’t be done), Christians thought a homosexual could be made straight by a commitment to Christ and through prayer. But now you realize that such Christian help groups have gone out of existence. They didn’t work. Now there are Christian support groups for gays, but they don’t try to pray these people out of gaydem. They support them and help them to cope. They teach them abstinence even though their genetic makeup continues to pull them toward same sex relationships. The church (at least the CRC) calls them to a life of celibacy while at the same time they have a sexual drive toward their own sex. To top this off, our churches call these people sinners if they act on their sexual drive which they didn’t ask for to begin with. You, no doubt, have read some of the horror stories of the torment some gays go through while being in the church. The reality is that most feel driven away from the church. Enough of that. In the same way, I want to assure you that men are different from women in their sexual drives. Genetically they’re different, like gays. If men aren’t turning to pornography to satisfy this need for instant gratification, then they likely have a great fantasy world. I don’t want to put you or your husband on the spot, but no doubt you have taken long driving trips. When things start to get boring you may ask him, “what are you thinking about?” And for most men, the answer will be “nothing.” Yah, right. I can tell you what he’s thinking about ½ the time, maybe more. Just asking the Holy Spirit to intervene will be no more helpful than asking the Spirit to change the gay person’s genetics.
Now here’s the good part, Bev. I have come up with some helpful remedies for the porn problem among Christian men. You may even want your husband’s comments on these. The first solution is castration. That definitely will remove the sexual drive. In past cultures, even in Biblical times, eunuchs (castrated men) were used to guard and protect a king’s harem. It has also worked well on dogs in order to remove their sexual drive. And I think it’s been used on repeat sexual felons. Jesus did say, if your hand offends you cut it off. And Jesus also did say, “For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 19:12) There you go, Biblical support. I think it could be an instant remedy to the porn problem, if you can get Christian men to agree to this.
Now a little less drastic, there has to be drugs that can be used to reduce or remove the sexual drive of men. If there are drugs to enhance the drive, there must also be the opposite. The military used to use saltpeter on its soldiers, until they found it was ineffective. This too may not exactly be a spiritual remedy. But on the other hand, I suppose a Christian guy might say he would do this as unto the Lord. Then all of a sudden it becomes spiritual solution.
Here’s another solution, and maybe this hits closer to home as to being a truly Christian remedy. The problem of porn among Christian men is really the female’s fault. Paul did warn the women of the church to dress modestly and to cover their heads. There is no doubt why he made these kind of comments. If they dressed immodestly it became a stumbling block to men. It was a form of pornography sitting in the pew in front of them. Today, Christian women dress no differently than women outside of the church. You and I, both, have seen some pretty provocatively dressed women in church. Short skirts and high heels are definitely a no no. Only turtleneck sweaters and they should be loose fitting, very loose. Maybe, better yet, the church should hand out large plastic bags with eye holes for the women to wear as they come into church. Actually, some of our Muslim brothers and sisters apply that very principle to their lives. You may have noticed that it’s only the Muslim women who are totally covered in black from the top of their head to their toes, including the burka with the veiled opening for the eyes. Along with doing this because of their love for God, they do it so as not to be a stumbling block to men, other than their husbands, by revealing their beauty in open company. It’s an awesome thought, but I would hate it personally. I love seeing God’s creative beauty in the variety of women I see everyday. I see a beautiful women and I say, thank you, Lord. But you can understand the Muslim concept in promoting the modesty of women in public. Should Christians follow suit and could the Christian community influence society by such practices? Again, I don’t think this would fly among our women. It would take a tremendous commitment to the Lord.
How about the Amish communities with their modest dress and separating themselves from the world and their worldly influences? Don’t they do this because of their love of the Lord and wanting to separate themselves totally unto the him?
Such approaches as these is taking very serious one’s relationship with God which include the desire to honor that relationship above all others. Or perhaps another approach is to simply pray to God and ask the Holy Spirit to remove this desire, despite being wired genetically in such a way that men have a strong physical attraction to women. What do you think, Bev? Maybe the prayer idea is better. Only it hasn’t worked yet, despite a lot of prayers that have been prayed. Let’s hear your thoughts as to a solution.
Posted in: Hypocrisy
Thanks Bev for your latest response. I think you and I may be on two different tracks as to the use of porn by Christian men. In my last response I did give some possible solutions to the problems associated with porn. Of course those solutions were given with tongue in cheek. But I was quite surprised by your response. To simply say those possible solutions represented man’s ways or our own understanding? Did you not see a kernel of Biblical truth in any of them? Of course making eunuchs of our men doesn’t make sense, even though Jesus himself commends the man who would go to such lengths for the kingdom of God. If nothing else it seems to say Christianity is radical and Christ would commend the person who takes drastic measures. Or to call a separated life style (separate from the world), such as with the Amish, nothing more than a human solution? Certainly there is plenty of Biblical warrant for the Amish perspective. Do you think compromising with the world could be part of the problem of porn in the church? The same goes for Paul’s warning to Christian women to dress modestly. When women of the church dress no differently than the women on the outside, do you think that might not send a message to our men that they can also compromise with the world? If women can’t take a stand for Christ as to their apparel why should we expect men to do any differently? These are more than man’s ways, as you suggested. I do think that Christians today still take principles taught in Scripture and ask if there is an application for our culture today. Especially if there might be an objective lesson, something Christians can act on.
But then as I listen to your further reply, I realize you are much more experiential as to your faith, and less objective. I’m guessing you tend to be more subjective and abstract in looking for answers. Maybe you’re thinking that if Christian men have the right personal subjective faith experience, then the Holy Spirit will take care of other areas of concern, such as porn. I’m just trying to get a handle on your perspective as to a possible solution to the porn problem among Christian men.
I still think the church has to begin with understanding. Men are and always have been more visual than women, whereas women are more relational. . It’s part of the male psyche, Where men enjoy porn, women tend toward romance novels. Even the Song of Solomon (Songs) plays on the visual attraction of the author (perhaps Solomon). Perhaps the statistics you gave are not so shocking as you suggest. You, at least, would expect men to be pulled more in that direction (the visual) than women. And perhaps some of those suggested remedies that I listed have at least a kernel of truth toward helping with the problem
Now I really wonder what you might see as a solution to the so called porn problem in the church. Lots of prayer has gone out, and so far it hasn’t worked, at least as of yet. I’m still at a loss, as to what a prayerful Holy Spirit driven solution would entail or look like. But if its just an abstract solution, then I think you are barking up the wrong tree.
Posted in: Hypocrisy
Good job Bev, on the subject of porn. Sounded much more concrete and objective than earlier responses. We may differ on some things but on porn we can find some common ground. As long as we don't throw out understanding as a beginning point. And yes, we are all different, one size does not fit all. What works for one, may not work for another. We need to look to our own heart and circumstances while asking what will be most effective for in my situation, and then trusting God to work in the choices we each make. Thanks again.
Posted in: Hypocrisy
You may be on to something Albert. But I think there is much more, as to why the secular world and young people look at Christians as hypocritical. It has to do with Christian theology, maybe especially Reformed theology. The fall of all humankind does not strike a compelling note to the ears of non-Christians. Young people and secular society do not want to look at themselves as scumbags in the eyes of God. They may have done some bad things along the way, but those bad things don’t characterize their life (as Christians might suggest). They are loving toward family and friends and are more than willing to help someone in need. On a scale of one to ten, most will think of themselves as a seven or eight. To be told that God judges a person only by their sins and not the good they may have done sounds way out of kilter. God created us as people, not as gods, why would he expect us to be perfect, especially when we don’t judge each other by such a standard? My wife is a great wife, as well as my friends and family. But God doesn’t think of them the same way? They are sinners in the eyes of God and therefore condemned? So when a Christian tells me I’m a sinner (even though they put themselves in the same category), it doesn’t win any accolades. It sounds as though this Christian is putting me down. Such a perspective on humankind (depravity) is a slam on people in general and on the individual in particular. So our theology, although true to the Bible, doesn’t help the Christian message win approval. The message itself sounds hypocritical to young people . It’s the natural reason, as to why Christianity, is not necessarily a slam dunk. Add to this what you have said, Albert, and it only makes Christians look more hypocritical.
Posted in: God Is Love
Thanks for your article, Larry, on the love of God. You are right when you say this is an overused statement. It’s overused not only by suggesting that many people and even many Christians don’t know how to define this love, but they also don’t recognize that God’s love in Christ is particular (a limited atonement). So what about those outside of the pale of the Christian faith, which is the vast majority of people. Does God even love them? It does seem as though Bill Wald has hit onto something when he suggests the “first person” pronouns of “we” or “I” indicates only those who are in Christ, or the “elect” or “chosen.”
It’s difficult to think of God loving those who have been chosen for destruction (Romans 9). In fact for those who are not the object of God’s love, he insures their destruction. We often speak of God determining, not only the ends, but also the means. If God has determined the means by which the chosen would come to salvation (election), he has also determined the means by which the lost would come to their destruction. He has credited the lost (as well, as the saved) with the sin of Adam. There is no way, anyone can claim to be righteous, even the newborn, for all have been credited by God with Adam’s sin. On top of that God imputes to all people a sinful nature, by which they can’t help but to sin. Paul talks about his own failure against sin in Romans 7. He says he is a slave to sin and an utter failure. And that’s the implication for all people apart from Christ. This sinful nature is given to all by God. On top of God crediting all with Adam’s sin and giving all a sinful nature, he gives a standard of perfection that is impossible to meet. As we have been taught from the Bible, “It is impossible to please God.” So God has determined the means (and insured) for the destruction of the human race. The sinful lost cannot even respond to the gospel without the Spirit's enabling. It’s seems difficult to understand why the sinful lost will be held responsible for their own sin, when God has determined the means by which they can’t help but to sin. Of course Paul criticizes anyone who would talk back to God or criticize his ways. God has a right to do whatever he wants with his clay.
So when God has determined the damnation of the majority of the human race, it is difficult to talk about the love of God flippantly. And even for those in Christ, who are to display God’s love to others, it would seem difficult to claim that love for oneself when Christians are no better than others at displaying love for God and neighbor. Just as the Old Testament Jews failed to keep God’s commandments, so also do Christians. So where does the assurance of God’s love come from, where is the proof of the Spirit’s working? This whole love of God seems very confusing to me (unless I should throw huge sections of the Bible away). Oops, we can't do that.