Printer friendly version

January 14, 2004

Making Repentance an Attractive Option

Michael Williams has directed my attention to a post that he wrote back in November (emphasis in original):

Why, then, do many Christians see homosexuality and homosexuals as particularly evil? Theologically, we shouldn't. The real difficulty, however, is that although most of us acknowledge the wrongfulness of our many lies, thefts, and boasts, many people deny the wrongness of homosexuality. Our culture glorifies many types of evil, but individually we mostly agree that greed, slander, gossip, and the rest are bad and that we should not participate in them. However, when it comes to homosexuality, many people argue that it's not wrong at all; and unless we are willing to confess the evil of our actions, God will not forgive us. We must be willing to submit ourselves to God's dictates on right and wrong, and we must be willing to agree with him when he condemns our actions.

I'll quibble with the statement that "God will not forgive us" in an addendum, but Michael's right on target here. Unfortunately, as our society currently stands, there are many who believe that it constitutes "hate speech" to say — privately or publicly, humbly or aggressively — to somebody, "Umm, excuse me, but I just wanted to make sure that you're aware that what you're doing there is a sin."

Michael's comments reminded me of Christopher Johnson's explanation of the difference between Peter, Paul, and Augustine and Episcopalian Bishop Vicky Gene Robinson: the first three repented. And that, really, is the point — even if we Christians lose sight of it from time to time. When it comes to the sins of others, our objective ought to be to lead them toward repentance, which is a tedious and often-lapsing process.

It is sometimes effective to snap people out of frames of mind through harsh reaction to their behavior. I'd go so far as to suggest that the extent of the invalidation of shame and stigma in modern Western culture has proven harmful, not only in the behavior that it lets slip, but also in the form of authority to which we appeal to address the problems that arise (e.g., expanding government). But homosexuals have, for the most part, already built a response to abrasive condemnation into their worldviews. They have made shamelessness into a fashion and stigma into a trophy. They are not alone in doing so.

So, even as we hold firmly to the lines that cannot be crossed — such as gay marriage — we oughtn't lose perspective about our goals and the best ways of accomplishing them. I don't have the answers, and I'm not voicing the caution in response to anybody in particular, but I thought it worth saying — if only for my own benefit.

ADDENDUM:
As sectarian subtext, the conversation represented by this post is between a Catholic, a Baptist, and an Episcopalian, so differences of belief about God's forgiveness may or may not be theological (if they are, in fact, differences of belief and not just differences of phrasing).

On the phrase "God will not forgive us," Michael linked to 1 John 1:9: "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness." However, taking into account the entire chapter, the emphasis is clearly on our action:

8If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. 10If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives.

Thus, I think it would be more accurate to say that, unless we confess, God cannot forgive us because we don't believe that we need to be forgiven.

Posted by Justin Katz at January 14, 2004 2:54 PM
Religion
Comments

Thanks for the link.

Yes, the exact process of God's forgiveness isn't necessarily simple and easily encapsulated, so don't take that one statement on the matter as my entire theology.

Posted by: Michael Williams at January 14, 2004 4:23 PM

Michael,

I apologize if I gave the impression that I considered that one clause to encapsulate your thinking on the matter. With the reference to our different denominations, I meant merely to qualify what followed — suggesting that it may or may not represent profound, or even actual, differences — because I really don't know.

I've amended the addendum a little to clarify.

Posted by: Justin Katz at January 14, 2004 4:33 PM