Well, we've safely got past the problematic "liar and antichrist" verses in First John--at least for now--and have moved on to "if you are a Christian there is no sin in you but if you sin, it shows you belong to the Devil." WTF? One thing I've noticed is John likes to talk in circles and repeat himself a lot. He also likes to contradict himself, because earlier he says "if you say you have no sin, you are lying." So now what is it? Well, it certainly doesn't mean that if you are a Christian you can do what you want; but on the other hand, I think most Christians would be the first to agree that yes, that being saved doesn't mean that you won't sin. The consensus seemed to be that what John meant was that if you continue to live a blatantly unrepentant lifestyle it doesn't matter what you claim yourself to be, by your actions you are showing your true colors or true allegiance in this case.
But, what is sin? How do you define sin, and more importantly who does the defining? Sin, I learned, is not just a set of actions that displeases God, it can also be a set of attitudes. And this is where things turn very tricky. Now, I was brought up in a church that devoted a great deal of time and energy to spelling out just exactly what was a sin and what was not and whether they were major Go-To-Hell, Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Collect $200 sins or minor Spend Some Time in Purgatory sins. Evangelical Protestantism of this particular variety does not recognize the distinction between the two. According to its theology, stealing a bar of soap from a motel deserves the same penalty as murder. Because God is a just God. Really? Do I see Inspector Jarvert of "Les Mis" behind me nodding and smiling with approval? I am sure glad mere human justice is flawed and not the perfect justice of God. Because this God sounds an awful lot like a ruler of a totalitarian country to me. Now, for all you true believers, here's the $50,000 question. Did I come up with this "insight" of my own free human will or did Satan plant this idea inside the convolutions of my Aspergian brain? Because it sounds to me like John is saying that you are controlled by either one or the other. Yes, you have free will, but you are only free to chose to be controlled by A or B.
I find it interesting that we can sit there and discuss how distortions about what is sin and what isn't sin have crept into Christianity yet completely fail to discuss how those distortions arise in the first place. That we fail to see how such verses can be and have been used as mind control. If sin is an attitude, if "rebellion is from the evil one" as one of my spiritual "mentors" used to put it, then what is to prevent the next step to being "if you disagree with me, you are allied with the evil one." I did not bring up the man who was excommunicated for adultery, but it has been weighing heavily on my mind. Not that I approve of adultery, but he had no chance to make his case. Maybe he didn't know it was wrong? Or maybe, he took a certain sermon on "you don't have to obey the law if you are a Christian" to heart and didn't realize Pastor didn't really mean it that way? It is the way it was done that I find scary. He had no chance to defend himself, in fact, he had voted with his feet months ago. So why make it public? Because it was meant to send a message to the rest of us, and because it was all done Scripturally, no one could really object, lest they find themselves the center of unwelcome attention. Well, I do not want to belong to a group that keeps its members in line through intimidation. And it was intimidation, pure and simple.
So now I am breathing the pure air of Unitarianism-Universalism. Why am I still with this group? Because our interim pastor said last Sunday that we should build bridges to other religious congregations, that they have something to offer.
But, what is sin? How do you define sin, and more importantly who does the defining? Sin, I learned, is not just a set of actions that displeases God, it can also be a set of attitudes. And this is where things turn very tricky. Now, I was brought up in a church that devoted a great deal of time and energy to spelling out just exactly what was a sin and what was not and whether they were major Go-To-Hell, Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Collect $200 sins or minor Spend Some Time in Purgatory sins. Evangelical Protestantism of this particular variety does not recognize the distinction between the two. According to its theology, stealing a bar of soap from a motel deserves the same penalty as murder. Because God is a just God. Really? Do I see Inspector Jarvert of "Les Mis" behind me nodding and smiling with approval? I am sure glad mere human justice is flawed and not the perfect justice of God. Because this God sounds an awful lot like a ruler of a totalitarian country to me. Now, for all you true believers, here's the $50,000 question. Did I come up with this "insight" of my own free human will or did Satan plant this idea inside the convolutions of my Aspergian brain? Because it sounds to me like John is saying that you are controlled by either one or the other. Yes, you have free will, but you are only free to chose to be controlled by A or B.
I find it interesting that we can sit there and discuss how distortions about what is sin and what isn't sin have crept into Christianity yet completely fail to discuss how those distortions arise in the first place. That we fail to see how such verses can be and have been used as mind control. If sin is an attitude, if "rebellion is from the evil one" as one of my spiritual "mentors" used to put it, then what is to prevent the next step to being "if you disagree with me, you are allied with the evil one." I did not bring up the man who was excommunicated for adultery, but it has been weighing heavily on my mind. Not that I approve of adultery, but he had no chance to make his case. Maybe he didn't know it was wrong? Or maybe, he took a certain sermon on "you don't have to obey the law if you are a Christian" to heart and didn't realize Pastor didn't really mean it that way? It is the way it was done that I find scary. He had no chance to defend himself, in fact, he had voted with his feet months ago. So why make it public? Because it was meant to send a message to the rest of us, and because it was all done Scripturally, no one could really object, lest they find themselves the center of unwelcome attention. Well, I do not want to belong to a group that keeps its members in line through intimidation. And it was intimidation, pure and simple.
So now I am breathing the pure air of Unitarianism-Universalism. Why am I still with this group? Because our interim pastor said last Sunday that we should build bridges to other religious congregations, that they have something to offer.
