Sins that Are Not Sins that Can Become Sins

I recently read a blog posted and widely-liked on Facebook. It was entitled "5 'Sins' that Aren't Sins" (www.beliefnet.com/faiths/galleries/5-sins-that-arent-sins.aspx). I cannot disagree with the author, one Carolyn Henderson. In fact, I share her desire that believers walk in freedom and rest in God's grace. I suppose that Ms. Henderson writes from her own unique body of experiences just as I am responding to her thoughts from mine. My thoughts should be construed as no more than a cautionary note to this particular age of the church as I have observed it.

The 5 "non-sins" in question were: 1) Skipping Church, 2) Not Participating in Sunday School, 3) Thinking or Speaking a Negative Thought, 4) Just Saying, "No", 5) Disagreeing with Your Pastor (or other Leader).

My immediate reaction to the article was that there was a bit of the straw-man to the five entries. In thirty-plus years of ministry, I have seen the legalist marginalized for the most part. Few people today pay much attention to the old curmudgeon who insists that folks should be at church "every time the doors are open." Few people would take to heart the counsel that one must never say, "No," to a plea for help. Few people today would show much tolerance toward the notion that it is forbidden to disagree with a pastor. And, the idea of never thinking or speaking a negative thought has always been a bit of a fringe position, so I'll not address it in this article.

For as long as the Gospel of grace has been with us, factions have gravitated toward one of two extremes. The first is legalism, which utterly negates the whole concept of Christian liberty. The other is antinomianism, the practice of unrestrained freedom, that is, the exercise of freedom without that useful prerequisite of self-denial. It will always serve the flesh.

As I said, this age of the church does not seem to be overly plagued by the legalist. On the contrary, it seems more captivated by a comfortable Christianity that is not particularly disciplined at all. The cost of being a disciple and the path of the cross are not in vogue. In fact, they are often recoiled against as if they were some sort of "negatives" that bring people down.

Am I free to skip church? Sure, but is that the best choice I can make on any given Sunday morning? After all, it is the corporate worship expression to God of one local manifestation of the Body of Christ, that manifestation to which I belong. I have no more valuable place to be. The author suggests that Hebrews 10:25 is thrown around loosely. Perhaps. So, let us consider what it does mean, for I am sure that it means something.

"... not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near."

The book of Hebrews was written to believers in Jerusalem who were flirting with a return to Jewish ritualism as they faced the threat of persecution. To abandon the pattern of meeting together for mutual encouragement may have seemed like a safe thing to do, but it would not have been a wise thing to do. That author's point was that in view of the circumstances under which they lived, those ancient believers very desperately needed one another.

American believers today do not face the same degree of persecution as our ancient counterparts. Still, we are marginalized by the wise of this world. We are viewed as rubes for our stands on a plethora of issues; purity, sexuality, creation, morality, life. etc. From where will the encouragement we need come? Will it come from the world? Will it come from the media? Surely, educational TV will affirm us as we struggle to cling to God's truth? Obviously, we need people of like mind to remind us that God's Light is truly light, and the world's light is darkness.

Clearly, choosing to sleep in some Sunday does not constitute a pattern, but it does constitute a precedent, and a precedent is the first step toward establishing a habit. Am I going to call anyone, "Sinner!" who blows off a church service? No. That's well above my pay-grade. But, I will plead with anyone, "Don't allow such a choice to become cavalier."

On the matter of Bible School, it could be argued that its addition to the Sunday-morning schedule actually brings the worship of the modern church more into harmony with ancient worship, not so much in form, but in content. It provides a venue for the systematic study of God's Word. Some churches have retired the Sunday School in favor of other approaches to Bible learning. That's fine on paper even though the numbers of people involved seem to plummet when they do so. (That's not the empirical result of a study, so much as an observation from my little corner of the world.) The question for me is not, "Am I sinning if I don't participate in Sunday School?" Rather, it should be, "Am I engaged at all with others in the systematic study of God's Word?" The blog's author noted the Bereans who searched the Scriptures to measure Paul's preaching. They must have been in some sort of a learning network to effectively do that.

Is it a sin to say, "No?" Of course not. But again, my observation is that the ability to say, "No," is becoming quite easy for many as the church is becoming a much less generous bunch than it once was. We are indeed gifted in particular areas to serve the Body of Christ, but the argument, "That's not my gift" can become a cold and vacuous dismissal of Christian duty. We are servants. Servants serve. (See Luke 17:7-10).

In my years of ministry, I recruited many people. I never once played the Hebrews 13:17 card ("... obey your leaders ...") that the author of the blog suggested was a commonplace practice. The author rightly takes issue with throwing Bible verses around too loosely, so I was taken back by her own use of Acts 5:9 as a way of resisting being asked to do something. When Peter and John said, "We must obey God rather than men," they were being commanded to no longer speak in the name of Jesus. They were not being recruited to organize crafts at Vacation Bible School.

Finally, you are not sinning if you disagree with your pastor. The author cited the Bereans for examining the Scriptures to scrutinize Paul's teaching, which is good. Then, she suggests that believers read the Bible on their own to police the pulpit. That is valuable as well, but only so long as they are engaged in some systematic study themselves. After all, if a pastor is prone to error in his private interpretations, so is his critic. My advice is that disagreement with a spiritual leader should never be a kneejerk reaction. So many times when I thought I heard heresy, all I really heard was a different way of looking at something that was over both of our heads. Of course, there is a place for disagreeing with and even calling out a leader, but that cannot be a casual thing for it will inevitably become an arrogant thing. Often, conversation and clarification will prove much more fruitful.

Again, my point is not so much to be disagreeable as it is to call each of us to a point of thoughtful balance, for we gravitate toward extremes. In his own discussion on the exercise of liberty regarding dietary matters, Paul penned these provocative words: "... For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin" (Romans 14:23).

If a believer decides to skip church, there are no amount of words anyone can write to either indict or acquit him or her of sin. That is the risk God took when he granted His creatures liberty. Ultimately, I will follow my heart, which imposes on me a profound duty to examine my thoughts and motives, conceding how deceitful my heart really is. Am I making a God-honoring choice or a fleshly one? And, if getting to the bottom of that issue is too perplexing, then, I hope I would choose to err on the side of the spiritual discipline.