The Scripps Howard News Service published a story with the title, "Is sex outside of marriage a sin?" (The title may change in local papers.) Terry Mattingly interviewed me for the story a few days ago (after the Pew research was posted).
It's becoming more and more dangerous for preachers to use the words "sex" and "sin" in the same sentence...
"We have to recognize that our historic positions on sexual issues are becoming incredibly distasteful to more people in this culture and especially to our media and popular culture," said Ed Stetzer, director of the Southern Baptist Convention's LifeWay Research team.
"The whole 'Hate the sin, love the sinner' thing -- people are not getting that anymore. People do not believe that we mean that."
Right now, the gay-marriage issue is making headlines. But for millions of traditional believers in Christianity, Judaism, Islam and many other faiths, this issue is linked to a question rooted in religious doctrine, not modern politics. In a spring LifeWay survey, researchers asked: "Do you believe homosexual behavior is a sin?"
The results showed a culture torn in half, with 48 percent of American adults saying that homosexual acts are sinful and 45 percent disagreeing.
Considering the margin for error, this is a virtual tie...
These numbers are evidence of great change in the religious and moral views of many Americans, yet they also point toward familiar tensions between traditionalists and progressives. The Pew Forum survey, for example, again demonstrated a reality seen in recent elections. Americans who frequently attend worship services and say that religion is very important in their lives continue to take more conservative stands on hot moral issues in public life.
What about people outside the pews? That is where another set of statistics will prove especially distressing to clergy who sincerely want to defend what Stetzer called the ancient "one man, one woman, one lifetime" doctrine of marriage.
In the LifeWay survey, 32 percent of American adults said that their decision to visit or join a congregation would be "negatively affected" if it taught that homosexual behavior is a sin. That number rose to 49 percent among the "unchurched," those who rarely or never attend worship.
The issue of homosexuality does not, of course, stand alone, said Stetzer. It's getting harder for religious leaders to maintain consistent teachings about other acts and conditions that traditional forms of religion have, for centuries, considered a sin. This affects preaching on premarital sex, divorce, cohabitation and adultery.
"Ultimately, the modern church has failed to proclaim and explain a biblical ethic of sexuality," he said. "We also need to admit that the church has failed to live out the ethic that it's claiming to be advocating. If we are going to say that we stand for the sanctity of marriage, then we -- in our churches and in our homes -- are going to have to live out the sanctity of marriage."
Good questions and good insight, Ed.
One statement you made really troubles me, though. You said that people often hesitate to join/visit our churches because they don't believe us when we say "hate the sin, love the sinner."
Have we moved so far from Jesus's example that that statement is now true? I hope not. And, if it has, may God help us to return to the Christ followers He calls us to be!
"The whole 'Hate the sin, love the sinner' thing -- people are not getting that anymore. People do not believe that we mean that."
It's not just that they don't believe us when we say it. They don't think it's possible. There is no longer a gap between what people ARE and what they DO. If you DO a sinful act, you ARE a sinner. If your very being is defined by your action, and that action is hated, then it only makes sense to them that their being is hated as well.
>"Ultimately, the modern church has failed to proclaim and explain a biblical ethic of sexuality,"
Um, the modern Church did proclaim and explain the biblical ethic of sexuality. Over 1.1 billion Christians worldwide are already trying to live it and teach it to the other 5 billion inhabitants of earth. You can read all 129 sermons online or pick up the book in the Christian section of most major bookstores.
THEOLOGY OF THE BODY
Pope John Paul II
>"We also need to admit that the church has failed to live out the ethic that it's claiming to be advocating."
I agree. The sins of a small proportion of Christian ministers has done much to undermine theChurch's teaching. Perhaps, the phrase should be: hate the sin, love the sinner and the Church.
God bless...
+Timothy
One of the problems I have discovered is that, when discussing sexuality in the church, it is often primarily framed within the sin context. Yes, sin MUST be addressed, but the motivation for purity should be primarily based in the positives of sexuality and marriage, not in the negatives of sin. Sin, after all, is defined most by what it fails to be. It is a fine distinction, at times, but a crucial one.
As for "love the sinner, hate the sin", while the premise is good, it is a thoroughly difficult division to make practically speaking. I am a happily & healthily married Christian man who has lived with same-sex attraction for most of my life. First, even having not lived the lifestyle, many Christians failed to separate their reactionary disgust from me as a person. And second, from within the experience, same-sex attraction is very hard to separate from identity. It is difficult to feel as though you are being loved when the sin is being so thoroughly hated.
Again, it comes down to how we are defined as Christians. Are we first and foremost loving of people or are we hateful? Even if we are hateful of that which God hates, if that becomes our primary focus of energy, we have missed the heart of the Gospel.
Peace,
Jamie
Steve,
I think the idea is right, but the world is missing the point. They "hear" us saying we love the sinner, but they perceive we are hating both.
Ed
Timothy,
Good to hear from you. Although I would agree with much of John Paul II's writings on sexuality, there are some things with which I would disagree.
However, I do appreciate his moral stands and find that, as evangelicals, we are much closer to Roman Catholics on matters of morality than we are to liberal protestants.
Yet, I should say, having been reared Catholic, I can tell you that the biblical ethic of sexuality was no more evidenced in my Catholic past than in my Evangelical present.
Ed
Could it be because we act as if we hate both?
Richard wrote: There is no longer a gap between what people ARE and what they DO. If you DO a sinful act, you ARE a sinner.
Right. This stems, I believe, from incomplete and shallow teaching on sin. We tend to focus on the externals, the specific manifestations of our sin nature. As a result, we "rank" sins based upon the level of distaste that the external manifestation has upon us. Which is why we can tolerate a lying, especially if I'm the liar, but are repulsed by some other sins, such as homosexuality. When we see sin for what it really is, we CANNOT feel superior to any other sinner.