The Tragedy of Moralism
Culture breaks when we play God and condemn or condone others for their sin.
I have regularly seen videos on YouTube of various laypersons or pastors going out and trying to have convincing conversations with so-called “Christian” LGBTQ+ supporters. One really interesting thing to be noticed is that the conversation is never resolved and both sides walk away from the conversation feeling more indignant and more convinced that they are right and that the other party/person is wrong. This should not be the goal, and it seems surprisingly hypocritical to me to see both sides essentially shun each other while both completely missing the target. But how did we get here? How did we end up with a society so torn over whether to harshly condemn or be overtly acceptant and condone such sin as if those two things are the only options available to choose from? The reality, once again, lies in between - or actually very far away from both of these views.
The first thing that we should notice is the words that both sides use. In these conversations we get to hear love grossly misused in two different ways - either to publicly condemn sinners thinking that this is a loving crusade that God calls us to pursue or to condone sin. Just as it is both wrong for a parent to harshly punish a child to the point that it becomes abuse or to totally condone their behavior and neglect discipline, both of these sides presented here are also wrong. The answer lies in understanding how God would have us treat other sinners who are completely like us in every single way. Both sides get too high and mighty and full of themselves. Both sides are “prideful” - one of sin and the other in a Pharisaical manner being prideful of their own commitment to high morals and not being sinners “like all these LGBTQ folks” (essentially quoting the Pharisee in Jesus’ parable about the penitent tax collector). Rather than approaching sinners as if we are angels or standing in God’s place, we should approach sinners as sinners ourselves. It is not our place to play God and condemn or condone the sinner as fellow sinners. Rather, we ought to relate to the person that we are likewise sinners and just as sinful as them.
Here we see that both sides have unlike this, established their own morals - one of absolute condemnation and one of absolute acceptance. Both are wrong, but we should specifically note that the one Jesus specifically spent much of His time trying to correct was the former which was assumed by the Pharisees of His time. This is because these individuals become so heartless that they shrug off their flaws in the name of crusading against the supposed greater flaws - they neglect their own sin and thus become the greater sinner of which they attempt to project onto the individuals around them. We should notice that Jesus responds somewhat harshly to the ones who think of sin but lightly and see themselves through rose-tinted glasses. This is because Jesus loves these individuals - He loved the Pharisees and wanted them to see the sin inside of themselves - He wanted them to see that they were just as broken and in need of a Savior as the sinners - the tax collectors, adulterers, drunkards, etc. that they condemned. However, for the ones who understand their sin and utmost need, He swoops in with His sweet saving grace. He doesn’t overlook the individual's sinful nature - He doesn’t give them a free pass to sin. Rather He brings comforting words, such as those spoken to the Adulteress - “Not one of them has condemned you… Neither do I condemn you.” Yet, notice that He doesn’t condone the sin when He says after this to the woman, “Go and sin no more.”
Yes, there is a need for repentance above all. Yet, this goes for both sides - both parties in this messy argument who are both equally wrong are in need of recognizing that they must repent and recognize their need for their Savior, Jesus. If we do not have sorrow over our sins, then why do we need a Savior? Jesus, in such a case, essentially becomes a role model who died for the most ridiculous reason ever. If Jesus is just a role model and we are still under the condemnation of the Law which we cannot fulfill, well, God help us! The Law is not for us to fulfill - Christ fulfilled it in our place! We are set free from slavery to sin through the Law. Yet, despite Christ’s fulfillment of the Law, it does not mean that the Law is now condemned and to be neglected and ignored. The Law rather becomes a blueprint - a guide - for how we ought to better love others. It doesn’t mean that we’ll be perfect, but it does mean that as Christians, we will bear fruit that comes from the fulfillment of these commandments as we now have the power to do such through Christ’s perfection. These works don’t come from our own human will or corrupt, sinful nature - they rather come from the perfect God which lives inside of us through His Holy Spirit.
This is the danger of the position of the modern-day Pharisees in our society - we have to apply what we practice to ourselves, and if we apply this position to ourselves, we are lost and condemned in every way that we have condemned others. Both sides overlap in the notion that “we must fulfill the commandments” in order to “receive reward” (whether that be earthly or heavenly). But this is insane! Christ has already fulfilled these in our place (what we couldn’t fulfill on our own). Why would we willingly choose to become slaves to the Law again? However, a different type of danger also lies within the position of those who are quick to condone sin. If we don’t recognize our sin, what good is it? What good does the Bible even do? Why did Jesus needlessly die for sinners who evidently don’t need a Savior? The thing is, if we’re just going to take this approach, we might as well throw the Bible out of the window and thus avoid condemnation under the charge of blasphemy. Our consciences already have all that we need to understand how to love our neighbor (even though we often and regularly neglect to do so).
So how do we reach out to both sides? Well to those who condone sin, we must show that this is a house of cards (or glass house, if you will) that I don’t think anyone would like to live in. If we are going to condone sexual sins, what prevents us from condoning other sexual sins that are currently condemned in our society? What prevents us from normalizing and legalizing the murder, robbery, and abuse of others? It’s a slippery slope that essentially leads to total anarchy in which no one is a sinner and no one is forgiven. This redirection to show that these individuals need to be conscious of their sin need not be harsh, thus emboldening them in their views. Rather it should be approached gently, carefully, and relevantly as so to relate to them that we are also equally as sinful and in the same condemnation as any other person apart from Christ. On the other hand, to those who are too quick to condemn other’s sins and negligent of their own, they must be redirected to the very words that Christ spoke on many occasions to the Pharisees. They need the shock to see that they are just as sinful, terrible, and truly awful to the core as the very people they are condemning and crusading against. They must be shown that their teachings lead to total authoritarianism where everyone is a sinner and no one is forgiven.
This all leaves us with what’s in between. Not morals. Not the Law. Not condemnation. But rather, above all else, the Gospel. The Gospel is where everyone is a sinner. However, the Gospel is also where everyone is forgiven, and thus everyone is a saint. We must remember, that repentance and faith do not come from our own sinful hearts and weak human will - it comes from God as a gift. With this, we can truly understand each other’s needs. In this, we can stand firmly, fully relying on God our Savior and not on our own understanding or good works.