Sin List

Many believe the Bible is the guide to Christian ethics. The problem is, the Bible takes a lot of time talking about stories, grace, Jesus, and stuff, and doesn't really give us enough of what we should be doing to make us Christians. So what are the Christians who want to be a cut above, who want to earn a few more merits, supposed to do to earn those points?


One respected influencial Christian leader gives as guide for Christian ethics (when you have all the ethics from the Bible down): " if I were to be doing [something, and] somebody would stumble over it, I don’t do it"? This leader was giving us an interpretation of Romans 14:21, which talks about not making a brother stumble. The passage is talking about wine and meat eating, but with his interpretation this can be extended to everything, since in fact he was saying this of Card Playing. [note: this leader is a bit of a hypocrite on this though since he does take his interpretation to the point of abstention from wine but not vegetarianism]


This interpretation of "stumble" means that, basically, if a group of Christians think something is a sin, it becomes a sin for everyone, because someone would "stumble" over it. Jackpot! So, I would like to keep a list, so that fellow Christians can know what they are not allowed to do, consume or think, because a group of Christians think it is a sin. And remember, Joy in Christ!:


Play Cards

Eat Pork

Eat Meat

Watch Star Wars

Drink Caffeine

Practice Psychology

Take Psychiatric drugs

Proselytize Jews

Watch Cartoons

Engage in War

Dance

Have sex, (at all)

Celebrate Easter

Celebrate Halloween

Celebrate Christmas

Drink Alcohol

Listen to Rock Music

Observe the Sabbath

Not observe the Sabbath

Go to the movies

Swimming with the opposite sex


This is not comprehensive, in fact I would encourage others to help [with a website], so we make sure we have every doctrine of man here, so as not to offend or cause anyone to stumble, and along the way, give ourselves grounds for boasting!

[By the way, yes this is sarcastic and a break from my fast of not criticizing Christian leaders. And if it seems negative, I have already stated briefly what my philosophy of ethics is here. But in short, "stumble" in the Bible is not just doing something that someone else decided is bad.]

McGrath's Dangerous Idea?

Alister McGrath's new book "Christianity's Dangerous Idea" on the Reformation has been getting some positive buzz lately (here and here). After listening to a recent interview with McGrath (mp3) McGrath repeats something I first heard him say on a documentary on Luther. McGrath summarizes the "Dangerous Idea" as this: The Reformation was about the right of every individual to interpret the Bible for themselves. Now McGrath is 1000 times smarter than me and has been a Luther scholar for longer than I have been alive, but that summary bothers me. Wouldn't that make Luther the father of Liberalism that says "it is all about what it means to you, rather than an objective meaning."

Paul Althaus, a Lutheran scholar, said: “Luther never understands the priesthood of all believers merely in the sense of the Christian's freedom to stand in a direct relationship to God without a human mediator. Rather he constantly emphasizes the Christian's evangelical authority to come before God on behalf of the brethren and also of the world. The universal priesthood expresses not religious individualism but its exact opposite, the reality of the congregation as a community.”

Has anyone read the book yet? Am I getting the wrong conclusion from McGrath? Or is he right about Luther's individualism?

[I've loved McGrath's contributions to a theology of science and spirituality, where evangelicals are lacking, which is why he is distressing me here!]

Liberty vs Liberalism and Legalism

Having attended a Reformed church for 6 months now, I can honestly say there are dozens of things I find refreshing and challenging there, especially in comparison to the evangelical alternatives in Dallas. We visited many churches and either found their theology noodle-like in trying to be hip and modern (i.e. they were liberal without knowing it) and churches that seemed like a Christian frat gone horribly wrong, with a legalistic, super accountability, call-you-out-for-not-following-our-rules mentality. The Reformed tradition has a happy balance of combating both liberalism and legalism. Though practiced by my Reformed church, a great explanation of the needed resistance to legalism came from our DTS Chancellor Chuck Swindoll (here):

"I think legalism begins when you do or refrain from doing what I want you to do or not do because it's on my list and it's something that I am uncomfortable with....The problem with legalists is that not enough people have confronted them and told them to get lost. Those are strong words, but I don't mess with legalism anymore. I'm 72 years old; what have I got to lose? Seriously, I used to kowtow to legalists, but they're dangerous. They are grace-killers. They'll drive off every new Christian you bring to church. They are enemies of the faith. Other than that, I don't have any opinion!"

Our church adheres to the Westminster Confession, which explains Christian Liberty as such:

God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in any thing contrary to his Word, or beside it in matters of faith or worship. So that to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience; and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.

Continuing:

They who, upon pretense of Christian liberty, do practice any sin, or cherish any lust, do thereby destroy the end of Christian liberty; which is, that, being delivered out of the hands of our enemies, we might serve the Lord without fear, in holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life.

Godspeed battling on both fronts against liberalism and legalism.