God vs. Facebook: Loving Sinners
We do not live in a Christian nation. But Christianity is still in our nation, in such a large and obvious sense that nobody seems to walk around without running into it, even if the collision is often a violent one. One cannot lurk around social media without running into memes and posts rebuking Christianity for being either too Christian or not Christian enough. One does not find the same posts rebuking Taoists for unTaoistic attitudes or complaining about the inconsistent conduct of Atheists. Christianity is still a very dominant force in our culture, if only for target practice.
Probably the most reoccurring complaint about Christians has to do with “loving sinners”--and, specifically, with the Christian attitude towards homosexuals. The typical comment runs along these lines--that is very inconsistent and even unChristian for Christians to hate and deride homosexuals. One reoccurring image is that of a Christian bludgeoning someone with a Bible. People often remind Christians that wants us to love people, not hate them.
I saw one such post the other day, and it reminded me rather suddenly of “The Chief Mourner of Marne” by G. K. Chesterton. The story revolves around two cousins of noble birth, James and Maurice Mair. The cousins had been raised together as brothers and had been close friends. However, sometime before the story actually begins, there had been a tragedy and Maurice Mair had died under mysterious circumstances. Due to certain circumstances, Chesterton's mystery-solving priest, Father Brown, becomes involved in the case. After a little digging, Father Brown discovers that the two cousins had had a quarrel (over a romantic triangle) which ended in a secret duel, in which James had shot Maurice. And since that time, James had lived in seclusion, apparently almost driven insane by his remorse. And so a group of James' old friends decides to come together and try to bring comfort and forgiveness to James Mair. Several of them make speeches about forgiveness and the importance of charity.
But given that this is one of Chesterton's stories, naturally nothing is really as it seems. In fact, as it turns out, the entire story of the duel was false or at least incomplete. The man living in seclusion because of his crime was not James Mair but his cousin Maurice who had pretended to fall in the duel so that he could catch James (the better shot of the two) at a disadvantage and put a bullet through him while he was off his guard. And when they learn the truth of the story, all the old friends who had been talking about forgiveness and charity, suddenly take the opposite tack. As one of them says, "There is a limit to human charity."
And this is Chesterton's answer: '"There is," said Father Brown dryly; "and that is the real difference between human charity and Christian charity... [I]t seems to me that you only pardon the sins that you don't really think sinful. You only forgive criminals when they commit what you don't regard as crimes... You forgive because there isn't anything to be forgiven... Go on your own primrose path pardoning all your favorite vices and being generous to your fashionable crimes... Leave us with the men who commit the mean and revolting and real crimes..."'
The world is quite right when it condemns the church for failing to love sinners. But we can't miss the perspective that the church believes there are sinners to love. There is a smug complacency in the perspective of the world when it condemns the church for their failure--and especially in the failure regarding homosexuals--which is problematic. The world (in theory, anyway) accepts and loves homosexuals because they don't think homosexual actions are wrong; the church believes such actions are wrong. I am not getting into the ethical side of the argument here. My point is simply this: there is no great value in the world claiming to love sinners when they don't actually believe the sinners have sinned. When they demand that the church be more loving, they simply mean that it should be more understanding and accept as right what the church accepts as wrong. In other words, they are making a big deal out of pardoning sins they don't believe are sinful and showing mercy to people they don't really think need mercy.
It is a grave mistake to treat either the World or Facebook as a homogenous substance. There are many different attitudes and opinions which comprise both. But it can be generally said that there is a profound contradiction in the attitude of the World in this matter--for the fact of the matter is that as soon as the World has gotten done complaining about the Church writing off sinners, it begins writing off its own sinners. The very people who post memes criticizing the church for being unloving follow it up with memes which are themselves unloving. I do not merely mean that they are often unloving towards the church which they view as unloving; nor that they are judgmental towards those they call judgmental. This, though ironic, is perfectly logical. The point is that the very people who will cry against the church for rejecting homosexuals will, the next instant, reject people for something else--for betrayal, for unkindness, even for simple stupidity. The question here is not even about loving our enemies, but merely about loving our neighbor and sometimes simply about loving our friends. I do not mean that there are no exceptions even among worldly people on this matter, but I do mean as a whole people who are very loud about the importance of loving and accepting homosexuals (who they do not truly believe are sinning) will also be very loud in denouncing anyone who they do find (in whatever terminology) sinful or even moderately annoying.
I do not say this merely to condemn the world--or Facebook. Criticizing either thing is a thankless task. However, I think it is important that we clearly understand the issue involved here. Christians have sometimes failed to love sinners. But it is because they view them as sinners. They have trouble forgiving their enemies, but it is because they view them as enemies. Some Christians are defeated in this area, but it is because it is a battle. And the point is precisely this: You do not learn to love your enemies by pretending they don't exist. You do not come to love sinners through naively denying the reality of sin. Forgiveness exists on the exact opposite pole from excusing. If you try this way, you will end in vanity and vexation of spirit. There are things in this world which cannot be excused, and if you think is the same as excusing, then there are things in this world which cannot be forgiven. So long as “loving sinners” means “loving people who aren't all that bad,” you will be helpless when confronted by people who really are all that bad.
Because Christianity does quite seriously believe in loving sinners; it does believe, as a matter of pure fact, that no one is outside the range of the love and mercy of God or His people; it does take a mystical and practical necessity the command to do good to the just and the unjust. It is quite true that Christians are sometimes in a strict and exact sense “unChristian”--that is to say, that they harbor attitudes which are derived, not from their religion, but from their natural inclinations and social atmosphere and which would be exactly the same if they were Buddhists or Swedenborgians. But that doesn't change what the Church does, as a matter of concrete fact, teach. And what the church teaches is that God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten son, not to call the righteous, but to call sinners to repentance. It is very easy for the World to belabor the Church for failing to live up to this doctrine. No doubt the Church often has failed to live up to this doctrine. But the point is that it does have that doctrine, and the World (by in large) does not. The World is very anxious that particular sinners be forgiven because they do not believe they are really sinners. But when it comes to things that nobody can and nobody will defend; when it comes to things that shock even the World with horror and disgust; when it comes to the cruel, revolting heart of the sin revealed without the disguise of familiarity or sophistry, the World does not have (even in theory) any reason to keep on loving.
But for the Church there is always a reason to go on; go on forgiving the unforgivable; loving the unlovable; touching the untouchables; and bearing the unbearable. For the life of the Church is the life of God, and the life of God is the mercy which endureth forever.
Probably the most reoccurring complaint about Christians has to do with “loving sinners”--and, specifically, with the Christian attitude towards homosexuals. The typical comment runs along these lines--that is very inconsistent and even unChristian for Christians to hate and deride homosexuals. One reoccurring image is that of a Christian bludgeoning someone with a Bible. People often remind Christians that wants us to love people, not hate them.
I saw one such post the other day, and it reminded me rather suddenly of “The Chief Mourner of Marne” by G. K. Chesterton. The story revolves around two cousins of noble birth, James and Maurice Mair. The cousins had been raised together as brothers and had been close friends. However, sometime before the story actually begins, there had been a tragedy and Maurice Mair had died under mysterious circumstances. Due to certain circumstances, Chesterton's mystery-solving priest, Father Brown, becomes involved in the case. After a little digging, Father Brown discovers that the two cousins had had a quarrel (over a romantic triangle) which ended in a secret duel, in which James had shot Maurice. And since that time, James had lived in seclusion, apparently almost driven insane by his remorse. And so a group of James' old friends decides to come together and try to bring comfort and forgiveness to James Mair. Several of them make speeches about forgiveness and the importance of charity.
But given that this is one of Chesterton's stories, naturally nothing is really as it seems. In fact, as it turns out, the entire story of the duel was false or at least incomplete. The man living in seclusion because of his crime was not James Mair but his cousin Maurice who had pretended to fall in the duel so that he could catch James (the better shot of the two) at a disadvantage and put a bullet through him while he was off his guard. And when they learn the truth of the story, all the old friends who had been talking about forgiveness and charity, suddenly take the opposite tack. As one of them says, "There is a limit to human charity."
And this is Chesterton's answer: '"There is," said Father Brown dryly; "and that is the real difference between human charity and Christian charity... [I]t seems to me that you only pardon the sins that you don't really think sinful. You only forgive criminals when they commit what you don't regard as crimes... You forgive because there isn't anything to be forgiven... Go on your own primrose path pardoning all your favorite vices and being generous to your fashionable crimes... Leave us with the men who commit the mean and revolting and real crimes..."'
The world is quite right when it condemns the church for failing to love sinners. But we can't miss the perspective that the church believes there are sinners to love. There is a smug complacency in the perspective of the world when it condemns the church for their failure--and especially in the failure regarding homosexuals--which is problematic. The world (in theory, anyway) accepts and loves homosexuals because they don't think homosexual actions are wrong; the church believes such actions are wrong. I am not getting into the ethical side of the argument here. My point is simply this: there is no great value in the world claiming to love sinners when they don't actually believe the sinners have sinned. When they demand that the church be more loving, they simply mean that it should be more understanding and accept as right what the church accepts as wrong. In other words, they are making a big deal out of pardoning sins they don't believe are sinful and showing mercy to people they don't really think need mercy.
It is a grave mistake to treat either the World or Facebook as a homogenous substance. There are many different attitudes and opinions which comprise both. But it can be generally said that there is a profound contradiction in the attitude of the World in this matter--for the fact of the matter is that as soon as the World has gotten done complaining about the Church writing off sinners, it begins writing off its own sinners. The very people who post memes criticizing the church for being unloving follow it up with memes which are themselves unloving. I do not merely mean that they are often unloving towards the church which they view as unloving; nor that they are judgmental towards those they call judgmental. This, though ironic, is perfectly logical. The point is that the very people who will cry against the church for rejecting homosexuals will, the next instant, reject people for something else--for betrayal, for unkindness, even for simple stupidity. The question here is not even about loving our enemies, but merely about loving our neighbor and sometimes simply about loving our friends. I do not mean that there are no exceptions even among worldly people on this matter, but I do mean as a whole people who are very loud about the importance of loving and accepting homosexuals (who they do not truly believe are sinning) will also be very loud in denouncing anyone who they do find (in whatever terminology) sinful or even moderately annoying.
I do not say this merely to condemn the world--or Facebook. Criticizing either thing is a thankless task. However, I think it is important that we clearly understand the issue involved here. Christians have sometimes failed to love sinners. But it is because they view them as sinners. They have trouble forgiving their enemies, but it is because they view them as enemies. Some Christians are defeated in this area, but it is because it is a battle. And the point is precisely this: You do not learn to love your enemies by pretending they don't exist. You do not come to love sinners through naively denying the reality of sin. Forgiveness exists on the exact opposite pole from excusing. If you try this way, you will end in vanity and vexation of spirit. There are things in this world which cannot be excused, and if you think is the same as excusing, then there are things in this world which cannot be forgiven. So long as “loving sinners” means “loving people who aren't all that bad,” you will be helpless when confronted by people who really are all that bad.
Because Christianity does quite seriously believe in loving sinners; it does believe, as a matter of pure fact, that no one is outside the range of the love and mercy of God or His people; it does take a mystical and practical necessity the command to do good to the just and the unjust. It is quite true that Christians are sometimes in a strict and exact sense “unChristian”--that is to say, that they harbor attitudes which are derived, not from their religion, but from their natural inclinations and social atmosphere and which would be exactly the same if they were Buddhists or Swedenborgians. But that doesn't change what the Church does, as a matter of concrete fact, teach. And what the church teaches is that God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten son, not to call the righteous, but to call sinners to repentance. It is very easy for the World to belabor the Church for failing to live up to this doctrine. No doubt the Church often has failed to live up to this doctrine. But the point is that it does have that doctrine, and the World (by in large) does not. The World is very anxious that particular sinners be forgiven because they do not believe they are really sinners. But when it comes to things that nobody can and nobody will defend; when it comes to things that shock even the World with horror and disgust; when it comes to the cruel, revolting heart of the sin revealed without the disguise of familiarity or sophistry, the World does not have (even in theory) any reason to keep on loving.
But for the Church there is always a reason to go on; go on forgiving the unforgivable; loving the unlovable; touching the untouchables; and bearing the unbearable. For the life of the Church is the life of God, and the life of God is the mercy which endureth forever.
Comments
Post a Comment