Sin and Sinner

The rule-of-thumb we always hear seems a good one: "Hate the sin, but love the sinner." I'd take that as the governing attitude of Christian practice: possibly even an absolute for Christians' relationship to other people.

I've been musing on a related question: not our relationship to a sinner, but a sinner's relationship to his sin. Wondering especially if sin and sinner can always be regarded as discrete entities.

This wisdom of God's power in free will being as sovereign as He IS, I'd hesitate to say that any human being...even a Nero or Hitler...is ever completely unable to turn away from, and separate himself from, his sin. I'm convinced deathbed conversions do happen.

At the same time, we know that anyone who devotes his life completely to a sin has so ingrained it in his being, in all his patterns of thought and behavior, that it is almost impossible for him to think of, much less act, any other kind of life. The fact that a rare few do is only by the mercy of God...Who rules over near-, as well as absolute, impossibilities.

But there does seem to be a line that can be crossed. Scripture is very clear, for example, that God hates pride...a sin. At the same time, scripture denotes some people as "the proud:" as if their behavior (and it's always a matter of what people do) so manifests pride that the sin virtually becomes the identity of the sinner.

It's a frightening fact of the freedom of free will. As C. S. Lewis wrote in The Great Divorce, "All that are in Hell, choose it." I see that frightening freedom as well in what II Thessalonians 2:10b says of those who follow the end-time's man of lawlessness, calling them "...those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved." Love of truth can be received: it can also be rejected.

That verse sends me back again to the matter of identity. When I read in scripture the words "the truth," I have to understand it as meaning "Jesus:" since He so identified Himself. Here, then, those who perish, perish because they choose not to receive the love of Jesus' Person. By His "I AM...The Truth," He claims that "The Truth" is His identity.

The enemy in this passage also has an identity, "the man of lawlessness;" as if so completely of that character that it is the sum of who he is. That identity makes sense in this context: lawlessness is rebelliousness, and satan has constituted himself the great cosmic rebel against God's authority and rule. Who else could the end-time's deceiver be ?

We all sin, and have sins to our (dis-)credit. But I think most of us can ask God forgive our sins with the wise words a friend of mine prays: "Father, please forgive me my sin. You know my heart, and you know that's not me." (my emphasis) We pray as if we fear so identifying with our sin that it becomes our very being.

Where Are the Disciples ?

Re-reading J. I. Packer's Knowing God, and enjoying again its great practicality. He's not writing theology, Packer is quick to point out. Nor does he intend to feed our curiosity about God, which we too often try to substitute for knowing Him.

Rather, Packer writes commonsense of what it means to know God, and how a man can know Him.

"Practicality" and "commonsense" are the tip off. Knowing God is an action; and not a reflex-action. Knowing God is the choice of a free will...which God has given us in preparation.

Choice has been looming larger and larger in my thinking of late. It seems more and more that everything is, particularly in our spiritual being. It rings true for me, as C.S. Lewis said, that everyone in hell, chooses it. Even moreso, that all who know God, choose to.

Choice is a function of directed intentionality. It's a good definition of "discipline."

In language as in life, "disciple" comes from "discipline." A disciple sets his intentions on Jesus. There's no other way to know God.

Christians' "Rights"

The beloved brother Rick Frueh recently posted the following on his "Following Judah's Lion" blog:

“Let the government refuse to allow a nativity scene in front of some government building and Christians complain loudly and clothe themselves in martyrs’ robes. Beside the fact that Christmas is an idol, and beside the fact that not allowing a nativity scene is not persecution… how can people complain, when Jesus Himself said we should rejoice in the face of persecution?

We watch our Savior suffer for us but we are unwilling to receive the slightest disrespect ourselves.”


Thinking through the question many years ago, it seemed that what we call "rights" are quintessentially "entitlements:" treatment we deem we are entitled to. An added benefit of framing "rights" in those terms is that it shocks the Political-Christianity thinking of our nation and time, which despises "entitlements:" in their terminology, government help given to people (they consider) unworthy of mercy, such as the unemployed, poor, disabled, or non-citizens.

Rick's post highlights another aspect of "rights." Inherent in the concept is respect we deem we are entitled to.

In both facts, "rights" are clearly rooted in our self-concept, with accent on "Self." Not a mindset Christians can indulge and still follow Jesus.

And He is the best argument I know against Christians' "rights:" what entitlement did the Suffering Servant claim for Himself ? What respect did He demand that He be accorded ?