Some sins are worse than others

My friend Ed has a couple of good posts up on sexual sin. I love Ed's heart, and I agree with his conclusion:

In the end, my point isn't really to criticize the way churches or denominations deal with this matter as much as to say, why don't we try to find better more wholesome, more biblical ways of dealing with this, so that people and churches are restored and the Gospel is powerful in our midst. I'd love for all men to be able to be honest and vulnerable, knowing there is hope, there is a way out, and that they can and will find victory and forgiveness in Jesus Christ, and that it's not in keeping this area of their lives hidden and secret. That is my desire for all men.

Ed is right on. We don't always handle the sex topic well, and it's time to start talking about the fact that we are all broken sexually. Restoration is possible. Secrets don't help anybody. As much as I agree with Ed overall, I disagree with two of his arguments. Ed says, "Is one worse than the other - yes in our yes, but not in God's eyes, according to Jesus definition of immorality." I disagree. Some sins are worse than others, both in God's eyes and ours. Although the smallest sin makes us a lawbreaker, it's simply not true that all sins are equal. Jesus talked about the "greater sin" (John 19:11) and "the least of these commandments" (Matthew 5:19) and "the weightier matters of the law" (Matthew 23:23). Some sins are viewed more seriously by God (James 3:1, Luke 12:48). Jesus talks about an unpardonable sin, which implies that it is a worse sin than others. I hate dumping a whole bunch of verses here, but you don't find any teaching anywhere that all sins are the same. When Jesus says that lust and adultery are both sin, he's stating that they're both wrong. He isn't stating that they are equally as bad. One is the seed of the other. Anne Frank and Adolf Hitler were both sinners, but as Robertson McQuilkin writes, one is going to be judged more severely than the other. This isn't just a theological argument. We know this instinctively. Let's get real. Visiting a prostitute, abusing a child, or having an long-term affair is worse than having an impure thought. This doesn't have to make us more judgmental. Actually, it allows us to not make a huge deal over every issue. It allows for more grace. I want to go further than Ed did on one other issue. I think that certain sexual sins do make it necessary to step down from Christian leadership, at least for a while. It's pretty clear that if you're going to be an elder or a pastor, you've got to be monogamous. I know that this seems to make it harder for pastors to come clean, but it can actually help. I'm going to react to a pastor who has had four long-term affairs differently than I will with a pastor who sometimes struggles with pornography. In the end, I agree with Ed's heart and his hope. I think that making a distinction between the level of struggle actually provides hope, because I can come clean with my struggles without someone overreacting. We are all sexually broken, and discussions like this one can help to move us to a point when we're not shocked to know that someone else is struggling too.

Comments

[Peter]

I think your arguments are weak and you seem to be reaching with these references. I haven't had the time to research this topic, but initially, I do not agree. In saying that, however, I do seek the truth and NOT an argument. I look forward to learning something here. It's when my beliefs are stretched that my faith is strengthened.

[Darryl]

Peter: Sorry I didn't convince you. There are lots more references. McQuilken's book (Biblical Ethics) and Grudem's Systematic Theology cover this topic very well. I cannot find one verse that teaches that all sins are equal. It seems strange that so many teach otherwise, and common sense tells us the same. Anyway, keep thinking. I'll be happy to send you photocopies of the texts I mentioned above if you'd like.

[george]

Right on Darryl

[Liesa]

I'm curious, in mulling this post over, I wonder if someone could explain to me how we went from a polygamous society in the OT, to a monogamous society? First, quickly here, I'm not one that is for polygamy, I'm just trying to figure things out. Now, Far as I can tell, God didn't have a problem with Abraham having more than one wife, and He didn't appear to have a problem with any of the other patriarchs having more than one wife, which they all did. What happened, between then and now that we are taught it is illegal and against the law and a sin to be polygamous when it wasn't when the Law was given to us?

[Peter]

At the risk of arguing about useless information (2 Timothy 2:23), I want to keep my comments limited to what might be helpful to others. There needs to be an agreement of terms here in order to understand the scope of this debate. Words such as sin, consequence, punishment, and transgression (to name a few), need to be defined clearly. We must also agree on the purpose for which the Bible was written. Almost any thesis can be validated if the "message" of the bible is not brought into perspective. Without a law, there can be no transgression of the law, and therefore no penalty nor punishment. The purpose of the law is to show us our depravity and our inherent nature towards breaking it. This includes all of us, without exeption (Romans 3:23). The bottom line, the way I see it, is any one sin's penalty is death (Romans 6:23). The type of sin, and the frequency of sin would determine the degree of consequence, not the degree of sin. Even if the penalty of sin is paid for by Jesus Christ, the consequences remain (What a man sow's that will a man reap). Such consequences can effect others as well. In this way, a sin may be viewed as a greater or bigger sin. The following passage of scripture captures the message I'm trying to convey. Luke 13 "1Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. 2Jesus answered, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? 3I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. 4Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them -- do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? 5I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish."

[Darryl]

Peter: I agree with the substance of what you're saying. The reason that Ed and I have been discussing this is because we are dealing with real live cases of what to do with pastors who have struggled in this area. Your comments are good, but we still have to make very real decisions about what should happen with that pastor in that case. (I'm primarily thinking of a situation you're not aware of here in Toronto.) While we won't entirely agree on issues like the degree of sin and even the role of the law, I think we can agree that we need a more thoughtful response to these situations that will lead to restoration. Liesa: It seems that God's intention with marriage was that it be one man, one woman from the start. I think that Abraham and many of the OT characters didn't follow God's intention. God didn't seem to make a big deal about it, but Genesis 2 seems to present a higher view of marriage than they held.

[Tim]

Well, this has been a fascinating read for me, please feel welcome to agree or disagree with me. I look at it like this, regardless of station (if that be the case) then just being in heaven will be fantastic, regardless of which "level" But here's something for thought. Even though a "little white lie" is still a lie. But wishing death on someone is obviously not the same as cold, calculated murder. Scripture (paraphrased) states that lust of a woman in a mans heart is the same as adultery insomuch as there seems to be no differentiation between the two. All in all, sin (regardless of calibre) is still sin, and I believe there are sins worse than others, that is, for consequences of earthly punishment. But still, all sin leads to damnation, unless one is repentant and turns their sin[s] as well as their life to Jesus. Concerning lesser or worse punishment for sin? or, lesser and greater rewards in heaven? Well, scripture doesn't say that Cornelius was much of a sinner because he was a "just man" that needed (and recieved) the Holy Spirit. But Paul describes himself as the "chiefest of sinners" and yet wrote the majority of books of sound doctrine that the Christian strives to live by. Now, is one going to recieve a higher station in heaven than the other? I personally don't think so. I won't go into all details, but I've seen arguements over the true meaning of the laborers parable that Jesus uses in Matthew 20:1-16. Some strived all day, some since noon, and some only in the last hr's of the day. All recieved the same wage. The all day guys whined that they should have either gotten more than the others, or that the latter workers should have recived less. Then the master rebukes the inbittered workers that there was to be no quarrel.(praphrased) "Didn't we agree on the wages?" (they'd have to agree) "Then what are you griping about?" The great thing is, praise be to God, there won't be any whiners in heaven. I'm sure all touched by the Grace of God will be happy to be there. Now concerning the unpardonable sin? That's denying the Holy Spirit until death in which one has no more chance to recieve salvation. Well, to put it like I've heard it. "If you think you've commited the unpardonable sin, then you haven't" Thanks! Tim