Disturbing Disconnect (Edited)
________________________________________________
A survey conducted by Christianity Today and posted in today's newsletter reveals some positively unsurprising statistics regarding Christian vs. secular perceptions of morality. But a couple of statistics distressed me greatly, as I hope they would you as well. Of those who claim to be "Evangelical" Christians,
40% believe extra-marital sex is not sinful, and
43% believe gambling is not sinful.
While there are other sin issues surveyed that 100% of Christians ought to agree on, these two are the most alarming. Though I will not deny the many shades of grey found in scripture, these issues are at best an indistinguishable shade away from black and white. It seems to me that these issues are blatantly obvious to true disciples of Christ. How then do we account for this abhorrent percentage of "Evangelicals" who condone these immoral behaviors? It seems that we only have 6 choices:
a) They are ignorant of scripture.
b) They are ignorant of the rules of logical reasoning.
c) They are inept at applying the rules of logical reasoning.
d) They are in a state of rebellion against God, the Holy Spirit, and His Word.
e) They are not genuinely Christian.
f) They are all much more competent and complex than I.*
But in case I've missed something that you have not, I'd like to hear your perspective. Be prepared to encounter significant challenges from the Word of God, but gracious ones. As my pastor says, "Disagree with me, but do it honestly and do it biblically." No playing devil's advocate. Be upfront with your intentions and I'll promise to do the same.
* These surveys were distributed via CT's online newsletter; therefore there is a very low margin of error with regard to whether respondents are indeed Evangelical, as CT is a distinctively Evangelical publication.
First I want to say that some may consider themselves "Evangelical Christians" without really knowing what that means. So that may explain some of the shockingness.
ReplyDeleteBut for those who would claim to take the Bible seriously, extra-marital sex should be a slam-dunk.
Regarding gambling though... Even though it is a practice I despise, I personally could not support that opinion objectively from the Bible. I guess according to you, then, I am "utterly ignorant of scripture."
I seem to recall hearing people support their anti-gambling stances from scripture, but I don't remember any of it being truly compelling. So I think we could all benefit from a little extra information, beloved.
You're at least as knowledgeable of the Scriptures and at least as smart as I am, Coreman. Do we really need God to say, "Thou shall not gamble," in order for it to be crystal clear from scripture?
ReplyDeleteI originally planned on inserting numerous scripture references for readers to meditate on, but decided against it for the sake of brevity, and to encourage discussion. So, rather than provide citations (which are collected and at my fingertips), I'll ask a question or three.
1. What is the internal motivation for gambling? If you say that it is different for different people, then what are all the plausible motivations? If "fun" or "thrill" is one of them, what makes it thrilling?
2. If I gamble with $1, is that the most fruitful way for me to spend that $1?
3. What principles concerning money management do we see in scripture that would affect our view of the morality of gambling?
You don't have to convince me that gambling is unwise or destructive.
ReplyDeleteBut the "Sin" label is non-transferable. It does not survive the deduction process. In other words, if you know that coveting and poor stewardship are sins, and you deduce that gambling involves coveting and poor stewardship, you might conclude, therefore, that gambling is a sin. But as I said, the sin label cannot be applied by deduction. Only if there is a one-to-one correlation between a clearly defined sin and the activity in question can you transfer the sin label from one thing to another.
Gambling may lead to sin, and it may involve sin, but it is not itself sin, because you cannot argue that it always leads to sin, or always involves sin. (Does anyone really play Penny-Ante Poker because they covet their friends' pennies?)
We need to view sin, by default, as an act of the heart. It can only break out of that mold, and into the behavioral world, by specific decree from God. If we do not have such a decree about a given behavior, we must be satisfied with the good idea/bad idea labels.
Because if we are not careful, we can risk becoming more strict than God.
I think I have addressed your first question, but let me say something about the other two:
2. There is nothing sinful about choosing the less fruitful way of spending your money. Is it a sin to buy an unreliable car, or give your money to a crooked charity? No, it's not sinful... it's just unwise.
3. We have to separate "biblical principles" from "biblical commands." Proverbs is full of principles and good ideas that no honest theologian would try to pass off as commands. Otherwise, Christian (and Jewish) women would go insane trying to keep all the "commands" in Proverbs 31.
I really wish that you would go ahead and quote your verses. Since you are accusing people of being utterly ignorant of scripture, you will probably need to make your point with scripture, not with logical deduction.
"Do not covet." (Exodus 20:17)
ReplyDelete"Dishonest money dwindles away, but he who gathers money little by little makes it grow." (Proverbs 13:11)
"Whoever loves money never has money enough; whoever loves wealth is never satisfied with his income." (Ecclesiastes 5:10)
"No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money." (Matthew 6:24, Luke 16:13)
"For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs." (1 Timothy 6:10)
"Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have." (Hebrews 13:5a)
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside you are full of greed and self-indulgence." (Matt. 23:25)
"For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.'" (Mark 7:21-23)
"Then he said to them, 'Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions.'" (Luke 12:15)
"But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God's holy people." (Ephesians 5:3)
You said that "gambling" does not always lead to or involve sin, but I say it does, for at least one of two reasons:
1. Gambling is motivated by pure greed, thrill (stimulated by the possibility of getting rich quick), or submission to peer pressure in social situations (caring more about what people think of you than what God thinks, which is a sin).
2. Even "mild" forms of gambling (penny poker) toe the line of sin, which is disobedient to God's commands to "flee from temptation", "be on your guard against all kinds of greed", and avoid potentially causing a weaker brother/sister to stumble into sin. "Testing God" is a sin, and because of its liability to become wasteful at best and destructive at worst, any sort of gambling tests God.
RE: sin as merely a matter of the heart, I happened to read the first seven chapters of Leviticus this morning, and stumbled upon these verses in ch. 4:
"When anyone sins unintentionally... he must bring to the Lord a young bull without defect as a sin offering for the sin he has committed."
"If the whole Israelite community sins unintentionally and does what is forbidden in any of the Lord's commands, even though the community is unaware of the matter, they are guilty."
See, sin is not just a matter of the heart, but falling short of God's standard of moral perfection in everything. We do have a moral obligation to be wise with our finances, time, possessions, knowledge, abilities, positions of influence, etc. Whatever measure of blessing has been bestowed upon us, we are measured by how faithful we are with those blessings. This is radical stuff. There's no doubt about that. Anything less than 100% surrendered, fleeing from sin as fast and as far as possible, clinging to and boasting only in the cross, living any element of one's life for any purpose other than the glory of God, is sin, because it disregards Christ's demands for ALL of our heart, mind, soul, and strength (that's a metaphor for "everything"). So, in that sense, acting unwisely is a sin. But it depends on what's at stake. Some "unwise" behaviors are simply so because they are likely to cause you grief. These are not necessarily (though may be) sin. But unwise behaviors that are so because they have potential to bring shame to the name of Christ or cause yourself or someone else to sin are most definitely and always sin.
Now is playing poker with poker chips gambling? Not necessarily, because you're not wagering anything of value. There is no temptation to "raise the stakes" financially... more chips are simply more chips. However, if you're going out with a bunch of guys, and one or more of those guys has had a problem with gambling in the past, playing chip poker may fall into the arena of sin, because you are making yourself a stumbling block to him. Sitting on the front at a basketball game right in front of the cheerleaders may not be a sin for you, but if you brought me along and wanted me to sit by you, then it would be.
If you want to talk about matters of the heart specifically, trying to walk as closely as one can to the "sin line" is an indication that something's wrong in the heart.
Thank you for posting those scriptures.
ReplyDeleteBut now you have a decision to make: Since I am aware of those scriptures, and they have informed my decision to consider gambling unwise, but not sinful, does that make me:
a) Utterly ignorant of scripture,
b) A rebel against God & His Word, or
c) A non-Christian?
Or is there a letter d, perchance?
d) A Christian who takes Scripture seriously, yet whose logic and personal conviction leads him to a different conclusion than you?
Beloved, the logic you use to identify gambling as a SIN is the same the people have used throughout history to call many other things sins, such as: moderate alcohol consumption, dancing, going to movies, shooting pool, wearing shorts, etc, etc. Now, I think all of these things are much better than gambling, but you have to leave room for serious followers of Christ and adherents to scripture to disagree with you on issues that are not SPELLED OUT in scripture. Why not just preach against the sins of greed, covetousness, and poor financial stewardship, then WARN people that gambling is highly representative of these sins? To state conclusively that anything is a sin which is not spelled out in the Bible as a sin is pure LEGALISM.
Also... when the Israelites sinned unintentionally, that would refer to sins of carelessness. Since the Israelites were made aware of all that is in the Law, it would not have made sense to speak of sinning out of ignorance, only out of rebellion, or carelessness... both of which are sins of the heart.
And unless you feel comfortable accusing me personally of a, b, or c, then I think you need to admit you were wrong.
You neglected to comment on my take on "unwise vs. unwise", so I'll leave that alone for now.
ReplyDeleteAs far as legalism and your list of disputed "sins", I'll deal with them one by one...
Moderate alcohol consumption- You know where I stand on that, and I think it is unwise (the bad kind) for any Christian, for reasons mentioned in my previous comment.
Dancing- Some types of dancing are sinful... sexualized types with persons other than one's spouse. "Legalists" don't know how to distinguish between these types and non-sexual types. Dancing non-sexually does not tempt others to dance sexually and therefore sin; therefore dancing as a general rule cannot be considered sinful.
Going to movies- Absolutely cannot be considered sin all of the time, but can be, depending on (a) the movie, and (b) the frequency. It is a sin to numb our souls to human suffering by saturating ourselves with violence, to numb our souls to sexual sin by saturating ourselves with stories and images which glorify sexual promiscuity, and to numb our souls to creativity by saturating our minds with "cute" film after cute film (see ch. 1 of The Divine Conspiracy). This is a sin of poor stewardship of the soul. So no, going to movies is not inherently sinful, and no, going to one movie is not going to tempt someone else to watch 15 a month.
Shooting pool- Not a sin, unless (a) it's in a bar, and (b) you or the person(s) with you have struggled with alcohol dependence in the past and could be unduly tempted to return. However, even in this case, depending on the recency of the addiction, going to a bar with a group of friends who are not drinking is unlikely to create an undue temptation to fall back into it.
Wearing clothing- If it's provocative (i.e. showing your boobs, accentuating your curves, barely covering your underwear, trying to make you look "sexy"), then it's sinful to do so. If it simply makes you look attractive, that's a different story. There's about 16" of variation in the length of shorts, and up to twice that much in skirts, so a "one length fits all" approach won't cut it. Here's a rule to live by: if its questionable, don't wear it. For ripped and cut men, they ought not to show off their pecks with skin tight shirts. They ought to be modest as well.
Any other etc's you'd like me to comment on?
You say that legalists don't know how to distinguish between sinful dancing and non-sinful dancing, and you conclude that dancing, in and of itself, is not a sin.
ReplyDeleteI say that legalists don't know how to distinguish between sinful gambling and non-sinful gambling (such as penny-ante poker.)
The rest of your explanations bear this out. Although I think gambling is the most destructive of these issues, essentially I believe it is parallel to them.
I continue to see gambling as not sinful... so I must insist that you tell me whether you accuse me of a, b or c.
Before I accuse you of a, b, or c, I have to accuse of you ignoring the pivotal point of my argument: acting unwisely goes against the mandate of God (Eph. 1:17, Eph. 5:15). As I previously argued, there's a type of foolishness (the opposite/absence of wisdom) that is sinful and a type that is not. It would be foolish of me to wear one red sock and one blue sock to school, if I was wearing shorts, and it was not "mismatch day" or "clown day" during homecoming week. And it would be foolish of me to allow Madelyn to go playing near a busy street without having a close reign on her. The former would simply be called "social ineptness", whereas the latter type could be called "neglect". The latter is the type of foolishness to which I am referring.
ReplyDeleteAnd since you are so convinced that I am just another one of the same-old-kind-of-legalist, I need to point out that you are guilty of relying on at least a couple of different fallacies to make your point:
1. Reasoning by analogy: "the logic you use to identify gambling as a SIN is the same the people have used throughout history to call many other things sins, such as..." I may have utilized the same logic they have, and in some cases applied it similarly, but not in all cases, and not in the same way or to the same degree.
2. Hasty Generalization, or Using Popular Appeal: "the same people have used throughout history..." You're putting stake in the fact that certain people argued certain things for a certain period of time and citing this as evidence that I am just another one of them.
3. Loaded Language: "Legalist". If you need an explanation for this, I'd be happy to provide one.
And though I can't accuse you of this yet, beware of another fallacy that lurks in the shadows: Denying a Valid Conclusion ["The fallacy of denying a valid conclusion occurs when an advocate admits or cannot refute the premises of an opponent yet denies the conclusion that logically follows from these premises" (Freely & Steinberg, 176). Emphasis mine.] In order to avoid being guilty of this, you must prove that (a) the aforementioned type of foolishness is not sin, and (b) gambling is not of this type of foolishness.
As for penny poker, You wouldn't have much of a game unless there were hundreds of pennies involved... then we're dealing with dollars. Even still, it's a snobbish and spoiled thing to treat money as easy-come, easy-go, however little it is. It is a luxury that the majority of the world does not have, and as such, it is an insult to them, and to God, who gave it to you. Besides, gambling with pennies deems one guilty of having "a hint" of greed (Ephesians 5:3), and of not "being on your guard against" greed (Luke 12:15). The meaning of these passages is "do everything within your ability to run as fast and far as you can from the potential of sin," not "get as close to sin as you can, but don't touch it." Furthermore, poker usually involves at least 3-4 people, and there's a decent chance that at least one of those people, if they're into any level of gambling at all, has the potential to be tempted to go "too far" with it. Therefore, your chances of encouraging temptation are very high. And even though your chances are not 100%, the fact that they are high makes you guilty of putting someone at risk for temptation, which as we've noted, is sinful.
Lastly, be careful that you aren't defending a particular point of view because it's precious to you, or because you're afraid of the implications of the other, just in case you happen to have something at stake in it. Just beware of the ways this might influence your conclusions.
Reference: Freeley & Steinberg, Argumentation and Debate
P.S. When we're through here, can we hug?
ReplyDeleteDon't forget that I love you as a brother. Love you, love you, love you, I do.
Of course, beloved... all in love. Even before the edited version, I harbored no ill-will against you.
ReplyDeleteI feel like I could sit here all night answering everything put before me. But I will not answer everything, because I am not trying to change your convictions about gambling (all evidence to the contrary,) just trying to get you to respect mine.
In regards to your own sin, I think you have broad latitude. It is certainly fair and good to consider all of your "edging away" from God's perfect will to be sin, as long as you don't plunge yourself into shamefulness and self-pity.
To apply this standard to others, however, is much dicier. As an accountability partner, or mentor, there is some room for it, if it is done in an encouraging, supportive and prayerful way. But I take very, VERY seriously the transmission of the word SIN, especially when preaching or formulating policy. I see it as a word that belongs only to God, and we can only use it in its pure, unmodified form. Otherwise, if we begin to trim a little here and add a little there, we have begun to redefine God's judgment, and are attempting to improve upon it. That is the essence of legalism.
So gambling is foolish. (By the way, in your post, you equate the belief that gambling is not sinful to the "condoning" of gambling. This is a fallacy, because choosing not to call gambling a sin is not the same as condoning it.) What is foolish about gambling? It is foolish because it brings about coveting, greed, wastefulness and sloth. There's four sins right there. What purpose is there in calling gambling a sin, if we all agree on those four?
This question brings us back to legalism: The Pharisees became guilty of it when they took the nebulous sins, like "not resting" on the Sabbath, and making them more concrete and measurable. You can't always tell for sure if someone is resting or not. But if you can codify that it's a sin to carry anything heavier than an egg... all of a sudden it's clear-cut. Judging others (and oneself) becomes much easier, and requires no soul-searching.
It would be a neat little solution, except that it wasn't God's idea.
The fact is that it's difficult to really know for sure when someone is being greedy, or wasteful, or envious. But if you can codify the sinfulness of gambling, you can really nail it! Either you're gambling, or you're not!
Nice and simple... just not God's idea.
By the way... you may want to know that I have NEVER gambled, have no interest in it, and have no close friends or family who gamble, either. So I consider myself reasonably unbiased on the issue.
After having taken a couple days off of the subject, and then looking back, I'm rather humored as I'm reminded of the fact that you and I agree on so many things, including this one, to such a significant degree. But we so love to debate the 0.1% of difference. You might find that annoying... I think it's plain funny, particularly in hindsight.
ReplyDeleteAgain, in hindsight, I wish I had framed my original post altogether differently. Wanna hear what I really should have said?
"Why do pollsters insist on asking vague questions that demand black-and-white answers? I wonder what the results of the survey would have been like if they asked: Do you view all gambling as void of sin?"
I have to admit, the way I read the question was, "If you had to choose between 'all gambling is moral' versus 'all gambling is immoral', which would you choose?" The way the question was actually worded was, "Is gambling immoral?" 43% responded that gambling is not immoral, which to me meant that they felt that no gambling was immoral; hence my reaction.
Does that clear things up just a bit? I'm really not interested in making anyone feel guilty about playing poker with pennies. I've played it with chips, which could potentially be viewed as "tempting" someone... but maybe not. I agree, OH, do I agree that we ought to name the explicit sins God spells out and keep from codifying the rest! In fact, I'm not even fond of the idea of codifying alcohol use. I think there's a very good chance Jesus drank alcoholic wine, as well as many (most?) early Church leaders. I would absolutely be guilty of adhering to "situational ethics". But, of course, I don't reason that just because it was OK then, it's OK now. Not intending to open that can of worms back up, just offering an example. ;-)
Peace.
P.S. I never received an email that you responded, so I just discovered this tonight as I was posting something new.