revmarple

One of the most common misconceptions of Christians, including those who describe themselves as evangelicals, is that all sins are equal.  This is an unexamined position on the part of most, in that they have not stopped to think about how it does not square with reality -- everyone knows that committing murder is worse than stealing, for example.  To be sure, not everyone will agree all of the time about what sins are worse than others.  But as Christians we should let the Spirit speak through the Scriptures as to such details.

Now what most Christians mean when they say that all sins are equal is that all make us guilty before God and for any sin we need Jesus for salvation.  This is true.  As the Westminster Shorter Catechism puts it, "Every sin deserves God's wrath and curse, both in this life, and that which is to come" (84).  However, the question and answer before this is: "Are all transgressions of the law equally heinous?  A. Some sins in themselves, and by reason of several aggravations, are more heinous in the sight of God than others" (83).  If every evangelical had been schooled in the Westminster Shorter Catechism they would not fall into the trap of saying that all sins are equal and letting that bleed over into their everday discourse and practice.  This is not just nitpicking but a very important theological distinction that makes a huge difference in everyday life.

This principle has come up in some of my previous posts including one on sex and marriage in Genesis.  Those sins in Scripture that are the most serious are ones that are called things which quite simply ought not to be done (cf. Gen 20:9 "You have done to me things that ought not to be done," Gen 34:7 "he had done an outrageous thing in Israel...for such a thing must not be done," Rom 1:28 "to do what ought not to be done") or things "contrary to nature" (Rom 1:26).  In fact, the sins of the Ten Commandments (cf. this post) are in the order of severity starting with the most heinous sin.  This gets at the point that some sins in themselves are more heinous in the sight of God than others.  Each of the Ten Commandments covers a category of sin and even within the category there are some things that are clearly worse than others ("you shall not murder" includes hating your brother, but it is clearly worse if you actually physically kill him).

Another way that some sins are worse than others are what we might call aggravating factors, following the catechism's language of "by reason of several aggravations."  The Larger Catechism (151) spells out some of these aggravations.  The first is, "From the persons offending: if they be of riper age, greater experience or grace, eminent for profession, gifts, place, office, guides to others, and whose example is likely to be followed by others."  So, for example, if you are an elder (by age or experience or office) that would be an aggravating factor that makes the sin worse.  Another aggravating factor is whether the sin is "immediately against God."  This actually fits quite well with the observation that the Ten Commandments are in order of severity starting with the most heinous sin -- stated negatively -- having another God in the presence of the true God.  This is part of the second category of aggravations -- "from the parties offended."  One example would be if the sin were against someone under our authority.  The third category of aggravating factors is "from the nature and quality of the offence."  For example, if it breaks the express letter of the law or breaks many of the commandments containing many sins or if it scandalizes others.  The fourth category of aggravating factors is "from circumstances of time and place."  For example, if it is done on the Lord's Day or if it is done in public rather than private.

One practical way that the confusion on these issues has played out in the life of the Presbyterian Church (USA) denomination has been with regard to the debate on ordination standards for church officers.  It needs to be said that the sins of church officers can be more serious than the sins of other members of the church simply because of the fact that they hold office in the church and because they are to lead by example.  The Larger catechism even specifically mentions those "whose example is likely to be followed by others" just as it mentions "office." 

It also needs to be said that homosexual sexual sins are more serious than the corresponding heterosexual sexual sins.  Each of the words in that sentence are important or one might conclude that heterosexual rape is less serious than a consentual homosexual encounter, which is absurd.  However, homosexual rape would be more heinous in the sight of God than heterosexual rape.  This is not meant to diminish the serious nature of heterosexual rape, but simply to state a fact and to do so with a provocative example.  Such an example would not be helpful in counseling a person who has been raped.  In other words, this fact does not convey how one would address a victim of such a heinous crime in a pastoral manner.  But it needs to be said for our purposes here that the same-gender sexual sin is more serious than the corresponding heterosexual sexual sin.  This is not a popular truth as many even involved in the work of taking the gospel to those who struggle with same-gender sexual sins will often fall into the trap described in this post. 

What evidence do I have for asserting that the one act is worse than the other?  Scripture calls same-gender sexual sins "contrary to nature" and "to do what ought not to be done."  Thus Paul tells the Romans that they are the manifestation of God giving us over to our sins -- they are a climax of sins (this language also is reflecting on Genesis where when sin reached a climax then came judgment, i.e. the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, Israel waiting 400 years to remove the Canaanites after their sin reached climax, etc.).  Moreover, same-gender sexual sins conflict more with the original design of marriage as between a man and a woman than their corresponding heterosexual sins.

Why does this matter?  First, when we have leaders who are publicly practicing and even embracing and endorsing sins that are scandalous this is a huge problem.  And second, those who have been forgiven much will love much.  That is, for example, someone who has struggled with same-gender sexual sins is likely to be more grateful for their salvation than someone who has struggled with similar heterosexual sexual sins.  We do not want to diminish in the mind of anyone just how ugly their sins are in the sight of God because they need to see how much they have been forgiven.  This is the danger of the mistake of trying to equate same and different gender sexual sins among those ministering to the sexually broken.

There are several dangers to avoid with these observations.  A couple examples: first, no one should ever excuse their own bad behavior by pointing to the behavior of others that is worse than their own (or even by comparing their own behavior with what they could personally be doing) and second, no one should ever look down on another person because they have not sinned as greatly as someone else.  In fact, comparing yourself to others is never a good idea -- compare yourself with the perfect standard of God's word and not for the purpose of saying you could be worse but for the purpose of seeing just how ugly your sins are in the sight of God.  And there are many other dangers that require careful thinking, like that which is evidenced in our catechisms.  Yet another danger would be to conclude that you should do something worse than you already have in order to experience even greater forgiveness.

One more observation before closing, the fact that many conservatives are willing to draw the line in the sand over these issues of ordination with respect to living in fidelity in marriage and chastity in singleness begs the question of where they have been on the abortion issue.  Most are likely personally pro-life, but why was abortion not the line in the sand?  I ask this because the commandment regarding murder is more serious than the one regarding adultery.  And with abortion there is always the serious aggravating factor that it is committed against those who should be under our protection (for example, the protection of the mother and father and the doctor involved) not to mention that it is committed against someone who is weak and powerless to protect themselves.  And yet our denomination continues to have a policy that does not reflect Scripture's view of life and a medical plan that pays for any and all "legal" induced abortions.

In any case, I mention all these things because people seem to keep falling into this trap of treating all sin as equal.  It is something that the theological left has made into an essential of their belief system and that many evangelicals have bought without thinking through the consequences of such a position.