Mercy vs. Acceptance

Have heaven and earth passed away yet? Let me look out the window. Nope. Still there. So I guess the Law is still in effect. So much for liberal theology.

There is a huge difference between the set of all things immoral and all things illegal. At least there should be! Many religious conservatives intersect the sets too much by making too many things illegal. Theological liberals do the reverse: try to declare too many things to be moral.

Mercy need not be acceptance. It is possible to forgive a sin without condoning the behavior. The New Testament even spells out procedures for such:

Let’s apply this procedure to the issue of the day: gay marriage. Someone who has homosexual impulses can become a Christian. And if we apply the procedure above, it is possible for that person to remain a Christian even after succumbing to such impulses – if repentant. Gay marriage is a clear act of unrepentance. This includes performing gay marriage ceremonies. If you don’t like it, take it up with the writers of the Bible.

(And yes, this does trouble me. Some people are born that way. Some of the sissies I went to elementary school with are now dead from AIDS. It seems unfair. But I can come up with some rationalizations. All Christians are tasked to override their impulses at times. A healthy heterosexual alpha male has strong territoriality, more difficulty being humble and turning the other cheek. In general, we are each given different combinations of primal impulses to override.)

I pick on homosexuals because this is the burning issue of the day. The same principle applies to heterosexuals who sleep around, mafia dons, business owners who operate on the Sabbath, doctors who perform abortions, or employers who cheat their employees.

The Church is supposed to be for “perfecting the saints,” for encouraging better behavior [Ephesians 4:12]. It does not exist to make people feel good after sinning.

An instance of this principle in action can be found in 1 Corinthians

Here, we have a concrete example of expelling a Church member because of a sexual sin, one listed in Leviticus 18:8, the same chapter that condemns homosexuality [Leviticus 18:22]. Whether Paul called for prosecution or not is unclear. Verse 5 may be a call for prosecution. “Satan” may not be a proper noun here, but merely “the accuser”, as in, perhaps, the local prosecutor. Verse 1 indicates the offense as being illegal. But note that in verse 10, Paul says Christians can associate with the sexually immoral – as long as they don’t call themselves Christians. This indicates to me that at least some sexual sins were legal under Roman law at the time, and Paul was not complaining.

Christians should shun those who would call themselves Christians and be unrepentant sinners at the same time. The State, on the other hand, must judge those who are “outside.” What the State should deem legal should be broader than what the Church should deem acceptable. In my lifetime we have gone from homosexuality being illegal, to refusing to participate in a gay wedding being illegal. Sometimes I think the anarchists have a point…

Let me leave you with some harsher words yet on the subject from St. John. I am uncertain here, but it seems that John is saying you don’t even have to pray for those committing death penalty offenses.