Latest Twitter: RT "Headlines don't sell papes. Newsies sell papes."

Close block

#122. Redefining sin (or how I justified doing drugs)

Apr 7th by Jon

Until I was a senior in college, I was a fairly clean living type of person. I didn’t drink alcohol. I didn’t smoke cigarettes. I didn’t smoke pot. I didn’t even really swear much. All in all, it was a pretty simple life, until I started taking drugs. In the midst of a destructive relationship I started doing ecstasy. I took it at raves mostly so that I could dance for 8 hours without falling apart. And the reason I was able to do this and stomach the shame it introduced into my pastor’s kid heart was that I redefined what the word “drugs” meant.

I decided subconsciously that a drug was something you snorted or shot. Cocaine was a drug. Heroin with its needle was a drug. Ecstasy wasn’t. It was just a colorful little pill with a silly logo stamped onto it. So in my head it became harmless and the shame subsided significantly.

That is stupid. I was stupid. I agree, but what I did still happens a lot for other Christians. You see, at some point we realize that we can’t follow all the rules. We want to, we desperately try, but we keep sinning and sinning and sinning. So to feel a little better we start redefining what sin is. We start softening it with our words. Instead of saying, “premarital sex” we say “casual sex.” Instead of “illegal drugs” we say “recreational drugs.”

This post might be miles away from you and that’s awesome. I applaud your honest approach to sin. But maybe this hits home. Maybe right now, instead of saying you’re having an “emotional affair” with a girl at work, you’re telling yourself, “I just have a flirty personality.” Or you don’t have a “drinking problem,” you’re a “social drinker.”

There are a thousand ways to do this, but at the end of the day, sin is sin. And we’ll never find peace when we try to grasp it with ever shifting definitions.

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

Comments

Brad Apr 7, 2008

Well put, Jon. I think we’re all guilty of that, to whatever degree.

Anonymous Apr 7, 2008

It is amazing how we change what really is so that it will fit what might be “okay”. Thank you for being so honest.

Mezzo SF Apr 7, 2008

Good words . . .the danger of rationalization…

Christina Apr 7, 2008

“Pre marital sex” and “casual sex” aren’t one and the same. Just saying.

I think between Christians and those who aren’t religious it’s these sorts of issues that forces a deadlock. I’m just never going to be convinced that the sex I have in the context of a loving relationship with a man I love dearly (or, for that matter, sex in a loving relationship between people of the same sex) is somehow ’sinful’, whereas sex between two people who have a bit of a paper and a big party to validate their relationship is just fine.

I had some Mormons come to my door a few years ago (and you’re right, they are extraordinaly nice) and when I raised my issues about Christianity with them (pre-marital sex, abortion, homosexuality, dinosaurs…these are just my personal ones) they told me to try to think past that and concentrate on whether or not I felt there was a God. Sorry if I’m rambling here, but my point is that for non-religious people these things can’t be negotiated or ‘thought past’. If there is a God, then I’m assuming that he/she/whatever has given me enough of a moral compass to be able to know in my heart things that are inherently wrong. Sex outside marriage isn’t one of them.

P.S. I’m not trying to attack you personally, I enjoy reading your blog. Just wanted to give the (well, my) non-religious point of view.

Prodigal Jon Apr 7, 2008

Christina -
I didn’t feel attacked by that at all. One of the things I need to write about is the idea that I am going to be wrong on this blog. I will submit ideas or concepts that just miss the mark. For whatever reason, I will write things that people respond to and improve or change or edit. So when someone takes the time to write a well thought out response I really appreciate it. And for the record I love your list of issues “pre-marital sex, abortion, homosexuality, dinosaurs.” That you included dinosaurs in it was just great. I dig the honesty of that list. Seriously, that was cool. Thanks for being open.
Jon

Rora Oct 19, 2009

I don't think you were wrong at all…. The web site is, "stuff Christians like" so christians are your main audience. (I said "main" not "only"….lol) I totally relate to this post as do most christians. Non christians may not feel guilty of these things because many of them make up their morals as they go.

katers Nov 3, 2009

ugh…that left an ocky postmodern taste in my mouth. The Bible says don't do it, the consequences are obvious and will catch up with you eventually…sheesh…Jon, if you're going to make a point, stand by it. Satan would love to have us rationalize things that destroy and kill.

David Kotsonis Nov 10, 2009

The original commenter had a valid point – premarital sex and casual sex refer to different things. Casual sex is a subset of premarital sex, but the world frowns upon casual sex (insofar as it frowns upon anything, these days) moreso than it frowns upon premarital sex per se. As the commenter pointed out, she made a distinction between the two in her life.

Jon did not say "that relationship you're in? Totally fine with God." He acknowledged that his use of terms was improper, and thanked the commenter for providing a list of the issues she has with the faith. Now, he could have added "bee tee dubs, marriage isn't just a public validation of a relationship, it is two people making a sacred vow between themselves and before God (and the community, but God's the most important One here) before entering into a physical relationship which sets up irrevocable spiritual ties between them," but doctrinal clarification was not the point of his response. I see nothing wrong with thanking a non-Christian for providing their perspective.

Joy P. Choquette Apr 7, 2008

It is so easy to rationalize away guilt (or sin) this way. Thanks for the eye opening post.

Anonymous Apr 7, 2008

I’ve got one.. wasn’t sure where to send ideas.
How bout: You’re better than your unsaved spouse, as opposed to God valuing them just as much as you because you are one, even though you may have been disobedient in entering into an unequally yoked marriage.

Kelly @ Love Well Apr 7, 2008

Holy cow, Jon. This is so true. I remember how the definition of “virgin” got very, very technical in college. My girlfriends and I had to dice and slice the truth to get there, but we eventually did.

I no longer play games like that. And really, I think that type of hypocrisy is exactly what makes nonbelievers peeved at us.

Just call it what it is. I respect someone with that kind of authenticity.

joan.ekimball Apr 7, 2008

Denial is powerful.

redneckneighbor Apr 8, 2008

For me it all boils down to, believing in the bible. I can’t pick and choose what I want to out of the bible depending on my wants and desires. I know I’m sinful and my heart is sinful at the core but I recognize that and I try to make the right choices. When I don’t then I’m genuinely sorry for my sins and I ask for forgiveness and for the strength to become a better Christ follower.

Christina,
The bible does state that sex outside of marriage, abortions, and homosexuality are sinful and thus wrong. However these sins are no worse or better than the sins I commit when I loose my temper or look at a woman with lust. However a sin is a sin no matter how you rationalize it.

Christina Apr 8, 2008

redneckneighbor,

I guess those issues are the sort of thing than Christians and non-religious people could (and do) argue about till they’re blue in the face. I just have too many problems with the bible to take it as um, gospel (ha). For starters Genesis 19.5-9 (consenting sex between men is worse than raping a woman. Seriously?), Ephesians 5.22-25 (My feminist side says bite me). Who knows, maybe I’m misinterpreting those, but it seems pretty clear to me. Which isn’t to say I don’t think it has plenty to offer in the way of good advice (Luke 6:31, Matthew 7:1) I’m just saying that if I have to believe everything the bible says then I’m going to make a pretty sucky Christian because some of what it defines as ’sin’ doesn’t sit right with me and just calling something a sin (see: sex outside of marriage, homosexuality) isn’t enough to make me understand why.

Again, this is not an attack on you or your beliefs. I might not agree with them, but I do respect them.

Michael Dec 12, 2009

One must also realize that just because it is *recorded* in the Bible, doesn't necessarily mean that the Bible *condones* it. Take care.

kimana83 Apr 10, 2008

Your honesty rocks. And yes, I do that too.

Laura Apr 13, 2008

thank you, thank you, thank you!!!
as someone whose marriage has been ravaged by a porn addiction(and my own self righteous passive aggression), i so appreciate your bold honesty!
and maybe aside from the Bible’s labeling of a behavior, looking at the victims left in the wake of someone’s choice could be a litmus test of whether its a sin…the unborn child robbed of life, the broken hearts and deep pain that is a result of one or multiple sex partners outside of the security of a marital commitment…
i love this verse: Everything is permissible”—but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is permissible”—but not everything is constructive. Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others.So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. I Corinthians 10.23-24, 31 because we so often rationalize that its “my decision” and “doesn’t affect anyone but me” and i just don’t know when that is ever true, so many things i do affect those around me without my even being aware of it…and i can become terribly codependent if i choose to move my focus from myself to others, rather than on God, as it should be…

kevin Apr 17, 2008

the law dealt with sin, Christ dealt with the sinner
the law said that my sin must be done away with, Christ says that I must be done away with

Kitty Dec 11, 2008

In case anyone ever reads these comments again, I wanted to speak to the Ephesians issue. Ephesians 5: 22-24 reads “Wives submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.” Now, if this was all there was, I could see where a woman could feel a little indignant. This would imply an inequality in the marriage state where women are opressed in everything.

However, the balance comes later in the chapter, in verses 25-30. “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church-for we are members of his body.”

It is abundantly clear that husbands are called to give up their lives to love and serve their wives. It is their purpose in the marriage to protect and to sacrifice themselves for the benefit of their wives. If both sides follow their calling, there will be no inequality in the partnership. Even though the woman must submit to her husband, he will never decide anything that would harm her, because to do so would harm himself.

Diakonos Dec 20, 2009

Just a thought to add (actually hit me today as I was reading Ephesians)…

Verse 21 says we are all to submit to each other out of reverence for Christ. Looking for gender equality (or "gender equality") as the world defines it? Seems like an answer to me. So to claim the subsequent verses are "sexist" or whatever seems like a huge ignorance to verse 21 and the fact that "submission" isn't only for women but that their role as women (which includes submission) is completely different from men. Just throwing it out there…

Kitty Dec 11, 2008

Also, In Genesis 19: 5-9, the issue is not between consenting sex and rape, the issue is between homosexual gang rape and heterosexual gang rape, neither of which is preferable. Just to clarify, the two angels in the house would not have been consenting under any circumstances. Regardless, this was not Lot’s finest hour.

Matt Gross Sep 1, 2009

"Reason is a whore."
– Martin Luther

Why else would we kill people who are killing people to prove that killing people is wrong?

Katie Dec 5, 2009

I've done this. When I was in middle school, my friends introduced me to a website that contained a lot of erotic fiction. I didn't read it because my friends read it, I read it because I wanted to. But because I grew up in the church, and I felt a lot of guilt for reading it, I told myself it was okay because it wasn't "real" porn. Because I wasn't actually watching people have sex, I was only reading about it. And that was okay. There's a lot of danger to justifying sin; in high school, I graduated to "real" porn. And now, years later, I'm still having to fight my addiction, and it's terrifying, and it's painful, and it's difficult. But it's right.

aaronmichaud Mar 11, 2010

good root issue… I think you made a post on hiding gossip in prayer… which would seem to fall under the same category… I will keep my eyes open to see if any other posts fit this line of thinking.