Too much grace.
Jul 14th by Jon- Tagged in:
- serious wednesdays
A few weeks ago, someone online requested a DVD copy of me being sent to hell. When I told my youngest brother Bennett this, his reaction was simple:
“Oh come on! DVD? Doesn’t heaven have better technology than that at this point? At the bare minimum I have to believe they’ve got Blu-ray.”
He makes a good point. If the movies “Piranha” and “Step Up” are in 3D I assume heaven is using some sort of hologram technology. But that’s not really the point of this. The point is that someone felt I was on a bullet train to Hades. Why?
I wrote a piece for CNN about the two most common ways Christians become jerks online. In it, I argued that we’re called to love our neighbor and that includes people on the Internet. The reader who wrote me and several other people felt that in the article I came across as being “soft on sin.”
Similar to how people will accuse politicians of being “soft on crime,” sometimes Christians accuse each other of being “soft on sin.” The idea is that there needs to be justice and consequences. People have to pay the cost of their actions and learn from their mistakes. When you’re “soft on sin,” you’re giving people too many second chances, you’re not holding people accountable the right way, you’re being too gracious.
So people accused me of giving evil a free pass. Have you ever heard that before? Has there ever been an issue your friend thought you weren’t mad enough about? Or a situation where you refused to let someone keep falling when everyone told you to abandon all hope? Have you ever been accused of being soft on sin?
It’s not a new phenomenon. In the Prodigal Son story, this is essentially the argument of the older brother. When he realizes his failure of a younger brother received a party instead of punishment, he is incensed. He berates the father, lists out the younger brother’s faults and refuses to attend the party.
But here’s the thing about this approach to life. Here’s the one thing I can’t get around.
You can never out grace a God who sent his son to the cross for you.
You will never have a reaction to a situation or a sin or a person or an issue that is more loving than God. Your reaction will never, ever outweigh God’s. But don’t get that twisted, God is not soft on sin.
In fact, his wrath for sin is demonstrated best in the severity of his grace.
We don’t get casual grace. We don’t get easy grace. We don’t get cheap or soft grace.
We get severe grace. We get unyielding grace. We get Christ on the cross with nails in his hands and blood on his body grace. We get severe grace.
And the reason we do is that God is not soft on sin. He is hard on sin. He is wrathful on sin. He is all knowing and all powerful on sin. He is fire and earthquakes and showers of sulfur on sin. His wrath is undeniable on sin. Which is why it took such tremendous grace to quench it.
I’m not soft on sin. I’m not shy about repentance or consequences or hurt or suffering or pain. But when it comes to loving people, our Lord has set an incredibly high bar. So love the people no one else loves. Show grace without end. Give comfort even when it makes no sense.
And as far as the DVD copy of my trip to hell goes? I’m not concerned about emails like that.
“You’re too loving” and “you show too much grace” are insults I will forever accept.
Comments
Jon, thanks for the reminder once again that Jesus got what we deserved and gave us mercy instead. I am so thankful. What great news we have to offer the non believer… and each other. Being rich in mercy isn't being soft on sin.
i struggle with showing grace to christians who are jerks… i am so grateful God never fails to show me grace even when i am a jerk…
Love this. An area of struggle I see a lot is grace vs. enabling. For instance, if a father extends grace to his adult son who won't go get a job but just sits in the father's house eating all the food, what does that grace look like? Is charging the son rent or giving him a deadline to get a job or get out graceless? is letting him sit on the couch month after month grace?
Jon – can I have your permission to read this post out at the start of our Sunday meeting. It's perfect!!
Let me know! (and PS – good for you!)
My prayer for you, Jon, is Psalm 119:37,39 (ESV) "Turn my eyes from looking at worthless things, and give me life in your ways . . . Turn away the reproach that I dread, for your rules are good."
A friend of mine had me listen to a sermon which was being preached to missionaries. One of the things he said, I believe, echoes your sentiment.
"we know that we can pick the worst of all out of all the lot, the worst person on the face of the earth, and we know that we would make them look like a choirboy if it were not for the grace of God in our lives."
Serious Wednesdays Rule!!!
"You can never out grace a God who sent his son to the cross for you."
Amen!
A great quote from @RachelHeldEvans book Evolving in Monkey Town sums it up this way:
"…the mystery lies not in God’s unfathomable wrath, but in His unfathomable mercy"
Wasn't the father of the prodigal son accused of the same thing? But what does Jesus say about it? He says the father RAN to the son when he saw him coming home. Shouldn't our response be as gracious to those in similar situations?
And forgive me if this sounds like ranting, but where do other Christians get off grading someone else's sins? Doesn't the Bible say ALL have sinned? That doesn't mean we should neglect our responsibilities to our brothers and sisters to lovingly reprove one another when we see someone going down the wrong path, but too many times we cross the line from helping someone correct their course into that Pharisaical judgement – thinking somehow our own sin is not nearly as bad. When we look at sin through the eyes of God – that cheating on a test is as bad as murdering someone (in other words, from God's perspective, sin is sin), then maybe we'll stop taking part in the circular firing squad Christians are infamous for and start showing this lost and dying world what true grace is. (I'm speaking to myself here as much as anyone else!!!)
It is interesting that the story of the prodigal son ends with the homecoming party. Ever wonder what happened the next week? The next month? If the repentance was real, I presume the son returned to work and function in the family. If he returned to his previous habits, what was the response of the father?
Are you being a friend of sinners again? You'd probably even eat with them. You should be praying about how glad you're not like that tax collector over there. (end sarcasm and Biblical references).
Paul
Well said, sir. Too many Christians are eager to throw stones at sinners. We are not meant to bring morality to the world; we are meant to call the lost to Christ. He alone may judge.
Yes indeed. Nevetheless, it is very important that we Christians show people their sin when sharing Christ with them. Because if they don't believe they need saving from sin, they won't believe that Christ has saved them from that sin. We should definitely call the lost to Christ! That's one of the great privileges of being a Christian.
"Knock someone down and then offer your product as a remedy"; it's a classic marketing technique, but it only works on the weak.
If I have to choose between being "hard on sin" and "too much grace" I will choose too much grace EVERYTIME now. To often, I have been wrong in my judgments about people and their actions. I would rather be the person that people feel they can confess to, than trying to convince people that they're sinning when they do not feel that they are.
Seems to me that Hell would be like this: All the moves are VHS and all you've got to play them on is a Betamax machine.
Be soft on sin? Did they forget what happened to them? God forgave them of their sins, and yet they feel the need to be hard on others. It's not our place as Christains to judge others. We're called to encourage other Christians and to hold them accountable, but holding one accountable is completely different from judging. Holding one accountable is out of love to see the person change, judging is out of bitterness.
I read the article and I thought it was spot on. Good work!
Evan, I like your explanation of the difference between holding someone accountable and being judgmental.
Oh thanks dude
I heard someone say about Christians once that "they are forgiven, but no one around them is." That needs to stop.
Amen! Christians should be the most forgiving people on earth. "Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful." (Luke 6:36) Amen!
Yes, you guys are so forgiving that you will graciously forgive things we've done that didn't even hurt anyone.
I grew up with the "Christianism" – "Love the sinner; hate the sin."
But – I am trying to grow into our pastor's take on it – "Love the sinner; hate *my own* sin."
Tell you what, it's shaken all my preconceptions about finger pointing, grace and forgiveness.
Congratulations on being accused of being soft on sin over the piece. It puts you in good company. Another man said to love your neighbor and went so far as to suggest that such includes the scum of the earth. Then they dismissed him by saying, "He eats with sinners and tax collectors."
The funny thing is that I don't think you were being soft on sin. You made it clear that we are to love our neighbors and that our neighbors now include those on the internet. You called us out for being jerks online. I would say you made a clear case that if I am a jerk online than I am sinning. (And some how it just seems like a jerk thing to ask you for a DVD of you going to hell. Wow, that is almost as ironic as your talking about Harry Potter and getting more conservative.)
I just read this Jon. AMEN, AMEN, AND AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wow! Good thoughts.
That last line says so much and is so simplistically profound (if that's possible). Thank you for that – it just makes sense, and I hope my "mistake" of showing too much grace and love far outweighs my "obedience" of being harsh and criticial toward "sinners." (You. Are. A. Phenomenal writer, by the way. I'm adoring your book right now and have to ration it so that I don't finish it too soon. Thank you for your humor – my day is ALWAYS better because of it.
I'm just a heathen (without any perspiration issues, thank you), but wasn't it the "tough on sin" Sanhedrin who decided that Jesus should die for the crimes of hanging out with sinners and not following all the religious rules and such?
In civil society, the task of being tough on crime is left to the proper authorities, i.e. the justice system. Civilians taking the law into their own hands is not looked highly upon (think Arizona minutemen at the border.) When it comes to being tough on *sin*, wouldn't God be the only one with that authority?
Anyway, my ticket to hell is continually being fast-tracked (since I commit the terrible crime of not being able to force myself to believe the "correct" beliefs.) If any of y'all happen to end up in hell with me, stop by and say hello.
It seems to me that Jesus was actually not particularly concerned with sin. He was more interested in your willingness to do good, as opposed to your refusal to commit sin.
To this day, those two approaches still dominate the different schools of Christian thought. Some focus on avoiding, reducing, or limiting "sin". Other focus on doing GOOD for other people.
Mr. Wong, you force a false dichotomy in Jesus' teaching. Jesus was concerned with sin; sin is exactly why He died. Sin is so offensive to God that nothing but Jesus' death as the perfect God-Man could satisfy God's wrath over the sins of His people. What about all those times Jesus told people, "sin no more" (as in John 5:13)?
Reducing sin and doing good for other people are not antagonistic to one another; rather, they are complementary. Paul expresses this "put off" sin and "put on" doing good principle in Ephesians 4. In v. 28, Paul gives the example of a thief: "Let the thief no longer steal, but rather let him labor, doing honest work with his own hands, so that he may have something to share with anyone in need."
In that passage, Paul says, "Don't steal," ie, "avoiding sin" as you put it; and "work honestly so you can give to others," ie, "doing good for other people" as you put it. Avoiding, reducing, or limiting sin and doing good for other people go hand-in-hand. It's both and not either or.
That is your interpretation, not mine. And Paul's interpretation does not particularly concern me either. I've met Jesus as many times as he did.
By the way, I never said you have to do one or the other. I just said that it's a question of where you put your emphasis. People who don't try to help others are not deserving of the title of "good people", no matter how fastidiously they avoid "sin".
Mr. Wong, I do not find that humorous. If you met Jesus as Paul did you would believe. Please forgive me for misinterpreting you. Now that I understand what you are saying, I can clarify my own viewpoint, which I get from Paul (whose writings Peter equates with the "other Scriptures," 2 Peter 3:16): each should be emphasized to the extent that the Bible emphasizes it. Some texts emphasize one over the other; but the Bible teaches both, therefore both must be taken into account. That's what I'm saying.
It was not meant to be humourous. Paul never met Jesus. Therefore, I've met Jesus as many times as Paul did. Why should anyone care what Paul said?
By the way, Jesus himself seemed to reserve his sharpest words for Pharisees who studiously avoided sin, but who failed to help the poor. That's why I question the emphasis of modern Christians who are so focused on other peoples' sins. In my experience, the ones who emphasize other peoples' sins are NEVER the super-generous type. The super-generous type tends to be much more accepting.
Thanks for this, Jonathan. I pray that I may be a Christocentric cynic like you.
I love this.
Thank you very much. There's a grace shortage in the world–not of God's grace, but of person-to-person grace. Thank you for showing grace both to the "sinners" and to the "righteous" folks who'd like to see you bound for hell. Funny how they all need the same thing, isn't it?
Right one, brotha!
Right on, I meant.
my own recent recognition: Jesus NEVER had trouble or a problem with sinners, that is who He declares He came to save. He did however, whip the religious crowd, both with words and actual whips
[...] Too Much Grace [...]
Wednesdays are my favorite days on SCL.
You are directly contradicting Acts 9 and numerous other passages. People should care what Paul said because his writings are equal among "other Scriptures" (2 Peter 3:16).
I agree with you on this one, actually. HOWEVER, salvation is not salvation if we're not saved from something (namely, our sins and the punishment thereof). The key is to not judge people while still lovingly imploring them on behalf of Christ to be reconciled to God (2 Corinthians 5:20).
OK, I can see I'm not getting through here. Or perhaps more accurately, that the concept I am describing is so thoroughly alien to you that your mind refuses to grasp it. Let me say it again: I do NOT concern myself with Paul's teachings. I don't particularly care what he said.
Consider the ramifications of this: when I say that I do not concern myself with Paul's teachings, it should be perfectly obvious that I would not concern myself with Peter's teachings either, since Peter is just a follower of Paul, and his Book of Acts is no more authoritative than he is. Therefore, the accusation that I am contradicting Acts 9 is of absolutely no concern to me.
Jordan, I am curious which particular sins are important enough that you feel you need to call out other people for committing them, since we all commit sins according to your philosophy.
I would still appreciate an answer to this question. You seem to be more interested in the other line of reasoning above, posting multiple arguments while leaving this simple question unanswered.
Mr. Wong, I get what you're saying.
Peter was not a follower of Paul. Peter was a disciple of Christ LONG before Paul was. Peter is in all the gospels, Paul doesn't get converted until Acts 9. Peter was no follower of Paul. I get your point though. (Luke was also the writer of the Book of Acts, not Peter/Paul whoever the antecedent of "his" is.)
I know exactly what you were saying, Mr. Wong. I was merely speaking from Scripture. And yes, I do realize that you are completely antagonistic to Scripture.
You seem to be evading the point. Neither Luke, Peter, or Paul ever claimed to meet Jesus, so this shell game doesn't matter. None of them have any more authority to speak on behalf of him than I do.
As for being "antagonistic" to Scripture, it's not about being "for" or "against" it; it's just about recognizing it for what it is. I don't hate it; in fact, I recognize it as a fascinating and historically useful document concerning the beliefs and attitudes of the era and of a particular religious group from that era. What I do NOT do is assume that every single thing said in it must be completely true.