Bad Christians Not Welcome
Most teachers and parents have long understood that the positive reinforcement of desired behavior is a much more powerful learning tool than any punishment for undesired behavior ;
Behavior modification assumes that observable and measurable behaviors are good targets for change. All behavior follows a set of consistent rules. Methods can be developed for defining, observing, and measuring behaviors, as well as designing effective interventions. Behavior modification techniques never fail. Rather, they are either applied inefficiently or inconsistently, which leads to less than desired change. All behavior is maintained, changed, or shaped by the consequences of that behavior. Although there are certain limits, such as temperamental or emotional influences related to ADHD or depression, all children function more effectively under the right set of consequences. Reinforcers are consequences that strengthen behavior. Punishments are consequences that weaken behavior.
(from “Behavior Modification in the Classroom” by: N. Mather and Sam Goldstein (2001) LD Online )
My pastor, Heather, worked this concept into a sermon last Sunday. She questioned the old school practice of frequently suspending offending students, essentially telling the student that because they don’t conform they aren’t wanted. Eventually this point sinks in and guess what? The student soon no longer wants to be in a place where they aren’t wanted. Suspension is no longer a punishment but a welcome reward. She used this analogy to point out that this is often how Christians approach the faith, they may feel unworthy of God’s love or may even make others feel this way. It wasn’t long before her sermon began to impact the way in which I look at things.
Case in point; on John Shore’s blog there has been a lively conversation going on about (surprise!) homosexuality and the Church. Predictably, the discussion tended to center on whether or not homosexuality was a sin or if it was a sin could it in some way be excused or was it even a sin deserving of any more mention than the sins that afflict all Christians.
Inevitably someone will say that it is our Christian duty to call out sin wherever and whenever we see it. But what is our ultimate goal here? For instance, in the classroom we do not use behavior intervention techniques to make individual students look and act more like ourselves. We are not interested in a change in their behavior just because we disapprove of them. The ultimate goal is for students to learn, as well as to have them help maintain an environment where other students can also learn .
If our goal, as Christians, is to spread the Good News (which hopefully will result in people coming closer to God) how is this accomplished by ‘confronting’ individual sin? Shouldn’t we be interested in lifting up those positive “Christian” characteristics that a person possesses, no matter how few they might be? Telling people that because of their ’sins’ (especially if those ‘sins’ are not anti-social in nature) they are ineligible for membership in our community is selfishly aimed at satisfying the ‘supposed needs’ of the community and not the spiritual needs of others. ‘Supposed needs’, because no community ultimately benefits from a lack of diversity.
So, rather than focusing on what we see as the negative (yet non-threatening) behavior of those who might be seeking a closer relationship with God, let’s try and focus instead on their other, positive, qualities. What is more important to us as Christians; our behavior or our relationships? Not that behavior is unimportant, but at what expense comes our attempts to change certain behaviors in others?
Who knows? Perhaps the ‘righteous’ may learn a thing or two from communing with these ‘sinners’. Besides, if we all had to clean up our acts first then not one church pew would be occupied.
So where does repentance fit in? Contrition before God? If the “Good News” is just another tool to help people feel better about themselves, as they are what then is the motivation for change? How then is Jesus any different than Oprah or Dr. Phil?
The rebellious, disobedient, non-performing student who gets suspended for fighting or stealing school supplies from the teachers desk, just needs to be loved more? We shouldn’t disciplilne, because he’ll start to feel unwanted, but rather, we should try and meet his felt needs and accept him where his is?
What, exactly, is his motivation to stop doing what he’s doing if there are no negative consequences to his behavior?
What, exactly, is the motivation of a lost, unrepentant sinner to change his or her behavior if there is no understanding of the consequences?
Possessing positive “Christiany” characteristics isn’t enough. It is worldly, it is self-focused, and it is works oriented.
Telling people that because of their ’sins’ (especially if those ‘sins’ are not anti-social in nature) they are ineligible for membership in our community is selfishly aimed at satisfying the ‘supposed needs’ of the community and not the spiritual needs of others.
Dude! Because of their sins, they ARE INELIGIBLE, not for membership in our “community” or our local congregation, but in the eternal kingdom of God!
This is a fundamental and immutable aspect of the scriptures! Meeting their “felt needs” without every bringing them to an understanding of the eternal consequences of the sin in their life is FALSE TEACHING.
I agree that it is NOT OUR JOB to change people’s behavior. ONLY the Holy Spirit can accomplish that.
Sure, Jesus met people where they were. BUT, he then called them to where He is! If you only do the first, but not the second, you aren’t actually doing the work Christ calls us to do.
The Good News is that THOUGH WE ARE SINNERS, there is yet hope! That Christ died, so that we don’t have to. But for that to make any sense at all, you also have to explain WHY Christ had to die.
If you do not do that, then you are not preaching a Gospel found in the Bible, but one found in the world.
We are all sinners, unworthy, and yet loved. We should be bringing people to know Christ, not trying to make the most of christian-like behaviors. Those “behaviors” result from our salvation, they do not lead to it!
Homosexuality is sin, just like looking at pornography, coveting your neighbor’s house, building graven images, or harboring ill-will in your heart. If you have to debate whether homosexuality is sinful, according the Bible, then you are already far down the road of reinterpreting the Bible to support your lifestyle, instead of rebuilding your lifestyle to support the Bible.
Which to me, is what a great deal of this “emergent” stuff is all about.
I totally disagree. Jesus may indeed have called out people’s individual sins but where does he tell us to do so? Most often he is directing his call for repentance to the RELIGIOUS people who were pretty much saying exactly what you just said.
Jesus calls us to love and serve others, and not just our ‘righteous’ friends but those people who the culture tends to scapegoat – the sick, the poor, the imprisoned….even the non-Christian and he doesn’t attach any strings to this call.
If we take it upon ourselves to make condemnation of others sins and demand for their repentance the pivotal point of our ‘evangelism’ then we are not encouraging people to move closer to Jesus, who is the ultimate actor in this drama.
That was a nice list of sins you provided – did you miss any? Good grief man. Turn around. Look at your Church. It is full of sin. This sin may not appear to be rebellious, because we tend to ignore those sins that are so woven into the fabric of American Christianity that they have just become a normal par to our lives.
I guess I’d need to know what you see as the best ways to “encourage people to move closer to Jesus” before I can really comment.
That list of sins? think I just made it up out some divisive, critical spirit? Or is it possible that maybe I had a source for that list?
Sin is real. God hates sin. He doesn’t want for his children to continue living in sinful ways. All have sinned, and fallen short of the glory of God.
He came that we might have life more abundantly…but by HIS definition, not the worlds.
I don’t get that last paragraph at all. Are you saying that, to avoid being a hypocrite, that I have to be sinless myself before I can even think of mentioning someone else’s?
Who better to speak against the dangers of drinking: A recovering alcoholic, or a teatotaler?
Christians are just recovering sinaholics. Not holier than thou, but being transformed into God’s image, through HIS work in our heart, not by abiding by a list of feel-good Jesusisms.
There is certainly a place for “encouraging” people, and most people respond more to gentle nudges than being wacked in the head with a Bible. The Gospel is more than a gospel of love.
You can’t just tell people that trying to be like Jesus will help make them a better person. The Bible isn’t a just self-help book.
I don’t get that last paragraph at all. Are you saying that, to avoid being a hypocrite, that I have to be sinless myself before I can even think of mentioning someone else’s?
Well, what do you think Jesus is saying here?
It’s different to treat ALL of us as sinners, and present a general condmenation of sin in all it’s forms, than to go around jabbing fingers in people’s chest with anger in your eyes and spittle on your lips.
For what it’s worth, I finally took the time to read your “Creed.” Sounds quite nice. I had a friend that was kind of like that. She was momron-ish, but also in a lot of kaballa stuff, auras, and a little bit of this an that. I used to joke that she was “covering all her bases.”
There is a fairly common view, which I see here, that is based in the idea that God will honor our intentions, and that if we are really doing what we think is right and good, how can he fault us for that?
The question then becomes, good according to who? If the only thing that really matters is the intentions of our heart, then you are batting 1000.
If not, well, I guess that’s between you and God.
Ultimately, that is the case. Paul talks about the gentiles, having no knowledge of Hebrew law, having the law written on their hearts by God. They will be judged accordingly.
I actually think that the idea of ‘covering all the bases’ is pretty much what drives people, incorrectly, to most forms of religion. It’s another example of a typically humanistic rewards system gone awry. ” I want to avoid hell, so I better become a Christian.” But what kind of Christian? Even the Christians can’t agree on this.
I love it when conservative Christians will suggest (or outright say) that the man who rarely thinks of others, yet is a ‘confirmed in the faith’, is guaranteed his salvation, whereas the non-Christian (or even atheist) is destined to hell no matter how much they sacrifice for others. Sola Fide absurdo ad reductum.
“As for those who keep on sinning, rebuke them in front of everyone so that the rest will also be afraid.” 1 Timothy 5:20, ISV
“Be ready to do this whether or not the time is convenient. Refute, warn, and encourage with the utmost patience when you teach.” 2 Timothy 4:2, ISV
“and have nothing to do with the unfruitful works that darkness produces. Instead, expose them for what they are.” Ephesians 5:11, ISV
Hi, James. Welcome.
The line immediately preceding 1 timothy 5:20 says;
So then he is talking about matters pertaining to church leadership, which might be applicable to the conversation at hand, but not necessarily so.
In second Timothy 4, let’s not forget the words ‘encourage’ and ‘patience’.
And your line from Ephesians rests upon a matter of opinion as to what ‘the works of darkness’ actually are. That has always been a problem with Christians who see themselves as policemen rather than disciples.
Just re-read James Chapt 2, and it pretty clearly states that regardless of what you “say” as far as your faith, if it is not born out in works, in the way you treat and care for others, then your lot on judgement day will be grim. “I never knew you.”
I’ve often held that you cannot hold the unsaved to any kind of Biblical standard – for they are not bound by it. Most of the harshest rhetoric in the old and NT are reserved for the believers in the Body who should know better, and yet who continue to ignore God’s word, or comprise it.
So, I may see things more like you, at least as far as the unsaved goes. My problems lie more with the idea that the Bible is correct “in so far as it has been correctly translated” as the Mormons like to say.
When you get to the point where you’ve decided that anywhere the Bible contradicts the kind of God you think He ought to be, then it must be allegorical, culturally obsolete, or either accidentally mistranslated or deliberately misreprented by a scribe with an “agenda,” then you can make it say and mean pretty much anything you want it to.
It’s a strange dichotomy in your creed. You believe the Bible to be true, but you don’t have much confidence in its accuracy. I’m not sure how you reconcile that.
Right. Which is pretty much how I believe much of conventional Church orthodoxy has been developed over the centuries. The problems start when that orthodoxy contradicts the ‘law that sums up all the laws and prophets’ or leads to behavior that ignores this law. That is the litmus test.
I contend that often a slavish devotion to the idea that the words on the page are factually true -that in order for one to understand the truths presented one must believe that things actually happened this way – creates a cognitive dissonance which then requires ad hoc dogma to justify it. “Biblidolatry” is just another form of idolatry that obscures God.
To use an extra-biblical example: to insist that ants and grasshoppers actually can communicate and choose their ways of life, as Aesop suggests in his fables, is to miss the point of the story. And lose the truth.
I agree that without judgement or contempt we should treat all people with the love of Christ and aid them in any of their needs that we are able to.
My question is; should the unsaved be allowed to become members of your congregation without the confession of and turning away from their sin?
My first question, Net, would be; who are the unsaved and who are the saved? Belonging to a Christian conregation certainly doesn’t clinch the deal. And certainly there are plenty of Christians who have not turned away from their sin (though they may have turned away from the more ‘obvious’ sins, but what has been left on the back burner?)
So, who is qualified to demand this repentance of others? I mean, other than Jesus, of course.
I realize the question is most ambiguous but I’m sure you know what I am speaking about. Not the religious but the spiritually born again as Jesus spoke of. I’m not asking if we should avoid association with all sinners as that would be impossible considering that we are all sinners even those who know and serve Christ. I’m asking if those who are spiritually dedicated to serve and aspiring to become Christlike should allow those who refuse to recognize or repent from what God has proclaimed as being sin to join us in our worship of a God they do not know or understand well enough to change their lives for.
Your second question answers itself. Jesus demands the repentance and what fellowship can there be between light and darkness?
I think that’s where the “membership” idea comes in. Though I suspect that concept seems to “divisive” or exclusionary to the emergent folks.
Anyone, regarldless of their spiritual condition, should be welcomed wholeheartedly into a church congregation. That’s part of ministry, evangelism, and outreach. Church should be a safe place in many respects. But at some point, it has to become “unsafe” to those who wish to remain in sin, or separated from God by their choices. Otherwise it’s just a social club or coffee hour.
Those who have made a confession of Christ, and have accepted the burdens and responsibilities of membership in the Body of Christ have a unique “membership” role. Thus a deacon or elder cannot just be anyone you like, or think might do a good job. These posiitons have a Biblical mandate to be filled only by those who are true Believers, and who are living their lives under Biblical authority.
I have great respect for one of my pastors who said he wanted a church with cigarette butts in the parking lot and blue jeans in the pews. But he also wanted to make disciples, not just fill seats.
It has to be understood that some peopl will make a choice NOT to live their lives according to Christ’s mandates. This is not always a failure of our outreach model, or jingoistic adherence to outdated doctrinisms. It’s a simple fact that imposing the moral restrictions required by God will drive some to chose not to obey. This CANNOT be considered a motivation to “soften” our approach in order to remain appealing to these people!
Even Christ himself did not appeal to everyone. He said that the world would hate us, even as they hated him. No, it is not our goal to be hated. But we need to know that we WILL be hated by some, not because we are wrong, but because we dare suggest that there is a better way.
Ah, but so many confuse spiritual dedication to religious legalism. God has proclaimed so much more than drunkeness and sexual immorality as sin.
And I suggest that this is mostly what it has become. Like minded people coming together and intent on surrounding themselves with very similar people. Perhaps there are not professing homosexuals in a certain congregation, because that is one of the sins that have been emphatically called out from the pulpit. But how many are sitting in the pews who continue to conduct ‘business as usual’ even though their business practices may fall into one of the other sins God mentions?
Or how many break on a regular basis, with no sense of guilt, that commandment that Jesus said summed every other commandment up? How many ’spiritually dedicated’ Christian live by mantras like; “Let the buyer beware” -”God helps those who help themselves” -”The early bird gets the worm” – “To the victor go the spoils” etc etc. Something about this very acceptable mindset is antithetical to the Gospel. In fact, in essence, it is institutionalized sin.
My concern is not so much with the homosexual Christian – they have to make peace with God – but with the rest of us who so easily see that speck in their eyes but are blind to our own rationalized trespasses. Jesus warns us about this.
Well, believe it or not, there are many aspects here with which I agree.
There are those who see their “salvation” as an excuse to condemn others. Although, one might suggest that if by their fruit they are to be known, that their so-called ’salvation’ is in question.
I think where we differ is in our perceptions of what the solution is/should be.
I agree that when you put ritual and dogma ahead of a true and genuine understanding of the scriptures you are a broken church. I propose that those churches are faililng not becaues they are too focused on the Bible, but rather because they’ve lost sight of it.
I guess it comes back to the “baby with the bathwater” metaphor. Churches need to be shaken up, to be called into reprentance, and to return to their “first love.”
Because I’m afraid you are right in many respects…what many churches are offering these days, people aren’t buying. Too wrapped up in churchology, not interested in doing that uncomfrotable, dangerous and scary business of sitting down next to those not “like them.:
But I maintain that this loosy-goosy “emergent” church stuff ain’t the answer either.
OK, Steve, that’s cool. But I hope you will try to ignore the gossip about these ‘emergent’ people and just listen to what they are saying (and see what they are doing) in context before you finalize your opinion. As we’ve seen here, by talking things out we may find out that we are not that far off in principle.