Grace & Truth

[mkgal1]

One of the most difficult situations to be in...IMO...is to be faced with sin around us, especially in our marriages, and not know how to deal with it.

We are to HATE sin as God HATES sin, but that is such a difficult balancing act between hating sin & loving the sinner.

Dr. David Clarke, PhD has an excellent article (I believe) that discusses this, titled, Bring Your Marriage Back from the Dead

There has been a huge shift in Christian culture in the past fifteen to twenty years. We've gone from an emphasis on sin and its destructive power to grace and only grace. Everything is grace, grace, grace and forgiveness, forgiveness, forgiveness. But we have forgotten that there is no grace and forgiveness without true, complete confession and repentance (see 1 John 1:9). And there is no true repentance without confrontation of the sinner.

As Christian leaders, we used to call sin sin right to the face of the sinner. Why? In order to bring about healthy shame and guilt and brokenness and repentance and change. That was biblical love in action.

Now, too many of us have re-defined sin. Sin is not really sin. Sin is dysfunction or addiction or bad judgment. These things can certainly be involved in sin, but sin is rebellion against God first and foremost. We offer grace and forgiveness immediately. We want the sinner to feel good, not bad. The subtle message is: your behavior isn't that bad, and you don't have to feel that bad about it. This is unbiblical wimpiness in action.
I know very few pastors and Christian therapists who confront sinners head-on. What are their excuses for wimping out?

One of the great confrontations in the Bible is found in 2 Samuel 12:1-13. King David had committed adultery with Bathsheba and then, to cover his sin, had her husband killed. These verses record what happened when God sent the prophet Nathan to confront David and his sin.
Did Nathan excuse David's sin in any way? No. Did Nathan bring up the stress of being a king? No. Did Nathan mention a mid-life crisis? No. Did Nathan indicate that Bathsheba had seduced David? No. Did Nathan say David's wives and concubines hadn't met his needs? No. It was direct, brutal confrontation. Nathan said, right to David's face, "You are the man." Using a story about a rich man who stole and slaughtered a poor man's one and only lamb, Nathan nailed David to the wall.
What was the point of the confrontation? Repentance and restoration. That's what God always wants for the sinner. In 2 Samuel 12:13, David gives the correct response to Nathan: " . . . I have sinned against the Lord." That's the beginning of healing for every sinner: "I have sinned against the Lord."

 

[JanniGirl]

These are valid points. We've turned christians into PC "coexist" wimps who are actually CHASTISED for confronting sin. Don't make him feel bad, he already feels bad about what he did. . . . . Really?!

No -- when our kids do something they shouldn't (ex: steal that candybar from the grocery store) . . . do we cover for them? Do we say that they've learned their lession just by being caught by their parent? ..... or do we do what parents all accross the nation for the past couple of generations have done; namely make the kid march back into the store, pay for the item if already eaten or return it with an apology. Then they probably also got a spanking from their mom/dad, as well. Did that kid every steal a candybar again? Nope.

The law of the world (and even kids learn this real quick) is that there are real consequences for bad/sinful decisions. When we redirect the deserved consequence (take it upon ourselves or excuse the behavior away) we rob the person of learning from the bad experience and growing as a person. This is what codependency does. When we stifle our anger or hurt feelings (so that the person doesn't feel as bad) over something as relationship-altering as sexual sin/adultery . . . the person doesn't ever really learn the effect their behavior has on themselves or those around them. And so they continue doing it, eroding their moral character and relationship with God.

 

[chaz345]

I don't disagree with some of the overall thoughts in the original article but I absolutely disagree that it's all about grace and that there is little to no condemnation of the sin. Actually, and this will come as no surprise, I think that wether or not the approach is too far one way or the other depends mostly on the gender of the sinner. There's little to no grace for the porn user, so great is the hatred of the sin that no attempt is even made to separate the sin from the sinner. But if we're talking about a woman who initiates a divorce without Biblical cause, we're not even allowed to call that action a sin. It's all about grace and forgiveness, even before she's done it. How can there possibly be confession and repentance for an action that hasn't even occured yet? And yet someone in such a situation is told, BEFORE the fact "it's OK, God will forgive you."

 

[Created2Write]

I don't disagree with some of the overall thoughts in the original article but I absolutely disagree that it's all about grace and that there is little to no condemnation of the sin. Actually, and this will come as no surprise, I think that wether or not the approach is too far one way or the other depends mostly on the gender of the sinner. There's little to no grace for the porn user, so great is the hatred of the sin that no attempt is even made to separate the sin from the sinner. But if we're talking about a woman who initiates a divorce without Biblical cause, we're not even allowed to call that action a sin. It's all about grace and forgiveness, even before she's done it. How can there possibly be confession and repentance for an action that hasn't even occured yet? And yet someone in such a situation is told, BEFORE the fact "it's OK, God will forgive you."

 

[foodiepeep]

I can't even imagine what you all must think of me then... I'm divorcing strictly because psychological abuse and neglect.

 

[JanniGirl]

Chaz,

Yours is some hypothetical that, quite honestly, I've never seen in real life. So, I guess I'm gonna ask for some real examples, either from your personal experience or through some third party study that indicates that's how christians are handling things these days.

And, no, NOT ANYWHERE, do people actually HATE the porn user in any christian forum, site, or church that I've been introduced to. So, I'll have to ask for some sort of "proof" on that contention, too.

Of course, Biblical reasons --- when you don't group sexual unfaithfulness such as porn use as a Biblical reason, it really must mystify when a woman divorces her husband over it . . . .

So, what ARE Biblical reasons for divorce?

And, quite frankly, I don't think that too many (miniscule) divorcees are NOT suffering the consequences from their sin. They still have a broken family, kids who only see them or their former spouse sporadically. Those are natural consequences of divorce that no-one is sheltered from. They probably don't have the monetary resources they once had, either. No assurance of someone to grow old with or to help with discipline of the kids or to help with household tasks, or . . . . .

 

[ImperialPhantom]

Valid points in the article. The thing is, though, there are also so many voices on the other extreme that you figure it can get tempting for pastors or other Christians to go this way. Some sins get disproportionately high 'coverage' though, while others (like some have mentioned, 'no fault divorce') get nothing. I mean really? How do churches get off doing a hundred sermons a year on premarital sex and porn use and manage to completely gloss over frivolous divorces?

 

[Romanseight2005]

What church are you going to? I don't hear hundreds of sermons on porn.

 

[dallasapple]

What church are you going to? I don't hear hundreds of sermons on porn.

Neither have I ..and when porn was mentioned it was mentioned along with all other vices you could imagine.

 

[FaithPrevails]

There has been a huge shift in Christian culture in the past fifteen to twenty years. We've gone from an emphasis on sin and its destructive power to grace and only grace. Everything is grace, grace, grace and forgiveness, forgiveness, forgiveness. But we have forgotten that there is no grace and forgiveness without true, complete confession and repentance (see 1 John 1:9). And there is no true repentance without confrontation of the sinner.

What this should look like in my opinion is this:

-Acknowledgement of the sin (by the person confronting the sinner) in a firm, but loving manner.

-Discussion about the sin (why it happened, how it can be stopped, what needs to be done to repent/repair, boundaries for preventing it in the future). This should be done calmly, rationally, and without active anger. IOW, the person confronting can tell the sinner they are angry/hurt/"insert emotion" but it should be told without the actual emotion impacting the person's ability to discuss the issue.

-Expression of love to the sinner (words, hugs, shared prayer).

This doesn't have to all take place in the course of one interaction. It can be broken up. Acknowledge the sin - but, "I'm angry right now. We will have to talk about this later." Pray over the situation, then sit down and flesh it out as outlined in the second point I made. Then, show the person somehow that you still love them.

JMHO

 

[Conservativation]

What church are you going to? I don't hear hundreds of sermons on porn.

He doesnt either at his church. "Hundreds" would suggest at least 2 hundred, if preached every week that would take 4 years, allowing for the various holiday sermons, even longer. Its clear he isnt suggesting he hears them in his church.

its a matter of curiosity, if you are curious about this you can find he answer, it takes some time and effort, which most people dont have. I was unemployed awhile back for over 2 years, I had the time then to look at lots of stuff, which is when and where i get most of the things I say here.
Also, Im not thinking (chaz correct me if Im wrong) that it means literally an entire sermon dedicated to porn. If Im right, OK it could be said differently, that lets say for example the sermon is about men....and the preacher has some examples...porn will be top of the list. If its about divorce...porn use will be at the top of the list, if its about culture and societal decay, porn again prominent, on and on its there as usually the most clear cut unapologetic sin mentioned. There are these ribbons of softer understanding wrapped around most other sins, IF they even deign mention them (he contrasted to divorce, shux thats almost not spoken of as sin per se) but be honest, there is ZERO controversy for mentioning porn, the pastor will receive not a single letter complaining, and may get tons of praise for it. Even other "favorite" Christian sins like gay marriage and abortion will get some blow back about how he was too confrontational and no grace and yadda blah. Porn is a sin a pastor could bring down the roof about....
So porn resides on the truth end, and moving towards the grace end, at various places other things pop up. You wont find much over there with porn except (and its telling the company porn keeps in mention) rape, pedophilia, prostitution...etc. On the other end you'd find divorce, all grace no truth. And then there are some that get neither grace nor truth, like the easiest one, gluttony, or maybe gossip.

Maybe another way to say it instead of hearing hundreds of sermons is that it highlights the sin mention in sermons more than ANY other sin....not even close.

Thats all, chaz hope thats OK

 

[Conservativation]

Chaz,

Yours is some hypothetical that, quite honestly, I've never seen in real life. So, I guess I'm gonna ask for some real examples, either from your personal experience or through some third party study that indicates that's how christians are handling things these days.

And, no, NOT ANYWHERE, do people actually HATE the porn user in any christian forum, site, or church that I've been introduced to. So, I'll have to ask for some sort of "proof" on that contention, too.

Of course, Biblical reasons --- when you don't group sexual unfaithfulness such as porn use as a Biblical reason, it really must mystify when a woman divorces her husband over it . . . .

So, what ARE Biblical reasons for divorce?

And, quite frankly, I don't think that too many (miniscule) divorcees are NOT suffering the consequences from their sin. They still have a broken family, kids who only see them or their former spouse sporadically. Those are natural consequences of divorce that no-one is sheltered from. They probably don't have the monetary resources they once had, either. No assurance of someone to grow old with or to help with discipline of the kids or to help with household tasks, or . . . . .

who would you feel least comfortable having them scoot you over to sit in your row

a man who confessed using porn
or
a woman who confessed she divorced her husband so she could be happy

Regardless if that divorce example is common or not...its an illustration of what chaz is saying. Confess porn use and you may need to change churches, OH they will put "the face" on....but the air will crackle.

Look at the efforts to keep the accountability meetings secret, the pastor in my church said one day that when they started that ministry, he told the guy leading it, he doesnt want to even know who is in it, or where they meet or when, just put a number in the bulletin that men can call and get settled in...

 

[Conservativation]

having said that...I will not post in this one again. My posts are off the subject, sort of

sorry

 

[c1ners]

What this should look like in my opinion is this:

-Acknowledgement of the sin (by the person confronting the sinner) in a firm, but loving manner.

-Discussion about the sin (why it happened, how it can be stopped, what needs to be done to repent/repair, boundaries for preventing it in the future). This should be done calmly, rationally, and without active anger. IOW, the person confronting can tell the sinner they are angry/hurt/"insert emotion" but it should be told without the actual emotion impacting the person's ability to discuss the issue.

-Expression of love to the sinner (words, hugs, shared prayer).

This doesn't have to all take place in the course of one interaction. It can be broken up. Acknowledge the sin - but, "I'm angry right now. We will have to talk about this later." Pray over the situation, then sit down and flesh it out as outlined in the second point I made. Then, show the person somehow that you still love them.

JMHO

But what if the person who has sinned refuses to acknowledge said sin? Or tells the one confronting the sin that they have no right to be upset or angry because they have also sinned by doing ______ (whatever they can think of at that moment to make it not about them anymore and about you)

 

[FaithPrevails]

But what if the person who has sinned refuses to acknowledge said sin? Or tells the one confronting the sin that they have no right to be upset or angry because they have also sinned by doing ______ (whatever they can think of at that moment to make it not about them anymore and about you)

In relation to what I just posted in the other thread about abuse, refusal to admit sin is a manipulation/avoidance tactic. If they deny the sin, then they can dispute the need for accountability for their actions and change in their behavior. If they turn it back on the other person, they are simply switching from defense to offense. They take the focus off themselves by making the other person defend their actions/behavior.

Overall, if a person refuses to acknowledge the sin - then "evidence" of the sin needs to be provided and possibly a 3rd party involved (pastor/counselor) to mediate the issue.

Sometimes people don't define sin the same way - maybe one is too strict and/or one is too lenient. Which is where someone mediating can be helpful. They can affirm sin or help show that a certain behavior may be undesireable, but isn't necessarily sinful. Does that make sense?

 

[mkgal1]

But what if the person who has sinned refuses to acknowledge said sin? Or tells the one confronting the sin that they have no right to be upset or angry because they have also sinned by doing ______ (whatever they can think of at that moment to make it not about them anymore and about you)

That is really the topic of the article....confronting someone that is IN sin...meaning just what you wrote....someone who refuses to see their sin as sin.

It DOES normally take a 3rd party, and that is the real issue...that often....when going to a 3rd party...because of the typical training---most counselors and therapists (pastoral counseling included) normally use the "balanced approach" (looking for "fault" on BOTH sides). That isn't effective when there is what is called a "smoking gun" that can be the obvious reason for the couples marital trouble.

 

[McScribe]

But what if the person who has sinned refuses to acknowledge said sin? Or tells the one confronting the sin that they have no right to be upset or angry because they have also sinned by doing ______ (whatever they can think of at that moment to make it not about them anymore and about you)

Well...dealing with sin is ultimately getting someone to acknowledge the true place of their life in Christ. In other words that they don't NEED to sin. That's the ultimate in being proof against it. The refiner's fire we go through on our path to righteousness, if we truly follow it, works kind
of like this: the true metal is our real self as God intends us, right? The Bible tells us we are made in the imitation of God. That means that our sinful nature is actually unnatural and that the more we try to see things as Jesus did the less we will even want to sin. Ultimately this has to be our purpose. Not so much to minimize our reactions as to lead one another constantly to God's glory.

In the sense of the reality we normally deal with since few of us are truly like Christ yet there are different ways that we face sin, right? A violent little child is not the same as a violent man and when unrepentant they require different responses. A violent little child for example can be disciplined when she harms others; a violent man you might need some serious distance and protection from.

There's nothing in the Bible that says we don't have the right to protect ourselves from an unrepentant sinner. It simply urges us not to get vengeance against their actions or curse them.

And to be honest, sometimes defense against someone who is sinning against you can be in the form of say a country defending itself vigorously against a terrorist attack, in one spouse getting a restraining order against another or separating from another, it can involve refusing to listen to lies or to enable addictions.

Nathan the Prophet told David (by leading him through reasoning) that he had sinned greatly, had abused his responsibilities as a king and as a man. But it was up to David to recognize that he had sinned and respond with repentance. In a way though this is mostly a good example of how to respond to conviction. A better example of how to respond to the sinner might for example be say Elijah dealing with Ahab or even David dealing with Saul. In other words never deviating from speaking the truth but not carrying out God's own judgement. Refusing to allow themselves to be harmed but not seeking to do harm.

 

[FaithPrevails]

That is really the topic of the article....confronting someone that is IN sin...meaning just what you wrote....someone who refuses to see their sin as sin.

It DOES normally take a 3rd party, and that is the real issue...that often....when going to a 3rd party...because of the typical training---most counselors and therapists (pastoral counseling included) normally use the "balanced approach" (looking for "fault" on BOTH sides). That isn't effective when there is what is called a "smoking gun" that can be the obvious reason for the couples marital trouble.

An effective counselor, IMO, will recognize if there is the proverbial smoking gun and acknowledge it. If there is "fault" on the side of the spouse who is pointing out the smoking gun, it is usually addressed in a manner of helping that spouse identify and enforce their boundaries.

So, a balanced approach doesn't necessarily mean that they are discounting the sin that needs to be addressed. But, their job is not to point the finger at the person sinning, either. That will shut down the road to communication with that person faster than any other approach.

 

[mkgal1]

So, a balanced approach doesn't necessarily mean that they are discounting the sin that needs to be addressed. But, their job is not to point the finger at the person sinning, either. That will shut down the road to communication with that person faster than any other approach.

If their goal is to be effective....I believe it should be. I believe a Christian therapist DOES have the obligation to point out the sin that is causing the break down of the marriage. To throw in other things at the same time waters-down the issue...IMO...and isn't effective.

What the article said about the reasons WHY therapists DON'T confront sin head on is this:

I know very few pastors and Christian therapists who confront sinners head-on. What are their excuses for wimping out?

"I'm scared of the confrontation itself."
Confrontation is incredibly intense, difficult, and painful (it also loses clients). But it's what a good counselor does. If you're not willing to confront sinners with loving firmness, you're in the wrong line of work.

"I'm scared of the sinner's wrath."
It's very common to be blasted and even hated for having the gall to confront a sinner. I've had a lot of ugly scenes in my office: yelling, hostility, rage, venting and raving, and slamming doors. Repentance is very seldom the initial reaction. You've heard the phrase "shoot the messenger." Being a counselor is not a popularity contest. If everyone likes you, you're doing something wrong.

"I'm a sinner, too."
You ask yourself: "How can I, with my own sin and problems, confront anyone else?" Following that reasoning, how can you do anything as a Christian? If you're going to wait until you're perfect before you confront sin, you'll never do it. I'm still waiting for my first sinless day. I'd settle for my first sinless hour.

"I don't want to drive the sinner away."
You think if you confront the sinner, you'll lose any influence on him because he'll reject you and leave the process. The truth is when you fail to confront the sinner, at that very moment you lose all influence on him. You are weak. You lose respect and power. You have fed his (or her) denial. You are an enabler of your spouse's sin.
If the sinner does bolt, he bolts. But you've done your job. You've told the truth. You've given the sinner the opportunity to repent and change. Plus, you've protected and strengthened the victimized spouse.
I'm not throwing any stones! I used to avoid confronting sinners. I believed these same excuses. Fifteen years ago, I realized that the traditional, popular, don't confront sin Christian approach to adultery wasn't working. I turned to the Bible for answers.

 

[FaithPrevails]

What I mean is that getting the person sinning to face the sin shouldn't include going into a counseling session and having it turn into a 2-against-1 scenario. It is a rare person who would respond favorably.

So, all that is accomplished is that the person sinning now feels ganged up on and is most likely angry and defensive. Personal and spiritual growth isn't typically borne out of anger and defensiveness.