Sin

[Jim Zeirke]

Why is sin so rarely talked about in church anymore?  Yesterday I spoke at a gathering of Christians.  While discussing the subject of humility and humbling ourselves before God I got into the subject of sin and how we Christians need to confess our sins.  The speaker after me politely disagreed with my take and said that God's love and grace covers our sins.  Hey, I'm teachable.  However, I did point out that the New Testament from Acts all the way to the end discusses sin among Christians.

This is another example of something that rather sticks in my craw:  You rarely hear sin discussed in churches any more.  It i becoming what Michael Patton calls "a closet doctrine". I attend a lot of churches in my travels. With the exception of some of the fundamentalist churches it is rare for me to sit in a church and hear the subject of sin addressed.  I've asked pastors and elders why that is and often I get "the open sewer look" and they say that they'd rather focus on God's love.  One elder told me that he specifically doesn't talk about sin when sharing the Gospel with a nonbeliever because he doesn't want to come off as judgemental. 

Aren't those folks who shy away from discussing sin both in the church and outside of it simply being timid?  Whatever happened to hard hitting sermons that convict us of our sins?  I'm not saying that evey sermon has to be a pounding of the congregation, but for Pete's sake why shy away from it completely?  In Christian bookstores you hardly see any books that cover the subject, either.

It seems that evangelical Christianity is getting more and more watered

[Jason]

Good question, especially since Christ-centered exposition should deal with sin and the fact that Christ forgives us and gives us power to overcome sin.

[Bit Brush]

People don't want to go to church to feel guilty, they want to go to church to feel good. They like to be entertained. Church leaders who want to grow large, cash rich, churches have figured this out. 

[Daniel]

I think the "why don't we talk about sin any more" is actually a comparison to the past and is likely better stated "why don't we talk about it as much as we used to".  I think as we have become further and further from our Puritan roots, sermons like "Sinners in the hands of an angry God" become less of a focus.  For a while, we were TOO much about sin and condemnation.  Have we gone too far in the opposite direction of grace and mercy?  Maybe.  But even folks like Joel Osteen recognize that homosexuality and such is is sin.  And, when asked, they say so.  They just don't focus on sin.

[Dave Hostetler]

+1

Bit Brush said:

People don't want to go to church to feel guilty, they want to go to church to feel good. They like to be entertained. Church leaders who want to grow large, cash rich, churches have figured this out. 

[E. A. Johnston]

From the looks of things, we need a bit more "Sinners in the hands of an angry God." Perhaps we should take a poll on when the last time was that someone was confronted from the pulpit about their sin. It is rare. And that is a pity.

Daniel said:

I think the "why don't we talk about sin any more" is actually a comparison to the past and is likely better stated "why don't we talk about it as much as we used to".  I think as we have become further and further from our Puritan roots, sermons like "Sinners in the hands of an angry God" become less of a focus.  For a while, we were TOO much about sin and condemnation.  Have we gone too far in the opposite direction of grace and mercy?  Maybe.  But even folks like Joel Osteen recognize that homosexuality and such is is sin.  And, when asked, they say so.  They just don't focus on sin.

[Daniel]

There are still plenty of hellfire and damnation pastors out there in some circles (like the IFB).  But I think many have come to realize that Christ's approach was a lot more loving and reached a lot more people.  I'm sure the Phraisee's love the condemnation route.  Just saying...

E. A. Long said:

From the looks of things, we need a bit more "Sinners in the hands of an angry God." Perhaps we should take a poll on when the last time was that someone was confronted from the pulpit about their sin. It is rare. And that is a pity.

Daniel said:

I think the "why don't we talk about sin any more" is actually a comparison to the past and is likely better stated "why don't we talk about it as much as we used to".  I think as we have become further and further from our Puritan roots, sermons like "Sinners in the hands of an angry God" become less of a focus.  For a while, we were TOO much about sin and condemnation.  Have we gone too far in the opposite direction of grace and mercy?  Maybe.  But even folks like Joel Osteen recognize that homosexuality and such is is sin.  And, when asked, they say so.  They just don't focus on sin.

[Dave Hostetler]

I don't think that is accurate.  Christ always began each conversion with a person's sin.  Woman at the well had multiple husbands, Rich man loved his wealth, Adulterous woman was being stoned and Jesus told her "Go and sin no more".  This idea that Jesus just walked up to some sinner and gave them a big hug is a fallacy.  Most of the time when people came to him they were already in a convicted state.  A person doesn't know they're in need of saving unless they know that they are in danger.  Grace without the law will only produce false converts to the faith.  They will fall away at the first sign of trouble.

Daniel said:

But I think many have come to realize that Christ's approach was a lot more loving and reached a lot more people.  I'm sure the Phraisee's love the condemnation route.  Just saying...

[Harry]

Then some of you have never been to a confessional LC-MS Lutheran church to hear a sermon. We are reminded each Sunday that we are all sinners and are dead in our sins and that Christ on the cross covered our sins. We get a Law and Gospel sermon. At the beginning of the service we acknowledge that we are sinners and confess our sins in corporate confession and receive absolution by the pastor acting by the command and stead of Christ.

[Daniel]

I'm not saying it didn't mention sin.  I'm saying it was more loving than the kind of condemnation that comes from the hellfire and damnation strategy.  If you read John 4, He doesn't start with condemnation and a "fire escape" salvation strategy.  He starts with love and compassion and an offer and, at THE END, mentions that her comment about her husbands is true.  He didn't throw it in her face to begin with as evidence that she needed to repent.  When we meet Jesus, we recognize our own failings.  He, and not them, should be the focus.  

Dave Hostetler said:

I don't think that is accurate.  Christ always began each conversion with a person's sin.  Woman at the well had multiple husbands, Rich man loved his wealth, Adulterous woman was being stoned and Jesus told her "Go and sin no more".  This idea that Jesus just walked up to some sinner and gave them a big hug is a fallacy.  Most of the time when people came to him they were already in a convicted state.  A person doesn't know they're in need of saving unless they know that they are in danger.  Grace without the law will only produce false converts to the faith.  They will fall away at the first sign of trouble.

Daniel said:

But I think many have come to realize that Christ's approach was a lot more loving and reached a lot more people.  I'm sure the Phraisee's love the condemnation route.  Just saying...

[Tim]

I think there needs to be ballance between a healthy dose of reality (viz., we are sinners in need of a holy God), but I think overemphasis of that fact to the point of undermining a persons enherent worth before God is unhealthy and flat out wrong.

 

On the flip side, teachers, I believe rightly wanting to avoid this overemphasis as well as sadly wanting to please the people, tend to take a weaker view of sin from the pulpit.

 

Sadly, there are those who preach from the pulpit who actually believe that sin is no big deal and thus de-emphasize sin and corrupt the people and lead them astray.

[bob johnson]

Don't forget the "repent" part.

[E. A. Johnston]

Whether he mentions the sin first or last is irrelevant. The fact is that he always stood against it, and this is a demonstration of true biblical love. Read Matthew 24. No one can accuse Christ of sugar-coating the reality of sin. The popular way of preaching from American pulpits is a "feel-good kind of love" at the expensive of the truth. etc.) It is less offensive. But it ain't love. 

Daniel said:

I'm not saying it didn't mention sin.  I'm saying it was more loving than the kind of condemnation that comes from the hellfire and damnation strategy.  If you read John 4, He doesn't start with condemnation and a "fire escape" salvation strategy.  He starts with love and compassion and an offer and, at THE END, mentions that her comment about her husbands is true.  He didn't throw it in her face to begin with as evidence that she needed to repent.  When we meet Jesus, we recognize our own failings.  He, and not them, should be the focus.  

Dave Hostetler said:

I don't think that is accurate.  Christ always began each conversion with a person's sin.  Woman at the well had multiple husbands, Rich man loved his wealth, Adulterous woman was being stoned and Jesus told her "Go and sin no more".  This idea that Jesus just walked up to some sinner and gave them a big hug is a fallacy.  Most of the time when people came to him they were already in a convicted state.  A person doesn't know they're in need of saving unless they know that they are in danger.  Grace without the law will only produce false converts to the faith.  They will fall away at the first sign of trouble.

Daniel said:

But I think many have come to realize that Christ's approach was a lot more loving and reached a lot more people.  I'm sure the Phraisee's love the condemnation route.  Just saying...