The writer to the Hebrews states that sin thwarts persons who sin. Some versions use the word entangles for the word beset of the King James Version. The writer might well use some word like addiction if he were translating today. Negative addiction is a result of depravity, a driving force that weakens individual choice. It is major purpose for Scripture to offer instruction on how to deal with the expressions of sin in one’s life. Sin, in the biblical sense of the word, does not fit the common human response on hearing the word sin. Sin for the general public is an unpopular word. Where it is used, it is presumed to relate to gross matters, like murder, thievery, or rape. An alcoholic is often seen as ill, not a sinner – for that factor. A person engaging intimacy with a same sex person is not seen as a sinner, but following his or her own nature. So the story can be extended. The person who extends definition of sin to anything that displeases God is presumed to be a bit too religious, or distorting, even prejudicial. There is the great rub – the great contradiction. Even some intense Christians miss the point. They are firm defenders of the Bible, but they may leave out this or that inconvenient passage, especially in periods of political acceptance of some issue. Definition of Scripture requires that we accept all of the counsel of God. To escape its teachings may leave it something of a sacred book, but also leaves some doubt that it comes from God as divine guide.
Society does not know how to manage negative human habits. Governments do not want to call their citizens, sinners. So governments create programs in attempts to manage things, but the results are often so unsuccessful that one is hard put to defend expensive approaches to failing programs. In the end the body politic may become ungovernable, too costly, too intrusive, and decline follows – perhaps revolt.
At this writing at the end of the first decade of a new century, the 21st as we call it, the structure, with culture, is troubled, leading to malaise. It has been announced that nearly a half million persons die each year from smoking habits, and a nation committed to the protection of its citizens can’t do a great deal to stop the poisoning. Drugs and alcohol are creating so great a problem for families, for traffic deaths and ill health, that society has no full record of the enormous costs and tragedy incurred from these habits. Obesity, we are told, now has become a severe threat to the health of citizens – more persons are dying, in 2013, from overeating than from hunger and starvation. It is reported that for the first time in verifiable history, that healthy life is threatened in an age when the proper balance and moderation for sustaining life, with legitimate pleasurable activity, is better known than at any time in history.
At this writing, nearly any objection to same sex marriage is taken as homophobia, and discussion is broken off. A recent popular program on television took those who doubt the legitimacy of homosexuality to task for lack of sensitivity, for judgmentalism, and for error in belief. The whole of the debate was not on the advantages or disadvantages of homosexuality, but the attitudes of those opposing the lifestyle. For the biblical Christian, the matter is not one of lifestyle, but a matter of morals – of sin or not sin. The Christian might begin the discussion with: What happened to friendship? Why would this marvelous ability to be loving friends with a person of one’s own sex be turned into a sexual relationship, and challenge the historical and physical meaning of human biology – of marriage and the family? The issue for the Christian is first a matter of morality, then look to legality. The person of whatever persuasion has legal recourse for human rights and those rights ought to be defended and observed by every person, including devout or casual Christians. The matter of sin will only be addressed as the individual approaches God with the understanding that the human being gains self-control and direction in Christ. The human approach to sexual factors is so fraught with conflicting concepts and controls that we may be sure we are confused about the real meanings of intimacy, relationships, and perceptions of right and wrong. Further, if those attracted to same sex liaisons insist on physical intimacy identified as holy concepts of marriage, why would not some well-crafted institutional situation provide for it, rather than invade established history of the family? We need to differentiate rights of persons, from moral perceptions. Friendship relationships might well be legislated so to give meaning to legal rights benefitting life context. *Mark W. Lee, Sr. — 2016, 2020