Thinking about Christians and sin

I have been thinking about something for a while now.  It seems to me that a LOT of Christians have missed the point of something.  I see how Christians respond to sinners (and by sinners I really mean everyone) and a lot of the time they do so with the best of intentions.  In fact, I typically see four types of responses to sinners.  There are the two extremes and then there are the sort of middle of the road responses.  Are any of these the way God wants us to respond?  So often, people justify their positions with certain stories or verses.  How do they play a role in helping to determine how Christians should respond to sinners?

So, the four ways I've commonly seen demonstrated are listed below from one extreme to the other.  I will examine each of them to consider whether they are appropriate responses.

1. The love at any cost response:  I call this the love at any cost response because it always errs on the side of love, at least that is what it claims to do.  Let's take a closer look.  These are the people you tend to say we must love the sinner no matter what.  They are afraid of upsetting or offending people and frankly they don't believe they should.  They believe that to offend someone might might drive them away from God.  They make excuses for sin to the point of accepting it as a fine and correct choice in people's lives.  They often point to stories like the woman at the well or the woman caught in adultery to justify accepting sin into their midst.  They know that only Jesus changes hearts and minds and so they choose to let Him do all the work, refusing to say that sin is wrong in order to avoid offense, but believing God will help people see the truth anyway.  In extreme cases, they make so many excuses for sin that they no longer believe sinful things to be sinful.  This is a destructive attitude, in my opinion, which I'll explain below.

2. The love and truth response:  I call this the love and truth response because this method is similar to the love at any cost response except that it adds in a factor of truth telling.   These people also believe that only Jesus changes hearts and they also believe that Christians need to come alongside sinners and love them.  However, they don't make excuses for sin, but rather speak the truth in love.  What this really means is that Christians who go out into the community or witness to non-believers never really talk about sin other than to express how their life of sin has been changed by Christ.  However, when asked or pushed to respond, they do believe in absolutes and do not excuse sin, but rather will clearly state what they believe God has declared sin and why.  They know that we must love all people just as God loves them.  This includes welcoming them into the church just as Jesus welcomed sinners.  However, they believe it must also include a willingness to speak the truth.  In other words, you will hear the Bible preached from the pulpits without apology or excuses but it is never done in the "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" way.

3. The fear response:  This response is probably the most common, in my opinion.  These are the people who really believe in the adage of love the sinner and hate the sin.  However, they are often confused and fearful of accepting sinners because they are afraid themselves.  It is easy to fear what you don't understand, but it is also easy to fear that which tempts you.  An addict may choose to cut family and friends who are users and addicts out of their lives because it is a source of temptation to them and they are afraid that the influence of those could cause them to stumble in their recovery.  This is where many of these people fall.  They are sinners themselves and they recognize that, but they fear sin as a source of temptation and so they fail to properly love other sinners and often drive sinners away without intending to do so.  They may be right when it comes to the truth, but they have a hard time with the love, at least when it comes to their church.  They are comfortable and don't want to upset the cart, so to speak.  They may choose to love by going out into the community and serving, but they fail to welcome those they serve into their congregation.

4. The hate response:  This should speak for itself, but it is born out of misunderstanding and misinterpreting the scriptures.  They clearly have confused the concept of love the sinner and hate the sin to an abhorrent degree.  This is so true that the love the sinner part drops off entirely and you basically end up intermingling the hate the sin with the sinner themselves.  Therefore, since God said there are things He hates, if your sin is of that variety, you are condemned and unloved.  This viewpoint is destructive and damaging to sinners, Christians, and Christianity.

How do we reconcile which of these is right or if any of these are right?  I mention these four because they are what I've observed in my over 4 decades of churchgoing.  I think they are an accurate representation of what is out there, but I concede there may be other examples not listed.  At any rate, I believe one of the best ways to understand how God wants Christians to respond to sinners is to look at how Christ responded to them.  This also requires me to think like a parent.  Why is that?  Well, the relationship that humans have with God is often described as one that is similar to the relationship that children have with their parents.  It is an appropriate way to look at things and is extremely useful for understanding how Christians should interact with the world.  Parents should be particularly adept at gaining this understanding.

At any rate, 1 and 4 (to me) are the extremes.  These are models that just shouldn't be followed or accepted, in my opinion.

No. 1 is the first extreme and they shout love your neighbor, but completely ignore biblical truth, even to the point of saying that people can just do whatever they want.  Well, people can do whatever they want.  Christians can't.  By choosing Christ, we choose to be like Christ and He said to love your neighbor as yourself.  However, this group tells stories like the woman at the well and the woman caught in adultery and leave off the end.  "Go and sin no more", Christ said.  He did not condemn them, but he also spoke the truth to them.  He is saying that He loves them no matter what, but that they also should strive to change their lives.

Now, looking at this from the parent/child relationship, there is a lot more to this than meets the eye.  Parents love their children.  Proper parental love requires discipline and rules.  Without discipline and rules, children do not learn how to be good adults and good members of society.  Without discipline and rules, you raise entitled spoiled brats.  That is what the church is when no. 1 is followed.  A parent who doesn't discipline their child and doesn't maintain clear boundaries through rules is not doing their child any favors, but instead is ultimately harming their child's ability to interact in the world around them.  Is the church doing anyone any favors by saying: "come in, we're glad you're here, but you don't have to follow any of those rules because we want to make you feel welcome"?  I don't believe it is.  I believe this is a very dangerous way of responding to sinners.  It teaches them that they can do whatever they want, that God does not hold them responsible and it increases the sin they commit.  Why would it do that you ask?  Well, God, through Paul, specifically states that if you lead your brother into sin, then you too are guilty of it.  By never telling the truth, never stating that there are in fact absolutes and rules to be followed, we tell sinners, not that God loves them despite their sin, but rather that sin is okay.  It isn't and that attitude will inevitably lead Christians who hold it to lead their brothers and sisters into sin, thus making them equally guilty and increasing their sin.

No. 4 is at the other end of the spectrum and, to me, is the worst and most extreme.  These are people like the Westboro Baptist Church folks and they, fortunately, are the exception.  I think they don't know what love is at all and so I question whether they have love in their hearts.  However, that isn't for me to decide because God knows their hearts and He is the judge.  This group often spouts 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 out of context and bang the rest of us over the heads with it.  It goes like this: "Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."  I get it, these are all clearly stated sins.  We are all also guilty of at least one of them, if not more.  So how can any of us get to God under the legalistic interpretations of these folks?  The answer is that we can't.  Fortunately, Christ died on the cross for our sins.  What this group constantly leaves out is the end of this verse.  It is verge 11: "And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."  This is the most important part of this passage and shows sinners that God loved them so much that he sent Christ through whom we are justified.  Without Christ there is no salvation.  Without Christ, these people would be correct.  Fortunately, we have Christ.

From the parent/child relationship standpoint, this is the abusive parent, who raises their child to hate their parents and the world around them.

Next is no. 3, the fear response.  These people want to do the right thing, but they are stuck in the rules.  They are not so legalistic that they've turned to hate, but they are stuck in legalism and tradition to the point where things that don't fit their expectations are outside what they want to be exposed to.  They are fearful of that which is different and afraid that they might be tainted by those differences.  I don't think they are malicious, although they come off that way sometimes.  I think they epitomize the adage that the road to hell is paved with good intentions in many ways.  They reach out to their communities, they give to charities, but these are all things they can do without ever getting their hands dirty.  When it comes to welcoming "those people" into their church, they fail miserably.  They have rules for appropriate attire, etc. that are very off putting and aren't really biblical.  Christ didn't tell the lepers he healed to go change into more appropriate robes before he'd heal them.  That isn't how he responded to sinners.  The fear response is driven by fear.  I think these people are largely afraid of the temptations they fear they may surround themselves with if they got their hands dirty or went into the trenches.  They are comfortable where they are and with who they are and fear prevents them from moving beyond that comfort zone.  They are the disciples who stayed in the boat, afraid of the storm while Peter jumped out to walk on water.  Sure, fear overcame Peter as well, but he was the only one who made the effort, the others just cowed in the comfort of the boat while the storm raged around them.

In terms of the parent/child relationship, this is not as bad as the hateful parent but it can still be destructive.  These parents are the overprotective type who never allow their children to experience the world around them as it truly is.  They are so afraid that something might happen, that they forget that children need to learn and need to learn to take care of themselves.  These children grow up, not knowing how to take care of themselves and end up dependent on others, perhaps even in destructive relationships because they lack the ability to distinguish clear boundaries.

Finally, we come to No. 2.  To me, this is the most balanced approach to sinners.  We are to take care of the orphans and widows, feed the hungry, care for the sick, etc. etc.  These people do this as much as the other groups do.  However, they don't sugar coat things like the first group and they step out in faith like Peter rather than cowering in the boat like the others.  There is no comparison between these folks and no. 4.  This is the group that often finds itself caught in the middle.  They believe there must be some standards and they preach that in their churches, but they also believe that God accepts people where they are, that he loves them for who they are.  This is the most difficult way to react because it requires both loving people and speaking what you believe to be true.  This balancing act most exemplifies Christ, in my opinion.  It attempts to show the woman caught in adultery the same love Christ did while also expressing the wrongness of adultery.  It is tough to do and is even tougher to do consistently.  Often times, these people strive to follow this response, but end up in no. 1 or no. 3 simply because the balancing act required is so hard.

In terms of the parent/child relationship, this represents parents who understand that their children need discipline and rules, but also know that children need to learn through making mistakes.  They aren't helicopter parents who hover over like no. 3, but they don't make so few rules that the children have no structure and guidance like no. 1.  This kind of parenting is also a balancing act and is very hard to maintain consistency.  If a child breaks something after being told that breaking it might be a result if they continue to act that way, then it is very hard to allow the breaking of the object to teach the lesson and not say I told you so.

In the end, Christ changes hearts.  The church needs to respond to sinners by coming alongside them and loving them.  Providing for them, taking care of them, loving them, sheltering them, etc.  However, the church also needs to respond by never sugarcoating the truth of the Bible.  Paul states that we have freedom in Christ and so we do.  He also states that we need to choose to refrain from behaviors that might cause our brothers and sisters in Christ or even non-believers to stumble.  Therefore, we must follow the set of rules spelled out for us because we do not know what consequences our actions might have on those around us.  The rules aren't for non-Christians, but they are there for us to know how God intends His followers to live.  This is the conundrum.  We have to balance what we know to be true with the love we are called to show through Christ with the sacrifice that Christ made for us all.  I believe responding to sinners in a manner consistent with no. 2 is the best way to achieve this.  Any ideas on another alternative?