Quote:
Originally Posted by Abiding Now
|
Sin, Salvation, and Phil Roberston
Posted on December 28, 2013 by ryberst
The suspension of Phil Robertson has been lifted.
If you do not know about the mess that Phil Robertson, the patriarch of the family featured in the A&E hit Duck Dynasty, has started, please read this article. Needless to say, Robertson’s statements have churned the waters on both sides of the dividing line, causing a hurricane of virtual vitriol across all of our Facebook news feeds that we haven’t witnessed since the 2012 Chic-Fil-A debacle (by the way, reality tv stars and chicken sandwiches are not good arguments for why you believe what you do; please dig deeper).
I’ll admit, I was disturbed by Robertson’s statements. Not by his statements on homosexuality. Don’t get me wrong, I thought what he said was offensive. Regardless of one’s belief on the subject of same-sex relationships and marriage, the way he approached it was ignorant. But who could be shocked by this? A self-proclaimed red-neck, duck hunter and preacher in the Churches of Christ is outspokenly against homosexuality. Who is shocked? No, what bothered me was the place he gave homosexuality. When asked “What is sinful” his response is to start with homosexual behavior.
This is both offensive and theologically problematic. Robertson’s view of sin is not only reduced to moral codes, but is largely defined by one specific behavior: sex. There is no mention of wars fought by kidnapped children. No thought is given to violence done against the defenseless. To awareness of the greed that impoverishes millions while a few live big (nor of the societal structures that allow him and his family to live in those mansions while many in Louisiana cannot afford food or proper shelter).
And there is no awareness that sin is ultimately not something that we choose to do. Sin is a human condition that we all participate in by being born of Adam. We are sick and broken. We are unable to reach who we are. The problem with a theology of sin like Robertson’s is that it assumes that we do not really need Christ (I am aware that Phil would not argue this, but his concept of sin is inconsistent with his insistence of the need for Christ). If sin is simply behavior, then we simply need to not participate in those behaviors to become sinless. We need to whitewash our tombs and clean the outside of the cup.
What Robertson’s theology of sin misses is the need for a transformation of the heart, which can only come about by participating in Christ. All behavior, sinful or seemingly pure (i.e. legalism), is symptomatic of a sinful heart unless that heart is given up to Christ. And even then, it takes a lifetime to purify the heart and live up and grow into the state that has been won for us by Christ (that is to say, we have been reconciled to God which starts the lifelong process of being sanctified, which requires some work on our part).
When sin is reduced to behavior, salvation becomes a human responsibility. We do not need simple behavioral modification. We need transformation. We need to become who we really are rather than settling for something less. And for that, we need a savior outside of ourselves.
Linear Mode
