Is All Sin the Same?

I used to be part of a church where the pastor would sometimes preach against specific sins. However, as time went on, he would in essence dilute his message by saying something like, “But we’ve all got our own stuff.” Occasionally, he would have us turn to the people sitting next to us and say something like, “I’m messed up, but so are you.” (Ha, ha) Eventually, preaching against specific sins became a rarity. The one exception was pride; the pastor spent about two years focused on humility. As important as that was, however, he didn’t give examples of what it looked like. Not coincidentally, the church had been shrinking for some time, and it wasn’t showing any signs of stopping. A good friend of mine talked to the pastor about the importance of preaching against specific sins, but his response was if he did that, people would become “offended” and the church would become even smaller! Well, the pastor didn’t do that, but the church continued shrinking anyway.

There were other factors that contributed to the dramatic shrinkage of this church, including a series of bad decisions that I won’t go into. However, I believe that at the heart of it was an initial reluctance, and eventually a refusal, to preach against sins of various kinds and to urge people to repent of them.

Perhaps people know about sin without their pastor preaching about it. What does research show? Despite the ready availability of all kinds of Bibles, Christian books, and wonderful spoken messages that are easily accessible, most American churchgoers are Biblically illiterate. A graph that I found through Bob Smietana of Lifeway Research shows that only 20% of Americans have read the Bible all the way through at least once. You can access that graph and others here: https://research.lifeway.com/2017/04/25/lifeway-research-americans-are-fond-of-the-bible-dont-actually-read-it/ Frankly, since only about 8% of Americans are Christians, I’m surprised that 20% have actually read the Bible cover to cover. Regardless, one thing this may indicate is that my former pastor either assumed that congregants already knew what the Bible says about specific sins, or worse, that he shouldn’t confront them. One of the implied messages was that all sin is the same anyway; furthermore, as the pastor told my friend, we don’t want to offend people by pointing out specific sins that they or their loved ones may be struggling with. Maybe he was unsure about how to couple preaching about sin with the wonderful message of God’s forgiveness.

Let’s focus directly now on the question in the title of this post: Is all sin the same? I mentioned earlier that my former pastor preached about humility, which is the antithesis of pride. Since this is my primary sin problem, I (usually!) appreciate being reminded of this. It has helped me to explore humility much more. I’m a work in progress, but I can say, for example, that over time I have become a man who apologizes more readily; the same is true of my forgiving others when they apologize. When I find myself refusing to live in forgiveness, I don’t have peace; that is one of the consequences of that sin. How about other sins? One example of a sin with obvious consequences is murder, which can result in a person living a significant portion of his life in prison. Most people don’t commit murder, but do you know what the Bible says about hate? I John 3:15 tells us, “Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life in him.” Wow. This clearly brings us back to the priority of forgiveness.

One kind of sin that my former pastor very specifically refused to preach against was various kinds of sexual sin. Some people like to focus on STDs and unwanted pregnancies, but here’s what 1 Corinthians 6:18 says: “Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body.” This verse very directly states that sexual immorality (a man sleeping with anyone who is not his wife, or a woman sleeping with anyone who is not her husband) is a different kind of sin, but what does it mean? Verse 16 tells us: “Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, ‘The two will become one flesh.'” Beyond STDs, unwanted pregnancies as a result of sleeping around, and broken marriages–as bad as those are–at the heart of it is that the Christian’s body “is a temple of the Holy Spirit.” (verse 19) The consequences of sexual immorality are more obvious than those of pride. However, the Lord knows that sin begins in the heart and mind, which is why Jesus tells us in Matthew 5:28: “But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”

I would be remiss if I didn’t also mention another kind of sexual sin: those who have “transitioned” to the opposite gender. Genesis 1:27 tells us this: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” For trans women and trans men, whether they realize it or not, they are saying to God, “I don’t like the way You made me.” The consequences of this sin can be very severe indeed. I have addressed transgenderism more here: https://keithpetersenblog.com/2022/02/23/clarity-and-compassion-for-the-transgendered/ When I knew that my previous pastor was going to be focusing on this verse, I suggested that he address the trans issue, but he again refused.

We could go on to address other sins, some of which have more obvious consequences than others; think of stealing and lying, for example. However, I think we can now answer the question in the title of this post: Is all sin the same? No, in the sense that the consequences are different; this is particularly obvious when it comes to various kinds of sexual sin. We also know that sexual sin is qualitatively different because it is a sin against one’s own body. However, the answer is also Yes, in the sense that Scripture reveals that sin begins in the heart and mind. Furthermore, sin that is not confessed and repented of is what separates people from God, including the ultimate separation in hell.

Maybe you think I focus too much on sin and should instead focus on the love and grace of God. First of all, if you talk to anyone under 40, you may be surprised at their notions of right and wrong. Second, in my most recent post about the Bible as a whole, I wrote that since so much of the Bible is focused on warning against sin and judgment of it, we would be wise to focus more on that than we do; in other words, let’s have more balance. Finally, with Good Friday a mere three weeks away, this is a good time to be reminded why Jesus died on the cross: it was because of our sin. Psalm 32:5 says this: “Then I acknowledged my sin to you and did not cover up my iniquity. I said, ‘I will confess my transgressions to the Lord’–and you forgave the guilt of my sin.” That’s what Good Friday is all about! When we confess our sin and repent of it, then we can receive the Lord’s forgiveness and have the peace that we long for. If you are reading this and do not yet know the Lord, I pray that this will be the time that you confess your sin and turn to Him in saving faith.

Some Reflections on the Bible as a Whole

Last week, my church finished reading through the Bible; it was a three-year plan that all of us were encouraged to follow. Through an online messaging app, we were also able to share our insights into God’s Word. This was my fourth time reading through the Bible, but it had been many years since I had done it, so I was grateful to have the opportunity to do so with my brothers and sisters. I have been reflecting on this plan in terms of what I have learned about the Bible as a whole.

First of all, I discovered the difference between reading and studying God’s Word. As I mentioned, it was a three-year plan, which is one-two chapters a day, rather than the three-four chapters I read daily my first time through many years ago. Reading at a more leisurely pace allowed me more time to see what commentators had to say about various passages that I didn’t understand well. This allowed me to check any interpretations I had thought of along the way. This was especially important since I am a Sunday-school teacher (of adults), and week by week I was writing brief summaries of the chapters our church had been reading through during the previous week or two. In this class, we always have discussions, as well, which allow us to share insights and questions.

When we discuss and investigate what others have said or written, it helps prevent us from making wild conjectures. Several years ago at a church my wife and I were part of at the time, we heard a sermon in which the preacher said that the prophet Jonah was suicidal. I had never heard or read that interpretation before (or since, for that matter), so I had some e-mail exchanges with the preacher; among other things, I encouraged him to look at what commentators had to say about a given passage before sharing it with the congregation. This time of reading through the Bible, I am more convinced than ever that Jonah was most definitely not suicidal!

One thing I noticed as never before is the repetition, or redundancy, of Scripture. In Exodus 25-30, for example, the Lord gives Moses meticulous instructions for building the tabernacle (including measurements and materials) as well as other items associated with it, including garments for the priest. In Exodus 35-39, we are told, again very meticulously, and in many cases almost identical words, how Bezalel, Oholiab, and other skilled Israelites constructed the tabernacle and made the other things associated with it. I should add here that in Hebrews 8:5, we are told why these specifications were so very important: “They [the priests] serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: ‘See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.’” Imagine: there is a tabernacle in heaven that is the “original” of the one that the Israelites made; this is literally jaw-dropping to me.

Here’s another example of repetition; in fact, in the NIV, the words are exactly the same in Proverbs 21:9 and Proverbs 25:24: “Better to live on a corner of the roof than share a house with a quarrelsome wife.” (I’m thankful that although my wife and I certainly don’t agree on everything, she is not quarrelsome!) Jesus Himself frequently quoted Old Testament passages, usually to point out the fulfillment of specific prophecies. And sometimes we are given multiple accounts of the same event to give us a richness of detail that one account simply doesn’t; we see this, for example, in the four Gospel accounts of Jesus’ resurrection. I could give many more examples, but here’s one of my favorites: In the second part of Revelation 21:6, we read: “To him who is thirsty I will give to drink without cost from the spring of the water of life.” Then in the second part of Revelation 22:17, we read: “Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life.”

One thing that I reconfirmed this time through the Bible is its consistency and coherence as a whole. In the third chapter of Genesis, after Adam and Eve sin, the Lord gives us the promise of a deliverer. In the first book of the New Testament, we find out that His Name is Jesus. In Revelation, we find out more about His second coming and the glorious future He has promised to His people. No wonder that in the second-to-last verse of the Bible, John (the author of Revelation) writes, “Come, Lord Jesus.” I have often echoed those words, sometimes out loud, as I see our society decaying more and more.

On a related note: I would be remiss if I didn’t mention something else I noticed once again reading through the Bible: the prevalence of warning and judgment. We see this early on, in Deuteronomy 28, which has 14 verses devoted to promises of the Lord’s blessing for obedience and 54 verses about curses for disobedience. When we were going through Deuteronomy in my Sunday-school class, I asked why there was such a big difference between the two in this chapter. A young gal replied that maybe it’s because the Lord knows how prone His people are to disobedience; well-said! In fact, there comes a point where these warnings against disobedience in Deuteronomy 28 change to prophecy. Speaking of: when we read through the 17 Old Testament books devoted to prophecy, we see that warning and judgment predominate, particularly up to the time that the ten northern tribes of Israel are taken into captivity by Assyria, and the two southern tribes by Babylon. (And of course, we read in much more detail about Israel’s history of disobedience in the books of the Bible devoted to it.) Interspersed throughout these prophecies are words of hope and restoration for the Israelites. Lest we think that the New Testament is free of words of warning and judgment, we have books like 1 Corinthians to remind us that we Christians are also still prone to sin. We also have the book of Revelation, which although focused primarily on the judgment of unbelievers, is still a warning to all. And of course, we have a large host of specific commands throughout the New Testament, focused not just on actions, but on our words and even our thoughts, where sin starts.

There has been a decided shift in the preaching I heard when I was growing up in the 1960s and 1970s compared to now. Pastors in the U.S. (and I’ve heard many of them in various contexts) now seem much more reluctant to preach about sin, warnings, and judgment, instead focusing on the love of God and His blessings for His people. And how about suffering? 2 Timothy 3:12 says, “In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted.” I haven’t heard a lot of sermons about persecution! I believe it would have been good to hear more about God’s love when I was a child; maybe I would have become a Christian before age 20. However, I believe people need to hear more than they currently do about God’s warnings against disobedience as well as His promise of persecution for living in obedience. “If you love me, you will obey what I command.” (John 14:15) Is striking a balance really too much to expect?

In conclusion, as we continue to read and study God’s Word, may He continue to teach us and guide us, especially in how we are to express our love for Him by living in obedience.

What Evolutionary Psychology Can’t Explain

With Question Evolution Day (QED) just a few days away, I’ve been thinking about evolution from a different angle: evolutionary psychology (EP), which purports to explain human behavior. I came across an article by Glenn Geher which attempts to explain, for example, why we love our kids; why it’s hard to hit the gym; why we prefer cookies; and why we love nature. He says we love nature as follows: “Across most of human evolutionary history, our ancestors were outside. And they relied upon all kinds of things found in nature for basic survival.” My guess is this sounds reasonable to many people. However, it doesn’t explain why so many people I have encountered don’t love nature, at least not in the sense of being in it. Many like pictures of waterfalls or forests, for example, but don’t want to experience it for themselves. I live only about two hours from Yosemite National Park, which is so popular that starting this year, you have to make a reservation to enter on all Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays, as well as every day from July 1-August 16. An evolutionary psychologist would point to this and say, “See? This proves my point!” However, I have met many people in my city who have lived here their whole lives and have never visited Yosemite NP; furthermore, they have no interest in doing so. Additionally, EP doesn’t explain why I love nature, which is because some of my best times of worshiping the Lord are in it. I’m sure that other people who enjoy being in nature have other reasons as well. 

Some would say that at least evolutionary psychology offers a reasonable-sounding explanation for the behavior of some people. However, for a theory to be robust, it needs to explain much more. In addition, I have thought of some behaviors that EP has no reasonable explanation for.

Let’s look at abortion. One thing that evolution, and by extension EP, prioritizes is reproduction, as this perpetuates your family line; the more children you have, the better. This also explains marital infidelity. In other words, it essentially doesn’t matter all that much who you make children with, as long as you make as many as possible.  Furthermore, if you die without any children, your genes die with your body, which is a terrible thing from an evolutionary perspective. So, why would an expectant mother abort her unborn child? Here’s an EP explanation: “prioritization of long-term development over immediate reproduction.” In other words, it’s not convenient for me right now to have a child because I have other, more important goals. Since evolution prioritizes reproduction so highly, the flaw in this explanation should be obvious.

Another behavior that EP has no reasonable explanation for is same-sex attraction. (This is how it is often referred to in research.) Even children understand that it takes a man and a woman to reproduce. However, evolutionary psychologists try to explain all human behavior, including this one. I came across an article which refers to kin selection hypothesis, meaning that “homosexual men might enhance their own genetic prospects by being ‘helpers in the nest.’ By acting altruistically toward nieces and nephews, homosexual men would perpetuate the family genes, including some of their own.” (This is from a ScienceDaily article.) In other words, gay men help by caring for their nieces and nephews, which helps perpetuate their family line, even if not from their own bodies. This explanation is based on a study of Samoan men. The researchers admit that since Samoan society is centered on tightly-knit extended families, this explanation doesn’t fit modern Western societies, where “families are much more geographically dispersed.” I appreciate the researchers’ honesty in regard to this caveat, but it emphasizes that this kin selection hypothesis is a very poor explanation. 

I also want to mention a positive behavior that EP doesn’t have a reasonable explanation for: heroism. Why would an individual risk his life for someone else, particularly a stranger? Here’s an explanation that I found: “Physically risky heroic behavior may be an evolutionary adaptation that provides mating advantages for men but not women.” (Frank T. McAndrew) In other words, women love heroic men! Notice “mating advantages.” Once again we see the priority of reproduction in evolution, even as an evolutionary psychologist indirectly repudiates EP explanations for abortion and same-sex attraction!

While evolutionary psychology attempts to explain seemingly every human behavior, when it comes to abortion and gay sex, its explanations are laughable, frankly. The Bible gives us a much better explanation for these actions; they are manifestations of our sinful condition. The same can be said of marital infidelity, which I also made reference to earlier. Regarding heroism, the Bible tells us this, in John 15:13: “Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.” Jesus, of course, is our ultimate example of this, as He died a horrible death for us on the cross.

Evolutionary psychology, of course, is directly related to the theory of evolution. Here is the link to a post I wrote a couple of years ago questioning evolution: https://keithpetersenblog.com/is-evolution-a-viable-theory/ And last year, I wrote a post about intelligent design: https://keithpetersenblog.com/the-intelligent-designer/ In addition, I referred to Question Evolution Day at the outset; thank you, Bob Sorensen, for publicizing this. Here is the link to Bob’s site, full of articles questioning evolution: https://www.piltdownsuperman.com/; check out his “Question Evolution Day” link.

The more I have studied the sciences, including the theory of evolution and its offspring (pun intended), evolutionary psychology, the stronger my faith in God has become. In contrast, I have talked to many Christians over the years who are afraid that as their kids study science, they will “lose” their faith in God. If they study sources beyond what they have learned in school, I believe that they will get a very different perspective–one that in fact points to God, rather than away from Him.

Am I Grieving for Myself or the Deceased?

I’ve always loved reading, primarily fiction, and I have definitely had more time to read since my retirement in 2020. One author I discovered last year is Charles Martin, a Christian whose characters sometimes remain in my mind long after I have finished the book. Some of his books have a reading group guide, including Unwritten. One of the questions in the guide for that book that caused me to pause and think not just that day but over several weeks was this: “Is the act of mourning about the person lost, or the person who is mourning?” 

This question stuck with me first of all because it is a very profound one that I had never thought about before. (A point of clarification: ”Grieving” refers to feelings of sadness, while “mourning” refers to the outward expression of those feelings, whether it be through crying, talking, writing… In the context of Martin’s book, “grieving” is probably a more apt word than “mourning,” although they both fit to some degree.) Second, I lost three of my siblings over a period of ten months starting in late 2020. I was responsible for the seemingly endless details related to things like memorial services and estates for two of them; as a result, I “took the time” to mourn, but not necessarily to grieve. Maybe that’s one reason feelings of grief sometimes pop up when I don’t expect them. My wife expressed the same thing several months after her mother died a few years ago; we were having dinner with several people when she suddenly felt overwhelmed with grief, so she excused herself from the table, went into the restroom, and cried.

Like virtually everything, I have thought about Martin’s question through the lens of Scripture, and I have come to a point of clarity. All three of my siblings (plus another who died a few years ago) were Christians, which means they are now in heaven, in the presence of the Lord Himself. When I think about my sister who loved to sing and dance in this life, I think of her doing that in heaven. In this life, she had a mental handicap, but now I wonder, with a kind of awe, what she is like without it, free from its limitations! When I think about my other sister as well as my brother, I remember them when they were healthy in every way, with laughter and good conversation in abundance; I also remember them, however, near the ends of their lives, when both had dementia. I realize that I was grieving for them already because in a very real sense I had already lost them. Now I rejoice as I think of them being free from their dementia in the Lord’s presence. The fact is, I find it impossible to grieve for them! On the other hand, I still grieve sometimes because I miss them, but I look forward to being reunited with them the day the Lord takes me home.

There are other people I have known and loved whose salvation I’m not at all sure about. Some of them are deceased, and some I have lost touch with. For those in the first category, I have grieved for them because they are probably not in heaven; for those who may still be alive, when they come to mind, I pray that they will come to saving faith in Jesus Christ. For those who I know have already died, praying for them is meaningless. Hebrews 9:27-28 says, “Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.” 

Contrary to these verses, I know there are some who believe that after death, people get a “second chance.” Tony Campolo is a speaker, author, and pastor, some of whose books my wife and I enjoyed early in our marriage. However, several years ago, my wife read a book in which Campolo indicated he thought that at least some deceased people (those who regretted not trusting Christ) would get a second chance to make it to heaven. This is a very dangerous teaching (reminiscent of the Catholic teaching of Purgatory) and is not supported by Scripture; it tends to be believed by people who can’t stand the idea of people they have known and loved being in hell. While I certainly don’t “like” the idea of people I have loved not being in heaven, I know that the Lord is just; people have the opportunity to put their faith in Him as long as they are still alive. 

If you have not yet put your faith and trust in the Lord Jesus Christ, my prayer for you is that you will do so today.

Sanctuary Cities vs. Cities of Refuge

The term “sanctuary cities” is well-known by now given the rather extreme problem at our southern border. On the other hand, the term “cities of refuge” is from the Bible and is probably unfamiliar to most people.

Sanctuary cities have been at least somewhat in vogue since the 1980s, but they became much more well-known during Donald Trump’s presidency. Liberal media outlets decried Trump’s deportations of undocumented immigrants, even though President Obama had deported more than Trump. They also railed against his southern border protections, particularly “the wall,” as discriminatory and unnecessary even though he was enforcing existing laws. During the first two+ years of Joe Biden’s presidency, the U.S. essentially had an open border. However, in early October of 2023, just three months ago, Biden quietly resumed the building of the border wall. If you’re not aware of this, it’s because many liberal media outlets either didn’t report it at all or paid little attention to it.  Here’s a number that explains the border-wall resumption: in 2023, there were 3.2 million illegal immigrants into the U.S. (a new annual record), which is more than in all four of Trump’s years combined. 

In early August of 2022, Texas Governor Greg Abbott began bussing illegal immigrants to other parts of the U.S. as Texas had become overwhelmed by the growing flood of illegals. Democratic-led cities and the liberal media were outraged then, and that outrage continues. Late last month, Chicago Democratic Mayor Brandon Johnson lashed out at Abbott, saying in part, “The governor of Texas needs to take a look in the mirror, with the chaos he’s causing for the people of this country. He is attacking our country!” The hypocrisy is overwhelming: Chicago is a sanctuary city, which means its laws tend to protect undocumented immigrants from deportation or prosecution, despite federal immigration law. In other words, such cities are blatantly illegal in that regard. (Click on this link to see a nation-wide map of sanctuary cities, counties, and states: https://cis.org/Full-Screen-Map-Sanctuary-Cities) Given Chicago’s sanctuary city status, Mayor Johnson should welcome a few thousand undocumented immigrants. However, even though many on the left like to embrace “compassionate” policies, in reality, they often adopt NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) attitudes. In other words, just keep all of those undocumented immigrants down south. This bussing (or in some cases flying) to cities in the northeast, in particular, has been repeated many times, always responded to with the same hypocritical outrage. 

A couple of years ago as I thought about our southern border crisis, cities of refuge in ancient Israel came to mind. In Numbers 35:6-28 (in the Bible), the Lord told His people (before they entered the land of Canaan) that six cities were to be designated cities of refuge, three on either side of the Jordan River. To summarize: A man (or woman) who killed someone accidentally (verse 15) could flee to one of these cities until his case was tried in court. If it was determined that it was indeed accidental, then the accused could stay in that city of refuge until the death of the current high priest, at which time he could return to his own property. If he left the city before then and the “avenger of blood” (probably a family member of the dead person) found him, the avenger could kill the accused without being guilty of murder. If a man murdered someone, however, he could not live in a city of refuge, and the avenger of blood was to kill him.

I thought of cities of refuge again very recently when I read about some churches who had declared themselves to be supporters of sanctuary cities; in fact, in some cases they even declared themselves “sanctuaries” in the ancient sense of the word. They used the ancient cities of refuge in Israel as at least part of their justification. However, the fundamental difference between the two should be obvious: as stated before, sanctuary cities (as well as counties and states) are blatantly illegal in relation to federal law. However, cities of refuge in Old Testament Israel were legal; in fact, they were required in Israel’s theocracy in order to protect anyone who accidentally killed someone. Sanctuary cities are designed to illegally protect undocumented immigrants. Furthermore, when immigrants are bussed or flown into so-called sanctuary cities, the leaders of those cities show that they are less than enthusiastic about sharing the Texas burden by receiving them. Neither in terms of legality nor the practicalities of providing for undocumented immigrants do sanctuary cities “work” in the real world, at least not with so many of our hypocritical politicians.

How should we treat undocumented immigrants? When I was an ESL (college) teacher, I had an inkling now and then that a student might be undocumented because they didn’t have a social security number yet. However, my college could, and did, enroll such students anyway. I never thought about “reporting” these students to ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement), and even if I had, I wouldn’t have done it. On the other hand, if I had ever been asked by a governmental authority about a given student, I would not have lied, either. The same is true now; if I know someone who is undocumented, I won’t report them, but I won’t lie for them, either. I will help them in practical ways if I can, and I might even be a friend to them! 

My wife and I know a man (from Mexico) and his wife (an American). He is an excellent handyman, and while they lived in our city, we hired him to do a good amount of work on my parents-in-law’s house. They no longer live here; it turned out he was here illegally and was “found out.” He now lives in Mexico, and his wife lives in the U.S. with their daughter a few miles across the border. The day may come when he can again live, legally, in the U.S. For now, thankfully, they have stayed together; his daughter and wife can cross the border even though he can’t. 

My hope and prayer is that regardless of our politics, we can be compassionate and helpful to those we encounter in our country, even if we suspect they may be here illegally. In that way, we can be a “sanctuary” for them in ways that our politicians can’t, or won’t. And perhaps they will come to faith in Jesus Christ, who will then be their true refuge.