Why The Concept Of Sin Is Important

by Robert Tarr



This essay discusses “sin”, a concept that has nearly disappeared from western culture, and is neglected by the Christian church. The concept of sin is central to an accurate understanding of God and His plan, to successful and safe living on earth and to an expansion of God‘s kingdom on earth. The idea of sin is so distasteful to our current culture that it is difficult to discuss it. Furthermore, since the “fire and brimstone” approach to Christianity is associated with American church evils such as witch hunts and slavery, even the Christian culture has an aversion to the concept of sin.

Sin is an entity that is described by God as part of His revelation to humans. It is defined in relation to God in that sin is described as a force that leads humans to disobey God. It is a force in humans that is opposed to God, hostile to God and the enemy of God. Without first realizing that there is a God and that He has commands, and that He demands that humans obey Him then the concept of sin doesn’t make sense.

There is a new spirituality emerging on earth today. It can be seen in secular realms within phenomenon such as the global information unification of all humans seen in the web and in the rejection of the European system of male chauvinism, imperialism, colonization and slavery, The new spirituality can also be seen in religious circles as a rejection of narrow legalistic and arrogant Christianity and in an embracing of tolerance and unification. It can be seen in theology as a rejection of the idea that Jesus is the only way to heaven and in an embracing of universalism. That is, in an embracing of the belief that all religions lead to heaven and that all humans will eventually end up in heaven. Connected to universalism is an abandonment of the concept of sin.

Thus it is important that we closely examine the concept of sin. There appears to be a slowly forming divergence in human spiritual thought concerning the concept of sin. Some are abandoning the concept and some are seeing its centrality in the message of Jesus. It is therefore timely that we each reexamine our beliefs about sin.


Sin is a central concept in God’s revelation to humans, through both the Jewish people and through the teachings of Jesus and his followers.

Looking first at the Old Testament, we see immediately that God created humans in His image, but that through Satan and disobedience the humans “fell” and were changed. Not only were humans cursed and driven from God’s presence, but they had a new force to contend with. In the story of Cain we see this introduced: before Cain killed his brother Abel God came to him and said “sin is laying at the door and he desires you, but you must master him”. We know what happened; and the rest of the old testament is a chronicle of the power of sin and the helplessness of humans to master it.

John the baptist in one place describes Jesus’ ministry of incarnation on earth like this: “behold the lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world”. Again it is said “now, at the end of the time of this world Jesus has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” Of the Holy Spirit Jesus said that “when I send Him He will convince the world of sin.”

Paul has a long and serious discussion of sin in the first 8 chapters of his letter to the Romans. In it we learn many important truths about sin. First, we learn that all humans have the power of sin in them, whether they are “Jewish or gentile.” This means that all humans, regardless of culture, education, religion, race, intelligence, training, understanding, technology or political environment have the power of sin within them. Second, we learn that “the Law” cannot free a person from the sin power within them. That is, even when we are informed of what God wants we cannot consistently obey Him. The human power of choice is not strong enough, on its own, to keep God’s commandments. Paul sums this up by saying that “all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” Thirdly, we learn that this sin power is inherited as a sin nature. That is, sin is inherent in human nature. Sin is not learned. Fourth, we are taught that this inheritance started with Adam and his sin and has been passed down in its full power until the death of Christ. Fifthly, we see that in Christ the sin nature is conquered by the nature of God which now can live within us. Sixth, we are warned that the sin nature is not removed from us, but that now we are not in debt to it; that in Christ sin will no longer have dominion over us. Lastly we are shown that only as Christ lives within us and as we yield to Him can we walk in victory over sin and be free from its dominance. “Those that are led by God are the children of God.”

Just think about what this means for a second: all the evil in the world today that you can think of, from your own failures to global thermonuclear war stems from a force within us, inherent in humans, called sin.


The secular world view does not include a concept of sin. Humans are aware of sin and its effects, but they will not admit that sin is an inherent power within them that opposes God. In consequence we have counterfeit concepts in secular culture that explain the evil in the world.

One such counterfeit concept is “ignorance”. Now, there is no doubt that ignorance and a lack of education and training in cultural values causes a great deal of harm. The power of the will applied through education and training can make for a more “civilized” people and a stabilized society. However, it does not get rid of sin. How many examples of corrupt royalty, elected leaders, academics, and higher class people does it take to illustrate this? The history of civilization should suffice to show that knowledge, training and culturization does not produce a people free of sin.

Another counterfeit concept is the related idea that humans are intrinsically good, but wounded and twisted by their surroundings. Many attempts at utopian communities have stumbled on this rock. Never in the history of the world has a person or group been able to produce an environment that fostered selfless people. The same human plagues emerged in all attempts at psychological or cultural programs to protect children from damage and to “release the good within”.

A more recent explanation of evil in the world is the idea that humans have neurochemical imbalances that force them to do wrong. The classic example of this is the model of alcoholism. Thus, if a person has a genetic predisposition to alcohol addiction, then that person gets swept into destructive patterns of drinking. That is, it is a physical illness. The person is innocent, not guilty, just sick. Now, in one sense this is true: all humans have a predisposition to one sort of evil or another. Sin is not a uniform product. But the list if “illnesses” is growing, until now we have sex addicts, work-a-holics, sociopaths, humility deficit disorder, work aversion disorder, and political truth deficit speaking disorder. The point is this: the concept of sin is absent in our culture, and with it’s loss we also lose responsibility, accountability and reform.


The new spirituality that is emerging today has several streams that are denying the concept of sin. One stream, echoing the secular thinking on the subject is the substitution of a psychological concept for the concept of sin. Borrowing from psychology and psychiatry, many Christians are more comfortable talking about the subconscious and neurochemistry than about a sin nature. In one way this is healthy, given that many Christians are unaware of darkness within them, but this subtle substitution has a large price tag. The most immediate consequence of adopting the scientific and humanistic worldview of human “dysfunction” is the collapse of all evil into the framework of illness. For a further discussion of these issues, see the articles in the New Day Monk Writers Club section on inner healing.

Another stream, and even more dangerous, is the movement away from orthodox Christian belief and an outright denial of basic Christian doctrine, from sin, through salvation, to eternal judgment. In both the Protestant emerging church movement and in the Catholic spiritual directors movement we see shadows and hear undertones of heresy. Even though neither group will directly deny an essential doctrine, such as the divinity of Jesus and the incarnation, they often skirt around these issues and appear to be teaching a new gospel. In this paper we will look at an example of questionable Catholic writing and will not examine the Protestant emerging church movement. For a further discussion of the Protestant flirtation with heresy see Jim Belcher’s book “Deep Church”.

The presence of heresy in the Catholic retreat movement, and the Catholic spiritual directors movement is less of a surprise than it is in the Protestant evangelical world. All “high church” systems, whether Protestant established denominations or the Roman Catholic Church attract liberal minded people, and such people are less inclined to see the value of Orthodoxy than their more conservative low church counterparts. What is really surprising is the more recent trend where Roman Catholic leaders, laity and clergy alike, are unafraid to teach in a way that denies their own authorities. The official Roman Catholic teaching wing has always been orthodox. Even when practice betrayed doctrine, such as the abuses of the medieval church that Luther identified, the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church has always defended orthodoxy. What we see now though is an “emerging” group of Catholic teachers that are gaining popular support and are challenging the official view. For example, if you carefully compare the solid doctrinal position of people like Father John Corapi, Rev. Ron Rolheiser or the apologists on the Catholic Answers Live radio show and compare them to people like Richard Rohr, Joan Chittister, or the authors often featured in the National Catholic Reporter then you can see that there are 2 divergent groups of authority within the Catholic Church that are differing on important doctrines.

For example, consider this commentary, taken from FOSIL (Faithful of Southern Illinois) on the current debate in the Catholic church on which direction to move from Vatican II; “back” to a male dominated clergy, or “forward” to autonomy of local woman religious orders (“religious sisters” loosely translates to “nuns”) who would follow their conscience and their local authority: “The good news of the Kingdom, or Reign, of God applies to the here-and-now, and those who proclaim that good news do so in a compassionate, not judgmental, manner, just as Jesus himself acted when he confronted the religious authorities in defense of the woman caught in adultery (John 8:1-11). Thus, the ministry of religious to people suffering insoluble conflicts of conscience or caught in impossible life situations, is not rebellion or insubordination but a carefully discerned and courageous fidelity to their primary ministerial vocation: to mediate the good news of God’s compassion and justice to people in concrete conditions. Sisters are not clerics. Their non-clerical statues…has extremely important implications for their prophetic ministry of which many in the church are unaware or about which they are ill-informed. A cleric makes a promise of obedience to his ecclesiastical superiors and his successors. Religious do not. They make vows to God alone, in the presence of their superiors, to lead the religious life. In the concrete, this means that religious, unlike the clergy, are not agents of the institutional church as Jesus was not an agent of institutional Judaism.” Regardless of which side you favor in this debate it should be obvious that one consequence of abandoning the authority of the male clergy is to risk abandoning the Orthodox doctrine that has been passed down and protected by these men. Thus a characteristic of many of those favoring liberation from rigid ancient authority structures within the church is a simultaneous liberation from Orthodox doctrine. One such doctrine being abandoned is the doctrine of sin.


To illustrate some of these issues we will look at a few passages from “Radical Amazement” by Judy Cannato. Judy Cannato is a leading Catholic spokesperson for the emerging spirituality. “Radical Amazement” is a book that draws spiritual inspiration from analogies between contemplative spirituality and post modern astronomy. The book has many great insights and truths in it, and can be a valuable learning experience. In many ways this book reflects the forward move (and most likely future wave ) of God towards a form of Christianity that is based on really knowing Jesus and away from a human authority structure. But, like so many current Catholic spiritual expositions it is incautious about departing from orthodox truths. Consider:

“The image of the black hole has found its way into our everyday vocabulary. Falling into a black hole signifies becoming pulled into to a social situation from which escape is difficult, even impossible. Military spending, for example, has been described a causing a black hole of debt from which our children may not escape. We can have black hole experiences in every area of our lives, situations or events in which we seem manipulated by unseen forces and which fall outside the accustomed gravitational pull that keeps us grounded.

We can experience black holes within ourselves. Sometimes the expected tension between self-preservation and self-adaptation can pull us toward a darkness that seems to threaten annihilation of one sort or another. There are also those areas of our personality or character that seem to set us on a collision course with disaster. Some of our habits, attitudes, and behaviors can fall into this category. We can become addicted to just about anything, from substances to points of view that exert increasing pressure and pull us away from what gives life. Unaware we can travel into regions that grow progressively darker, where the gravitational pull becomes so intense that our integrity threatens to collapse. These encounters always jeopardize our freedom and challenge our capacity for transcendence.

The journey into this sort of black hole is similar to our imaginary travel into the farthest reaches of outer space. Sometimes we reach escape speed and break loose from gravity through our own doing. Sometimes life itself propels us into unfamiliar space. Whatever the cause, we find ourselves ungrounded, on a journey from which there is no chance of escape and into a place where there is no detectable light. Some black hole experiences even threaten annihilation of who we are.
Like travel to a black hole, this journey of darkness that we sometimes make crosses no readily defined boundary, but is characterized by an ambiguous event horizon that quickly throws us off our bearings and takes us to a place of no return. Once we pass its indistinct perimeter all that we are becomes oriented toward the darkness. Familiar objects, no longer able to retain their shape under intense pressure, become distorted and stretched beyond recognition. Cut off from ordinary experience, time and space stand still as we collapse in upon ourselves. We are utterly oriented toward a dense singularity that will not allow escape from its gravitational pull. All light dims, then vanishes completely as any trace of our former self disappears.
What is it that brings us to these black hole experiences? What is it that causes us to nearly self-destruct in spite of our desire to live as beings oriented towards the light? The apostle Paul seems to understand the experience when he says, “I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate” (Rom 7:15). Against his deepest desires, Paul seems unable to be as free as he can be, as loving as he longs to be. We have named Paul’s problem sin, for indeed it is a “missing of the mark” that causes him to struggle against an inner darkness that wants to suck the life out of him. We hear his anguish and identify with it all too well. But sin is defined as “the purposeful disobedience of a creature to the known will of God” and perhaps is not the best word to use in our discussion of this all too human dilemma. In my experience many people are purposely seeking to be obedient to the will of God, intentionally striving to live in the light, creating a field of life and love wherever they go. The difficulty is not with our intention but with our attention.

While some black hole experiences simply occur in the normal course of life, others come about because we are living unaware. When we are unaware, we adapt adopt attitudes and habits that draw us closer and closer to darkness. Unaware, we make choices to relieve ourselves of reality, thinking to lessen our psychological pain or social discomfort. Before we realize what is happening we encounter a gravitational pull that exerts greater and greater force. No longer grounded, time and space become distorted as we orient toward the darkness and lose our self-control.

Everyone, it seems, has had experience with this kind of darkness. Most human beings know what it is to have been under the influence of a menacing force that threatens to break them apart. I think these occasions are normal and necessary, even though they are painful. We all have times when we are swept away, pulled out of our customary comfort and into places where we did not plan to go. Sometimes these journeys come because our own behaviors have thrown us out of orbit. At other times they come simply as the result of life and the chaos that always threatens to encroach. Usually we are halfway to the hole before we realize we are off course. Sometimes we skirt the perimeters without major damage, while at other times we come undone. Perhaps, rather than an anomaly, at least some black hole experiences are an essential part of everyone’s journey, and what is important is to learn how to navigate the space in a way that draws on our capacity for self-transcendence.

One of the most important psychological tasks that we perform as adults is integration of the shadow, that unconscious part of our personality of which we are unaware. The term “shadow” comes from Carl Jung, who used the expression to refer to the whole of our unconscious personality. The shadow contains all of the parts of ourselves that we have repressed for sake our ego ideal. We want people to think we are congenial, for example, so we relegate all our unsocial inclinations to our shadow. In order to protect a persona that helps us adapt to society and get our wants and needs met, we stuff all kinds of emotions and attitudes underground, hidden away in areas of our psyche that we prefer not to acknowledge. Especially at midlife these denied fragments of our unconscious begin to surface. We can find ourselves angry or depressed. We can discover that we hate what we once loved. If we happen to be living with contemplative awareness, we can often acknowledge and catch these movements and bring them into the light of love. But by definition the elements of the shadow are unconscious, and we are most often unaware of their presence until they pop up and propel us into some kind of darkness at warp speed.

Most of our personal black hole experiences come as a result of our failure to integrate pieces of our shadow. Conversely, integration of shadow pieces as they surface is evidence of self-transcendence. Since having a shadow is a given, our task is not to eliminate or judge it, but to strive to attend to it so that we grow in awareness of the whole of ourselves, not just selected fragments. Black hole moments are crises, to be sure. They will always lead to death of some part of us, but they also lead to possibilities and potentialities that we did not know were ours.” (Radical Amazement, pgs 109-112).

Now, this is a well written, deep, valuable and understandable piece of writing. It gives a much more tangible sense of inner darkness than is found in the vast majority of conservative church writings. So, why find fault in it? This answer is that when we remove the concept of sin from our understanding of God it causes a cascade of problems. Let’s examine these problems: First, when we move from “sin” to “shadow” (or any similar formulation) we lose the sense of guilt and wrongness supplied in the concept of sin. This is in fact one of the goals of psychological substitution: an attempt to move from shame and condemnation to a less toxic explanation for our mixed motives and actions. In a legalistic form of Christianity an admission of “sin” within us is indeed shameful; it implies merely a lack of effort or devotion. However, a proper understanding of the forgiveness of sin reveals that power over sin is also found to be a part of the atonement. Gaining power over sin is not accomplished, however, by merely knowing what God wants and merely applying the will to obey His commands. Such a legalistic approach is clearly debunked in the New Testament. There we learn that becoming “dead to sin” requires a power that is released by recognizing the power of sin and becoming dependent of God and not on the mind. The answer to sin then is gain power over sin, not to deny its existence. These thoughts are amplified in later parts in this series. For now though it is important to point out that God’s anger over sin is real, and our guilt as humans is real. Any attempt to remove sin as a concept undercuts the need for a savior. Without sin there is no need for redemption. Without an angry God there is no need for Jesus to be a propitiation.

Second, if we don’t need a blood sacrifice to propitiate an angry God then there is no need for Jesus to be sacrificed. His death then becomes merely an example for us to follow. A model of selfless love. Atonement is more than an example; it is a door to a new life.

Third, if we don’t need a perfect sacrifice then it isn’t really so important that Jesus be sinless. If Jesus is not an incarnation then God doesn’t have to be his father. Joseph (or someone else) can be his father. He is merely an enlightened human. Jesus need not be the eternal word. He can be a created being.

Fourth, if Jesus is not fully God, then he was just another in a string of people sent by God to teach us. Jesus and Buddha, Lao-Tzu, Confucius and Mohammed are all prophets, sending us the same message. Now, granted, in these times of globalization, diversity and tolerance there is a growing realization that Christendom has not produced remarkably superior moral cultures compared to the cultures springing from other world religions. It is tempting to confuse Jesus with his church. Nevertheless, Jesus, by his own teachings, is set apart and distinguished from all other people that ever lived or will ever live. He himself sets himself apart as God. If we lose this important distinction we risk losing all that flows from it: conversion, new birth, receiving the Holy Spirit, being led by the Spirit and (finally) overcoming sin.

Consider a few more passages from Radical Amazement:

“The process of photosynthesis provides an image to guide us. Recall that the sun has always been radiating her light energy toward the earth, ceaselessly pouring out four million tons of herself each second. In one sense all that radiance was lost simply because there was no receptor until photosynthesis came along. It took eons to lay the groundwork required, but eventually Earth was ready and photosynthesis began. With the emergence of that first tiny cell able to absorb the photons and convert them to food and oxygen, the Sun’s radiance was finally capable of being received. And since that event no life on Earth has ever been the same.

Just like sunlight, God’s grace has always been radiating toward Earth, ceaselessly self-communicating, ceaselessly pushing for life from within and without. With Jesus comes the breakthrough moment. After eons of preparation, humankind is finally able to receive grace in a more conscious way. Through Jesus and his interaction with the Holy One, Light breaks through into life in a way never before experienced. Jesus is able to absorb the gracious radiance of God in a fashion that transforms those in his midst who are ready to receive the breakthrough event. Jesus is able to know the Holy One in a way that shatters eons of illusion. Using our species’ capacity to communicate, Jesus began to express his knowledge in radically amazing way. Denis Edwards writes that in the person of Jesus ‘God’s self-communication to all creatures reaches its concrete and tangible expression in history. Here at one point in space and time, in one flesh and blood person, God’s self-communication is both given irrevocably and accepted radically.’

The universe, developing in and through the love of the Creator in space and time over billions of years, has finally evolved to that place from which it can respond full to the Creator in the person and symbol of Jesus. His radical acceptance of Creative Love completes the circle that began with God’s self-communicating grace starting with the Big Bang, continuing through the birth the developing of life, leaping forward with the dawn of consciousness and emerging with the awareness, embodied in Jesus, that all life is accepted and included in God’s love and grace.” (Radical Amazement, pgs 74-75)

Did Jesus merely teach us a new way or did he “condemn sin in the flesh” and rise to become Lord of the universe, to return again to earth, this time judge? Did Jesus come into being when he was born on earth? Do humans need to be redeemed from Satan and sin by the price of the perfect sacrifice? Do humans need to be born again and receive a new nature, or can they learn to walk in Love without first having the sin within them dealt a death blow?

Let us look at one more passage, this time showing that without understanding that “the rest of mankind are children of wrath” the removal of the concept of sin leads to a belief in the universal salvation of all humans through a continued development of the evolution of the human race:

“What will life look like for us if we expand our image of God, envision life as including all creation, commit ourselves to emergence and empowerment, and live in contemplative attention? Can you imagine how radically amazing life will be? Do you think it is possible? Are you willing to risk your life for it?

A life of radical amazement suggests that we live at a slower pace. We spend time doing “nothing.” Learning to sit still, we become aware of all that surrounds us. We pay attention to singing birds and playing children. We notice clouds and the signs of changing seasons. We become friends with trees and neighbors. We begin to relax, and tension starts to melt away as we tune in to the energies of Earth. Slowing down, we notice interior moments. Feelings surface, and sometimes they are not pleasant ones, but as we listen to their message and bring the healing energy of the Spirit through Earth, we hear their message and acknowledge the benefit of being in touch with our truth, even if it is painful.

Living with increased awareness and sensitivity we are no so likely to get sucked into the black hole experiences that drain our energy and set us on a collision course with disaster. Behaviors that lead to codependency and addictions or in other ways restrict our freedom are not as likely to take hold when we are filled with wonder and awe. When the inevitable black hole experiences do come, we can meet them with more courage and strength. In those times when we are overwhelmed by the darkness, the wisdom in our hearts, accessible through contemplative attention, will usually assure us that even in the darkness there is the possibility of a breakthrough of light. And then, in contemplative awareness, we have the ability to wait for the coming of the light with grace.

Living in radical amazement means that we also recognize our unique time and place in history. We are the first generation to know empirically that the universe came about through a powerful emergent event 13.7 billion years ago. It is only in our lifetime that images of billions of galaxies, each with billions of stars, the remnants of the original flaring forth, have been seen. The Hubble Space Telescope images show us with incredible clarity just how exquisite our universe is . We are the first to see Earth from outside its atmosphere, a delicate blue marble suspended in space with no artificial boundaries, only a unified biosphere of indescribable beauty.

As we live a life of radical amazement, we are sensitive to the process of emergence and possibility of evolving from Homo Sapiens to Homo Universalis, universal humans who are integrated body, mind and spirit. Our understanding of Jesus as the one who embodies the evolutionary advance that enables to us to become receptors of the light of the Creator helps us to become clear about who we are. We know that we are beings of light and energy who form morphogenec fields that create possibilities for others. We are holons nested in one another, holding one another, managing the tension between agency and communion, transcendence and dissolution. We acknowledge that death is a painful though necessary part of life and that life itself unfolds in and through the Mystery that is incomprehensible yet present. We know that unity is the underlying truth and that wholeness is the universal drive.

All of our knowledge leads us to greater consciousness. Our knowing what we know is an act of self-transcendence, and our acting upon what we have learned will lead to greater consciousness still. We must now become intentional about responding to the challenges of living in an emerging universe. We must accept the power and grace that is there, that has been there, for a very long time. This moment of time is for us like the moment the first chlorophyll cell learned to receive a ray of light from the Sun and became a source of nourishment and life for all living beings. This is our moment. Let us live connected and in love, so that generations to come will look at us and say ‘They were the first generation to really get it. They were the first universal humans, the first to take in the universe and hear its story and know their part in it. They were the first to make choices rooted in the conviction that all life is connected. They were the first to receive the Light in a way that allowed the entire species to escape the pull of dissolution and disconnectedness and transcend to a new level of vitality and freedom that changed the whole of creation. They were radically amazing!’”. (Radical Amazement, pgs 142-144)

So, we say that we are viewing the emergence of a new spirituality. It is not all negative or heretical. In fact the new spirituality is, thankfully, addressing the abuses of the historic church and will hopefully lead to a more faithful witness. Many flavors are contributing to this emergence. Works like those quoted above have much to offer, but the incaution displayed towards orthodox and important Christian truth needs to be seen for the deception that it is. Retaining a clear understanding of basic central Christian doctrine will prevent a lot of trouble as we move into the future. Retaining the truth about sin in our thinking is part of the protection we need to bring the message of Jesus to the world without offending the Spirit of Grace and denying the Lord that bought us. In subsequent essays in the series entitled “God, Christianity and the New Spirituality” (Found in this same New Day Monk “Writers Club”) we will examine some of the other foundational Christian doctrines that follow from the concept of sin: salvation, grace, works, judgment and eternity. All of these concepts will need to be reexamined in the move towards a new spirituality;

Emerging and liberal thinkers, authors and speakers have a lot to offer us. Just as the more conservative members of the body must protect orthodoxy and guard against a distortion of the gospel so the liberal members of the body must teach us about cultural diversity, community, the centrality of love in the gospel, social justice and the practice of humility. We need each other as we move into the new spirituality that God is bringing into the world.


The history of Christianity is marred by frequent divisions. Obviously the Protestant Reformation resulted in a division of the church, but that is just the tip of the iceberg. As far back the early turf wars between the bishops of Alexandria and the bishops of Antioch politics has marred honest disagreement over doctrine. The sad truth is that division has stained the Church throughout its history and “selfish ambition and vanity” have been mixed in with confusion over the paradoxical nature of God’s revealed truth since New Testament times. Even John the apostle complained (3rd John 9) about “ego” in the leadership of the Church.

Currently though there is a tendency for Christians to again polarize into 2 camps. This time though the issues are deeper than geography, ethnicity or personalities. The issue at stake now is basic to Christian belief. It really comes down to this: What is a true Christian? Who is saved? One camp is concentrated in the liberal high church (both Catholic and liturgical protestant denominations) and in the emergent protestant church. The other camp is concentrated in the conservative reformed, evangelical and “Bible based” churches.

“Liberal” minded people are inclined to recognize that worldliness includes institutional evils such as racism, abusive hierarchical authority systems, arrogance and self service disguised as leadership. Obviously God is opposed to such evils. “Conservative” minded people stress personal responsibility, morality and Orthodox Christian doctrine. Obviously God approves of these virtues. Both sides have an important truth.

However, to choose one side or the other is to fail to remain in the full truth of God. Such a split decision is really like a coin toss with the Devil: Heads he wins, tails you lose.

Home : About Us : Monkipedia : Mystic Blog : Writers Club : Triad : Contact Us : Links

© Copyright 2009-2013, New Day Monks; All Rights Reserved. Website by Blue's ArtHouse Graphics & Web Design.