Adventures of the Early Church. . .

THE SIN WORSE THAN SODOMY

One way to measure a religion is by its attitude toward sin. The Japanese, for instance, who are Shintoists and Buddhists, have a view of sin so different from the Judeo-Christian conception that it is difficult to reach them with the gospel. To most orientals a sinner is a malefactor, such as a murderer or thief, and they have a problem in seeing pride and selfish ambition as sin.

Even within our own Christian tradition there are sins and then there are sins, depending on whom one chooses to listen. The Pharisees had their list and Jesus had his. While the Pharisees were preoccupied with breaches in ceremonial law, Jesus talked about man’s corruption emanating from his heart, such as covetousness, wickedness, evil thoughts, deceit, envy, slander, pride, foolishness, and sensuality (Mk. 7:21-22). Perhaps there are lesser sins, but these are the sins that really matter, according to Jesus.

Except for one, the sin that is worse than sodomy, which I will point too directly. Some Old Testament background will help in understanding this sin, which at the same time points to the noblest of the virtues.

While Israel had a sacrificial system whereby her sins could be expiated, there were two sins that were excepted, sins that could not be atoned for through animal sacrifices. These were murder and rape. Murder was unpardonable because it killed the body, rape because it killed the soul. Since David was guilty of both of these sins, some of his psalms really come alive when they are read with this in mind. Since his sins were too grievous to be atoned for at the alter, David had no recourse but old-fashioned repentance in which he laid his soul bare and begged God for mercy.

This is especially evident in Ps. 51, one of the greatest of the psalms. It begins: “Have mercy on me, O God, according to thy steadfast love; according to thy abundant mercy blot out my transgressions.” David lusted for a woman and then, by his power as king, forced himself upon the woman, rape. In hope of covering his foul deed he went on to murder her husband. Having no recourse to the sacrificial law for these “presumptuous” or “high-handed” sins, as they are called in Scripture, he could only sue for God’s mercy, his overflowing grace. He agonized over these sins: “My sin is ever before me,” he says, and he cries out “Against thee, thee only, have I sinned,” which really meant that he had sinned especially against God, with whom he was in covenant relation. Ah, covenant relationship. That is why he cried out for God’s hesed (lovingkindness or mercy), for he believed God would remain faithful to the covenant even when he had failed. David came to see what God really wanted or what religion is all about: “The sacrifice acceptable to God is a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise (Ps. 51:17). Once God has one’s broken heart, the psalmist says, “then wilt thou delight in right sacrifices.” So concerned are religious folk with right sacrifices, that they forget the broken and contrite heart. Isa. 66:2 confirms this: “This is the one to whom I will look, he that is humble and contrite in spirit, and trembles at my word.”

I am convinced that this is why David is called “a man after God’s own heart,” the only one in Scripture of which this is said. Yes, the man who had committed the worst of sins was the one closest to the heart of God. Why? Because his ugly sins brought him to his knees in humble contrition. He was broken before God, pleading for his hesed, that unconditional grace that only a person deep in sin can appreciate. David was like the man that Jesus pointed to as “justified,” the one who simply cried out from the depth of despair, “God, be merciful to me a (literally the) sinner.” The “religious” man in the story also prayed but he was himself having no such need (Lk. 18:10-14).

This is the spirit of both Testaments. It is the humble person who seeks God that is acceptable rather than the “proper” person who supposes he is righteous because he follows the correct ritual. Such as in Ps. 24:3 where the question is posed as to who will dwell in God’s holy hill or in his presence. “He who has clean hands and a pure heart,” is the answer, clean hands referring to one who sincerely tries to do right by others, while a pure heart refers to that singleness of mind to will one thing: to do God’s will the best one knows how, however stumbling that may be.

Now we are prepared to understand the sin that is worse than sodomy, for it is the opposite spirit from the broken and contrite heart. It is the heart of indifference, the mind that is calloused and hardened by wilful neglect. It is the sin of not caring, even amidst heaven’s blessings.

Today’s homosexual church reminds us that Jesus said nothing about homosexuality as a sin, though he named many sins. In fact, his only allusion to homosexuality is in Mt. 11:24, they note, where he refers to ancient Sodom and says, “It shall be more tolerable on the day of judgment for Sodom than for you.”

When one considers the whole of Scripture, there is little comfort in the fact that Jesus does not specifically name homosexual acts, which should be distinguished from homosexuality as such. Neither does he name bestiality, child abuse, or drug addiction. His injunction that we seek to do God’s will on earth as it is done in heaven should be enough to monitor a person’s sexual life, without looking for all the specifics.

The fact remains, however, that our Lord’s only reference to sodomy is to score a more serious sin. Sodom would have repented, he surprisingly asserts, if it had had the light that came to the cities of Galilee “Where most of his mighty works had been done.” That illustrates how little we really know about Jesus of Nazareth. Most of his work was done in Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum, and yet the gospel narratives tell us nothing about what happened in those cities. But one crucial fact comes through’ loud and clear: they would not repent even when they had overwhelming evidence for what God was doing in their midst.

This was a worse sin than the sin of Sodom because the people of Sodom were not given as much light as the cities of Galilee. Jesus is not excusing the Sodomites. Their sin is still there. He is rather saying what religious folk are slow to see: responsibility is measured by opportunity. It will be more tolerable for Sodom, Jesus says, because their opportunity to understand was not as great. They were less responsible because they had less light. The greater the light the greater the responsibility.

This is why sins of the heart are more serious than sins of the understanding. The greatest sin of all is not to care what God has done for sinful man.

Capernaum was condemned by Jesus — “You shall be brought down to hell!” — not because they threw stones at him or tried to kill him, but because they ignored him when he preached to them the kingdom of God. Theirs was a sin of wilful ignorance. If Sodom had witnessed the glorious presence of God in the person of Jesus as did the cities of Galilee, they would have repented, our Lord says in Mt. 11:23. It is an amazing declaration! It reveals a great deal about the nature of sin: a fat, stubborn, obstinate heart is far worse than imbecility of understanding.

This weighty truth should make us all the more reluctant to judge others. We do not know all the facts as to why people behave the way they do. However steeped in error a person may seem to be, God will judge him by the opportunities he has had. Man looks upon outward appearance while God looks upon the heart. We have no way of seeing into the heart.

We Americans need to take a grave look at Jesus’ judgment of “It shall be more tolerable” for those who have had less light. God’s grace’ has been bounteous in our nation. We have churches everywhere and there are Bibles in virtually every room of our homes. We have had more freedom to read, to think, and to grow than any nation in human history. What have we done with the light that has illumined our way? How much do we really care? Even within the church how indifferent are we?

While we might deem it unthinkable that Jesus would ever say “It shall be more tolerable for Sodom than for America,” it is a judgment that could be forthcoming. And if we apply this principle to our own heritage as a unity movement, we might ponder the judgment that “it will be more tolerable” for various sects than for the Christian Churches/Churches of Christ, to whom “Unity is our polar star” has shown with great luminosity.

How many denominations have had a Barton Stone and an Alexander Campbell to pass along the torch of Christian liberty? It is just possible that a betrayal of a great heritage of unity and freedom is a more serious sin than the sin of ancient Sodomy. — the Editor