Another Pastoral Letter
This message is written by the "other" Pastor of the Christian WebRing. Having
discussed this letter with Pastor Dick, we agreed that it would be good to demonstrate the
possibility that more than one true and honest interpretation can be given to scripture
and what Jesus Christ expects from His body.
In February of 1930 my mother, who was 13 at the time, was sexually seduced by one of her
playmates. On November 17, 1930, I was born. Some in the modern Church would say she
wasn't a "bad" person: that she shouldn't be held accountable for her lapse of
morality because she was "so young," because she "didn't know better,"
because "we have to show her 'God's love'" and "she was just overcome with
passions that she couldn't control."
We, the modern Church, teach that what my mother did was acceptable to the Christian
society, because there were myriads of reasons she could not have escaped the wiles of the
devil: she was so immature: she hadn't have the proper teaching: perhaps she was
neglected: she was in the wrong company: she, after all, was an individual with the right
to "personal choices" and who are WE, to dictate our morals on another human?
Somehow, we have come to think that "Christian society" should be loving and
complacent with people that God Himself rejects except they repent.
When my mother was 13, there was a "stigma" attached to girls who were sexually
promiscous: there was a "shame" instilled in society for people who produced
children outside of wedlock. Because of that stigma and shame, there were far fewer
illigetimate babies. There were far fewer sins of all kinds because people were simply
ashamed to be labeled by the sin. It wasn't "nice" to be a thief. It was
shameful to be a "homo." It was unacceptable to take something that didn't
belong to you. A person's "reputation" determined his status in the community.
And God was an "absolut e." Today, absolutes are obsolete and approximations are
"appropriate." We have "Ten Suggestions" instead of "Ten
My Grandmother sent my mother away, out of the community, to give birth to the child she
had conceived. She was hidden away, secluded from society so her shame would not be
constantly evident to the friends and neighbors. My grandmother was "ashamed" of
what my mother had done. In those days, actions had consequences: God was not a God of
acceptance but a God of expectance. He "Expected" His creation to be righteous.
He did not "love the sinner, but hate the sin" as we teach now, but demanded
repentance and righteousness. There is a hell for the unrepentant sinner. It isnt the
"sin" that spends eternity in hell, it's the "sinner." God doesn't
punish the action, he punishes the one, the human person, who ignores His requirements.
AND He doesn't change. What was sin in 1930 is still sin today.
After all, He had taken on mortal flesh and died the horrible death of cricifixion to
bring mankind to repentance: Why shouldn't He expect righteousness and repentance? God,
Himself, did not condone deliberate sin: He demanded a "turning away" from evil
ways. We had to "come out from among them. be separate." The conditions He gave
Nicodemus have not changed: we must all still repent. Or perish.
We teach that a true Christian is filled with Godly love: that we can not condemn or judge
our fellow humans. The fact is that Christians (ministers in particular) are commanded to
make judgements as a part of our daily life. Those places in the bible where
"judgement" is forbidden are instances where Jesus or a disciple is talking to a
"hypocrite." If you are a hypocrite, you are admonished to make no judgement on
anyone until you have removed the sin from your own life. How can we "come out from
among them" if we don't judge the righteousness of those whom we are to "come
out from among?"
By the way, Jesus had no problem calling a hypocrite a hypocrite: a fox a fox: an
adulterer an adulterer. He called them, whitwashed sepulchers, and children of hell. He
violently attacked one group who were defiling His temple and threatened to cut another
asunder and bury (appoint) him with the hypocrites. His favotite derogotory words were,
"Scribe" and "Pharesee." He didn't care if He hurt their feelings: He
required repentance and He wanted to save their souls.
If you are a hypocrite, don't judge: if you are NOT a hypocrite. you MUST judge. If you
are smarter than God, you can condone people who practice any immorality whatsoever. If
you are NOT smarter than God, you have to draw the line where God draws the line. No place
in the bible records where God "accepts the sinner but rejects the sin." He
always condemns the person, the soul, DOING the sin.
In the name of love we accept the homosexual: God does not.
In the name of love we accept the adulterer: God does not.
In the name of love we accept the abortionist: God does not.
In the name of love we accept the murderer: God does not.
We substitute "love" for "admonishment" and condemn the above group to
eternal separation from God.
God requires "repentance" and a "turning away" from the sin and His
principals are immutable: unchanging: "written in stone." We are not given
authority to "edit" His requirements.
It is entirely possible for us, as Christians: as ministers, to "love" some
lost, sinning soul straight into the gates of hell, to spend eternity separated from his
Creator, because we haven't the guts to tell him his conduct is wrong and God requires him
to repent. If we really LOVED him, we would try to save him. We WILL be held accountable
when we fail to do this.
In His Perfect Peace
Pastor James West
Co-Ringmaster, Christian WebRing