Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Evangelical
Everyone Sins…But There’s a Difference

Everyone Sins…But There’s a Difference

Last updated on: September 28, 2023 at 7:57 am by Roger E. Olson

0 Comments

Everyone Sins…But There’s a Difference 2023-09-28T07:57:39-05:00 Roger E. Olson

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

How often I have heard someone say “But everyone sins!” That usually pops out in a conversation among Christians about whether the church should accept LGBTQ people as members. A conservative/traditionalist says “But sex outside of marriage is sin!” Then someone else says “But LGBTQ people can be married!” Then someone says “But we believe sex between people of the same sex is sin because the Bible says so.” Then someone else says “But everyone sins! The Bible says gluttony is sin but we don’t exclude gluttons!” And so the discussion goes.

All I want to do here is explain the difference between two kinds of sin. On the one hand is sin that is confessed as sin and repented of, seeking help to overcome, sin that the sinner is not proud of, and on the other hand there is sin the sinner is proud of, does not consider sin, and has no intention of repenting or changing.

Here I am NOT saying that sex between same-sex couples is necessarily sin. I’ll leave that question or issue for another day. ALL I want to do here is respond to the “Everyone sins…” argument.

I don’t know of any church that would extend membership to someone who is proud of being a glutton. And IF sex between same-sex persons is sin, the comparison is in error. (Of course, if the argument is about whether same-sex sexual activity is sin or not, that’s a different conversation.)

Back to the hypothetical glutton. The argument I have heard in churches is “Well, gluttony is also a sin and we don’t exclude gluttons, so we shouldn’t exclude people who have sex with others of the same sex even if it is sin.” (Rarely is the “even if it is sin” explicitly stated, but it is part of the argument.)

(I am responding here to some specific church people I have heard argue for inclusion of married gay people using this argument. I assume others have made the argument or heard it made.)

Again, I do not know of any church that would admit to full membership someone who is proud of being a glutton. If a person says “I struggle with gluttony and hope to overcome it with God’s help,” most churches I know would admit such a person to full membership. Would the same churches admit to full membership someone who says “I struggle with sex [fill in the blank] and hope to overcome the sin with God’s help?”

That’s the conversation such churches should have—whether sin confessed as sin and worked against, to overcome it, is a barrier to membership. And that should, for them, include homosexuality, adultery, use of pornography, racism and sexism, gossip, etc. My point is simply that the argument that all people are sinners and sin is not an argument FOR including as full members practicing gays. There may be OTHER arguments FOR including as full members practicing gays, but this one, which I have heard numerous times, is illogical UNLESS people who are proud of some sin are also to be included as full members.

Let’s just imagine a heterosexual, monogamous couple who claim to be Christians who have let people know they are gluttons and enjoy gluttony and do not consider gluttony sin and intend to continue practicing gluttony. What church would say “Oh, that’s okay. Everyone sins, so we accept you in spite of the fact that you are proud of being gluttons and have no intention of changing?” Maybe there is such a church, but I’ve never been part of one.

But I have been part of churches where SOMEONE makes the argument that since the church doesn’t expel gluttons and even admits to full membership gluttons, the church should include as full members practicing gay people. Maybe the church should include them, but the argument isn’t logical insofar as the church does not condone being proud of gluttony and continuing in it without repentance or any desire to change.

I realize this is a subtle point. There are lots of unavoidable double negatives. But the very first time I heard a church member use the argument FOR full inclusion of practicing gay people who are proud of being gay because some members are gluttons…I questioned the argument. The question I asked then and ask now is…are the church’s gluttonous members proud of their gluttony or even complacent about it? If so, then, yes, the church should confront gluttony as sin and the pastor should practice pastoral care by visiting the gluttons and encouraging them to repent and get help to eat moderately. If the church condones gluttony and is indifferent to it or does not consider it sin, then the church has a problem. It needs to consider and change.

*Note: If you choose to comment, make sure your comment is relatively brief (no more than 100 words), on topic, addressed to me, civil and respectful (not hostile or argumentative), and devoid of pictures or links. Also: Note that this is not an essay about same sex marriage or LGBTQ inclusion in churches; it is an essay about reasonable argumentation and wrong use of analogies. So do not respond as if it were an argument for or against inclusion of LGBTQ people in churches.*

Uncategorized

Previous Post

September 25, 2023

"The Upside-Down Kingdom," Chapter 3: "Temple Piety"

Next Post

October 2, 2023 “The Upside-Down Kingdom,” Chapter 4 “Wilderness Bread”

Recent Comments

0 | Leave a Comment

"No doubt Lewis was inspired by earlier thinkers. Ironically (or perhaps serendipitously) I am now ..."

Roger Olson

The Abolition of Man: Chapter 3: ..."

"I am sure Lewis would agree. After all, as a Christian he believed in original ..."

Roger Olson

The Abolition of Man: Chapter 3: ..."

"If I’m not mistaken, the quote from Lewis is his interpretation of the “Conditioners’” own ..."

Roger Olson

The Abolition of Man: Chapter 3: ..."

"Thank you! It's been a great re-read of a thought provoking, but somewhat dense, little ..."

Øyvind J. Karstad

The Abolition of Man: Chapter 3: ..."

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Against Liberal Theology Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Four beasts rose from the sea—one like a lion with eagle's wings, one like a bear, one like a leopard, and a fourth terrifying beast. What did these represent?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Four kingdoms Four kings Four judgments Four ages