The Grey Shadow

The other day Rev. S. confided me that one of our pastors was causing some stir within our church’s pastoral team. It is a problem that is bound to happen every October, just before our end-of-the-year regular administrative assembly, because it is the time when we have to submit the names of candidates for all the different leadership positions within our congregation.

This particular pastor is an excellent Christian and he has our utmost respect. He earned his reputation working as a missionary in Nepal, facing paganism and demonic forces almost daily (no, I am not exaggerating), while being a good witness of Christ. But the problem with him is that he came from a Pentecostal denomination, and he is too influenced by perfectionism. Whenever we proposed some candidate, he objected pointing out a flaw or another: “But he has trouble raising his kids”… “But he is reluctant to tithe…”, “But he is divorced and remarried…”, and so on.

The other pastors of our church understand that is not realistic to expect perfection. As a side observation, I concur and I also can see that the current generation that provides our church leadership material (i.e., people usually over 45) is facing several issues and many of them lead less than perfect lives. So why point the finger to those people’s faults?

I think that most of the objections raised by this pastor come from his flawed understanding of Christian holiness, an understanding that has been tarnished by Christian perfectionism, or a doctrine that maintains that, in John Wesley’s own words, is possible for the Christian to attain in this life the “deliverance from inward as well as from outward sin”. Please note that this is not, by any means, a denial from all sin; and even the perfectionistic Wesley had a rather realistic view of sins in the Christian. After all, he was an accomplished pastor of soul and had an excellent insight on issues of sanctification and holiness. But the teaching of this doctrine led to impossible standards in most Holiness churches; and I can tell that in our particular environment, this brought the practice of double lives and hypocrisy among Pentecostals and other Holiness churches.

That’s why the doctrine of perfection is a danger for the Church: despite all its good intentions, it is a sure recipe for hypocrisy, double-standards, legalism, and judgmentalism. As for me, I prefer a church of fallen people with all its warts and difficulties rather than some shiny, “Stepford-Wiwes”-esque, pasted-smile den of hypocrites.

Despite the good intentions and the sincere intention of commend the search for holiness implied on the doctrine of Christian perfectionism, I cannot clear it as is neither Biblical nor realistic; and it is completely contrary to a true Reformed view of total depravity. Better than writing any answer to it, let me suggest you this excellent rebuttal by Zacharias Ursinus written roughly 200 years before Wesley, as a commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism.

We need to keep in mind all the time what Paul has said so eloquently on 1 Corinthians 1:26-29 [show]1 Corinthians 1:26-29 [26]For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards,(1) not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. [27]But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; [28]God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, [29]so that no human being(2) might boast in the presence of God. (ESV) Footnotes 1. [1:26] Greek 'according to the flesh' 2. [1:29] Greek 'no flesh'
. With his usual wit, my namesake Ed Hurst has nailed down the crux of the issue on the motto of his “School of Holy Cynicism” (a post of his, a post of mine): Mankind is fallen. Sinners will sin. Let’s not lose sight of this. If we do, we are doomed to fail.

I finally caved in and enabled the Akismet web service to stop comment spam. I was getting between 250-300+ comments per day, all of them spam. So far, it seems to work well… and whoa! what a relief!

Meanwhile, I’m spending the day at home, doing some errands and pampering my wife, who caught the flu. Tomorrow will be a whole different day, though… Friday, the dreaded Church Bulletin Day. Carpe diem!

First, a disgression. I know it’s been a long time since I posted something substantial here. This is because of my busy life, and in part… because of the success of the forum. You see, I come here with the best intention of writing something, and then I have to face with something like 2000+ comments waiting for moderation. When I finish clicking through all of them (now in batches of 25 instead of 100, courtesy of the newer WordPress), I am not only tired and barely able to think of something; the fact is that I also am left with no time for writing; the rat race of clicking ate all of it. Sigh… Now, with 554 comments pending, let me put a little rant.

The sidenote. Yesterday I was watching a talk show on a Christian TV network who shall go unnamed. The interviewer asked a young Christian lawyer about the “dangers” of the Internet, with a strong implication on pornography and eroticism. The lawyer began to ramble on and on about how “dangerous” it is, especially for children. He also noted that most “Web safety” (i.e., censoring spyware) installed on home computers can be circumvented; and how even if it is not, people can bypass the restrictions by browsing with their mobile devices. He went on to suggest parents to register their child’s phones with mobile carriers as a children-owned phone so its Web access could be filtered. Well, you get the idea: Control, control, and more control. Big brother is watching you so you’d better behave.

For the record, let me make it clear that I support the efforts of parents who wish to know the whereabouts –real and virtual– of their children. That’s only natural, and it’s the way of parenting. I am not going to tell parents what to do. My bone of contention is different.

What I saw in the program, and in the outlook of most Christian “answers” (????) to pornography and related sins of lust and the flesh, is how misguided they are. They think that the answer is control, and more control.

If the Church thinks that the problem of the sins related to lust, such as pornography, are going to go away because of more control, perhaps she must think again. More control, and the sensation of being constantly watched is deleterious to true Christian spirituality, which needs of a closed, very private and personal space for its adequate development (see, for example, Matthew 6:6 [show]Matthew 6:6 [6]But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you. (ESV)
).

Moreover, the “more control” approach mistakenly conceives the “pornography problem” as a problem of willpower, when it’s not. Most sins of the flesh, and especially pornography, are sins of the heart highly related to idolatry. Sinful habits are just an effect of this. Therefore, with the “control” approach, you are just attacking the effects, leaving the real causes untouched. You cannot fight hunger just by glueing the lips of the hungry.

Until we stop fighting pornography with pseudo-ascetic, hyper-controlling approaches and we begin focusing on it as what it really is, i.e., idolatry, we are doomed to fail. Let’s hope we realize our mistake sooner than later.