In the movie, “The Untouchables,” there is a scene where Al Capone (played by Robert DeNiro) is meeting with his captains at a posh hotel conference room. The table is set with fine linen, china and silver, and it’s obvious that a very fine meal is about to be enjoyed by all.
Capone is at the table, and he gets up, holding a baseball bat. He begins talking to his captains, and as he speaks, we see the captains watching him and nodding in agreement with him. As Capone walks up behind one of the men, the baseball bat comes down swiftly on the man’s head. Again and again, Capone bashes the man over the head with the bat, and while we never really see bat hitting skull, it is clear from the reactions and the blood splatter that Capone has killed a man. The reason? The deceased man had made an error and it had cost Capone in money and goods.
From that scene, we discover that Al Capone has a sense of right and wrong. In his world, it’s wrong to cross the boss, and it’s okay to kill someone who does so.
Regardless of how a person may feel about the validity of the Bible, the Church and maybe even God, there is a universal recognition of right and wrong. It may be that a person may believe what is right for them may not be right for others, and what is wrong for them may not be wrong for others. Nonetheless, there is with all people a sense of moral correctness, and everyone views the world according to their code of morality. For the Capones of the world, it’s okay to commit murder, but it’s wrong to cross the boss. For others, it’s okay to tell “white lies,” but not to steal. Everybody has a moral code.
For the followers of Christ, the moral code we seek to follow is found in the Bible. While most Christians tend to base their morality on the teachings of Christ and that which is found in the New Testament, there is also the awareness of Old Testament teachings of right and wrong, of obedience and sin. Most people in the United States recognize the Ten Commandments as being a good guide of morality. For the believers, Jesus’ instructions supersede the Ten Commandments, expanding on the Commandment’s meanings as demonstrated in the Sermon on the Mount and elsewhere in the Gospel accounts.
Followers of Christ recognize that sin is very much embedded in our world. We are aware of the price paid by Jesus for the forgiveness of sin, and we are reminded in the Gospels and the New Testament of the severity of sin in our lives and in our world. Sin is that which separates us from God and condemns us unless there is genuine repentance and a turning to Christ. Toward that end, believers are willing to share their faith with others in order to show that salvation is available to all people, even the worst of sinners.
The question isn’t do we see sin in our world, but how do we react to sin in our world? More importantly, the question is, “How should we react to sin in our world?”
Ways We Can React
There are basically four ways to react to sin in our world. We can call them the “John the Baptist” approach (Luke 3:7-9), the “Pharisee” approach (Luke 18:9-12), the “Habakkuk” approach (Habakkuk 1), and the “Jesus” approach (John 4). There is something to be said for three of the four, but there’s also some drawbacks to each of them.
John the Baptist was Jesus’ predecessor, the one who was to proclaim the first coming of Christ. He was filled with the Holy Spirit from birth (cf. Luke 1:15) and seemed to have spiritual insights while even in the womb (cf. Luke 1:41-44). He was a powerful voice, preaching in the wilderness outside Jerusalem and demanding repentance.
“John said to the crowds coming out to be baptized by him, ‘You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, “We have Abraham as our father.” For I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire’” (Luke 3:7-9).
John’s method was straight talk, confrontational in nature. He appears to be one who was not afraid to stand up to anyone, who was plain and unyielding in his message. John doesn’t appear to be someone overly concerned with hurting feelings and stepping on toes. He said what he thought, led by the Spirit to speak truth to power. There is a need for that today. The message of the gospel needs to be specific and the warning against sin shouldn’t be sugarcoated.
The downside of this approach is that it is rather harsh, and can come across as judgmental and angry. Such an approach doesn’t convey the love of Christ, and it tends to only see the world as black or white, ignoring the gray areas that are prevalent in our world.
In Luke 18: 9-14, Jesus tells a parable of two men who enter the temple to pray. One is a Pharisee, the other a tax collector. In describing the Pharisee’s prayer, Jesus says, “The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector, for I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get’” (Luke 18:11-12).
In this approach, a person confronts sin as a decided moral defect of others, while ignoring the sin in one’s own life. In this example, the Pharisee basically is telling God that He’s lucky to have the Pharisee on His side, seeing as how righteous the Pharisee is, what with his fasting and tithing. The smugness of the Pharisee looks down on sinners, not necessarily wanting to see repentance, only comparison.
Sadly, there are quite a few of us that take the Pharisee approach. We sometimes find ourselves building ourselves up at the expense of others. The Pharisee approach of confronting sin is not so much a confrontation as it is a condescension. And, quite frankly, there really is no room in the believer’s walk for this kind of approach, as Jesus made clear in His parable.
The third approach is similar to that of the prophet Habakkuk. He saw sin in his world, and his heart was both breaking and confused.
“How long, O Lord, must I call for help, but You do not listen? Or cry out to You, ‘Violence!’ but You do not save? Why do You make me look at injustice? Why do You tolerate wrong? Destruction and violence are before me, there is strife, and conflict abounds. Therefore the law is paralyzed, and justice never prevails. The wicked hem in the righteous, so that justice is perverted” (Habakkuk 1:2-4). God answers Habakkuk’s first question, stating that He is raising up the Babylonians to bring judgment to Judah, which leads to a second question. “O Lord, are You not from everlasting? My God, my Holy One, we will not die. O Lord, You have appointed them to execute justice; O Rock, You have ordained them to punish. Your eyes are too pure to look on evil; You cannot tolerate wrong. Why then do You tolerate the treacherous? Why are You silent while the wicked swallow up those more righteous than themselves?” (Habakkuk 1:12-13).
What Habakkuk demonstrates is an approach to confronting sin by asking God how He can allow sin to go on without bringing judgment. When told God is bringing judgment, Habakkuk questions God’s method.
A couple of things about Habakkuk’s approach. First, there is never anything wrong in asking God questions for clarification’s sake. That’s what Habakkuk is doing in this chapter. He’s not asking what he did to deserve judgment, or whining about a perceived injustice. He’s observed a society in which sin seems to go unpunished, while righteousness seems to be overcome by evil, and wants to know how God is going to deal with the issue.
Habakkuk’s approach is akin to someone asking, “What’s wrong with kids today?” or “What’s wrong with our world today?” It’s a somewhat nostalgic look at sin, looking back on the good old days when we could leave our doors unlocked, when we could walk the streets in safety, etc. Habakkuk’s approach confronts sin on a societal level, not on an individual one. The merit here is that we should be aware of social injustice, inequality and sin. We should be willing to speak out on all the issues that are hindering our walk with God and corrupting our society.
The drawback to this approach is that it is very general in its approach. It addresses sin on a generic sense, even if called out as a specific sin, without addressing each individual’s role in that sin. For instance, it is right to speak out against institutionalized racism, but there is also a need to address each person’s own prejudice.
Next week — How Did Jesus Confront Sin?
(c) 2018 Glynn Beaty