WHAT IS SIN?
Isaiah 53.6
S: Sin
C: Postmodern
Th: Confusion
Pr: WE SHOULD MAKE HONEST AND REALISTIC EVALUATION OF OURSELVES.
CV: We will clearly communicate the transforming truth of the Bible.
Type: Inductive
PA: How is the change to be observed?
• Be honest with self.
• Evaluate your motives.
• Recognize God’s standards are higher than your own.
• Apply the good news to yourself.
Version: ESV
RMBC 09 November 08 AM
INTRODUCTION:
It has been an interesting week, hasn’t it?
I am sure that many of you are like me, in that, you are glad the elections are over.
But I do want to say this for the record, I am rejoicing that an African-American is going to be in the White House.
It is absolutely historic.
I am glad that our country has, at least in part, fulfilled some of Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream.
We have decided as a country that there is more to a person than the color of the skin, and elected him president.
And I say, “Good for us!”
Let’s pray for him as the transition and transfer of power takes place in our nation.
We live in interesting times that is for certain.
As we noted last week…
We live in a time when the postmodern worldview is replacing the modern.
It is a very historic time in our culture.
The worldviews are changing.
And it is not so much that postmodernism is a reaction to modernism, as it is the logical follow-up to it.
Though it began earlier, for many of us, we began to experience postmodern thinking during the sexual revolution and the anti-establishment movement of the 1960s.
That which was always considered to be true was challenged on multiple fronts.
Last week, we asked the question, “What is truth?”
Asking that question means we want to know what is true versus what is false?
What is right versus what is wrong?
And when we ask, “What is truth?”, we also want to know whether truth can be known?
This is where a distinctive is set-up between the modern worldview and the postmodern.
The modern worldview believes that truth can be discovered and known objectively.
But in contrast…
The postmodern worldview says that truth is subjective.
In other words, one’s understanding of the truth is dependent on the experience you have.
Those of us that have, culturally, possessed a modern worldview, will struggle with this concept.
I am concerned though, as we go through this series called “Confusion,” it will come across that I am totally against the postmodern worldview.
And if it seems I am doing that, I apologize.
For actually, I think that the postmodern worldview is better than my modern worldview in several areas.
I am finding some qualities of postmodernism intriguing as I continue to study it.
One of the conclusions I came to last week, reflects the postmodern emphasis.
I do believe God can be known.
He can be experienced.
God, as truth, as the basis of truth, can be experienced.
That is my experience.
And many of you will give the same kind of testimony as well.
OUR STUDY:
But I think there are some danger areas to the postmodern worldview.
One of these areas is what we call “relativism.”
And again I have no wish to trivialize this subject.
Indeed, please understand we are just scratching the surface of all that could be said, both for and against.
But if you apply relativism in your thinking, allow me the opportunity to discuss it with you today.
Relativism is the belief that truth is dependent on a person’s culture, class, or individual experience.
Simply stated, truth is relative.
Truth is shaped by how you live.
It is shaped by where you live.
It is shaped by the relationships you have.
So, the postmodernist says…
There is no objective truth.
There is no truth out there that serves as a basis and foundation on how to live.
If anyone tells you that there is, don’t believe it.
It is a myth.
And even worse, all they are trying to do is to control you.
You may be running into an argument with relativist when you hear:
“Live and let live!”
“No one as the right to tell me what is right or wrong.”
“It’s wrong to impose your morals on someone else.”
“I have the right to do whatever I want as long as I am not hurting anyone.”
“You have to do what you think is right.”
“Stop being so judgmental!”
These statements come because…
Tolerance is the favorite virtue for the postmodern worldview.
Let’s examine the concept of tolerance for a moment.
Webster’s dictionary defines it like this:
To tolerate is to recognize and respect other’s beliefs, practices, etc. without sharing them; To bear or put up with…
That is a definition I agree with.
In fact, I would like to be known as a tolerant person.
I think Scripture points us this way.
Christians should be tolerant (Romans 12.18; Ephesians 4.2)
If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all.
Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. (NIV)
It is hard to have perfect relationships, isn’t it?
And some people are harder to get along with than others, right?
So we need to apply these verses be tolerant.
I think all of us would agree that it is good to respect and protect legitimate rights of others, even those with whom you disagree and those who are different from you.
It is good to listen to and learn from other perspectives, cultures, and backgrounds.
It is good to accept other people, regardless of their race, creed, nationality, or sex.
However…
To the postmodernist, every value, belief, lifestyle and truth claim is equal and valid.
Not only does everyone have an equal right to his beliefs, now all beliefs are equal.
Do you see how that got turned around?
All values are equal.
All lifestyles are equal.
All truth claims are equal.
According to the postmodern extension of the definition of tolerance, you must agree that another person’s position is just as valid as your own.
You see…
To be truly tolerant, according to the postmodern worldview, we must approve of and participate in their attitudes and activities.
You must give your approval, your endorsement, and your sincere support to their beliefs and behaviors.
You must accept them – totally.
And if you don’t, the labels come out:
Narrow minded bigots…
Fanatics…
Extremists…
Hatemongers.
The labels come out because it is apparently immoral to be intolerant according to the relativist’s definition.
This kind of thinking is even reflected by our own education system here in New York:
ILL Tolerance (S)
New York State Regents’ goal for our children is this:
"Each student will develop the ability to understand, respect and accept people of different races; sex; cultural heritage; national origin; religion; and political economic and social background, and their values, beliefs and attitudes."
If you don’t look to carefully at that, you will say, “Sure, what’s the matter with that?”
But here is the challenge to that…
Should we respect and accept the beliefs that led the Chinese leaders to massacre dissenting students in Tiananmen Square?
And what about the values and beliefs that allowed Osama bin Laden to send airplanes into the twin towers?
Should we respect and accept those values?
Is exposing unwanted children to the elements and certain death, a custom still widely practiced in some countries, to be respected and accepted because it is part of somebody else’s culture?
How about forced female circumcision?
Must I accept these beliefs and customs?
I struggle with this.
I struggle with the relativist position because…
If there is no universal moral law, truth is decided by what is most popular and pragmatic.
So how is truth decided?
It is decided by the person who yells the loudest.
It is decided by the person or group who lobbies the longest.
It is decided by those who inspire the most fear and outrage.
Here is the key concept for the relativist’s new concept of tolerance…
Who I am equals what I do.
What does this mean?
This means if you express any disagreement with my beliefs, you are disparaging me.
If you say that my behavior is wrong, you’re judging me.
If you criticize my culture, you are criticizing me.
If you can’t accept my lifestyle, you’re being intolerant me.
My question is this:
When we disagree and we are in conflict, who decides?
What or who can we appeal to?
At the heart of this conflict is a question that the relativist denies…
Question: Is there a Moral Law Giver?
There were a group of people that believed that there was a source to our rights as humans.
They believed in a source of our values.
In the United States, we call them our Founding Fathers, and they signed on to a document that said this:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
I believe they had something here.
They believed nature’s law was self-evident.
You don’t use reason to discover it.
You just know it.
You know it, because the moral law is written on our heart.
There is evidence of objective moral law.
It is the relativist’s claim that there is no absolute truth.
But, if there is no absolute truth, then their absolute claim that “there is no absolute truth” can’t be true.
The statement affirms what it tries to deny.
It is irrational.
In the same way, the person who denies all values, values his right to deny them.
Again the thought process affirms what it tries to deny.
So language continually betrays the relativist position.
How many believe that it is good to help people?
We all do.
It is intuitive.
We sense that we ought to do good and shun what is evil.
But the relativist denies that the choice is possible.
It is all equal and valid.
ILL Morality (S)
C. S. Lewis in Mere Christianity:
“Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might just as well try to imagine a country where two and two made five...”
Do you want to live in a country like that?
No, you would not find that appealing at all.
Ill
Let’s take a test this morning.
I want you to write it down.
T/F Pastor Dick is the tallest pastor on Randall’s staff.
T/F Pastor Will is older than Jim Walton.
T/F Pastor Paul is bald.
Find two people in audience.
Put tests in folders.
Grade one an A, the other an F.
Are you okay with that grade?
No? Why not?
It’s not fair?
But I like green more than purple.
So I gave the green folder an A, and the purple an F.
Note this…
All I need to do is treat you unfairly and you appeal to a value.
You appeal to justice.
You appeal to fairness.
ILL Morality (S)
C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity
"My argument against God [when I was an atheist] was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?"
We all seem to have this sense of justice.
We all seem to have this sense of right and wrong.
We may not always agree on what is right and wrong, but we do agree that it exists.
For example, if you are married, do you want your spouse to be relatively faithful, or absolutely faithful?
Our hearts reveal the answer, don’t they?
CHALLENGE:
You see, what we have been talking about with all this discussion on relativism, is trying to get a handle on another question: “What is sin?”
What is truly right?
What is truly wrong?
Can we make this kind of distinction?
For the relativist, if you are going to consistently follow their line of thinking, there ends up being no real moral differences.
In other words, there is no difference between freedom and slavery.
There is no difference between equality and racism…
Or care and abuse…
Or love and hate…
Or life and murder.
We squirm with the logical conclusion of that.
It is our experience that there is a difference!
Because of that, I want to introduce another question…
Is humanity good?
We want to be known for being good, don’t we?
It is just like the…
ILL Good (H)
. . .mother who was dropping her son off at a friend’s house. She said to him, "Will you be good while Mommy’s gone?"
The boy replied, "If you give me a dollar!"
His mother shook her head and said to him, "Why can’t you be good for nothing like your father?!"
How about you?
Are you good?
Or are you good for nothing?
Consider this…
Is there a difference between Mother Theresa and Osama bin Laden?
I think most of us would.
Or how about Billy Graham and Josef Stalin?
Again, I think most of us would.
In both cases, we would see that there is a qualitative difference between the people in question.
If humanity is basically good, how can there be a difference between these we compared?
Let’s get personal with this…
What keeps you from being like a Bin Laden, or Mussolini, or Stalin, or Hitler?
I believe that…
WE SHOULD MAKE HONEST AND REALISTIC EVALUATION OF OURSELVES.
I think a problem we have is that we are not introspective enough.
It does not matter how much or how little time we have spent in church…
We don’t take the hard look at ourselves and evaluate what we are really like.
For why do we tolerate behavior in ourselves, that at the very least, we sense it is not good, or at the most, we know is evil, and yet, we still want to call ourselves good?
Jesus tells us that the truth will set you free.
In other words, when we tell the truth about ourselves, we start laying a foundation that, I believe, is founded in God Himself.
ILL Morality (S)
At Ohio State University there is a performing arts center that has been labeled, "America’s first deconstructionist building" that reflects the postmodern worldview. The entire site demands a double take. The viewer encounters angled surfaces that disorient, stairways that lead nowhere, and pillars that protrude without purpose.
Ignoring the rules that organize the world of construction, the architect makes a loud statement about the incoherence of life itself: Life is a random, disjointed series of time and chance, note the deconstructionists.
Yet upon observing the architect’s work at the university, Ravi Zacharias noted only one revealing question: "Did he do the same with the foundation?”
The Bible tells us that God is truth, and I think we are wise if we take the time to make sure that the building called our life has got a solid foundation.
We want it built on truth.
So note this…
The Christian worldview states that no one meets God’s standard (Isaiah 53.6; Romans 3.23).
All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way…
…for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God…
Scripture is tough on us.
The testimony of Scripture is that we not good.
The testimony of Scripture is that we have an inward bent toward ourselves and what is wrong.
We call that sin.
We can believe that we are good, but the truth is is that we are not good enough.
If we make the standard of goodness ourselves, we might be OK.
We might be better than others.
Certainly better than Hitler and Stalin.
But the problem is, is that we are a poor standard.
Our goodness is a poor foundation to build our life.
But there is good news…
The good news is that not meeting God’s standard does not have to be the end of our story.
It can be, but it doesn’t have to be.
The good news is that God knows you can’t meet the standard.
He knows you cannot build that stable foundation on your own
It is impossible.
But He has lovingly provided a way out.
It is Jesus.
Romans 5.8 states:
But God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
But here is where my heart breaks…
Not meeting God’s standard of goodness can be the end of everything for us.
It can be bad – real bad.
It can mean eternity outside the presence of God.
I don’t say this to scare anyone.
I don’t say it to preach fire and brimstone.
I say it, because it is my experience.
I believe it to be the truth of God, and to lovingly warn there is a better way to live in the love of God.
You and I can have a solid foundation and live a life of goodness and joy that will last forever.
BENEDICTION:
Now to him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy — to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen.
RESOURCES:
Carattini, Jill. The Foundation. RZIM, 6 July 2005. Accessed 7 July 2005.
Colson, Charles. Judge Not? Humility Doesn’t Mean Having No Convictions. BreakPoint, 15 Feb 2000 2000. Accessed 17 Feb 2000.
Foutz, Scott David. Do Objective Moral Standards Exist in the World Today? In Quodlibet, October-December 2004.
Geisler, Norman, and Frank Turek. I Don’t Have Enough to Be an Atheist. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2004.
McDowell, Josh, and Bob Hostetler. The New Tolerance: How a Cultural Movment Threatens to Destroy You, Your Faith, and Your Children. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 1998.
New Dictionary of Christian Apologetics. ed. W. Campbell Campbell-Jack, Gavin J McGrath, C. Stephen Evans and Steve Carter. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006.
