Over at Greenbaggins the discussion goes on about 2k in the context of Frame’s latest. A number of 2k advocates are being pressed to say whether they, as ministers, would affirm a statement that declared a certain act to be a sin. This has been a repeated tactic to try to expose the dangers of 2k. If 2kers won’t take a public stand, and if they resist the church taking such a stand, then they must be relativists. Or if they are willing to say something is wrong personally but refrain from calling for the church to make a formal declaration, then they are cowards.
A consideration that is lacking from such demands for public statements is the idea of cataloging sins. In 1950 the OPC drafted a report on whether belong to the Free Masons was a sin. The committee concluded that it was. It was a violation of being separate from the world because of the religious overtones of Masonry and the secret aspects of membership. Then the committee debated whether to amend the OPC’s constitution to list (catalog) Masonry as a sin. They decided not to for the following reasons:
It is obviously impossible for the church to draw up a complete catalogue of sins. Any list is certain to be a partial one. The almost unavoidable result will be that the members of the church will receive an unbalanced view of the Christian life. For example, let us suppose that a church catalogues as offenses certain types of worldliness, as gambling, the performance or viewing of immoral or sacrilegious theatricals, and many forms of modern dancing. The danger is far from imaginary that the psychological effect of such partial cataloguing will be that other forms of worldliness, which in the sight of God are no less reprehensible, such as the love of money, the telling of salacious jokes by toastmasters and other speakers at banquets, the display of wealth in a palatial dwelling, and the stressing of the numerical rather than the spiritual growth of a church, to name no more, will be condoned and even overlooked. . . .
A second danger involved in the catalowing of sins by the church is that it easily results in restriction of the Christian libertv of its members. We do not say that this evil is inherent in the cataloguing of sins, but history shows that it freauently is its concomitant and even more often becomes its result. Sooner or later the church that has begun to catalogue sins will almost surely be tempteh to include so-called adiaphmu, indifferent
things, in its list. Yielding to that temptation is an exceedinsy great evil, for history shows that he who today forbids what God allows will all too frequently tomorrow allow what God forbids. . . .In the third place, the cataloguing of sins may easily result in the substitution of the conscience of the church for the conscience of the individual Christian. As was already said, in 1893 Abraham Kuyper discussed the problem of the church’s attitude to Freemasonry in several issues of his religious weekly, De Heruut. In one of his articles on this subject occurs the significant sentence : “The question how far ecclesiastical discipline should extend has often been answered in a sense which not only virtually puts to death all Christian liberty, but also abolishes a11 personal responsibility of the Christian, so that the conscience of ecclesiastical judicatories is substituted for his conscience.” . . . . As Protestants we do not believe in popes, who proclaim their decisions ex cathedra. We do not say yea and amen because certain persons or groups have stated their viewpoint or even because the majority takes a certain stand” (p. 7). That is a way of saying that the conscience of the individual Christian may never be stifled by ecclesiastical decrees. And this principle must be upheld, not only when ecclesiastical decrees go contrary to Scripture or beyond it, but also when they are in accordance with Holy Writ. The Christian must never behave in a certain way merely because the church bids him do so. but must ever walk consciously in the way of God’s commandments. He must lead a Christian life not in obedience to the church, but in obedience to Christ as Lord. Virtue practiced because the church commands it is not virtue. Only then is virtue virtue when it is Dracticed because Christ commands it.
Have the critics of 2k ever considered that the reluctance to condemn specific practices owes less to questionable morality or character than it does to wisdom?
Old Life 
the stressing of the numerical rather than the spiritual growth of a church
Wow! That’s an interesting one to leap out of a possible catalog of sins!
LikeLike
I am still thinking on this one. On the one hand, isn’t part of the stability of having a church having somebody with whom to say no? If I am told that I need to do the right thing (and not do the wrong thing) but not because my confessional community agrees to, isn’t that somewhat like being told that I need extra revival and para-prayer in addition to formal ecclesia? To make me keep choosing if I am choosing to do right because Christ commands it or because the church commands it seems designed to increase my worries.. It doesn’t sound like good news.
On the other hand, Luther never said that the burden of Christian liberty would be easy. If we have learned anything from the negative example of New England puritans, we know that a collective “conscience” does not function well with Christians acting as priests in Christ’s kingdom.
I am not trying to be balanced or judicious. Don’t accuse me of that please! The bridge between the one and the many always makes me anxious.
Kuyper: “Only is virtue virtue when it is practiced because Christ commands it.” Does that mean that there is no such thing as “common” virtue? Does that mean that Kuyper denies that the non-elect practice any good?
LikeLike
Philip Cary, Good News for Anxious Christians, p86–“If you believe you’re doing everything out of love, that makes you obnoxiously self-righteous and deeply deceived. But if you realize that you’re NOT doing everything out of love, you might just try really hard to be more loving out of guilt”.
LikeLike
Dr. Hart,
Interesting post, I think that particular conversation took some turns that I simply didn’t anticipate.
Have the critics of 2k ever considered that the reluctance to condemn specific practices owes less to questionable morality or character than it does to wisdom?
Completely agreed here, the issue at hand was whether or not a minister/congregation/communion could (not should or must) make public statements on certain manifestations of sinful behavior. My answer was and is yes with one modification where I could have it wrong frankly, it may not be permissible for a minister as an individual to make such a pronouncment as such statements should pass the collective (and ordained) wisdom of the synod of council, as I think WCF 31.4 prescribes:
Like I had maintained over at GB, the aims for any public declaration must be ministerial in nature. I can see some eventualities where such statements on controversial issues could be important, and some like in the OPC’s decision on Freemasonry where such decision to speak out could be agreed upon as unwise. I think what you offer here is an important counterbalance to the discussion over at GB.
LikeLike
The anti-2k argument also ignores the policy levers that justify having criminal laws. We don’t criminalize things to give voice to the church’s pronouncement of them as sin. To the contrary, the state criminalizes certain conduct because that conduct poses a severe threat to the maintenance of an ordered society. The goal of criminal law is not to put the state into the service of the local bishop.
Bandying about the language of the church in the public square sullies the church. The church’s business is not the world’s business. When we take the church’s business into the public square, we reduce it to something banal. Ironically, by trying to speak “truth” in the public square, these folks unwittingly take the Lord’s name in vain.
LikeLike
The cataloging of sins (and perhaps the bandying about of Christian morality in the public square) has always seemed to me like a fellow at a cocktail party who has a gripe with his brother, but instead of confronting his brother in restrained tones he rather decides to yell at an acquaintance about how he shouldn’t do the sorts of things his brother has done and loud enough for his brother to hear. The category is indeed wisdom, and I think the word is “boor.”
LikeLike
My favorite thing about this post is the OCR reading of what I’m absolutely certain must be a dogeared, mimeographed copy of a typescript of a 1950 OPC committee report. It reads as a cross between a Gollum accent (“exceedinsy great evil”) and a scrambling of letters (“a11”) so as not to trip a Bayly Brothers Google alerts.
Or is “adiaphmu” in the original text? Is that a tiny little indifferent thing?
LikeLike
Funny, I thought that must be some Greek suffix I wasn’t familiar with….
LikeLike
No list of sins is ever going to be comprehensive, but surely we have ample Scriptural precedent for listing specific sins –
Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine. – 1 Timothy 1:8-10
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. – 1 Cor. 6:9-10
Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. – Galatians 5:19-21
LikeLike
Here’s another list.
Romans 1:8 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.
This one is more a list of laws.
Matthew 5: 21 “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable ato judgment….27 You have heard that it was said, You shall not commit adultery. But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart….32 I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery….34 But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. And do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil…39 if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.
LikeLike
Implied question: Is there a difference between a catalog of sins and a list of laws?
It seems that naming Freemasonry a sin is different than listing the sins that Freemasonry may embody (worldliness), which is exactly what the OPC committee concluded. It seems this distinction may not always be equally clear.
DGH, could you clarify wherein this distinction lies?
LikeLike