What if I had a Christian friend who was into a lifestyle of regular overeating and overconsumption-- say, 2 or 3 times the planet average? If I said to him pointedly that it was unhealthy for him, affects others who have less, and he should stop it, he may very well think me quite rude and that it was none of my business-- and he would be right. If I went so far as to tell him flat-out he was a sinner because he willfully and regularly indulged in the "biblical sin" of gluttony, and warned him of possible eternal consequences as well as almost certain temporal ones, I doubt he would care to have me as his friend any longer.
Most of us do have someone in our circle of friends who is greedy (of which gluttony is a form), whether we are personally aware of it or not. But because this is a culturally acceptable sin among Western Christians, we tolerate and tacitly support greed and gluttony, in others and in ourselves (sometimes even calling that fourth luxury limousine "the blessing of the Lord"!). If I choose to remain friends with such a person, I am not by doing so saying that what he is doing is not a sin. I am not supporting him in his sinful lifestyle choices, nor am I sinning myself by associating with him. I am simply being his friend.
Why is the "biblical sin" of homosexual practice treated so differently? If I personally believe, and even think I have good reason for doing so, that my friend is in error and is endangering himself and/or others by his lifestyle choices (whether overconsumption or homosexual practice), I have some choices to make about how valuable the friend is as a person, how valuable this friendship is to me, and the terms upon which I will retain his friendship. Almost all of us, in the case of greed, are willing to accept that whatever his choices, and whether I approve of them or not, they are HIS choices for which he is responsible, and as a friend my job is to love him whatever choices he makes.
If it is a close friendship, I may have the freedom (with sensitivity and when invited) to tell him how I feel about it-- once. But I certainly don't have the freedom to confront him out of "tough love", to nag him, to try and persuade him otherwise, to leave little news articles around for him to find clearly outlining the dangers of his choices, etc. Such actions would not be considered congruent with friendship in most cultures, and it wouldn't be surprising if my friend felt he no longer required such a "friend" as me in his life.
Making it more personal, think about the sins you commit every day-- those of commission (what you do) and those of omission (what you fail to do). Would you like someone following you around pointing out each incidence, and nagging you, under threat of withdrawing their friendship, until you cleaned up your act? Many Christians seem to have the warped concept of Holy Spirit as this sort of micro-managing sin-spoiler who uses a guilty conscience and a fear of consequences to shame us into better outward behaviour. Where did we get this strange idea? And why would we want to be "that guy" to our spouse, our children, our friends?
Just as I would not like my friend peering over my shoulder and saying, "Did you really need cream in that coffee? What about your waistline?" "Another day past, and you still didn't call your grieving friend", or "You know, what you just said was gossip", my friend does not need me doing the same to him, whatever his transgression. This is not "soft love", as some would have it; it's just love. It's just treating him with respect and honour, the way I would like to be treated. It's the Golden Rule. Just when did following the Golden Rule become unacceptable for Christians?
If we want to think biblically, we need to be aware that there are 5 to 6 times as many Bible verses condemning greed as opposed to the few which even mention homosexuality. The greed of the Western world, which has been part of forming the basis of modern evangelical theology, is certainly and demonstrably far more responsible for the current sorry state of the globe than is the success or failure of any feared "homosexual agenda". (The sins we consider "serious" are usually the ones we are not knowingly guilty of ourselves.)
Just imagine: what if we treated what we consider "fat people" (without even asking or knowing why they are the size they are: heredity? Diabetes or other disease of which weight gain is a corollary? Culturally desirable? A side effect of medication? Or overconsumption?) the way some Christians seem to want us to treat homosexual people? What if we assumed what their private lives looked like, judged them, shunned them, broke fellowship with them, refused to hire or to be served by them, kept them from schools and the medical profession, made rude remarks about them, blamed them for all ills in the world, and tried to get others to do the same? How long would this kind of patently unloving and non-Christian behaviour be tolerated if it were overweight people on the receiving end of it, and not homosexual people? (Have you ever noticed, by the way, that a great many of the vitriolic Christians ranting against homosexuality would fall into the overweight category themselves?)
After all, many of the verses that apply to sexual immorality also apply to greed. By all means, be biblical: but be consistent, too. So according to Ephesians 5:5 anyone who is greedy has no inheritance in the Kingdom of Christ and of God. Ephesians 5:3 tells us greed "must not even be mentioned among you as is proper among the saints", and 1 Corinthians 5:11 tells us we should not even associate with a brother or sister (a fellow believer) who is greedy; do not even eat with such a one! And it goes on; greed is, according to the weight the Bible lends it, apparently a much bigger deal in God's Kingdom than it is in our agenda, and sexual transgression a far smaller deal. I am embarrassed by and ashamed of my fellow believers who believe they are acting biblically and seem to think God is applauding their "stand for righteousness" when they hate on people God created and loves.
I can't help but think that either the Good News is genuinely good, or it's not; that Jesus paid for it all, or he did not. Either all our failings and sins, whether intentional or otherwise, are forgiven and covered by his once-for-all sacrifice, or they are not, and we are all toast. We like to pick and choose, and find some sins worse than others. I personally have great difficulty with the thought of unrepentant murderers or child molesters being offered the same clean slate I am. But there it is. It's either for all of us, or it's for none of us. And especially when my friend and I both know Christ and his redeeming love, I am not Holy Spirit (part of whose job it is to convict of sin, righteousness and judgement) in his life, nor is he in mine; that position is taken.
In this life, we will always meet and interact as imperfect, flawed, broken, yet beautiful and lovable, worthy-of-being-redeemed people. None of us live in the place where that process is complete, and none of us know the essential raw material of the other that God has to work with.
We as the Christian Church must, and I as an individual Christian must, learn a deeper measure of grace-- both to receive it for ourselves and extend it to others.
