We were talking about James 2 tonight in small group and two very interesting issues came up - I had an immediate gut answer to both (don’t we always!) but no immediate Scriptural basis for my opinion. So, I did a bit of research for our small group and thought I’d post here too since these are pretty interesting topics.
Question 1 - Are all sins equal in God’s eyes?
Depends on who you ask. The Lutherans would say “yes”: “While it is possible on the basis of Scripture to make certain distinctions regarding the nature or “gravity” of specific sins (see, e.g., John 19:11; Luke 12: 47-48), Scripture clearly teaches that all sins come equally under God’s judgment: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law” (Gal. 3:10).”
Most evangelical Christians would say “no” - say, here or here: “So, although Jesus said that lust and adultery are both sins – that does not mean they are equal. It is much worse to actually murder a person than it is to simply hate them – even though they are both sinful in God’s sight. There are degrees to sin. Some sins are worse than others. At the same time, in regards to both eternal consequences and salvation, all sins are the same. (… ) Are all sins equal to God? Yes and no. In severity? Yes. In penalty? No. In forgivability? Yes.”
“So yes, in a sense “all sin is sin.” But this is like saying “all pain is pain.” It would be a contradiction to deny it. But this does not mean that all pain is equally intense, nor does it mean that all sin is exactly as evil as any other sin, nor does it mean that the consequences and punishments will be the same.”
My take: All sin leads to death and, regardless how little we sin or how “badly” we sin, we all are totally reliant on God’s grace and mercy to be “good enough” to stand in His presence at the end of the day. No sin is too bad to be forgiven nor too important that we shouldn’t be on our knees asking for forgiveness. However, I think it’s Biblically sound to say that some sins are punished more severely than others and therefore would be “worse” in that respect. See also Luke 12:47-48, Mark 3 (unforgivable sin),
Question 2 - Are there different rewards waiting for each of us in Heaven depending on what we did on earth?
Another fun one. Most of the arguments I found are actually in support of different rewards (i.e. faith is what gets us in the door, deeds are what get us different levels of rewards once inside). The most obvious passage is Matthew 16:27:
“For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glofy with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done”
Similar implications are drawn from Revelation 20:12-15 (“the dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books” ), Matthew 6:20 (“store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy and where thieves do not break in” ), Luke 6:35 (“love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked” ), Ephesians 6:8 (“because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free” ), and Colossians 3:23-24 (“whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for men, since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward” ). There’s even a verse that seems to suggest that hell may also have different levels of intensities (anti-rewards if you will) in Matthew 10:15 (“I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on that day of judgement than for that town” (i.e. the town who rejected Jesus and His message).
The only real counterargument I read was in Matthew 20:1-16, the parable of the workers in the vineyard who were paid the same amount of money regardless of how long they had worked in the vineyard (i.e. it doesn’t matter what you do, you’ll get the same reward at the end of the day). However, this parable may also just mean that anybody can be saved at any time (i.e. it’s never too late).
My take: I think there are different rewards waiting for us in heaven based on what we do. However, the million dollar question is what those rewards are exactly. Interesting to think about, impossible to answer until we see for ourselves I guess.
A searing indictment of the aggressiveness of political correctnessRyerson students and faculty members donned rainbow-coloured stickers and clothes in a peaceful protest against the university granting an honorary degree to McGill University ethicist Margaret Somerville, who is against gay marriage.
The internationally renowned ethicist has said she is in favour of gay rights but against same-sex marriage. She argues a child’s right to have both a mother and a father trumps the rights of potential gay parents.
One professor wore a lapel pin that read “I’m straight but not narrow,” while another had on one that said “All you need is love.”
“I’m feeling very angry about Ryerson’s decision to honour Margaret Somerville,” said Sophie Quigley, a computer science professor who unfurled the equal rights banner on stage.
“I find her discriminatory and extremely biased and homophobic for sure,” said Quigley, who was particularly angry that Somerville’s honorary degree is in science because she believes the McGill professor’s same-sex arguments have no scientific merit.
CBC link: Honorary degree sparks protest at RyersonThe Toronto Star’s strongly worded response
Margaret Somerville, the world-renowned McGill University ethicist who holds strong views on same-sex marriage, was graceful in her acceptance Monday of an honorary doctorate from Ryerson University.
Unfortunately, Ryerson president Sheldon Levy missed a golden opportunity on the same day to reaffirm strongly the right of academics to hold controversial views in the grudging way the university and its leaders finally bestowed the degree on her.
Worse, by their actions, Levy and Ryerson may have created an atmosphere of “chill” that discourages free speech and legitimate academic research on controversial issues by professors and students who some activists deem to hold “politically incorrect” points of view.
When Ryerson announced the award in mid-May, the school said in a press release it was honouring Somerville for her influential work “in the world-wide development of applied ethics, particularly the study of the wider ethical and legal aspects of medicine and science.”
Somerville has had a distinguished career. She is the founding director of the Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law at McGill University, where she holds the Samuel Gale Chair in the faculty of law and is a professor in the faculty of medicine. She has done lengthy research into the ethics of cloning, animal rights, assisted suicide and other hot-button topics.
But it is her views on gay marriage that sparked the Ryerson controversy. Gay rights activists seized on her opposition to same-sex marriage, arguing it constitutes homophobia, even hate, and should have disqualified her from receiving the honorary degree.
Same-sex marriage is the law of the land in Canada. Somerville thinks it should not be, and is not afraid to say so. In that, her view runs counter to the liberal winds at many Canadian post-secondary institutions. It also is not a position shared by the Star, which has long been a staunch supporter of the right of gay and lesbian couples to marry. But her views hardly make Somerville a hate-monger. And they certainly should not disqualify her from receiving an honorary degree, her fifth such award.
Somerville actually backs same-sex unions, just not marriage. That’s because it is her opinion that children are better off when their parents are a man and a woman, not a same-sex couple. And she bases her views on her intellectual and academic research on the issue.
But would the same protesters who opposed Ryerson giving an honorary degree to Somerville sit silently by if the university approved research by her, or any other university professor who held her views, into the impact of same-sex couples on children? Not likely.
More importantly, would Ryerson University approve such research, given its failure to leap to Somerville’s defence with a cogent argument for free speech and academic openness? The answer is now unclear.
By failing to speak out strongly in defence of the university’s decision to give the degree to Somerville for her ground-breaking work in the area of applied ethics, Levy was indirectly signalling that the university is afraid to encourage debate on ideas that some deem unacceptable.
Instead, Levy took pains to stress that he himself opposed her views on gay marriage, adding that it was “very very difficult” for the university that many people in the community felt hurt by the award.
That Ryerson showed such weakness is deeply troubling. Academic freedom is a cornerstone of university life. With it, new ideas, which by their very nature can be controversial, flourish because their creators are free from worries they will be punished. Without it, creativity is stifled, orthodoxies become entrenched and intellectual life stagnates.
And a big part of a university president’s role is to speak out in support of all forms of responsible academic research and debate and to create a campus environment where “chill” is unacceptable.
Ryerson and Levy had a higher duty to defend academic freedom against the tyranny of political correctness that is resulting in academic “chill” on Canadian campuses. By only reluctantly supporting Somerville’s right to hold a controversial view, they missed a chance to do just that.
Sometimes in life we want answers. Sometimes we get answers given to us before we even ask a question. Some of you might not understand that, and others that do, really do.
This week I received an answer to an email that I sent someone with every bit of my broken heart coming out to it. They happened to be somewhat of a stranger, and someone that I’m not even sure why I poured my heart out to them, as I had a lot to lose by doing it.
However, this was their response:
Just remember, God does have a plan for each of us and nothing can separate us from his love. Try reading the last few verses of Romans chapter 8 for reassurance.
I am also a great believer in the fact that where Christian service is concerned the task ahead of us is never as great as the power behind us.
The second part really struck me, as when things tend to get frustrating or tiring in my life, I don’t think of power, I think of the mundane, the average and just getting by.
I want to try to encourage you all this week towards leaving the unanswered things in your life up in the air and trying to just patiently wait for what is or could be to come.
May God either open a door for us all this week, or slam one shut so hard, there’s not even a crack of light tempting us to want to get to on the other side.
Top
Ryerson students and faculty members donned rainbow-coloured stickers and clothes in a peaceful protest against the university granting an honorary degree to McGill University ethicist Margaret Somerville, who is against gay marriage.
Margaret Somerville, the world-renowned McGill University ethicist who holds strong views on same-sex marriage, was graceful in her acceptance Monday of an honorary doctorate from Ryerson University.
