Growing Pains

"Aslan," said Lucy, "you're bigger."
"That is because you are older, little one," answered he.
"Not because you are?"
"I am not. But every year you grow, you will find me bigger."

--from Prince Caspian by C.S. Lewis

I was thinking about this a lot last night at Bible study. We were studying the relationship between sin and grace. We started with a diagram that looked something like this:

On one hand, I have my awareness of God's holiness. On the other, I have my knowledge of my own sin. (These both tend to increase with time.) When one first becomes a Christian, the Cross tends to just barely bridge the gap. How could our understanding of God's grace exceed our knowledge of the gap between? For Christians like me, who converted at a very young age, the cross tends to start out very small. Unfortunately, sometimes it stays that way.

As time passes, the cross can seem to diminish in size. Sin not only fails to disappear after conversion - it growls and snarls and grows more rapidly than a hydra. God is not only as inaccessibly perfect as we had known at first - he is more so. And yet the cross too often fails to bridge the gap. So what do we do?

We fill the gaps artificially. We try to do good deeds - or have regular Bible studies - or pray - or something - to cover that extra gap between the top of the cross and God's holiness. We become increasingly dishonest - either with ourselves ("I'm not that bad") or with others. Oh, how very good I am at that last. I don't and wouldn't lie, of course. I just sit there uncomfortably silent when people ask for prayer requests when I desperately want prayer for x embarrassing spiritual problem in my life. (Note that I can't bring myself to specify a specific example even as I discuss the problem.) I just quietly despair as I compare my own lack of faith with my neighbors' faith. I can grow resentful of others' success and peace of mind; I can become peevishly convinced that everyone is a bunch of similar hypocrites anyway (or something like the world through the devil's mirror). It gets ugly.

You might notice how I flit around between "I do this", "one does this", and "we do this" in this post. It's because I'm still working through which applies where. Hey, let my confusion be reflected in stylistic confusion. One thing I wonder - is the fact that my first thought is of Aslan a sign that "Aslan" hasn't grown big enough for me? Have I failed to get to know him sufficiently in my own world? How can I get to where the cross is sized appropriately?

One thing's for sure: John 3:30. "He must increase, but I must decrease."

What Is Right and What Is Easy

I find myself in an awkward position regarding the Church and social morality. Well, it's not awkward on all fronts: I find that any "Christian" agenda which fails to provide for the poor and despised in our society is no Christian agenda at all. That's simple. I can even feel a bit smugly (self-?)righteous in the "caring for the despised" category, because not everyone is able to see this obvious point. But in the field of sexual morality, things get complicated. Largely because I can see traces of smug self-satisfaction in both the major visible camps, traces I can see in myself whichever stance I take.

I have grown up in a conservative environment. I've long understood the arguments against abortion, and I agree with them. I've long understood the arguments in favor of limiting sexual relationships to a heterosexual monogamous context, and I cannot disagree with them. Abortion is bad because it kills humans. God created sex for a purpose, and that purpose is clearly outlined in the Bible. Fairly simple.

Unfortunately, it got more complicated when I encountered a liberal environment. I understand the arguments against-against abortion (few, I find, are simply "for" it), and I agree with them. I understand the arguments in favor of permitting sexual relationships in a variety of contexts, and I cannot entirely disagree with them. Abortion can save lives. I find myself disgusted by finding some "pro-life" arguments which show exactly the sort of misogynistic anti-choice logic which I had dismissed as abortionist anti-life caricature. (But I never would argue for the life of the fetus over that of the mother without the mother's consent!) (But some would.) (But I would never demand that an unviable fetus be carried to term at the risk of the mother!) (But some would.) (But I don't want to punish women for promiscuity by refusing birth control, demanding they raise the baby, while permitting the man freedom from judgment! That would be totally contrary to even the Law of Moses!) (But some would.) As for alternatives to heterosexuality (yes, alternatives plural, for those concerned about a monolithic "homosexual agenda") - well, here's where I get into the really murky waters.

It is easy for me to condemn the sins which tempt me little.

It is easy for me to condemn the sins which I have buried in shrouding denial.

It is easy for me to condemn the sins which, condemned, still permit me to maintain my familiar lifestyle.

It is easy for me to condemn the sins which permit me to pretend love and Christian concern.

It is easy for me to condemn the sins which permit me to hate my enemy, curse them that curse me, do evil to them that hate me, and pray against them which despitefully use me and persecute me.

It is easy for me to condemn the sins which permit me to hate my neighbor as I hate myself.

I find that it is easy for most Christians to do these things. We want to take bold stands for Christ and stand for the right thing in despite of the World, the Flesh and the Devil, but we want to do so at the least possible cost to ourselves. History demonstrates that Christians have always been divided sharply when the time came to choose between right and wrong. I will be the first to point out the large role of the Church in abolition - but other members of the Church used the Bible, with more ease, to justify slavery, because abolition would involve change, discomfort, and an admission of sin. I will be the first to point out the large role of the Church in the Civil Rights movement - but other members of the Church used basic common sense to show how "unnatural" such indiscriminate Christian brotherhood would be.

I cannot take the liberal step of assuming the heterosexuality issue is identical to these previous issues. I cannot say that that which is inborn is inevitable. But I can and must note that conservatives have long declared homosexuality (let alone other sexualities) so impossible that it is invisible in much of the conservative community. It's one of the easy sins of the "other". Abortion is redefined as the lazy, cowardly, or callous slut's easy way out, and becomes one of the easy sins of the "other". So, conservatives: how do we know the Lord's will on sexuality is more literal and obvious in the Bible than His will on slavery or racial mixing? And every frickin' person debating abortion: how do we know the point at which the cells transform into an independent human being? Because those who assert the answer without considering it are less concerned with human rights than with the rights of the human they choose to like better.

I know, it's a set of tired, tired debates. But I worry that the divide in the Church is largely along the lines of what is easy for each side to declare right, and therefore making it possible to make what is easy = what is right. And what is right is rarely the same thing as what is easy. And the right way to determine what is right in a heated debate is rarely the same thing as the easy way to determine what is right.