Monthly Archives: June 2020

Christian Living, Man, Sanctification

Is Privilege a Sin?

3 Comments

Probably like all of you, I have been trying to process through the recent events in our society. First there was all the upheaval because of COVID-19, and then all the civic unrest surrounding the death of George Floyd. People have reacted in different ways, some good, some evil. One thing that I have been considering in this spectrum of response is the apologies that are being made for privilege these days. To give the most gracious response to those who are doing so, I assume their intentions are good, but is apologizing for privilege, specifically white privilege, actually glorifying to God.

I want to state up front that I do not accept the blanket notion of white privilege as it is articulated today. Even on just an anecdotal level, to ascribe blanket privilege to one ethnic group seems to hopelessly over-simplify the complexities of a society made up of millions of intertwined lives. I am a middle-class white man. I am very sure that I have access to privileges that many, many millions of people of a variety of ethnic origins in our society do not enjoy. But there is also another side. I am also very sure that I do not have access to privileges that many millions of people enjoy. Many white, Asian, black, and Hispanic people have access to privileges that I do not.

Anecdotally I have experienced this myself. As a young man, I applied to teacher’s college when pursuing undergraduate studies. While applying for entry into the program, I was required to fill out forms (of course). On the cover page it stated explicitly that visible minorities and females would be given preferential treatment. In that program, I could be counted as being under-privileged. Minorities and women applied from a position of privilege. Again, this observation does not deny that there may be privileges I enjoy in another setting. I am simply making the point that to make a blanket statement on privilege of one ethnic group seems hopelessly over-simplified on its face. However, apologizing for privilege strikes me as problematic for a more significant reason: it is asking forgiveness for something God has not called a sin.

When I hear white Christians apologizing for their privilege, I want to ask them, “For which sin are you apologizing and seeking forgiveness?” Certainly, the Bible condemns showing favoritism (Jam. 2:1-7) and racism (Gal. 3:28), but privilege is not the same thing, and is not in and of itself sinful. In fact, God gives His people the fifth commandment to guide them in their various relationships, some in which they are privileged, and others not. The Westminster Shorter Catechism states, 

“The fifth commandment requireth the preserving the honor, and performing the duties, belonging to everyone in their several places and relations, as superiors, inferiors, or equals.” (Westminster Shorter Catechism #64). 

Sometimes people are in charge and enjoy certain privileges because of their position. Other times they are peers where the same rights are shared. More often than not, they report to others, living under their authority being deprived of privilege others have. In all of them, it is imperative to occupy those roles with dignity, respecting each other as made in the image of God. But it is also important to recognize God has not described these relationships as sinful by default. To apologize for having a privilege is to call sin what God has not called so.

As I’ve said, there are common-sense difficulties with the idea of blanket white privilege, so I want to leave that term aside. However, dealing generically with privilege, there is no doubt there are gradations of privilege in society. Privilege is morally neutral. Privilege can be held in a sinful way, or can be used to give God glory. Privilege in and of itself is not sin. To ask forgiveness for having it is contrary to the Bible which recognizes God’s providence, and His right to distribute His possessions and gifts throughout the world according to His own will. When these are used unjustly, the church should bring correction to her members. But when used for the glory of God, there is no cause to apologize, no matter which ethnic group you belong to. Within the church we are all God’s children, the body of Christ, and we are to work together in our different places and stations to give Him glory together. That is not the cause for division, but for praise.

Uncategorized

A little fixing, or a resurrection?

Leave a comment

Today I want to consider a word that has been adopted in the Christian church. It is a word that is used to describe the miserable effects of the fall. It is a word that describes all kinds of transgressions, and yet it is entirely the wrong word. I am referring to the word “brokenness.” It is used to speak of unnatural attractions between men, outbursts of anger, drunkenness, riots, racism, and on and on the list goes. The person who is using this term usually means that life is imperfect, not as it should be, and even not as the Lord created it. The concern I have is not so much in recognizing the world is not as it was originally designed. That much is clear. The problem is that “brokenness” softens and minimizes biblical categories and thereby reduces the great blessing of the work of Christ in salvation.

In reformed, confession doctrine, there is typically a two-fold concept of sin. The one which is most obvious is the category the Westminster Standards call actual sin: the sins all people commit in action. The second category is discussed less often. That is the category of original sin: the corruption of man’s nature and his participation in the sin of Adam. The term brokenness can be used replace either of these categories. In doing so the seriousness of man’s condition is minimized.

Biblically speaking, there is a significant distinction between something that is broken and something that is infected with the consequence of sin. Something that is broken simply needs a little fixing. But that is not the biblical view of unnatural attractions, anger, drunkenness, and the like. When Scripture uses the word broken, it is not talking about sin. Usually is talking about what God has done to man (Ps. 37:15; 60:1; 80:12; 102:23). On the weekends many men grab their “honey-do” lists and go about fixing their houses that having various items that are broken or in disrepair. It may be a big repair, or a small one, but the reason it is on the man’s list is because “honey” believes he can “do” the repair. But when Scripture uses words to describe the effects of sin, it does so with words that paint a far graver picture for man.

When Scripture describes man in his natural condition, it uses words that deal with death. God himself warns of the consequence of sin even prior to the fall into sin. He does not warn man that on the day he eats of the fruit he will become broken. He warns man that on the day he eats of it, he shall “surely die.” (Gen. 2:17). In his letter to the Romans, Paul does not warn that sin will require main to be repaired. Instead, he warns that the “wages of sin is death.” (Rom. 6:23). In Ephesians the apostle paints a similar picture to describe the Ephesian Christians before they became believers when he says they were “dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked.” (Eph. 2:1-2). 

So why the fuss? Brokenness, death. Isn’t it just a matter of preference? God does not make mistakes in His words. When he describes man’s condition He does so in a way that rightly describes the urgency of his condition. To be dead is far more dire than to be broken. There is no “honey-do” lists that involve graveyards. It is intuitive that when a person is buried there is nothing left for anyone to do for them. No man can correct the condition of the dead. To be broken means you can be fixed. It is not a hopeless state. But to be dead means there is no hope for you.

Part of the joy of being a Christian is knowing that God has made alive one who was dead through the cross of Christ. He did not come to make repairs, but to bring life to those who were dead. I do not doubt that the people who use the word “broken” do so with good intentions. But the danger in changing the language of Scripture is that it causes a change in understanding of a concept as well. Man because of sin is not just broken and in need of a little fixing. No, man in sin is dead and in need of a resurrection. God alone can do this work, and when He does it the cause for rejoicing and gratitude is far greater. What was dead has been made alive. So talk about the concepts of sin and its effects using biblical vocabulary. It will protect your understanding of the magnitude of God’s gift in the gospel.