February 9, 2011 The Cult of Individual Freedom – Perversion of Grace?

The Cult of Self

I was reading this months Leadership Journal magazine and came upon an article in the  Currents [Counter Culture] section titled, “Matching – making Ministry?” by Brandon O’Brien.   It introduced to the reader to a short interview with Mark Regnerus (author of Forbidden Fruit: Sex and Religion in the Lives of American Teenagers [Oxford, 2007]).  Cool article on marriage and advocating getting married young.  The article itself didn’t really tweak my interest but a statement that Regnerus used did.  In the interview he used the phrase “the cult of individual freedom” and referenced how it has subtly cloaked the church in our current trend of faith.  Interesting statement to say the least.

As a pastor I have wondered if what we do really impacts the listener sitting in our pews – more so recently than ever before.  I know it does so the question is somewhat rhetorical in nature.  I’m not really looking for an answer as much as I am making a statement by asking the question.  It could be summed up in Regnerus’s statement about personal freedom.  Let me take a stab at it and you let me know.

In the article about marriage Regnerus implies that premarital sex is not “the” problem when it comes to young people and expressing their faith.  He informs the reader that “41 percent of churchgoing, conservative Protestant men’s relationships become sexual within one month, barely lower than the national average of 48 percent.”   He goes on to say that we “spend so much energy to generate so little difference”.  In his mind, we should spend more time on the virtues of marriage instead of attempting to deter premarital sex because our efforts are not successful.  And therein lies the monster that growled at me when reading the article.  It’s the lack of success in the church when addressing an issue that is black and white in scripture.  It’s like teaching simple arithmetic.  Almost anyone can teach the simple principle of one plus one equals two.  Teaching the precepts of scripture on something as simple as adultery and fornication is relatively easy.  It is so black and white.  There is absolutely no middle ground.  If all of what I have just eluded to is true then what is the problem?

Regnerus nailed it with that little phrase he used – “the cult of individual freedom.” We have imposed our own rules and interpretation of scripture and in some cases we have eliminated absolute truth and the conviction it creates.  We have allowed the culture of the world to impose itself on not the doctrines of the church – they haven’t changed (except in liberal circles where rule changing is allowed).  It’s not the truth that has changed but rather our hearing and applying the rules to our daily life.  I am appalled at the ease of which we engage sexual sins in the church.  It’s as if there is no line of demarcation in the kingdom in relationship to the world.  We have perverted grace and in doing so allowed a minority of people to engage in sin and believe that God’s grace will continue to wink at their lack of discipline and desire for purity.  I stand appalled and sickened.  A minority of people who claim to be followers of Christ seem to find no conviction in sexual impurity.

The grace factor is a card those involved in the cult of individual freedom cannot play.  I am reminded of a passage of scripture in Titus:

Titus 2:11-12 (New American Standard Bible)

11 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men,

12 instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age.

Grace is a teacher that teaches us the value of denying ungodliness and worldly desires.  Grace is not something we use to our advantage and then race to seek forgiveness.  Let me remind you that forgiveness is God’s response to our repentance.  Repentance is a change of direction, turning from sin not running to cover it up with bed sheets and condoms!   Grace is not to be abused!

Romans 6:1-7 (NASB)

(1)  What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase?

(2)  May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?

(3)  Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death?

(4)  Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.

(5) For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection,

(6)  knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin;

(7) for he who has died is freed from sin.

Herein lies the problem to some degree.  When we nail this activity down those engaged in sexual sin will immediately say their sin is no worse than others in the church who are guilty of committing sins also.  Sin is not about comparing one life to another.  Never has been and never will be.  It’s about the sin in your life – not necessarily mine or anybody else’s.  Hard to get the splinter out of another’s eye when there is a two-by-four in your own.

The question here is about salvation period.  At what point in ones personal experience with faith in Christ as Savior does he/she deny the worldly pleasures – inclusive of adultery and fornication?  Paul seems to indicate that it is in the bridge between spiritual death and resurrection.  He says that in resurrection life there is newness of life.  So then my question is this: if this is all spiritual analogy and we believe the those sitting in our churches have actually become followers of Christ – are they still stuck on a spiritual bridge between spiritual death and spiritual resurrection?  I think I found a title for this bridge – thanks to Regnerus and his statement mentioned above.  I am going to call this bridge the bridge of “the cult of individual freedom”.  This is a politically correct way of calling the bridge the bridge of the worship of self – worshiping the creature more than the creator as mentioned in Romans 1.  God calls this “bridge” I mentioned something else but it wouldn’t be politically correct to probably use the His terminology.  Or would it?  It could get nasty because scripture also declares that those who refuse the discipline of the Father in relationship with Him are called “bastards”.  Illegitimate members in the faith family.  Pretty tough terminology.  I guess someone needs to school God in how to speak with political correctness.  What do you think?