Rightly or wrongly, being a Christian (and, for the purpose of this post, I refer to mainstream organised Christianity with a well-documented interpretation of doctrine) requires an acknowledgement that sin is a part of the human condition. While we should always endeavour to avoid sin, we will not always be successful. In those cases, contrition is the next best thing. Acknowledging our wrongdoing and atoning for it brings us back into communion with God.

Therein lies the problem. What if one sins but does not know it? It's not denying a sin, as runner seems to suggest; rather, it's blindly sinning. Out of late-night laziness, I won't dig up references here (and I don't apologise for that - if you can read this, you have internet access and can dig around for yourself). I will, however, put forth my understanding (based on Catholic teaching) that those who are ignorant of their sins do not share the condemnation of those who are aware of them and commit them anyway.

(cont'd)

(cont'd)

Which raises a further question: is reading the Bible the same as 'knowing'? Is hearing the word equal to understanding it? Take those who put Jesus to death as a case study. According to Luke (23:34), Jesus asked His father to forgive them, 'for they know not what they do'. Yet they had heard the word of the Lord, and they were aware that the man they were punishing had said He was the Son of God. So how could they not know? My suggestion is that they had heard, but not accepted. There is a difference between passively not accepting and actively rejecting - the former is an unconscious and uncontrollable act, while the latter is a conscious decision. If indeed the execution of a deity is a sin, then the former equates to the blind sin I mentioned earlier, while the latter equates to a denial of sin.

How does homosexuality come into this? I know several Catholics who are gay. Their church tells them that their sexual activities are sinful, but they continue with them anyway. It is possible that they have heard but not accepted - they have been told that their actions are sins, but this has not become a part of their mindset. In every other regard, they are Catholic. They are charitable, they are faithful, they honour the Lord and they perform God's work to the best of their ability. To deny them their Christianity simply because their understanding of what 'being Christian' is differs from others of the same faith is, in my opinion, absurd. I suspect that Jesus himself would petition for their absolution because, like His own persecutors, they know not what they do.

Alternatively, we Catholics may have it wrong. Perhaps homosexuality is not a sin at all.

Sorry to babble. Sorry also that this may not make a whole heap of sense. Of late, I've had difficulty explaining myself. I'll summarise by saying that, as I understand it, a sin is a sin only if it is known by the sinner to be such a thing.

Otokonoko,
I don’t think you were babbling; you were quite coherent.

Pericles,
For the record, I did play cricket, though I wasn’t particularly good, not nearly as good as my dad. I played five years in juniors, four years seniors, and then three years umpiring.

Tony Lavis,
I must admit, I’ve never made much distinction between God as designer and God as creator. I suppose design is the thought process that goes before creating. I assume God did both. What’s the importance in the distinction?

Rhian,
I wasn’t attempting to speak for all Christians. I know people have different views.

Why do so many Christians accept the theory of evolution? There may be many reasons. I don’t see any Biblical imperative. It may be social pressure and conditioning, wanting to go along with the crowd and not sticking your neck out, especially in the academic realm where evolution is in vogue (grant funding, status, job availability, academic pressure, etc.)

The Anglican, Catholic, and Uniting churches are not the only churches in Australia. Church of Christ, Baptist, and Pentecostal churches are growing towards the mainstream in terms of their numbers. Along with the Presbyterians they’re likely to contain more creationists. R.C. Sproul is one respected Reformed theologian coming to mind who has recently declared himself to have adopted the creationist view.

Even those within the Anglican, Catholic, and Uniting churches often don’t speak as one. I’m not sure that any of these churches have an official position on the matter. And when occasionally a spokesperson makes a pronouncement they’re usually representing some isolated think tank more so than the entirety of the clergy. I would say that opinion varies.

Anecdotally, at the large Anglican bible college in Melbourne at which I’m currently enrolled the lecturer in Old Testament describes Genesis as ‘foundational narrative’. He takes a fairly straight forward historical view of the book. For example, when asked who Cain’s wife was, he said he leans towards the theory that she was probably one of Cain’s siblings, which is a standard creationist position that people weren’t heard to say very often before the modern creationist view started to grow legs a few decades ago.

In short I’d say while the creationist view is not in the middle of the theological mainstream, I think it’s slowly heading back that way. (I say ‘back’ as six day creation was the standard view of the church from the beginning of church history, through the centuries of great scientific advancement, i.e. well through Newton’s time, until approaching the time of Darwin.)

The six day creation sounds ridiculuos until you compare it with the idiotic faith based evolution theories which continue to change. Every honest scientist knows that true science points a lot more to Genesis than the something from nothing myth. Hard heartedness and willful blindness stops church goers and non church goers alike accepting Genesis. It is the only sensible explanation for beginnings.

Dan
I accept evolution because it is rational, coherent and consistent with the available evidence. Evolution is no more in “vogue” in scientific circles than the heliocentric solar system – it’s accepted as fact.

You are right that the smaller churches are more likely to contain Creationists than the larger denominations. My point is that most Christians don’t belong to churches that deny evolution.

The Anglican church set up a section of its website celebrate the 150th anniversary of the publication of Darwin’s Orgin of the Species (sadly the section is now closed, but the reference is here: http://www.churchofengland.org/media-centre/news/2008/09/pr6808.aspx) Darwin is, after all, buried in Westminster Abby.

Roman Catholics, as I understand it, believe in “theistic evolution” - that evolution is a natural process guided by God.

There is some interesting theology exploring the compatibility of design and evolution, and while I tend to be sceptical I don’t rule out the possibility that the anthropic principle points to a Creator’s mind behind the physical universe and life. But that is not the same as rejecting evolution.

Otokonoko
Thanl you for your thoughtful post. I also suspect that Jesus would petition for gays - not because I think homosexuality is a sin (I don’t think it is), but because he consistently sided with the marginal and the vilified against those who presume to decide who is acceptable and who is not.