When Culture Becomes the Moral Authority
“It’s essential for Christians to clearly distinguish between sins against the culture and sins against Christ.”
One of the greatest challenges facing the modern Church is learning to distinguish between what’s sinful in the eyes of God and what’s sinful in the eyes of the culture. So long as the broader society operates independently of, and in opposition to, the Church, two competing moral frameworks will inevitably exist.
On the one hand stands the Church’s moral standard, grounded in the authority of Scripture. On the other hand stands the culture’s moral assumptions—a shifting patchwork of popular influences, trends, social pressures, and prevailing sentiments.
When the Bible is no longer esteemed as the recognised moral authority in society, cultural values increasingly function as a rival moral basis. They effectively establish their own orthodoxies, taboos, heresies, and with all that, punishments for dissent. This is because, as the culture becomes more dominant, the consequences for transgressing its so-called “sins” become increasingly severe.
As such, when the culture becomes the dominant moral authority, immense social pressures are placed upon Christians to remain within the bounds of what is culturally acceptable. To step outside of those defined limits, to speak about things deemed out-of-bounds or to challenge prevailing orthodoxies and norms, is often met with denunciation, calls for cancellation, or worse.
As a result, Christians can easily find themselves confusing cultural transgressions with biblical ones, treating violations of social norms as though they were violations of God’s law—and at times, even worse.
Consequently, there is a very real temptation within the Church to reshape Christianity into something that fits comfortably within the boundaries of acceptable cultural discourse. Christian commentators, eager to gain the approval of the world, often adopt popular cultural causes and attempt to baptise them with Christian language and justification. Black Lives Matter is embraced because God shows no partiality; climate alarmism because God created the earth; equality and inclusion because God is love; and so on.
In each case, the direction of influence is reversed. Rather than allowing Scripture to define the Church’s priorities, cultural priorities are first accepted and then retroactively furnished with biblical support. The result is not the Christianisation of culture, but the gradual accommodation of Christianity to the spirit of the age.
It becomes a form of Christianity that addresses only those issues the surrounding culture permits for discussion, while punishing those who dare to discuss topics deemed out of bounds. There are always subjects that remain untouchable—questions that, if raised, result in a modern-day heresy trial. In such cases, the accused is expected to recant, renounce, and do penance, often indefinitely.
We need to be abundantly clear when it comes to denouncing others as blasphemers for simply transgressing cultural norms or insulting the idols of the age. For the Christian, however, faithfulness to Christ requires us to judge all things according to Scripture, not according to the ever-changing standards of the age. It’s essential for Christians to clearly distinguish between sins against the culture and sins against Christ.
Not every Christian needs to be inclined towards “controversial opinions.” Not every Christian needs to be pushing the social boundaries. Not every Christian needs to find backlash and public condemnation. But every Christian is bound to define sin as Scripture defines it.
When a Christian is accused of wrongdoing against the prevailing narrative, and the pressures of cultural censure begin to mount, the most important thing to ask is: Is this a sin against Christ, or merely a transgression against the culture?
If it’s truly a sin against Christ, then repentance is obviously required, and upon that, forgiveness must follow. But if it’s merely a sin against the culture—especially where the “offence” consists of speaking truth or fulfilling biblical duty—then there’s no warrant for binding the conscience of believers, nor for condemning them as heretics against God.
In such cases, the Church must not only resist conflating cultural offence with divine transgression, but must also stand with those whom culture condemns, since social exclusion does not equate to exclusion from God. The Church must recover both the ability to distinguish between what offends culture and what offends Christ, and the courage to stand with those whom society casts out and subjects to the pressure of social acceptability.
When these categories are blurred, cultural pressures begin to function as if they were divine laws, and the Church risks becoming captive to shifting public sentiment rather than anchored in Scripture.
But once that distinction is clear, Christians are liberated both from cowardice and from false guilt. They are free to seek forgiveness where they have truly sinned against God, and equally free to stand firm where the “offence” consists in nothing more than fidelity to truth in the face of a culture shaped by lies.