Updating Sin

According to the Associated Press, the Roman Catholic Church has recently updated its 'list of sins' (http://www.mcall.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-vatican-sins,0,3514069.story). A careful reading of the Vatican's position, however, indicates that there's nothing new when it comes to a definition of 'sin' itself. Any change results from the necessity of the Church having to address contemporary problems and issues. The Roman Catholic Church, for example, believes it is now necessary to address issues such as genetic manipulation, mind-altering drugs, the imbalance between rich and poor, and environmental concerns. Monsignor Girotti, a Vatican spokesman, suggests the current emphasis '...has a weight, a resonance, that's especially social, rather than individual.'
In light of the Future Watch Group's intention to track trends in mass & church culture, this has me wondering...
- Has the evangelical marriage with the Republican party caused us to ignore the poor? A dialogue with a prominent African-American Christian leader provided me some insight concerning the tendency of African-Americans to support the Democratic party. In short, the policies of the Republican party do not help the poor. My own opinion: This is more than perception. Much of mainstream evangelical practice borders on health & wealth platitudes. So why is this a Future Watch concern? It is my observation that younger generations of evangelicals are increasingly less passionate about addressing the sins of our fathers (homosexual marriage, for example) and are more fired-up about issues such as social justice and environmental concerns. Admittedly, this is purely anecdotal and not the result of any formal survey of attitudes. However, I know of one group of teens that has stopped attending a prominent church because the church spent more on hiding exterior speakers in fake rocks than in helping the poor. (Granted, a little hypocrisy is present since the same group shops at a mall that does the same thing...but thankfully, the teens still expect more from church.) But, given the weight of biblical concern for the poor, perhaps the younger generation is on to something.
- Is the current discussion concerning "Question #7" about sin, tradition, or holiness? If it's about sin, it would seem to have a pre-determined end: A biblically-defined sinful act does not become 'un-sinful,' does it? If this concerns tradition, it's a different question: 'Time to change our tradition?' If this is about holiness, and I think it is, it becomes a slightly more difficult question. Do standards of 'holiness' change with cultural shifts? For example, having read about the roaring '20s, I understand why the holiness movement frowned on dancing. Dance halls were not nice places... far from it, in fact. Dancing at my high school prom, my wedding, or a friend's anniversary is a world apart. It seems that standards of holiness adjusted. In the context in which I pastor, I find myself having to sometimes explain 'Question #7' to an increasingly stymied church. At a post-Christmas caroling event two years ago, the host had a cooler of beer beside the cooler of Coke. As the men gravitated to the basement to peruse hunting trophies, the host casually handed beer to each guy headed downstairs. In the brief discussion which resulted, about the only comment that resulted from my explanation was, "Wow, I didn't know anyone believed that,' as he sipped his beer. Certainly, a discussion about sexual purity on-line would have generated much more serious, and relevant, concern.
Understand, I'm not suggesting that definitions of biblically-defined sinful behavior can change. Simply, does the application of holiness to life adjust ... particularly if we're asking questions about future trends?
Bud Daneker