Sin is supposedly that which should be avoided and condemned, while righteousness is what we should practice and encourage. Thus we observe the real mode of operation of the institutional church, not persuading men but controlling them by whatever means available.
Jesus may have come to deal with sin, once and for all, but the church remains in the sin management business. Jesus is believed to have left this world with a the issue of sin unresolved until he returns some day and finally puts an end to sin through the destruction of sinners. In the meantime the church has to be his agent in holding sin in check and shielding its members from sin effects. Those effects include the temptation to participate in sin and the personal impact of sins committed by unbelievers.
The effect of the sins of believers on one another and outsiders is largely ignored, as evidenced by all the church related investigations of wrongdoing by prominent church leaders. The enthusiasm for sin management is much stronger when the sins are those of others.
The real fly in the ointment with this infatuation with unresolved sin is that sin and righteousness keep getting redefined. Lying, cheating, stealing, and even killing become righteous whenever the church thinks a little ruthlessness is required to suppress their perception of sin. What they condemn in others becomes a divine duty if it can be used to punish sinners. Sin is not sinful if it serves a righteous purpose, namely whatever the church seeks or demands.
The age old mindset of the Judaic law system prevails in Christianity much, much more than anything Jesus taught about sin and its resolution. Rules, rituals, condemnation, and
retribution are still the mechanisms aimed at controlling and eliminating sinners. None of these activities required Jesus to come and die. Those practices predated his advent and went right on after his death. This fact raises the question- What did Jesus really accomplish? Why is the church still dealing with sin just like the Jews under the Old Covenant? Why is the church so committed to and apologetic for national Israel, when it represents OT concepts supposedly superseded by Christ?
The answer seems to be that few if any could actually believe Jesus and what he said about sin. Most wanted to continue categorizing sins, making some bigger than others. It was always comfortable to believe that some people were better than others because they sinned less or didn’t commit the really bad ones. It felt good to be able to judge others and pronounce them evil and unacceptable to God or the righteous. All these carryovers from law based Judaism were just too attractive to the human ego to be relinquished in favor of Jesus. So, the church continued business as usual, just rebranding the old and calling it something new by declaration. Redefinition became a substitute for actual transformation of the mind.
And here we still are. Conveniently redefining to prevent the possibility of the reality of Christ seeping into so called Christianity.