Celebrate the Family!
July 25, 2004
Went to the church I grew up in to worship today, Centralia First Church of the Nazarene. It was fun to meet our new pastor, Rick Ryding and see some old friends, including 88-yr old Ed Haldy who was the one man you could always rely on for a “Hallelujah!” or “AMEN!” during the service. I’m glad I went.
Wasn’t as excited about the “Celebrate the Family” bulletin insert…here is the text from the bulletin:
CELEBRATE THE FAMILY: July 25, 6pm: Tiger Stadium
Authentic marriage is under a great attack in America today. We are convinced that the church must respond with knowledge, passion, and conviction. This event has been planned to fuel those things.
It is a special evening which has been designated by the Centralia/Chehalis Ministerial Association as a time to “Celebrate the Family!” Come and join hundreds of other people who have a conviction about the family and its importance. Join with other Families for this historic event for Lewis County!.
Was talking with a friend a few nights ago about this evening. Typically, it is a huge combined worship service, but they’re using recent political events concerning homosexual marriage as a springboard to bring the community together to celebrate the true family, apparently. I’m sure this will help our witness and our relationships with the GLBT community in Lewis County; most definitely. And this group of ministers believe the church should respond to this great attack with knowledge, passion and conviction…frankly, that scares me. I don’t really want to see what those three look like without grace, humility and compassion. I really don’t. I wonder…really, what’s the point? Do they think that by standing up for what they deem to be the “true” family, they’re going to convince homosexuals of the ‘evils’ of their ways? Do they believe that it’s simply their duty to make this public declaration of…well, hatred/intolerance/rejection? Will the Christian community ever fully welcome the GLBT community with open arms, as Christ would? Part of me is interested in going to this event just to see what it would be like…to go, and to try to imagine what an event like this would feel like if I were a homosexual Christian, or at least someone open to the possibility that God was out there, and maybe cared for me. Would I walk away from this evening feeling God’s love? Acceptance? Warmth of God’s embrace?
Tags: Gender-Issues, Homosexuality, LGBT, Sexuality
Posted in 
Adam Walker Cleaveland: 
July 25th, 2004 at 10:31 pm
I can see how this event would be received very enthusiastically, and I can envision how it could be done without any reference to homosexuality. I think there is plenty to celebrate about the family, and plenty to return our attention towards without even addressing homosexuality.
People need to be reminded that there are biblical ideals of family (though not all nuclear; more extended-family as well as do-what-you can family, like Naomi and Ruth), and our society has departed from those ideals through divorce, out-of-wedlock pregnancy, adultery, and abortion. There is plenty to focus on without even mentioning homosexuality; from how you’ve described this event, though, that is not its intent. Unfortunately.
Why can’t we get our own ducks in a row - internally - before worrying about outside “attacks” that don’t at all relate to the real problems affecting Christian families?
July 26th, 2004 at 2:15 am
loved the photo — worth the read just to stare at the photo.
July 26th, 2004 at 4:52 am
Yah…didn’t go to this event, but spent part of the evening praying with a friend about this event…praying for those involved, that they would get beyond their distraction with this issue, and focus on loving their fellow Creations…made by God. We prayed for the GLBT community - that they would see beyond this group of people, that they would hear a Christian voice ‘different’ than this group’s, that they would feel God’s love, acceptance and warm embrace. I just don’t get the point of events such as these…
July 26th, 2004 at 6:26 am
This current legislative effort and the church marketing campaign behind it has all the earmarkings of the kind of thing the Israelites would have done when Jesus was ministering. They were more concerned about seeing how they were different than about being God’s light. Yet so many churches, even “seeker sensitive” churches are caught up in this divisive movement.
July 26th, 2004 at 10:11 am
As a gay Christian, it is refreshing that someone remembers Christ would include all. Often times, people forget that when it is convenient to leave it out.
July 26th, 2004 at 10:40 am
While I agree, for different reasons, that events like this are a wasted effort, I thoroughly disagree with the view of a GOD who tolerates homosexual practice. Besides Lev. 18:22, we have Romans 1:24-32 which also addresses lesbianism. All who commented here should pay close attention to verse 32. Then there is this passage:
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Do you not know that the unrighteous[1] will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,[2] nor thieves,
nor the covetous,
nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of GOD.
Footnotes
1.Or wrongdoers
2.The two Greek terms translated by this phrase refer to the passive and active partners in consensual homosexual acts.
JESUS did not tolerate sin in any form. HE saved the adulterous woman from judgement and then told her to quit being a slut. Everyone HE healed and forgave was told to quit sinning. Homosexuality is sin just like all the other sins listed in these Scriptures. I will fellowship with anyone who is part of the Body of Christ, however I will not do so with any who continue to practice sin and refuse to obey the Word of GOD. We are commanded to do as much. 2Cor6:14-18 JESUS will welcome all who come to Him. HE does not allow them to continue in a lifestyle that contradicts the law of GOD,which HE came to fulfill, i.e. keep, by the way. It hasn’t been abolished. Matt 5:17-18. I can already hear the rant. I’m homophobic, Paul is homophobic, the Scriptures aren’t “God breathed”, they are not GOD’S Word, they are not authoritative at all. Save it! I choose to stand on the Word. Something that neither the liberal theologians nor the Christian right seem to know how to do. The GLBT folks are looking for an excuse to keep sinning and make it appear as a righteous lifestyle. The “celebrate family” folks haven’t a clue as to the real battle, or how it should be fought. 2Cor 10:3-6.
July 26th, 2004 at 11:28 am
Justin makes a really good point. The problems with the “american family” have little to do with whether or not same-sex couples can legally or sacramentally join in some kind of recognized union. The “Christian” divorce rate keeps up with the non-Christian one rather well.
If churches want to protect the family, they have to work on healing them: discipling people in how to have healthy relationships with one another, teach committment in the context of friendships, marriages and ecclesial communities.
I think the biggest “attack” on families comes from our own warped values when we enter relationships looking for what we can get out of it instead of learning to be *for* the other and commit ourselves to loving them well instead of insisting that we be loved perfectly, as a condition of remaining in the relationship.
My $0.02, anyway.
Hey Adam, I enjoy your blog, by the way.
July 26th, 2004 at 12:34 pm
Uh, Chris P., would it be all right if I believe the Scriptures are God-breathed, are GOD’S Word, are authoritative, that homosexual practice is a sin — and totally disagree with your comment?
July 26th, 2004 at 12:58 pm
Tracy, I’m so glad that you’re here and that you feel comforted and encouraged.
Chris, what I don’t want right now is to get into the “is homosexuality a sin” debate. I think many people, as Jon noted, will disagree with you, yet still believe the Bible to be God’s Word. Please respect that.
As the ‘owner’ of this little space in blogdom, I must be able to make this space what I want, and this is one instance where I want to make it pretty clear: Although I am open to dissenting opinions on my blog (really, I am), what I am not open to is comments that come across as hurtful, degrading or hateful to anyone, especially to any members of the GLBT community who may be reading this blog. I understand the opinion you hold (and it’s the same ‘ole argument), as I have many friends and family members I love who hold same basic view (that homosexuality is a sin), but I disagree and the rest of your nuances, and the way in which you come across…please save that for your own blog. Thanks.
July 26th, 2004 at 1:14 pm
last week in youth group we had the kids do manual blogs (just on a blank piece of paper). they were to think up a subject, post their opinion, then pass it on for the next person. yesterday we read the entries and spent almost 20 minutes on “should the umc allow homosexual leaders?”
the room was divided, even the counselors were divided. one of them said that if the person consistently gives in to temptation and sins every day without repentence (their idea of how a gay person lives) then that’s where they draw the line. i stopped the conversation and asked everyone who speeds EVERY day to raise their hand. pretty much everyone who drives raised their hands, including me.
i am of the opinion that sin is sin, and yes, we should repent and move on and strive to be Christ-like. but if we can’t, where does it say that He won’t forgive us? i’m geniunly asking - where does the bible say there are unpardonable sins?
we are all at different stages in our walk. i have some background, but am relatively new at this. i cannot always quote scripture and i know very little of the workings of my own church, but i am learning. i am willing to learn, and have to remind myself that others are learning, too.
for now i will rest in the fact that i don’t know it all, i’m glad i’m not God, and i am, of course, eternally grateful for what He has done and continues to do for me. i can offer my opinion, but in the end it’s a personal discussion between only God and me.
thank you for praying adam. many times it’s all we can do.
July 26th, 2004 at 1:48 pm
the Christian life isn’t about sinning or not sinning…the Christian life is about glorifying God.
we are no longer defined by our sin…we are defined by our relationship to God through Jesus.
July 26th, 2004 at 3:04 pm
Gus: Preach
July 26th, 2004 at 6:44 pm
Since it is not my intention to hurt feelings,I will apologize for all perceived offenses. However it is always a sin issue, no matter what the sin. If Scripture is treated like an afterthought, or worse, then we are left to opinions and speculations. Look up the word Laodicea in your Greek lexicon. Stephanie, any sin can be forgiven, bot it does require confession and repentance from believers. The Scriptures tell us that those who continually practice sin will not inherit the kingdom of GOD. Jon what is it exactly that you disagree with? Adam, my comments as far as I can tell are not hateful, or degrading. I would just like to know how one can believe that the Scriptures are GOD’S word and then contradict them in the next breath. I disagree with your assumption that the same old arguement is a bad thing. If JESUS is the same yesterday, today, and forever,why do we think that GOD alters His Word just to keep up with more “enlightened times”?
July 26th, 2004 at 7:37 pm
I think the Chris P. and Gus argument–which we might oversimplify as “Is Christianity about the sins from which we are redeemed (Chris P., 3:44) or is Christianity about the grace we have freely received (Gus, 10:48)?”–is the great argument (or is it just one manifestation of it?) dividing mainline Christianity right now. They just don’t know they’re having the argument, and people of good faith are on both sides. They don’t mean to offend, but they just sail right on past each other without understanding why the other side is so block-headed. It’s because there is a fundamentally different vocabulary of faith.
July 26th, 2004 at 8:00 pm
Chris: I am not going there. Read my first comment again. Perhaps it would help if I restate it as a riddle?
* I am a conservative evangelical.
* I disagree with everything you say.
* How can that be?
July 26th, 2004 at 10:06 pm
lovely riddle…
July 27th, 2004 at 3:59 am
Jon,Where is it you won’t go? I am always amused at the abundance of post-modern non sequiturs. You can answer my question or not. I refuse to play games.:-) Take some advice from the LORD.
Matthew 5
37 Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil.
Brian, you have a very good point. I make no distinction between redemption and grace, as redemption from sins does not only apply to those in our past, but to all we will commit, and to those we are presently committing. Grace acknowledges the redemption as valid i.e. the atoning work of Christ. The real arguement is how we come by both.
July 27th, 2004 at 12:32 pm
actually, brian, grace wasn’t the point of my ‘argument.’ (although i definately think you have something with the tension in Christianity).
the point of my ‘argument,’ was to state the purpose of life, and let that inform how we ought live (yes, Chris P., the ultimate authority is the Bible; but i feel that creeds are helpful here and there). all too many times i find that i define who i am by what i am not, rather than what i am. i say ‘i’m not gay’ (implied meaning: i glorify God in this), rather than saying ‘i seek to glorigy God’ (implied meaning: i desire everything about me gives glory to Him, including my sexuality).
why do we diminish our faith/our lives by allowing it to only be about sin?
July 27th, 2004 at 4:35 pm
Gus, Why do we act as if we have a say in the matter? All I did was cite Scripture. If you believe it to be ultimate authority, than how can a creed or experience that contradicts it be okay? The creeds of the early church councils affirmed sola scriptura. If GOD, in the authoritative Scriptures, declares something to be sin or an abomination, how can can the practice of it glorify Him? GOD Himself makes sin the issue. You are rewriting the Bible if you remove any of the sins off the list that Paul gives and say this one is okay because it’s who I am. In that case I think I’ll go and sleep with as many women as I can,with my wife’s permission of course:-), for it is my desire to do so. It is part of my makeup. The point is, all are sinners and all have sinned. I followed Adam’s lead and decided to post concerning this on my blog. Psalm 14 and Romans 3:21-26
July 27th, 2004 at 6:15 pm
Chris: Let me speak plainly. I posed a riddle for two reasons. The primary reason was this: Until you can answer the riddle, you will not understand or receive my “straightforward” answer.
A secondary reason was to learn from your response more about where you’re coming from. And I think that given where you are and where I am, the gulf is so great it makes meaningful communication nearly impossible — so I am done at this point, with no hard feelings. Peace to you on your journey.
And now, back to Adam’s blogging…
July 28th, 2004 at 12:41 pm
chris p., i’m sorry if i’ve miscommunicated what i’ve been trying to address. lest there be any confusion: i very much believe the Bible is the authority. my reference to creeds was to try to cut you off at the pass, recognizing that ‘the purpose of life’ is not something that can be easily proof texted (i’m falling back on the westminster shorter catechism for my understanding of purpose, which in essense is a form of a creed). i know of no biblical creed that affirms or permits sin.
that being said, i do not disagree with your position on homosexuality. that is, i believe homosexuality is a sin. in participating in this discussion, i’m trying to go beyond the well tread path it usually takes…i think the ‘hate the sin, love the sinner’ attitude is too simplistic (accurate but not helpful).
because the very word SIN is so loaded, once we label something as sinful, it seems we’ve lost any potential discussion or relationship (i still think it’s valuable to label something sin, don’t worry). so rather than confronting someone with their SIN, i would rather confront someone with the purpose of their life. from there, through study and submission, i’m convinced that the sinner will want to deal with their sin, because it obstructs their purpose.
July 28th, 2004 at 1:47 pm
quoting chris:
“If you believe [the bible] to be ultimate authority, than how can a creed or experience that contradicts it be okay?”
so you fall on the pretty side of both inerrancy and infallability? i don’t mean to open up a whole new can of worms, but come on! the church in history has repeatedly contradicted the bible with its own creeds, let alone parts in the bible (as a record of hebrew culture in one chronoligical paradigm) contradicting themselves.
don’t feel obliged to rip open your concordance and throw me passages for this one…
eli
July 28th, 2004 at 2:15 pm
I have attempted to stay out of this debate and just watch it from reading it, but I have to stand up and cheer for Gus’ last posting. Let me say that I agree that the Bible is God’s Word, it is final authority in my opinion, and I believe that Homosexuaity is sin. I also think that Gus hit ahome run with that last post. When people are confronted with the reality of Jesus and the Holy Spirit, He will cause them to deal with their sin, or they will ignore Him and that brings its own consequesnces. My question for Chris P. is why do you come across so angrily?
July 28th, 2004 at 7:58 pm
I wasn’t planning on commenting again, but I will one last time. First for Joe; I am not angry . What I find is that whenever you quote Scripture or promote the infallibility of Scripture,you are perceived to be a Bible thumping,fundamentalist right wing Christian. These are the common perceptions ofthe pomergent folks who equate teaching from the Bible with the dreaded enemy of modernist institutions. The truth is that,even the modernist churches fail to use the Bible as foundation,. Sorry Eli,the rule of faith, and the creeds of the four main church councils do not contradict the Bible. (no I am not a reformer or Calvinist). I could care less about any denominational councils and their interpretations. I suggest a good study of church history and the doctrine of sola scriptura. Scripture verifies Scripture. Each of you say that you believe the Bible to be the Word of GOD and to be authority. However if it is not inerrant or infallible,then how can it be the Word of an inerrant and infallible GOD? Are you saying HE is not perfect?
It would follow then that the Scripture would not possess any authority at all, and neither would the GOD who wrote it. As far as confronting Christ and the Holy Spirit, I agree that they speak to us in many ways all the time, BUT, I never trust that either myself or any of you actually hear with 100% accuracy. Thus we only have Scripture to verify the “voice” we hear. The triune GOD would never contradict HIS written word. What I find lacking in all the modern/post modern church is the knowledge of a sovreign and omnipotent GOD, who really doesn’t need any of us to get HIS work done. As for the sin issue, as I said Scripture tells us what is and isn’t sin (see inerrant and infallible).Jesus did not condone and accept sin or sinful behavior. Don’t misconstrue grace with license. Romans 6:1-4
July 29th, 2004 at 1:38 am
Just a few things. Perhaps the reason people don’t respond well to the infallability/inerrancy argument is that…well, it’s over. It’s been done. People are beyond that now…we simply don’t care to be arguing about whether it’s inerrant or infallible. Those categories are just not something we’re interested in. And no, that does not mean we don’t care about the Bible. It’s just that maybe some of us have seen how productive that line of argumentation is (not very) and so we’ve decided on other terms and ways of talking about the Bible that still respect the Bible as God’s word…
And Chris, for someone who says they’re not a reformer or a Calvinist, you sure do just go STRAIGHT back to the Reformation to be the be-all-end-all when it comes to anything theologically/doctrinally (sola scriptura, blog name, etc.). Can you see that perhaps the Reformation was JUST what was needed at that point in God’s Story, and that since we are in a different time, God might be up to something…no, dare I say it…something new?
Yup, I’m done.
July 30th, 2004 at 2:01 am
Where to begin. First, Adam good post and good questions as always. The problem that I have with the conservative church pro-family stance is the complete misunderstanding of the family. Which family do we speak for, which one is God ordained? Second, Those who hold to an innerant view should not be seen as radical fundamentalist types. They should be seen as trying to be faithful to one stream of the Christian tradition. They should see those of us who do not hold to that view as being faithful to another stream.
I for one do not need an external philosophical re-enforcement for believing that the Bible is authoritative.
We have to stop using the scripture as a weapon. There are multiple views that fall well within the orthodox place.
If the bible tells, I have never heard it speak, what sin is how come we support killing, war, greed, gluttony etc.
My foundation is not the bible, it will pass away, but Jesus THE WORD.
My concern in using the word to be foubdational is that many views are supported. I am an open theist and believe the Scripture supports my position, how does that work?
Anyway Adam thank you.
July 30th, 2004 at 2:49 pm
Adam,
Couldn’t let this one go by. Your statement on inerrancy/infallibility sounds absolutely, “absolute”. Who says people are beyond any discussion? So the ec speaks for the church universal? I thought one of the tenets of post-modernism is to let everyone speak for themselves. I hate to inform you that th ec is not the majority of those who call themselves Christians. The terms that you decide to speak on are your terms. The ec and their metaphorical jargon have swallowed the surrounding culture to a greater degree than anyof the modernist churches. (You should also know by now that I am not a modernist.)You are right, I do look to the reformation as GOD’S way of saving the Scriptures and their authority. I would not be accepted as a classic reformer as I believe all the gifts of the Spirit are active today and that the ” fivefold” ministry is likewise. I also hold to post-trib pre-millenial theology. Ecclesiaistes says there is nothing new under the sun. There isn’t any “new” thing and GOD does not discard the old wineskins either. Read the Scriptures where Jesus talks about that very issue. Scott, Scripture is a weapon. It is referred to constantly as a sword. The only way you know that Jesus is the WORD is for the fact that the Word of GOD tells you so. In fact only the Apostle John uses that term in describing Him. Jesus called Himself lots of things i.e. the way, truth, life resurrection, bread from heaven etc. He never called himself the WORD. Your foundation is faulty as you and most of the ec have redefined who Jesus is, so everyone’s foundation is whatever he decides it to be. The Scriptures actually tell you who he is. So all extraterrestrial revelation,is suspect and to be tested against Scripture. Who supports killing,greed, gluttony etc.? Just because people practice such things does not mean they are acceptable. War is a separate issue as the bible does not declare it sinful. Please! I am not pro-war. Finally, I use no external philosophy to support my belief. I go simply to the text. You can misconstrue and twist Scripture anyway you want. GOD did not give it to us to support the many thoughts of men and their “good ideas”. Scripture is actually written very plainly and supports itself.
July 30th, 2004 at 3:31 pm
Chris P. says “Scripture is actually written very plainly ….”
Wow. I wish that after five years in ministry I had this level of confidence about my understanding. Actually, I don’t wish that.
Day after day–even the more I read, it seems–the less plain it is to me. I sometimes even think the complexity–the very UNplainness of it–might tell me something about God.
And confronted by this complexity, I sometimes (apparently unnecessarily) wrestle with the meaning, acknowledging that good people differ. Maybe it’s the time that has passed since its writing. Maybe it’s the possibility of error in the manuscripts. Maybe it’s the fact that no one speaks Koine Greek or Ancient Hebrew as their native language. And maybe some things–things that are rich with the mystery of a God who is transcendant even in God’s immanence–are just supposed to be complex.
I might share some ways I find this scripture so complex, but I might be accused of “misconstruing and twisting Scripture any way I want.”
Ah, to have such confidence.
July 30th, 2004 at 4:30 pm
Chris P appears to be under the delusion that “the church” is only the fundamentalist church to which he presumably belongs. There are many church traditions around the globe (most mainline churches, for example) who have never subscribed to the notion of scripture as inerrant, infallible or to be taken literally.
To quote from the Catechism/Outline of Faith in the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer (similar in many other mainline churches)
(Regarding Holy Scriptures)
Q. Why do we call the Holy Scriptures the Word of God?
A. We call them the Word of God because God inspired their human authors and because God still speaks to us through the Bible.
(note “inspired”, not “divinely dicated”)
Q. How do we understand the meaning of the Bible?
A. We understand the meaning of the Bible by the help of the Holy Spirit, who guides the Church in the true interpretation of the Scriptures.
This to me seems eminently sensible.
The authors of the books of the Bible didn’t know at the time they were writing “The Bible”. It was at least three hundred years, in some cases thousands of years before the books were collected and named “The Bible”.
Simple example. When Paul was writing to the various churches, did he think “now I have to be real careful here because thousands of years from now people will be dissecting every word…” Of course he didn’t. He wrote some nitty gritty advice interspersed with some grand themes of the faith. To take the nitty gritty advice as the way to behave for all time is just, well, stupid for lack of a kinder word. And the tighter you try to adhere to it, the harder it gets to avoid contradictory commands.
Did Paul mean in 1 Cor 14:34ff that women should never, ever speak in church? It sure sounds like it. Women should even wait to get home before asking their husbands a question.
Even for fundamentalist churches that use this passage to disallow women to lead or preach, I’m sure most allow women to speak in church, so even they are guilty of violating the letter of the law. And the ones that truly adhere to this 100% bare pretty much wacko cults. So here’s a case where churches bend their own interpretation rules all the time.
To sum up, when I listen to or read fundamentalists today, the people in the Bible they remind me of the most, in attitude and the way they deal with people, are the Pharisees and Sadducees of the gospels. And believe me, that’s not a good thing.
July 31st, 2004 at 10:25 am
Sorry Brian I have no confidence in my understanding. I only have complete confidence in HIM who reveals the understanding. By the way I have been in ministry longer than most of you, and the people that I have served would never accuse me of being fundamentalist I do not currently serve in a fundamentalist church. I wish I could make sweeping assumptions and then accuse others of the same thing. Dave ,if the Holy Spirit guides us into true interpretation then why all the disagreement? Or are you saying you have it. Of course the authors couldn’t foresee the future ,but GOD already knew. The Scriptures teach GOD’S foreknowing and calling and predestination. The liberal theologies have no understanding of these things, so they make fun of the reformers and calvinists. I say again I am neither and have never even attended churches based in their teachings. To accuse someone of being a pharisee or sadducee, is , how do you guys say it; painting with a broad brush. As for 1Cor 14, what about single women i.e. widows etc.? Read the Word in context of the Word. My original question,still unanswered, re: homosexuality was,why does the Apostle Paul list a bunch of practices as sinful, but homosexuality is the only one he made a mistake in putting there? None of you, (post modernists in general) read Scripture for interpretation. You tear it apart, and replace it with whatever you want or nothing at all. What makes you any different than right wing christianity? Only the fact that you’re on the left. Both sides are political theologies, and neither are really part of the Kingdom. The real reformation is always Word reformation, from Moses to Luther. New methods of meeting etc. are not reformation. GOD is holy i.e. set apart, and so are those who are His. The Kingdom is not of this world, so we do not look to the same old worldly solutions for help.
April 21st, 2005 at 1:58 pm
Hiya Adam,
You mentioned: And this group of ministers believe the church should respond to this great attack with knowledge, passion and conviction…frankly, that scares me. I don’t really want to see what those three look like without grace, humility and compassion. I really don’t.
But therein lies much of the problem. The group of ministers would undoubtedly confess that they do indeed desire to impart “grace, humility, and compassion.” Need all these vital elements - your list and theirs - be mutually exclusive?
Keep that Suburu between the lines, brother.
December 13th, 2007 at 2:39 am
As mentioned I do believe Christ would receive gays and lesbians but I know He would expect them to, once they had heard, and then if they accepted His teachings, to turn (repent) from their sin, and have a change in their heart to want to at least try to do what is taught in the scripture. none are without sin but to continue living in sin w/out even an attempt to turn is like turning your back on the free gift God has to offer.