Sin-levelling produces injustice. The Bible says there are degrees of sin.

Posted on by Barbara Roberts

Sin-levelling comes from the mistaken idea that all sins are equally bad in the sight of God and all sinners deserve to be treated equally.

When a victim of domestic abuse reaches out for help, people often respond by making sin-levelling statements. Here are some examples of sin-levelling statements:

  • “We’re all sinners. Your spouse is a sinner, but you’re a sinner too.”
  • “The way your spouse has sinned against you is no different from the way you have sinned against God.”
  • “Your spouse behaved badly, but you are also in the wrong, so the best way I can help you is to direct your attention to your own sins.”
  • “You have no right to judge your spouse’s conduct, because you are a sinner too.”

In abuse, sin-levelling reduces the responsibility of the abuser and lays undue condemnation on the victim. It mutualises the responsibility for the abuse.

Sin-levelling is done by falsely attributing blame to the victim, misjudging the victim’s resistance to the abuse as “sin that needs to be reprimanded”, unjustly magnifying the victim’s guilt, and minimizing the evil of the abuser and his guilt. The abuse victim is not to be blamed in any way for the abuse suffered.

An abused person has nothing to repent of in being sinned against. The abuser is wholly responsible for the abuse. The idea that the blame for the abuse must be shared by both abuser and victim will neatly dovetail into the abuser’s agenda, which is to get the victim to take responsibility for all the problems in the relationship. This is why sin-levelling produces injustice.

We are all sinners, but there are degrees of sin. Some sins are more evil in the sight of God than others.

Moses, Jesus and the Apostles all taught that some sins merit heavier judgement and heavier consequences on the sinner. For example, Moses taught that the penalty for murder should be heavier than the penalty for manslaughter. Jesus said to Pilate: “You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above. Therefore he who delivered me over to you has the greater sin.” (John 19:11) Elders who sin should be reprimanded not privately, but in front of the whole church (1 Timothy 5:20). Paul rebuked Peter before the whole congregation (Galatians 2:14). There are six heinous sins which merit immediate expulsion from the church.

Degrees of sin depend on:

  • the offender’s position in the community,
  • who the offender chooses to offend against,
  • the sin’s overall effects in the social context,
  • the intention, attitude, and foreknowledge of the offender.

(Note: I generally use female pronouns for the victim, but sometimes the victim is male. Reverse the pronouns if needed for your own situation.)

The offender. When the offender is of ripe age, holds an eminent office, or is a guide to others, the sin is more wicked.

The person(s) being sinned against. When the victim(s) of the offender are young, or are the family of the offender, or have lower status, less freedom, less social standing than the offender, the sin is more grave because the sinner is exploiting power imbalances. When the offender weaponises scripture to manipulate and abuse a Christian target, the offense is more serious.

The sin’s overall effects in the social context. When the sin puts stumbling blocks in the way of others, it is more serious. When the offender enlists henchmen and allies to help him get away with his sin, the offence is more serious. For example, an abusive father modelling wicked conduct to his children. An abusive mother enlisting two of her children to gang up on her third child. The media portraying fornication, adultery, and homosexuality as morally neutral. Pastors sweeping under the rug allegations of clergy sexual misconduct, so the majority of the congregation are led to believe that all is fine in their little patch.

The nature of the sin. When the offence violates the express commands of scripture, it is more serious. When the offence is not only conceived in the heart, but breaks forth in words and deeds, it is more serious. When the offence contains in it many sins, it is more serious. When no reparation can be made for the offence, it is more serious, e.g., murder, or grievous bodily harm causing permanent disability to the victim, or coercive control so intense that it ruins the victim’s health for the rest of her life.

Intention, attitude and foreknowledge. When the offender knows he is going against God’s law, the offence is more serious. When the offender knows he is breaking God’s law, yet denies that he knows this, the offence is more serious. When the offence is done deliberately, willfully, presumptuously, highhandedly, impudently, boastingly, defiantly, maliciously, frequently, obstinately, with overt or covert delight, the offence is more sinful.

Unintentional sin is not as bad as intentional sin. Paul was forgiven because he acted in ignorance and unbelief (1 Timothy 1:12-13). The more knowledge a person has of God’s will, the more serious it is when they sin. Sin done in ignorance is not as serious as sin done with knowledge.

Sin-levelling is made super easy because churches have mistaught scripture.

Churchianity has mistaught scripture for so long that many victims of abuse think they are sinning when they are not, which makes them easy targets for sin-levellers. The sin-leveller only needs to remind the victim that she is a sinner, and drop a few hints about what sins she is doing that contribute to the marriage problem and — abracadabra! — the conscientious victim will probably go into a spiral of meticulous self-examination and self-improvement to try to ‘fix’ her sins. But because she has been brainwashed by the church’s misteaching of scripture, the likelihood is that she will be trying to fix things in her that are not sins. What churchianity labels as the victim’s sins is most often the victim’s resistance to the abuse. Go here to learn more about victims’ resistance.

The main FAQ page at this site lists the common misteachings which entrap victims of abuse in a false sense of guilt. It can take quite a while to unlearn the misteachings. and replace them with scriptural truths, but it’s worth doing because it will help you become more alert when sin-levellers try to get you to focus on your own sins in the problematic relationship.

William Tyndale’s helpful advice on how to differentiate sinners:

Whether we be holy or unholy, we are all sinners. But the difference is, that God’s sinners do not consent to their sin. They consent unto the law that it is both holy and righteous, and mourn to have their sins taken away. But the devil’s sinners consent unto their sin, and would have the law and hell taken away, and are enemies unto the righteousness of God.
— The Obedience of a Christian Man (p 163 in the Penguin edition published in 2000).

[March 24, 2025: Editors’ notes:

—For some comments made prior to March 24, 2025 that quoted from the post, the text in the comment that was quoted from the post might no longer be an exact match.
—For some comments made prior to March 24, 2025 that quoted from the post, the text in the comment that was quoted from the post might no longer be found in the post.
If you would like to compare the text in the comments made prior to March 24, 2025 that quoted from the post to the post as it is now (March 24, 2025), click here [Internet Archive link] for the most recent Internet Archive copy of the post.]

***

Further reading

Leveling as a Manipulation Tactic: Equating One’s Character with Someone Else’s — by Dr George Simon Jr.

Sin-Levelling — What is it? And why is it wrong? — one of the FAQs at this blog.

Post updated September, 2024, and updated again March, 2025.

Discover more from A Cry For Justice

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

12 thoughts on “Sin-levelling produces injustice. The Bible says there are degrees of sin.”

  1. So good, Barb! So well done.

    Perfect end quote as well. It hasn’t always been this way folks, something has gone awry, and needs fixing.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Sharon Roberts Radic,

      You wrote (27th August 2024):

      So good, Barb! So well done.

      (The bold is in the part of your comment that I quoted above, Sharon Roberts Radic. 😊)

      That. 😊

      And Barb, you wrote in your post:

      Unintentional sin is not as bad as intentional sin. Paul was forgiven because he acted in ignorance

      After I’d read what you wrote a few times, Barb, I thought of something that might help others….

      What if a person — whether adult or child — does something wrong because they were copying another person. For example, how many times does a child get in trouble with their parent(s) for repeating a behaviour (or words) they’ve seen one or both of their parents do (or say)? And how many times does this happen in a family where one of the parents in an abuser?

      I’m not saying the person — whether adult or child — shouldn’t face the consequences of what they’ve done….even the secular system recognizes that….although even then, sometimes secular law takes those mitigating circumstances into account.

      I’m intentionally omitting a ton of extra detail, as many of the examples I’ve noted above have been written about on — or commented on — on the ACFJ blog (and in the secular world).

      Over the last few(?) years, I’ve realized that my middle brother — who I now call my non-abusive middle brother because I’ve realized that, unlike the rest of my family, he’s not an abuser 😊 — is on the Autism spectrum, but not in the same way I am. It’s hard to explain….I’m high-functioning Asperger’s (which is often considered on the Autism spectrum, although there ARE differences). I’d say my non-abusive middle brother is high-functioning Autistic….and he didn’t realise that until very recently, and he’s just over halfway through his sixth decade.

      Recently, I’ve wondered how much my non-abusive middle brother learned by copying what others did, only to find out later that what he’d done (no matter how inconsequential) was wrong. I’ve learned so many things by observing others, etc….and there were so many things that I was never taught. And in my family, there were a whole lot of things we weren’t taught….and a whole lot of things we saw bad examples of.

      Perhaps it’s a good thing my non-abusive middle brother and I never encountered the Christian / “Christian / church / “church”, etc., sin-levelling expletive-deleted when we were growing up….or as adults. 😊

      And a very short add-on, something I just thought of….if we’d encountered the kind of sin-levelling I wrote about in the above paragraph, we might’ve turned out FAR worse. 😊 (Intentionally omitting a long list of victim and / or survivor possibilities. 😊)

      Liked by 1 person

      1. There’s a lot in your comment, Finding Answers. Definitely, the non-abusive adults pull back from their learned behaviours when they realise the harm they cause, while abusive adults continue to use those learned behaviours even when they realise the harms they cause, because the perceived benefit to themselves is more important to them than the well-being of others or even a clear conscience.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Sharon Roberts Radic,

        You wrote (2nd September 2024):

        abusive adults continue to use those learned behaviours even when they realise the harms they cause, because the perceived benefit to themselves is more important to them than the well-being of others or even a clear conscience.

        That.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. Thanks for your comment, Finding Answers. I’ve been researching about autism. What I’ve learned is that autistic people tend to experience higher levels of abuse and PTSD than neuro-typical people. I’m guessing there are several reasons for this.

        One reason would be that neuro-typical people often misinterpret and criticise the autistic person’s behaviour, which means that the autistic person gets mocked, ridiculed, disdained, and falsely accused.

        Another reason (I’m guessing) is that autistic people often find it hard to lie (they are without guile), they tend to take words literally, and they sometimes find it hard to understand what passes for ‘normal social interaction’ in the neuro-typical world. The animal cunning (the guile) of predators senses that an autistic person is an easy target for abuse. Predators like finding easy targets to abuse. In addition, predators know that if the autistic person reports being abused, the autistic person is less likely to be believed because the majority of neuro-typical people are already misjudging and marginalising the autistic person.

        Like

      4. Barb,

        You wrote (4th September 2024):

        autistic people tend to experience higher levels of abuse and PTSD than neuro-typical people.

        That.

        And keeping in mind what I wrote in my earlier comment (28th August 2024):

        I’m high-functioning Asperger’s (which is often considered on the Autism spectrum, although there ARE differences).

        (The bold was done by me.)

        And my reply to you, Barb, is not a “pity party” of my life 😊 ….it’s merely a bit of explanation about why I’ve encountered abuse in so many aspects of my life.

        You wrote:

        One reason would be that neuro-typical people often misinterpret and criticise the autistic person’s behaviour, which means that the autistic person gets mocked, ridiculed, disdained, and [or] falsely accused.

        (The word “or” in brackets was added by me.)

        That. And it’s something that’s happened to me all of my life….whether at home, at work, at church, at any kind of event, etc.

        You wrote:

        autistic people often find it hard to [or can’t] lie

        (The words “or can’t” in brackets were added by me.)

        That. And it’s something that’s alienated me from a lot of people throughout my life.

        they tend to take words literally

        That. Although, oddly enough, I’ve not had issues with taking things literally.

        ….having said that (and keeping in my mind my inability to lie)…. 😊 And this is a story I’ve never told anyone. 😊

        When I was a VERY young child, I didn’t know people lied, I didn’t understand much about TV (it was a small black-and-white TV), and I didn’t understand about actors and acting (and my abusive family never explained it to me)….I saw Foster Brooks [Internet Archive link] on TV.

        From the Wikipedia article on Foster Brooks:

        Foster Brooks (May 11, 1912 – December 20, 2001) was an American actor and comedian best known for his portrayal of a lovable drunk in nightclub performances and television programs.

        Although I never thought about it — Foster Brooks wasn’t on the TV shows my abusive family usually watched — for many years, I thought Foster Brooks actually was a drunk….all based on one clip I saw on TV (I don’t remember the show). Years later Foster Brooks crossed my mind — by that time, I knew he was an actor and a comedian — and I realized he’d just been acting drunk. 😊

        You wrote:

        they sometimes find it hard to understand what passes for ‘normal social interaction’ in the neuro-typical world.

        That. For me, I’d clarify that to say it’s never really been a difficulty understanding “normal social interaction”….and I’m not saying this pridefully (or many other words that I’ve been called….like “goody two shoes”)….it’s hard to explain. 😢 I can understand why someone does something, yet still not understand why they do it….it’s just not something I could or would do. I was going to write something else, but perhaps the simplest and easiest way I can explain it is to say that I could never be an actor. 😊 ….especially if it meant — and even if only acting the part — lying, deceiving, being untrue to myself, etc.

        You wrote:

        The animal cunning….of predators senses that an autistic person is an easy target for abuse. Predators like finding easy targets to abuse [although some human predators like the challenge of more difficult targets]. In addition, predators know that if the autistic person reports being abused, the autistic person is less likely to be believed because the majority of neuro-typical people are already misjudging and marginalising the autistic person.

        (The phrase “although some human predators like the challenge of more difficult targets” was added by me.)

        That.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. Excellent post, Barb! You nailed it. In fact, I know of someone who was abused by her mother who indeed enlisted two of her children to gang up on the third child. To the sin-leveling list, I’d add the awful cliché, “There are two sides to every story.” As I read the post, I thought this is the sermon that should be preached everywhere, but is preached nowhere because the vast majority of preachers are just repeating what they were taught rather than, “accurately dividing the word of truth.” Well done!

    On another note, my sister pointed out to me that the sin-leveling goes all the way back to how preachers portray the Fall, first sin-leveling between Adam and Eve (both sinned) and then ultimately blaming Eve for the Fall and declaring women must submit to men because Eve was deceived. They turn Scripture on its head making the man the lesser sinner. Eve was deceived. Being deceived is not a sin. Adam on the other hand, received the command directly from God, didn’t try to stop Eve from eating the fruit and then decided to disobey God’s direct command when he observed Eve didn’t die. When Adam was confronted by God for his sin, he blamed Eve and even God Himself for providing Eve.

    Yet, what is the theology we are taught that enables abusers and minimizes abused women in the church? Women are to submit to men because Eve was deceived as if being deceived is a greater sin than disobeying God’s direct command and blaming both your spouse and God for your own sin. This is the most abhorrent false theology indoctrinating women to believe that disobeying their abusive husbands is disobeying God because women are to submit to men. The theology conveniently overlooks the passage in Romans 5:12 where the Bible says through one man, Adam, sin entered the world and in this way death came to all.

    Like

    1. sin-leveling goes all the way back to how preachers portray the Fall, first sin-leveling between Adam and Eve (both sinned) and then ultimately blaming Eve for the Fall and declaring women must submit to men because Eve was deceived. They turn Scripture on its head making the man the lesser sinner.

      Spot on! :)

      Like

Leave a comment. It's ok to use a pseudonym. All comments are moderated before they go live.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *