Yes and no. There is a perspective out there, driven I suspect more by psychology than theology, that looks down its nose at what is sometimes called “worm theology.” It suggests that we can be too down on ourselves, that looking too deeply into our sinful hearts is unhealthy and unbiblical. The Bible, however, gives a compelling portrait of our sinful nature before we are reborn (see Ephesians 2), and I would argue, after we are reborn (see Romans 7). To look more deeply into our sin is to look more deeply into His grace, and to respond more potently in love and gratitude. One thing most needful for me, and for the church in our age is a more honest, humble grasp of our own sin.
While it is likely not possible to overstate the scope of our sin apart from His grace (though it is possible to miss the blessing of that grace in stamping us with His image) nevertheless there is at least one way in which we can “over-repent.” We do so when we repent for things that are not sins.
There are at least two ways we repent for things that are not sins. First, when we in the church add to God’s law. The Pharisees, we remember, were infamous for what we call “fencing the law.” Here we take an actual law God has given, and to be extra certain we don’t commit that sin we make the law broader than God Himself did. The Pharisees were neither the last, nor the first to do this. Eve is the patron saint of this error. Remember when the serpent asked if God had forbidden Adam and Eve to eat of any of the trees of the garden she rightly replied that God had given them liberty to eat of any tree, save one. Her good beginning however soon came with a gloomy portent when she added, “Neither may we touch it.” God had said no such thing. Eve was the first to add to God’s law.
The second way we repent for things that are not sins is when we take on the burdens of the law from the world. They have their own law that often has little connection to God’s law. They are quick to condemn us, and sadly, too often we are willing to take on the stigma. Consider the tragic case of Joshua Alcorn. This young man some years ago took his own life, and left behind on social media his explanation for why. Joshua wanted to go through that process by which some men disfigure themselves and take in chemicals all designed to make him appear as a woman. His parents, professing believers, did not support either this process, nor the notion that Joshua was a girl trapped in a boy’s body.
The death is of course a terrible tragedy. The young man was struggling with deep despair. But the “lesson” we are called to learn, that too many professing believers have owned, is that Joshua is dead because of his cruel, narrow, believing parents. And we Christians are supposed to repent for our lack of understanding of those struggling with sexual identity. Trouble is, perhaps apart from Fred Phelps, I’m unaware of Christians lacking in understanding for anyone struggling with sexual identity or any other sin for that matter. I am aware that there are Christians, sadly too few, who are unwilling to call evil good in the boiling cauldron of sexual identity politics. The tragedy of the death of Joshua Alcorn was tragic because of Joshua’s death, not because we Christians won’t get with the program of our postmodern sexual free fall.
As when we in the church add to God’s law we end up distorting who God is, so when we embrace the world’s law as God’s law we do the same. We may weep for Joshua, and weep with his parents. We may not, however, add to or subtract from the law of God in the process. We have plenty of real sins to repent of without taking on the yoke of the contemporary zeitgeist. When we repent for things that are not sins, then we need to repent, for distorting the law of God, and therefore, His character.