I have long loved Trash-TV and sadly, I watch so little of it. The Bachelor world and its spinoffs are so incredibly stupid but so fun to watch and have been long-standing staples of Trash Television. 2020-2021 lockdowns managed to bring out new worlds of Trash-TV, beyond that of ‘Real Housewives of _______’ and the typical Jersey-Shore wannabes that fall off after Season 1. New shows like Love is Blind, Too Hot to Handle, Love Island, etc. began popping up. And even post the lockdowns, new shows were being born to compete with the Love is Blind and Bachelor worlds. Hell, I was watching The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives in real time on TikTok as it was happening (TikTok knew I yearned for the Trash-TV).

And that TikTok-soundbite type of Trash-TV knowledge that I would glean from Mormon Wives is actually the way I’ve long digested the Trash-TV worlds. I’ve watched maybe 3-5 full seasons of anything in the Bachelor universe, seen only clips from Love is Blind, and only know about Love Island from the discussion following each season. But, on my bite-sized scale I knew when Corinne Olympios went topless at the other Bachelor contestants dismay, I saw the Billy Eichner sexuality comments to Colton, to then later see them clipped with Colton marrying his husband. And most recently, I’ve watched as Chris Fusco made one of the wildest decisions I’ve seen any man make by believing he’d find someone better than Jessica, a 10/10 hot doctor who was in love with him. The most egregious part is that he made it significantly about her appearance (on a show called Love is Blind) when he himself wasn’t even a very attractive male on the season. The audacity of men continues to be men’s greatest skill.

So now my audacious no-shame side point:
@jessicaleighbarrett  sorry about Chris, let’s go out? I sincerely promise that I’m into 5’0″ Brunettes.

But, out of all this useless knowledge that I’ve locked away in the files of my brain, I do find myself replaying a single Trash-TV moment over and over again. The moment lives in The Bachelorette’s 15th season when the men were vying for Hannah Brown, a season I did watch in full. Specifically, one of the men looking for Hannah’s heart named Luke Parker and Hannah had a disagreement regarding sex and their Christian faith. The scene is better watched so it’s linked here, but it takes about 5 minutes to get to the important quote here when Hannah says:

“I have had sex, and Jesus still loves me.”

And, this quote in the context of the show and the moment they’re in, is begging a deeper theological question. While they don’t dive into the theology on the show, most evangelicals can recognize  that Luke doesn’t believe a Christian can willingly have sex outside of marriage and maintain a claim to the repentant lifestyle. It’s the same theology that keeps LGBT crowds outside of most non-progressive churches, you can’t choose to sin (pursue homosexual romantic relationship) regularly and claim to be changed by the salvation of Christ. A repentant lifestyle (actively attempting to not sin) has to be done simultaneously with the belief, not the one without the other.

And that idea on its head is not wrong to the context and narrative of the Bible. Sure we can’t judge others repentant lifestyle, but we definitely know faith without works is dead and therefore a baseline for faith is repentantly living (trying to be better). Progressive and Conservative Christians actually agree on the belief that the Christian faith lives and dies on repentance, most disagreement centers on what is sin.

That quote from Hannah Brown takes a hard look at the theology surrounding repentance, and it asks the exact same question as Romans 6. (Yes it’s linked cause it’s a lot of words to add here.)

And as historically interpreted and theologically discussed, the takeaway from this passage is that we cannot go on sinning and claim to have been changed by the way of Christ. And this seems pretty cut and dry to the question of; Can we go on sinning now that we’re under grace?  And the answer as “Of course not you fool.”

And I don’t really mean to argue against a repentant life as foundational to a Christian worldview, many passages beyond Romans 6 point to this foundation too.
But what if we’re interpreting the meaning of this particular passage wrong? One of my late professors Dr. Ray Lubeck, who I didn’t particularly enjoy, gave us one of the best exercises I’ve ever done and it fundamentally changed my view of the Bible, and I’d recommend you try it also. The goal, is to remove textual bias that’s been added by good-intentioned additions. To do it:

1. Pull up a copy of the Bible on Google, whichever version you enjoy (the infallibility irony isn’t lost on me).
2. Have AI remove or find a copy that removes all verse numbers and chapter numbers.
3. Take it a step further and format it as the original text would’ve been written on scroll or stone tablet. Removing paragraph breaks and many grammatical additions. (Which were added to the text after it was written.)
4. Try and read the Bible and see what meaning you derive.

When using this approach to the Bible it becomes clear how far the text can lead us away from intended meaning, particularly when we build thoughts that string from earlier parts of the scripture. I.E It’s not that the dividing wall between Jews and Gentiles isn’t being discussed in the Bible in regards to salvation for all, it’s that the application portion of the section has a significantly different meaning when you change commas around.

For Romans 6 particularly, the verses read much less as “Cannot go on sinning” and more as “Should not go on sinning“, and when brought into the broader context of the entire passage it’s clear that the question has much less to do with the plausibility of continued sinning after being redeemed by Christ, and much more to do with how sin vs righteousness is viewed. And, on a non-biblical purely logical level no Christian holds to the belief that sin isn’t plausible after relationship with Christ, if that were the case no Christian but Jesus makes it to heaven. Even the pastor I served under the longest as an adult and claims to sin “Not daily or weekly, but maybe monthly” wouldn’t reach that standard. (Trust me I’m full of disgust at the statement.)

So clearly by logic alone, sinning has to be allowable post-conversion and acceptance of Christ, or nobody actually makes it in. But by the textual reading, with or without verse and chapter numbers, the point Romans 6 brings up isn’t to argue if we can continue to sin ever or at all. Instead, there’s a clear nuance to the text showing a stark contrast to sin and righteousness. The point being made is that after accepting Christ we are no longer a slave to sin, and now if actually repentant, are a slave to righteousness.

Taking it a step further to the context ending in Romans 5, the answer to the original question in Romans 6 actually is: “Yes, grace abounds even more where sin increases.”

Roman 5:18-21
“Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. 19 For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous. 20 Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21 so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”

The answer we derive from Romans 6 is answered at the end of Romans 5 (taking away the verse/chapter numbers helps a lot here). Which makes Romans 6 an explanation of how you should view sin, not your ability to sin and still be saved by Christ. The imagery of slavery particularly, being slave to sin or righteousness, is fully intentional. The idea is that without Christ we’re slave to our sin, controlled and guided by it. With Christ, we now are a slave to righteousness, controlled and guided by it.

But, I don’t think the point of Romans 6 stops there, nor do I think that at the time we accept Christ do we become a slave to righteousness in the fullness of how it should be. Instead at acceptance, I see a reinforcement to being a slave to sin but this time the focus is on “not sinning” rather than “not caring about the sin” like it was before acceptance of Christ takes place.

What do I mean by this? I look at Romans 6 like a strengths/weaknesses type of comparison and I’ll use a football example:

If Tom Brady had the ability to run for 50-75 yards per game in his career, the Patriots would have been even more unstoppable and dominant. But, if Brady spent the effort to get mobile and improve his speed he would’ve been using time that could’ve improved his strengths as a passer. The goal of running more is good for his team, but the pursuit of mobility would’ve cost Tom Brady much more in his progress as a passer.

On a smaller heard-on-Sunday-morning type quip; I was never going to be an NBA Center based on my build and athletic ability, and I could’ve tried and tried, and sure with enough time maybe gotten good enough to tryout. But man, what a wasted life that would be for me. Likewise, Brady would’ve wasted a lot of valuable growth pursuing a noble goal and likely never reached the same passing levels he ended up making it to.

So, what if that’s the point of Romans 6? I don’t think it’s really about the Paul-esque conversion where you’re suddenly with Christ and never want to sin or do wrong again. I believe the contrast made with the imagery of being a slave, is making the point that this is a mindset change. Trying not to sin is well-intentioned and seems like it should be a natural part of the Christian faith. But, it’s not. In fact, the natural part of the faith is being a slave to righteousness. It actually is the idea of “You’re so loving because of Christ’s work in your life, that other people want to join.” Romans 6 is a call to the Great Commandment and Great Commission, and not a call to sin less.

Conversions with any meaningful impact don’t come on short-term missions or by rehearsing the sinner’s prayer with people at the park. It comes via people who are a slave to righteousness. And, being outside of the church I see the truth of this even more now. For all the people I’ve met, that have left their faith for any reason, we are united by a single phrase every person says when discussing Christians in their life when we say about one or two:

“But, that guy is a good one. He actually does love and genuinely care, and I’d still believe that about him.”

And those moments of discussing these few good Christians with my fellow Agnostics or Atheists is so revealing as to who is actually making an impact on non-christians. The slaves to righteousness aren’t without sin, but the entire focus of their faith is on how to love others, not how to stop themselves from sinning. The entire point of the Bible reiterates this with imagery about freedom from sin and acknowledgement that we will still sin. The theology of Romans 6 is about shifting focus to always attempting to love others and provide the good in each situation.

I fully believe the intention of Romans 6 is to guide us to a focus on providing cold cups of water, rather than focusing on how awful our own shit is. If anything, the part that binds Christians together is the shared knowledge that they sin against their Christian desires daily and still go out and love others.

Hannah Brown’s statement of “I had sex, and Jesus still loves me” makes most conservative Christians revile since it’s about sex particularly, but she isn’t wrong. And while she doesn’t dive into the meat of Romans 6, the point she makes is not incorrect that we can knowingly sin as Christians and still be loved by Christ. You actually wouldn’t want it to be the other way around.

Hannah Brown Theology is just this. The love of Jesus abounds no matter what we do. And a focus on our sin makes us a slave to sin in a way that feels righteous, but misses the point of the Bible.

God’s love doesn’t end because those who enter relationship fail at being good Christians, not a single Christian would argue against that theologically or on a personal level for themselves. But when someone says it blatantly and seemingly without regard, particularly about sexual sin, evangelicals immediately cast them out.
Should Peter not be the rock of the church for denying Christ? Is King David, a groomer/rapist, not a man after God’s own heart?
Was Rahab the Prostitute not one of the most important biblical figures for the fulfillment of God’s promises?

So why is Hannah Brown not really a Christian, or “progressive and wrong“? Does God’s love stop abounding because we still sin? Surely not. Each one of us would be in Hell too if that was the truth.

Hannah Brown Theology is what I mean when I say I feel closer to God on the outside of the church than when I was in it. I don’t believe I’m a slave to righteousness, but I know for a fact I’m not a slave to sin.

If evangelicals actually used their time focused on being good to others rather than on themselves, the love of Christ would actually abound to the sinners. The number of LGBT members who are deeply spiritual and would actually enjoy community based religion is shockingly strong, and yet those who should be slave to righteousness allow their slavery to sin to impede the abounding of love in communities it views as slaves to sin themselves.
The pastors who admit their sins like Hannah Brown, and focus on the love of Christ are the ones closest to being slaves of righteousness.

Hannah Brown Theology is for me, because “I have sex and I can be quite an asshole, but Jesus still loves me.”