human nature sampling error

If you think that all people are terrible scoundrels with the worst intentions, or that all people have good intentions underneath, or that all people are born innocent, or that all people are born with nothing but selfishness...then you need to meet more people. "Natural" behavior has a huge range which thwarts a right statistical sample. The depths are lower than expected and the heights are higher than expected. Since it's impossible for us to meet everyone, too often we fall into the trap of assuming that the much smaller group whom we've met is a good representation of the whole. This is a vital reason why a protected (but not necessarily isolated) upbringing helps to cultivate the willingness to believe the "best" about everyone until proven otherwise; rough defensive survival leads to the habit of perceiving threats all around.

The doctrine of Christianity is that human nature is fallen. We cannot create a paradise for ourselves, not even when we start with an extremely selective subgroup (Puritans?). But we retain our former glory to varying degrees. Either the inherent good or the inherent bad is exaggerated over time. In any case, the good isn't good enough. Regardless of someone's human nature in comparison with the rest of the populace, supernatural change is the prescription. Our limited samples of humanity tend to be incomplete evidence about the truth of human nature in one way or another, but God is not fooled.

the gender excuse

I'm stunned by the variety of excuses for sin. Yes, that includes my own. Previously I mentioned the tendency to blame "virtues" for excesses of some kind. For instance, " 'Exhortation' is my specialty. Regardless of whether my words hit people like wrecking balls, I'm not doing anything wrong." 

Another category of excuse is gender. These excuses take the general form, "I realize that an attitude or action is sinful in some way, but it exemplifies my gender. Do you honestly expect me to deny my gender differences?" This is akin to entangling a sense of identity with sin, following to an extreme the sometimes misguided advice to "be yourself".

I opine that God doesn't want gender to disappear (although it's an intriguing question about our future heavenly bodies). I'd say that part of what the surrounding culture calls "masculine" or "feminine" is praiseworthy, but not every part. As Christian devotees called to a spiritual life, we will be inevitably countercultural. We should pursue right attitudes and actions and not fear narrow classifications of masculine or feminine, which are assigned by the flawed ideas of our culture. It may not be comfortable. It may not be conventional. 

But we cannot misuse gender to choose which sins to prefer, including sins of omission. The fruits of the Spirit in Galatians 5:22-23 aren't gender-specific. Christians cannot place either too much or too little emphasis on each. It's pitiful to claim, "I can't be like that. I'm too [masculine,feminine]." Faithful disciples continue to have genders, but they don't continue to have the same sins. 

conversation about Jesus is not equivalent to church

Imagine a group of people who meet at an informal location and converse about Jesus for a while. They refer to the Bible, share their opinions, engage in gentle debate, and so on. Was that church? More to the point, are they therefore part of The Church? Is that activity a full alternative to the typical church service, which might be off-putting to some of the conversationalists? Is a Bible Book Club enough?

It seems to me that conversation about Jesus is surely something that Christians should do, and frequently, with or without unbelievers. But regardless of their feelings toward traditional church, wouldn't any devotee admit that a victorious Christian life is much more? And wouldn't they further admit that a group of Christians, by combining efforts and wisdom, is more effective than an individual Christian?

I don't mean that it's a "bad" idea to gather to discuss the finer points of Christendom. I mean that those discussions aren't the entire reason for churches to exist. Sermons are increasingly easy to find and obtain (check a podcast directory online). In contrast, church membership also includes discipleship, giving, service, confession, correction, among other group interactions. If salvation is thinking the right thoughts, then aimless talking could be enough. If salvation is a radical transformation from the inside out, proceeding from an infectious Holy Spirit, then a church of the saved is people spurring one another on to love and good deeds.

We shouldn't try to avoid hypocrisy by doing nothing. We shouldn't try to avoid legalistic unmerciful judgments by ignoring the concept of sin. We shouldn't try to avoid preachiness by never saying we have the truth. We shouldn't try to avoid doctrinal controversies by throwing out sacraments. And finally, we shouldn't try to avoid scaring people with Hell by pretending salvation in this life doesn't matter.