Is it sin to park in the clergy's parking space?

[Josheb]

It's 9:15 a.m. Saturday morning at the local United Methodist Church at a little beach resort town (although I suppose this could have happened at any denominational, liturgical place of worship), and a book sale is being held, taking the opportunity to exploit the increased Labor Day weekend traffic. The small parking lot is packed except for one space. That space has a sign stating, "Reserved for Clergy."

Would you park there?

Having parked there I get out of the car and an elderly woman stops and informs me I cannot park there because the sign says the space is reserved for the pastor. I ask, "Do you think the pastor will be coming to the book sale?" Stunned for a moment at the question, the woman responds she does not know but that is immaterial because the sign says the space is reserved solely for clergy. I respond by saying I am willing to take the chance the pastor will not be coming to the book sale in the fifteen minutes I'll be in there buying books. She then tells me I am sinning because I am deliberately disobeying the sign.

At which point my wife lovingly encourages me to ignore the woman (although she did not use the word "ignore").

I came and went, having purchased more than a dozen books, in and out in less than fifteen minutes. Never saw the pastor.


Was I sinning?

 

[atpollard]

If we assume that “Parking in a Pastor Space” is a sin because it “violates scripture”, then I would be hard pressed to recall the verse in the OT Law that applies or the teaching from the NT that applies.

If we assume that “Parking in a Pastor Space” is a sin because it “violates civil law”, then unless that community has some very special “local law”, designating a reserved space is not a matter of civil law (one does not get a ticket for parking in the pastor’s space) … it is merely a courtesy.

My brother-in-law was called to pastor a church for several years (he works for a para-church missionary organization and was just filling in as a favor). He expressed the thought-provoking opinion that the Church (churches in general) did “reserved parking” backwards. The people attending service that were actually being PAID to be there did not need special parking spaces to honor them … they needed “Reserved Parking” for the Nursery Volunteer … the person that was giving up their church service, at no pay, to take care of your children so you could focus on worship. That was the person that deserved to be honored.

The greatest among you shall be your servant. - Matthew 23:11 [ESV]

 

[makesends]

I was on a call to do some electrical work at a local retirement center, huge place. There was, in fact nowhere for me to park without blocking traffic, so I parked in the only spot near to the entrance I needed to use—a handicap spot. I made several trips carrying tools and parts to the room where I was going to work, and close to my last round trip when I came out, a little old lady, looking cross and severe, informed me that I was breaking the law and my van was to be towed. I asked her what was wrong with me taking my tools out, there, since there was no other place nearby to park, and she said that she didn't care—did I think it was right for me to impede a disabled person from parking there? I repeated, what is wrong with me parking there until I can get my things out of the van, then to move to some place a long walk from where I was going. She was not to be deterred; she repeated that I was breaking the law. When I didn't look sorry enough, nor even guilty enough, she tried shaming me, as she stomped off (best she could with her walker) — "Bad electrician! BAD electrician!!"

 

[Josheb]

If we assume that “Parking in a Pastor Space” is a sin because it “violates scripture”, then I would be hard pressed to recall the verse in the OT Law that applies or the teaching from the NT that applies.

If we assume that “Parking in a Pastor Space” is a sin because it “violates civil law”, then unless that community has some very special “local law”, designating a reserved space is not a matter of civil law (one does not get a ticket for parking in the pastor’s space) … it is merely a courtesy.

My brother-in-law was called to pastor a church for several years (he works for a para-church missionary organization and was just filling in as a favor). He expressed the thought-provoking opinion that the Church (churches in general) did “reserved parking” backwards. The people attending service that were actually being PAID to be there did not need special parking spaces to honor them … they needed “Reserved Parking” for the Nursery Volunteer … the person that was giving up their church service, at no pay, to take care of your children so you could focus on worship. That was the person that deserved to be honored.

The greatest among you shall be your servant. - Matthew 23:11 [ESV]

I immediately thought about James' admonitions against showing favoritism and that segued into the fact the NT-era Church did not have one individual responsible for the spiritual well-being of the entire congregation who wore special attire..... and had designated spaces for their cars (donkeys, horses, chariots, whatever). That was followed by the thought legalism kills. I was equally persuaded any and all of it would be wasted breath on my accuser.

I have since imagined writing a letter of repentance to the pastor fancifully thinking she might recognize the absurdity of the entire episode, responding with humor over the absurdity of it all. I suspect anyone who spent the kind of money I spent at their fundraiser would be awarded the use of the pastor's parking space for a month, willingly by the pastor herself!

 

[Josheb]

I was on a call to do some electrical work at a local retirement center, huge place. There was, in fact nowhere for me to park without blocking traffic, so I parked in the only spot near to the entrance I needed to use—a handicap spot. I made several trips carrying tools and parts to the room where I was going to work, and close to my last round trip when I came out, a little old lady, looking cross and severe, informed me that I was breaking the law and my van was to be towed. I asked her what was wrong with me taking my tools out, there, since there was no other place nearby to park, and she said that she didn't care—did I think it was right for me to impede a disabled person from parking there? I repeated, what is wrong with me parking there until I can get my things out of the van, then to move to some place a long walk from where I was going. She was not to be deterred; she repeated that I was breaking the law. When I didn't look sorry enough, nor even guilty enough, she tried shaming me, as she stomped off (best she could with her walker) — "Bad electrician! BAD electrician!!"

While I understand the dilemma and might also do likewise, I do not think parking in a pastor's designated space and a handicapped designated space is an equal comparison. There are municipal and state laws prohibiting parking in a handicapped space, but no such laws exist for a pastor's space. The indignation of the (supposedly) aggrieved busy-bodies is comparable, though. Were I her in the scenario, you post, I might have watched to verify you were only moving tools out of respect for you as an inconvenienced tradesman (I used to be a carpenter) and upon discovering you were deliberately violating the law I might have called the police non-emergency number to report the matter and leave it to Providence to decide your fate . I do that from time to time when I observe reckless drivers on the highway.

Want to know how I know someone is speeding?

 

[John Bauer]

And now for a completely different take ...

I would say, "Yes, you sinned—but in a minor way (a breach of property rule, not a gross violation of God's law)." It was a property rule and violating it meant you were knowingly transgressing the will of those entrusted with the property. Whether the pastor was likely to show up is irrelevant, for the rule did not say "reserved for clergy unless unlikely to be used." Christian ethics is not utilitarian (outcome-based) but aretaic and teleological; the standard is not outcomes but Christ-centered obedience and the formation of Christ-like character.

There is also the question of whom you were honoring, whether yourself or others. Parking in that space, knowing it was set aside for clergy, prioritized convenience (which is about you) over deference (which is about others). In brushing off the sign and the elderly woman's (overzealous) rebuke, you communicated disregard for both and were essentially honoring yourself above others. Deference would be choosing inconvenience for yourself in order to respect the priorities and wishes of your fellow believers.

"Instead of being motivated by selfish ambition or vanity, each of you should, in humility, be moved to treat one another as more important than yourself. Each of you should be concerned not only about your own interests, but about the interests of others as well" (Php 2:3-4).

 

[Josheb]

And now for a completely different take ...

I would say, "Yes, you sinned—but in a minor way (a breach of property rule, not a gross violation of God's law)." It was a property rule and violating it meant you were knowingly transgressing the will of those entrusted with the property. Whether the pastor was likely to show up is irrelevant, for the rule did not say "reserved for clergy unless unlikely to be used." Christian ethics is not utilitarian (outcome-based) but aretaic and teleological; the standard is not outcomes but Christ-centered obedience and the formation of Christ-like character.

The problem is no one is scripturally required to obey unscriptural rules.

There is also the question of whom you were honoring, whether yourself or others. Parking in that space, knowing it was set aside for clergy, prioritized convenience (which is about you) over deference (which is about others). In brushing off the sign and the elderly woman's (overzealous) rebuke, you communicated disregard for both and were essentially honoring yourself above others. Deference would be choosing inconvenience for yourself in order to respect the priorities and wishes of your fellow believers.

"Instead of being motivated by selfish ambition or vanity, each of you should, in humility, be moved to treat one another as more important than yourself. Each of you should be concerned not only about your own interests, but about the interests of others as well" (Php 2:3-4).

A lot of assumptions are being made, many of them having no basis in fact so I encourage you to reconsider the dissent. Don't assume, for example, my motives were selfish, or entirely selfish, or that there was total disregard for the pastor, the pastor's privilege, or the purported "property rules." Consider the possibility any property rule itself had intended but unstated application that don't exist when either the pastor is not present or greater matter (matters greater than the pastor's privilege or any selfishness on my part) are served. I doubt, for example, the pastor would demand an empty spot be preserved at an AA meeting so populous that the parking lot was filled and on any occasion she might want to drop in (or be invited) she would gladly surrender her spot and walk an extra (short) distance to support those in recovery. The same would likely be true of a marriage seminar the church arranged and supported.

Any congregation led by a pastor demanding his/her space at the expense of a addict or couple in need is ____________________ (I'll let the reader fill in the blank as they see fit).

Lastly, what if the pastor was the one who told me of the book/bake sale and told me to park in her spot? Not only would I then be vindicated but were I to disclose that information to my accuser it might cause distress for her (my accuser) and disrupt her relationship with the pastor. Even were I to lie and say that to my judge, that lie could have adverse repercussions beyond my own deceit.


I will readily acknowledge my deliberate decision to disregard the sign's statement. The question is, "Is parking in the pastor's designated space sin?" Since scripture, not any one individual, is the definer of sin I think the closest anyone will come to an affirmative answer to that question will be Romans 13.

Romans 13:1-2
Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore, whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.

Not Php. 2:3-4. Had my accuser practiced the Philippians 2 text she'd have considered me and my purpose more significant than her need to defend the pastor's space and the pastor, and allowed, if not applauded, my use of the space as long as it benefitted the charity the congregation sought. The needs of the fund-raiser's recipients outweighed us all and it was fear, not respect, that kept others from using the space.

Romans 13:3
For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil.


Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. Imagine how the conversation would have gone had I accused the accuser of idolatry instead of legalism.

I would say, "Yes, you sinned—but in a minor way...

Would it be minor enough to assume the position of God and judge another?

...in a minor way (a breach of property rule...

Where might I find that in scripture?

....not a gross violation of God's law...

As in a minor violation of God's law or a violation of something not God's law? I assume you know sin is not defined solely by violation of Giod's law. Sin is extra-legal. 1 John 3:4 is not the only verse that defines sin.

The fundamental purpose of the op is not to acquire a simple answer to the specific question asked based on personal opinion, but to provide for us all (including myself) an opportunity to reason with scripture through what does and does not qualify as sin, to better establish or hamartiology through what is otherwise a fairly innocuous example (I doubt anyone here cares what I did or did not do with a parking space in a little town in some other state).

 

[makesends]

And now for a completely different take ...

I would say, "Yes, you sinned—but in a minor way (a breach of property rule, not a gross violation of God's law)." It was a property rule and violating it meant you were knowingly transgressing the will of those entrusted with the property. Whether the pastor was likely to show up is irrelevant, for the rule did not say "reserved for clergy unless unlikely to be used." Christian ethics is not utilitarian (outcome-based) but aretaic and teleological; the standard is not outcomes but Christ-centered obedience and the formation of Christ-like character.

There is also the question of whom you were honoring, whether yourself or others. Parking in that space, knowing it was set aside for clergy, prioritized convenience (which is about you) over deference (which is about others). In brushing off the sign and the elderly woman's (overzealous) rebuke, you communicated disregard for both and were essentially honoring yourself above others. Deference would be choosing inconvenience for yourself in order to respect the priorities and wishes of your fellow believers.

"Instead of being motivated by selfish ambition or vanity, each of you should, in humility, be moved to treat one another as more important than yourself. Each of you should be concerned not only about your own interests, but about the interests of others as well" (Php 2:3-4).

As an example of the sort of thing done there, the charge of speeding is a separate matter from the actual speed limit posted. I'm not charged with exceeding the speed limit. I'm charged with speeding. Thus the posted limit is a guide, not a commandment. In fact, there are times when you can be charged with impeding traffic (or some other term) if you are not exceeding the posted limit.

I doubt very much that the will of those entrusted with the property would have a problem with someone parking in that spot for fifteen minutes in that context, unless they were legalistic and contentious.

Our church was about a block up the street from the local post office. When the parking became sparse at the church, I parked at the PO parking lot, and, at that, well away from the building. One of the ladies attending our church was the postmaster. She got all up in my face, wondering where did I get off parking on that empty lot. I understand that she might be worried that if something happened that I might sue the Post Office, but... All she needed to do was to inform me that nobody was allowed to be there other than on PO business. I don't know if she was ever there to run the kids off that found that parking lot a good skateboarding surface. I'm almost surprised she didn't have a chain-link fence put up around the whole place.

 

[Josheb]

As an example of the sort of thing done there, the charge of speeding is a separate matter from the actual speed limit posted.....

LOL!

I define speeding as going faster than me .

In my locale no one obeys the speed limit. As someone who has spent some time in traffic court and defensive driving classes, one of the most unknown but critically important facts of speed and driving is the matter known as "speed differential." That is the difference between the fastest and the slowest drivers in a specified section of road. If everyone is driving the speed limit in a 55-mph zone, then that's a relatively safe stretch of highway. I, similarly, everyone is driving 10 miles per hour over the speed limit, that too is a relatively safe section of highway. The risk of accident increases when one person drivers faster or one person drives slower than everyone else. In any section of highway where a few drive faster and a few drive slower the risk increases accordingly. So, it's okay if everyone breaks the law as long as the do so in the same direction at the same time . LOL If everyone parked in the pastor's space that would be a problem. I'd have to park somewhere else .


If you're going faster than me, then you're speeding.

 

[atpollard]

And now for a completely different take ...

I would say, "Yes, you sinned—but in a minor way (a breach of property rule, not a gross violation of God's law)." It was a property rule and violating it meant you were knowingly transgressing the will of those entrusted with the property. Whether the pastor was likely to show up is irrelevant, for the rule did not say "reserved for clergy unless unlikely to be used." Christian ethics is not utilitarian (outcome-based) but aretaic and teleological; the standard is not outcomes but Christ-centered obedience and the formation of Christ-like character.

There is also the question of whom you were honoring, whether yourself or others. Parking in that space, knowing it was set aside for clergy, prioritized convenience (which is about you) over deference (which is about others). In brushing off the sign and the elderly woman's (overzealous) rebuke, you communicated disregard for both and were essentially honoring yourself above others. Deference would be choosing inconvenience for yourself in order to respect the priorities and wishes of your fellow believers.

"Instead of being motivated by selfish ambition or vanity, each of you should, in humility, be moved to treat one another as more important than yourself. Each of you should be concerned not only about your own interests, but about the interests of others as well" (Php 2:3-4).

I disagree, but like it when someone takes an alternate stand.

It would seem like the occasion when the disciples were hungry and eating grain from the stalks on the Sabbath. The Religious Authorities accused them of violating the Law, and they did … but Jesus educated them that the Law was never intended to be that “legalistic”.

This feels similar (over legalistic) making it technically correct, but missing the forest for the trees. Would the church sale have been better if he just kept driving because there was no parking, or if he parked in the only vacanct spot and spent money on their fundraising effort?

 

[Foghorn]

Was I sinning?

Only if you leave your vehicle there overnight.

 

[John Bauer]

I disagree, but like it when someone takes an alternate stand.

Cheers, thanks.

Would the church sale have been better if he just kept driving because there was no parking, or if he parked in the only vacanct spot and spent money on their fundraising effort?

Or—and hear me out, now—what if he had parked somewhere inconvenient for him (in deference to their wishes and priorities) and walked the extra distance to the fundraising sale?

 

[CrowCross]

Was I sinning?

Absolutely.

It's their church...it's their parking lot..it's their rule.

Some people think they're above the law "rules". As a "christian" you should have RESPECTED the rules of that church. You sinned. You should have parked elsewhere.

I would imagine with the attitude you wore that day you would have felt justified to park in a handicap spot. Shame on you.

 

[CrowCross]

Or—and hear me out, now—what if he had parked somewhere inconvenient for him (in deference to their wishes and priorities) and walked the extra distance to the fundraising sale?

Which is what he should have done. Instead he chose sin...and justified it.

 

[CrowCross]

so populous that the parking lot was filled and on any occasion she might want to drop in (or be invited) she would gladly surrender her spot and walk an extra (short) distance to support those in recovery.

You should have GLADLY surrendered the spot and walked the short distance. It seems as if you're hiding behind your pride. It appears your sin is accumulating....not respecting the churches rule...now add to that pride.

 

[John Bauer]

As an example of the sort of thing done there, the charge of speeding is a separate matter from the actual speed limit posted. I'm not charged with exceeding the speed limit, I'm charged with speeding. Thus the posted limit is a guide, not a commandment.

I can only speak about facts I know here in Canada. Our speed limits are not guides but commandments: they literally say "90 km/h maximum," for example. When you are pulled over for speeding, the ticket will say "speed against highway sign" or "excessive speed" (depending on how much greater your rate of speed was). Either way, the sign states the "maximum" rate of speed permitted and you can be charged with exceeding it.

In fact, there are times when you can be charged with impeding traffic (or some other term) if you are not exceeding the posted limit.

That is not the case here. If you are exceeding the maximum posted speed limit, you can be ticketed. If you are within the posted limit (i.e., not exceeding it), you literally cannot be ticketed. It would be improper enforcement (and thus invalid) for a police officer to ticket you for impeding traffic when you were maintaining the posted limit.

You can be ticketed for impeding the normal, reasonable flow of traffic, though, if you're driving too slow and don't allow people to pass you.

I doubt very much that ... those entrusted with the property would have a problem with someone parking in that spot for fifteen minutes in that context, unless they were legalistic and contentious.

That elderly woman had a problem with it. And it is unwarranted and unfair to call her legalistic and contentious when there are other, more charitable possibilities first (like respectful or deferential).

 

[John Bauer]

The problem is no one is scripturally required to obey unscriptural rules.

Granted. But how is that relevant? Are you suggesting that a "Reserved for Clergy" sign is an unscriptural rule?

A lot of assumptions are being made, many of them having no basis in fact, so I encourage you to reconsider the dissent.

Well, for one thing, several of those assumptions you listed were not involved in my post or my thinking (e.g., "total disregard for the pastor"). So, "a lot of assumptions were being made" but not by me.

For another thing, I was making a lot more inferences than assumptions. For example, you said that you were there to buy books, that it would take about 15 minutes, and that you were willing to take the chance that the aforementioned clergy would not arrive within that time. From this, I inferred that you parked when and where you did as a matter of convenience (which is about you)—for you could have parked elsewhere and walked the extra distance, or even returned to this fundraising sale to try again later, alternatives that wouldn't be as convenient as this. I also inferred from your opening post (OP) that you saw the sign and knew what it meant. Inferences are not assumptions, Josh.

Inferences can be wrong, of course, and if they are it's on you to indicate where and how—I can't know an inference is mistaken unless and until you tell me—but it would be less than rational to say something like, "Don't infer that my motives were selfish." You can't reasonably tell someone to not draw an inference.

And the reason why I inferred a self-centered motive is because nothing in your OP indicated that your choice was for anyone else's benefit. You wanted to stop then and there, check out some books and probably buy some, and this parking spot was the only one available at the time. (Please observe that I didn't say it was "entirely" self-centered. You may have had secondary or tertiary motives but they were not included in your OP—the only thing to which I had access.)

Don't assume, for example, ... that there was total disregard for ... the purported "property rules."

I neither assumed nor inferred a "total" disregard for the property rules on your part. Your OP indicated a disregard for an express property rule and I accepted that at face value. My response neither universalized the disregard nor needed to.

(I have noticed a tendency in your objections to deflect criticism by misrepresenting it in order to say it doesn't apply. For example, I criticize something as selfish and you respond by saying, "You shouldn't assume it was entirely selfish." But I never said it was "entirely" selfish. And here we have another example: I never said it was a "total" disregard for the rules. Please represent my criticisms accurately when addressing them.)

Consider the possibility any property rule itself had intended but unstated application that don't exist when either the pastor is not present or ... [snip rest]

What justification exists in your scenario to second-guess the meaning or intent of the no-parking sign? There was none. If the elderly woman had acquiesced to your logic, or if the aforementioned clergy had been called and agreed with you, that would serve as such a justification. But as the facts on the ground stand (given in your OP), the sign and its intent was unambiguous.

Any congregation led by a pastor demanding his or her space at the expense of an addict or couple in need ... [snip rest]

See? Here, again, we have this exaggerated language ("demanding"). If there is a pastor demanding his space at the expense of an addict or a couple in need, we have no evidence that it's at this church. (For example, do you know for a fact that they don't cover the sign during AA meetings?)

All we have here is a church that reserves a parking spot for its clergy, a priority which everyone appeared to be honoring—until you.

Lastly, what if the pastor was the one who told me of the book/bake sale and told me to park in her spot?

Was she? Did she? If so, you should have included that information because it would completely change my answer.

If she wasn't and she didn't, then it's irrelevant.

[If the pastor is the one who invited me to the fundraiser and told me to park in her spot,] were I to disclose that information to [the elderly woman] it might cause distress for her and disrupt her relationship with the pastor.

I am noticing your interesting word choice there ("might"). Which scenario do you think is more likely? Give your reasoning.

Woman: "You can't park there. It's reserved for the pastor."

You: "I know. She invited me to come and told me I can park in her spot."

1. Woman: [Becomes distressed, anticipates tension with the pastor.]
   
   ​
2. Woman: "She did? Sorry, carry on." [Thinks nothing more of it.]
   
   ​
3. Woman: "She did? Sorry, carry on." [Goes to call pastor, who confirms.]
   
   ​
4. Woman: "She did? Wait here while I confirm." [Goes to call pastor, who confirms.]

I will readily acknowledge my deliberate decision to disregard the sign's statement. The question is, "Is parking in the pastor's designated space sin?" Since scripture, not any one individual, is the definer of sin, I think the closest anyone will come to an affirmative answer to that question will be Romans 13.

Two things.

First, Romans 13 cannot be pressed into service here. Paul is speaking of civil magistrates, a context evidenced by his reference to penal power, public justice, and taxation (vv. 4-7). Scripture addresses other spheres of authority elsewhere (church, family, employers, etc.), and how we are to treat our neighbors versus the family of God. To flatten all authority under Romans 13 is exegetically careless.

Second, given the relevance of scripture for defining sin, what does it say about putting oneself ahead of others? As I said earlier, "Christian ethics is not utilitarian (outcome-based)"—so the likelihood of the pastor showing up is irrelevant—"but aretaic and teleological; the standard is not outcomes but Christ-centered obedience and the formation of Christ-like character." Do your words and conduct in that scenario lean toward or away from Christ's pattern of self-sacrifice, emptying himself for others (Rom. 15:1-3; Phil. 2:5–8)? The sign is incidental; what matters is how you responded to the church's rule and that elderly woman—who you call an accuser (so the self-justifying tone is also notable.) By your own admission, you deliberately disregarded the sign. It was a willful choice to elevate personal convenience above the stated wishes and priorities of the stewards entrusted with the property.

A general caution: To reduce sin to an explicit statutory violation would be inadequate and inconsistent with scripture. Think of the Sermon on the Mount, where Christ exposed such reductive thinking by equating lustful thoughts with committing adultery. Yes, hamartia is "lawlessness" (1 John 3:4), but the law is more than the Ten Commandments—it is the whole covenantal will of God (Rom. 13:8–10). Consider the contrast between the letter versus the spirit of obedience.

Had my accuser practiced the Philippians 2 text ... Imagine how the conversation would have gone had I accused the accuser of idolatry instead of legalism.

The question concerned what you did and whether it was sinful, not what she did.

... she'd have considered me and my purpose more significant than her need to defend the pastor [and her parking] space ... and allowed, if not applauded, my use of the space ...

I think that speaks for itself. Nothing more needs to be said.

It was fear, not respect, that kept others from using the space.

This is SUCH a telling statement. Overlooking the fact that you can't possibly know what motivated their compliance—which could be respect, or deference, or common courtesy—your framing betrays your own attitude toward authority.

I also cannot help noticing that you explained your disobedience situationally (convenience, utilitarian) but the obedience of others dispositionally (cowardice). You trivialized the rule ("absurdity") while impugning the compliance of others ("fear"). Why didn't you explain their obedience likewise situationally (respect, deference, courtesy)? This asymmetry is telling.

I guess if obedience is cowardice, then disobedience is a cut above.

Would [my supposed sin] be minor enough to assume the position of God and judge another?

I beg your pardon? Dude, YOU ASKED: "Is it sin ...?"

If people answer no, it's fine, but if they answer yes, it's judgmental?

The fundamental purpose of the OP is not to acquire a simple answer to the specific question asked based on personal opinion, but to provide for us all (including myself) an opportunity to reason with scripture through what does and does not qualify as sin—to better establish or hamartiology through what is otherwise a fairly innocuous example.

—which is precisely what we are doing here.

 

[Hazelelponi]

The small parking lot is packed except for one space. That space has a sign stating, "Reserved for Clergy."

Would you park there?

No.

I used to go to a fundraiser every year as a consumer at the fundraiser. It was very famous and there wasn't ever enough parking for the crowds that showed up annually.

We often parked a mile or two away and made the hike to the sale, and I always found the effort worth it, even after becoming disabled. (It really was an awesome fundraiser).

What I wouldn't have considered was parking in a reserved space that wasn't reserved for me, because during fundraising sales reserved space is often for people working the fundraiser or otherwise needing a close space to drop off supplies etc during the event.

That said, I have before parked in a disabled space when I forgot the disabled placard you hang from the rearview mirror when not in my main vehicle before on a quick run into the store trip, since my disability is obvious I always figured it would be okay, even if my son (who is healthy) was driving.

My husband won't let me though, he makes me make the full trek regardless if I forget the placard and we are in someone else's car. I got the lecture once about carefully following all the rules even if it's inconvenient. He's very precise about rules.

Was I sinning?

You were Rude. Definitely rude.

I have since imagined writing a letter of repentance to the pastor fancifully thinking she might recognize the absurdity of the entire episode, responding with humor over the absurdity of it all. I suspect anyone who spent the kind of money I spent at their fundraiser would be awarded the use of the pastor's parking space for a month, willingly by the pastor herself!

There's a sense of entitlement in your framing here, as if the money you spent entitled you to special privileges, over and above other attendees at the fundraiser, including the elderly and infirm.

While a few minutes in a space doesn't seem like that big of a deal, the woman who called you out for breaking posted parking lot etiquette - which can result in your car being towed on private property - wasn't wrong for saying something.

Proper etiquette would be you apologizing for the oversight, and getting back in your car and parking down the block if need be, or having your wife drop you off and pick you back up in a few minutes.

But I'm someone who was forced to read books on proper etiquette as a child. Etiquette used to be everything. I was very happy to ditch it in the main but the lessons still took.

I still know how to make a proper curtsey or greet ambassadors if it ever comes up, so parking lot etiquette is a breeze...

But seriously, it's rude behavior, especially during a crowded fundraising event. I guess the question is; does Christ expect us to be rude? Or does He want us to be polite when in society as much as possible?

 

[Josheb]

You should have GLADLY surrendered the spot...

To whom would I be surrendering the spot?

It seems as if you're hiding behind your pride.

Prove it.

 

[Josheb]

Absolutely. It's their church...it's their parking lot..it's their rule. Some people think they're above the law "rules". As a "christian" you should have RESPECTED the rules of that church. You sinned. You should have parked elsewhere. I would imagine with the attitude you wore that day you would have felt justified to park in a handicap spot. Shame on you.

Did you read through the thread? This content has already been addressed. The rules this church made were unscriptural and there is no obligation to follow unscriptural rules, especially ones that don't apply to the circumstances of the op. I don't think I am above the rules. I simply think that specific sign does not apply to the circumstance of a book/bake sale. Handicapped spots, alternatively, are a matter of law, not rules, and, no, I would not and did not use the vacant handicap space. As far as my "attitude" goes and your speculations thereof, you should read up on the "fundamental attribution error," realizing humans think we are very good at judging the motives of others, but we get it correct only about 12% of the time. Only God can judge the heart so when we try to do that we are, like that old lady, presuming to sit in the place of God as Judge. This is why civil law endeavors to measure objectively verifiable behavior and not motive or character. The nicest, most humble person on the planet can break the law.