sin: an overview

It shows up over 387 times. It shows up even more frequently in its derivative forms. The word sin (or sinner, sins, etc.) is one of the most frequently used words in all of scripture. It even outpaces love (314 occurrences) in frequency of use. Little wonder then that much of the preaching and teaching within our Protestant tradition has been focused on sin. In fact some of the most famous sermons in American history have sin as their main theme (check out the text of Jonathan Edwards, "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God"http://www.biblebb.com/files/edwards/je-sinners.htm). Edwards uses sin and by extension God's wrath against sin as the backdrop for scaring people into believing in Jesus. This focus on sin raises a couple of questions which we will examine together. 

Our first question is what does the word sin actually mean? In Hebrew there are several words for sin, each carrying a slightly different connotation. However the most frequently used word translated as sin, is "het." The most basic meaning of "het" is to "go astray." Needless to say that image of "going astray" would not be one most people would associate with the word sin. We would normally think of images like rule breaking, moral failing or offending God (and there are minor uses of words describing these actions which are translated as sin). What we need to understand about the Old Testament however is that metaphor is one of the primary ways in which meaning is transmitted. Thus in the Old Testament the metaphor used to describe how one ought to live, is "walking in God's paths." Sin then is any action which leads one astray from "walking the path" God wants us to walk. 

The same use of metaphor is found in the New Testament. While 1 John describes sin as lawlessness, the Greek word most often used for sin is "hamartia," who's actually meaning is "to miss the mark" (imagine an archer missing the target with an arrow). Again notice how the metaphor is used to describe someone who has missed the goal which God has set. 
Looking directly at the actual meaning of the word changes our understanding of sin. Sin is not longer restricted to either breaking the rules or doing bad things, but can be seen as a way of life which leads people away from the life giving ways God desires of us and toward death dealing ways which rob us of our very humanity.

Our second question is, why such a focus on sin? My answer begins with, read the newspaper or turn on the television. From suicide bombers in Iraq, to parents who become angry and kill their children, to drug wars in Mexico which leave countless dead, to the greed of those who led the housing market into the tank (and this includes everyone from lenders, to borrowers, congress) much of our world is not moving in the right direction. In fact much of the world is moving in the opposite direction from the life giving ways of God. And this is nothing new. The Bible is replete with examples of those who have chosen to turn their backs on God's good ways and walked down another path…the end of which was pain and heartache.

My answer continues with the fact that God wants the best for creation and for humanity. You and I were created to be those who were made to love God, neighbor and creation. If we love the way we are capable of loving then this world begins to look like God's kingdom…a place of joy, hope and love. That is God's goal. Sin interferes with this goal. Sin (going astray or missing the mark) sends people off in the wrong direction thus causing pain and suffering which is not God's intent. This is why sin matters to God. Sin interferes with God's good plans for God's good creation by breaking the good relationships God intends. This is one of the reasons we confess our sins every week. We do so to remind ourselves that we need to be conscious of the path we are traveling so that we might draw closer to God's desire…that we might stay on the right path.

sin:  brokenness  in creation

There is a line in the play Steel Magnolias that states that the only thing that separates us from the animals is our ability to accessorize. While I am not sure exactly how true that is (there may be come mammals which decorate themselves) the one thing I am sure of that separates us from the animals is our ability to fundamentally alter the face of this planet. While there are animals such as beavers which can and do alter the landscape, their global impact is minimal. The impact we have on this planet is much more significant and much more long lasting.

Prior to the industrial revolution the impact of human beings on the environment was relatively small. Civilizations would come and go and nature would cover over their very existence. But as the world began to industrialize the questions became how do we get what we need to run our factories and what do we do with the leftovers? How do we retrieve the natural resources necessary for the industrialized world to continue operating? What do we do with the areas from which we have finished extracting materials? What do we do with the smoke from the coal or oil fired plants? What do we do with the industrial waste that our processes create? What do we do with the ever increasing number of chemicals used in industrial production which once used are worthless but still toxic? What do we do with the human waste from larger and larger cities? What do we do with animal waste from larger and larger commercial farms? 

The answer for a couple of hundred years was, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter how or what we do. From a theological point of view this made sense. After all God has given humanity dominance over creation so it is our right to do what we want. It made short term economic sense. The fewer dollars spent on taking care of our waste meant more dollars that could be spent on plant, equipment, salaries and profits. It made sense socially. The less money we spent on taking care of our waste the more people we could employ. 
Unfortunately as we have discovered not only was our theological perspective skewed, but our short term economic perspective led to long term economic damage (deforestation leading to mudslides and the loss of life, property and agricultural land; illnesses cause by air and water born contaminants thus driving up health care costs; early death because of the same factors thus hurting productivity; and overall disintegration of our quality of life). 

From a theological perspective (going back to last week's article) we as human beings "missed the mark" of what God would have for us in this creation. In other words God's creation suffered because of our sin (lack of knowledge, greed, misuse of scripture, expediency, and abuse of power among others sins). God's desire for creation was that creation would be a place in which all creatures could live and work together in order to maximize our corporate existence. Each of us would play our roles in this amazing world. The role of human beings was to care for and to steward creation. We were to be the "gardeners" who carefully and lovingly trimmed and pruned what God had given in order that all human beings shared in the bounty of this creation and that all other creatures were properly treated. As our history shows us however we missed the mark of that calling and the negative consequences have been extraordinary.

The gift of God however is that the future offers hope. Over the last several decades the church has begun to reclaim its voice as regards environmental issues. We have done so out of our scriptural and theological heritage, not simply to be trendy. Over the last several decades much of the world has begun to see the horrific social and economic effects of pollution and has worked to clean up the creation in which we live. Needless to say we have a long way to go, yet as long as we continue to remind ourselves of our stewardship responsibilities then we are on our way.

sin: brokenness between men and women

The Boxer Rebellion is one of those seldom remembered and easily ignored conflicts in which the United States played a minor part. The "rebellion" was a nationalist uprising by Chinese against the influence and power of Western nations (and Japan) over trade and commerce in China. It lasted from 1898 to 1901. The Chinese killed and mutilated foreigners in an effort to drive them out of their country. The Western powers (six European nations, the United States and Japan) responded with overwhelming violence and force. As part of that violence thousands of Chinese women and girls were raped by the western soldiers (the Chinese did not rape Western women). The Japanese were appalled, though they would later use rape as a weapon in Korea and China in the 1930s. The French leadership said that the rape was merely a result of the "gallantry of the French troops. United States reporters refused to write about the rapes because they were too abhorrent.

While this story ought to disturb us, it ought not to surprise us. It ought not to surprise us because even today rape is still used as a weapon of war. Places such as the Congo have seen thousands of women and girls raped not only by rebel forces but by the African Union forces who were supposed to be protecting them. In addition every year around the world more than 500,000 women and girls are trafficked as sex slaves with 40,000 – 50,000 of those coming to the United States. If one adds in female genital mutilation, honor killings, physical and mental abuse of women, it ought to appear that something is wrong.

I say it ought to appear that something is wrong because for many persons this is the way life is supposed to be. Men are supposed to dominate and subjugate women. We see this not only in developing nations but in certain sectors of our nation as well. There are many fundamentalist Christian denominations that while speaking out against abuse of women, are clear that women if not inferior, are at least not equal to men. They point to some of Paul's letters and church tradition to make their point. Unfortunately what they fail to understand is that the scriptures make it clear that the dominant/subservient model of male/female relationships is the result of sin…sin which Jesus came to address.
The design of God for the relationship between men and women was first that they were equal. In creation story one (Genesis chapter one) we learn that men and women were created at the same moment. Other than physical differences they were equal in every respect. In creation story two (Genesis chapter two) we see that the male of the species was incomplete and needed a "woman" to do what he could not do. While the word "help mate" is often used to describe the woman's role, the sense of the word translated as "help mate" never implied subservience or submission. It implied completion. Woman completed man. In the New Testament Jesus treats women with great respect (they were among his most loyal followers) and the Gospel writers make sure we know that it was the women who were the first to see and believe in the risen Jesus. Jesus also makes it clear that no believer (of either sex) is to dominate (lord it over another) anyone else. Instead we are to sacrificially love one another. Finally even though Paul is often seen as being anti-woman, the fact that he declares that in Christ there is no difference between men and women, that he accepts female Apostles and teachers and that he blames Adam and not Eve for the fall, offers us a fresh look at his views.

The challenge before the church then is to look at the goal of God which is to restore right relationships between men and women. This right relationship is that of mutual love and respect between the sexes. It is to recognize that God created men and women as equals and called them to share in the blessings and the work of the kingdom. To see this relationship otherwise is to ignore what Christ accomplished on the cross; the reconciliation of all persons with God and with one another.

sin: brokenness between races and tribes

So what were you doing on April 6, 1994? I realize that this is a rather difficult question because that date probably does not stand out from any one of a thousand other days in our lives. Now if we were asked what we were doing on the morning of September 11, 2001 most of us could answer. In the same way my parents' generation could answer what they were doing on December 7th 1941 when the news of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was announced. So what then is significant about April 6, 1994? 

The answer is that on April 6, 1994 the Hutu president of Rwanda, Juvénal Habyarimana, was assassinated. And the instant he was assassinated a well-planned extermination of Tutsis by Hutus was initiated resulting in the deaths of somewhere close to one million persons. Tens of thousands of Tutsi women were raped. Hundreds of thousands of Tutsi children were brutally killed as were the children of Hutus who were sympathetic to their Tutsi neighbors. The tensions behind these attacks had been brewing since the 15th century when a Tutsi kingdom had been established, only to the overthrown by the Hutus in the 1960s with the help of the Dutch. 

What makes this story so tragic is that the Hutus and Tutsis speak the same language, Bantu. They are almost all Christian. They live in the same neighborhoods. They are so close ethnically that it is virtually impossible to tell them apart. In other words they are essentially identical, with the only difference being the ethnic identity that they claim at birth. These two groups while holding almost everything in common were divided between "us" and "them" solely on the basis of family birth. And it was that "us" and "them" of birth that led to the deaths of almost a million people.

"Us" and "them" are categories which humanity has used across the centuries to inflict domination and death on billions. In the United States we most often used those classifications based on the color of someone's skin (racism)) or the language they speak (ethnocentrism) rather than tribalism as is often the case elsewhere in the world. Whether it was slavery, 
the destruction of Native Americans by disease or violence, or immigration acts which excluded almost all persons from the Far East from coming to this country "us" versus "them" has been part of our national identity. In other words we have not escaped the sin of relational brokenness.

Scripture reminds us that God's intention for the world was not one of a fragmented society but one based on our all being children of God. This is evident in the opening words of Genesis in which God created human beings as a single community. It continues through the story of Noah in which all of humanity is related through a single family. While divisions came about because of human sin (the Tower of Babel story in Genesis 11) God's intent was always that humanity would ultimately come together as a world-wide community worshipping a single God and living in harmony one with another. This image is lifted up not only by the prophets (Isaiah 66:18 as one example) but also by Paul (Galatians 3:28) and by the words of Revelation where persons from all nations, tribes, tongues and people will be included in God's kingdom (mentioned in several locations).

We are reminded then that divisions based on "us" and "them" regardless of cause (race, language, ethnicity, tribalism, or even college affiliation…you know who I'm talking to) misses the mark of God's good desires for creation. Those divisions take the one humanity which God has created and divides it based on human created criterion. This form of sin diminishes our ability to work together to create the kind of world God desires us to inhabit. This form of sin diminishes our full humanity because it pretends that some people are better than others simply because of genetics or family origin. As a Christ centered community one of our great callings is work to minimize these divisions in order that all persons know that they are loved by and beloved of God.

sin: brokenness over sexual orientation

Sometimes the examples are so hard to imagine that we want to believe that someone has made them up; protesters holding up signs that say "God hates fags" at the funerals of American soldiers who have died in combat; people who have destroyed materials written by Gay Talese or articles containing the name Enola Gay; attacks on teenagers who appear to be gay; professional athletes who are hide their homosexuality for fear of being dismissed from their teams. All of these examples are snapshots of homophobia at work in this nation. If we so desired we could expand our vision and move abroad where homosexual conduct is punishable by imprisonment or death (homosexual activity is a crime in China and Zimbabwe, and GLBT persons have been flogged and executed in Iran). Needless to say much of the world, and much of our nation, holds a view in which anyone in the GLBT (Gay, Lesbian, Bi-Sexual and Transgendered) community is considered a threat and ought to be dealt with as such.

These attitudes have been so deeply engrained in societies that there has been tremendous resistance to the continuing discoveries in science and psychology which have demonstrated that GLBT orientation is not a choice but is biologically driven. In essence what science has discerned is that sexuality is not either/or (either you are straight or gay) but in fact runs on a continuum. A variety of studies have shown that both men and women can be attracted to members of the same sex in varying degrees. In terms of homosexuality itself the Royal College of Surgeons in Great Britain states that the research and clinical literature demonstrate that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality. The longstanding consensus of the behavioral and social sciences and the health and mental health professions is that homosexuality per se is a normal and positive variation of human sexual orientation.
The struggle within Christianity is that any behavior which appeared to be non-heterosexual in nature was traditionally seen as sinful, rather than sin being the fear of or anger expressed toward those who demonstrated such behavior. This view was rooted in the ancient Jewish holiness code which prohibited any non-heterosexual sexual behavior. There has been great speculation as to the basis of these prohibitions. Possible reasons given have ranged from an aversion to the homo/bi-sexual temple practices of competing religions to the desperate need for procreation in order to maintain the community in the face of high infant mortality and short life spans. Regardless of the reasons the early church, led by the Apostle Paul, adopted those same views and argued that any non-heterosexual sexual behavior was abnormal and therefore a product of human sin.

The gift of being Presbyterian however is that we are to be Reformed and always Reforming (meaning we are never to be trapped by past beliefs but are to be continually searching for the truth not only in God's Word but in our world). This search for truth has led us to discard six literal days of creation, an earth centered view of the cosmos, the belief that illness is caused by demons, a subservient role for women and a multitude of other beliefs expressed in scripture but which have been proven to be incorrect. The same is true, at least here at First Presbyterian Church, for sexual orientation. We believe that each person's sexual orientation is a gift of God and that we become our fullest selves when we can live out that orientation in long-term committed relationships. Sin on the other hand is the fear of and anger toward those GLBT persons who choose to do so. It is sin because it tears at the lives and relationships of GLBT persons who have been made as surely in the image of God as any other person. Our task as followers of Jesus Christ then is to work toward a world in which this sin (along with all others) becomes a relic of the past.

sin:  brokenness due to classism

America is a land that has always struggled with the issue of classism (meaning not only the division of our nation into economic classes but the discriminatory attitudes of one class towards another). We have struggled with classism more than most other nations because we attempt to hold two competing ideals in tension. The first ideal is equality. We are a nation of equals. Unlike much of the rest of the world in which it was always a given that there were two classes, the rich (who deserve to be rich and richer) and the poor (who deserve to be poor and poorer), America was created as a place where those class differences would no longer stand. Every citizen was given, by God, certain inalienable rights which meant we were all equal. The second ideal however was that one could rise above ones station and become as wealthy as one pleased (Mellon, Ford and Gates were examples of this second ideal).

Though we still see ourselves as a nation of equals the differentiation between classes is becoming more and more pronounced (meaning that since 1980 the top 1 percent of Americans have seen their share of the nation's income more than double while the bottom 90 percent have seen theirs shrink). This growing differentiation brings with it not only a sense of despondency for those at the bottom but a sense of entitlement for those at the top. I realize that when the word "entitlement" is usually used it refers to those on the lower end of the economic spectrum rather than the upper. Yet as the Wall Street meltdown demonstrated the entitlement mentality was alive and well among those who claimed to deserve large bonuses even thought their firms could not demonstrate any increase in income or profits which would warrant such bonuses (this was according to Kenneth R. Feinberg, President Obama's special master for executive compensation, as well as the New York Times).

So why is this kind of classism sin at work (meaning missing the mark)? It is sin because it divides us as a people. It divides us by jealousy emanating from those at the bottom and often by condescension from those at the top. I have heard many of those on the bottom rung of the ladder express the opinion that those at the top got there by cheating those below them, while I have heard those at the top say that the poor are poor because they are lazy.
 It is sin because it divides us by opportunity. Children who go through schools in our area are overwhelmingly college bound, while only 62% of entering freshmen in Detroit public schools will even graduate high school. It divides us by access to healthcare. One example is that patients of lower socioeconomic position are less likely to receive recommended diabetic services and more likely to be hospitalized for diabetes and its complications than those in higher income classes (and there are multiple other examples).

As someone with a degree in both economics and business (and having worked in the non-church world for a while) I understand some of the complexities of income (job) generation, distribution (pay) and management (keeping businesses alive). This means I know that there is no quick or easy fix to either income distribution or the classism that is generated by its disparity. However if we are called to be a community of Christ in which the needs and aspirations of all are equally important (since we are all children of God created in God's image) then part of our calling ought to be working toward a society in which the opportunity for meaningful work, decent income, education and health care is available for all. To pretend that some people are more deserving of these opportunities and benefits than others is to fall into the sin of classism. Needless to say in our current economic crisis this is a monumental task. Yet as the old saying goes, the longest journey begins with a single step. So the challenge before us begins by working on our own perceptions of the "others" who occupy income classes other than our own (either above or below) in order to see them as children of God deserving of all that this world and this nation has to offer…and then we can go from there.

sin: brokenness due to nationalism

It was Monday morning and I was speaking with Forrest  and Troy  as Forrest was waiting to take members of the Mexico Medical Mission team (of which Troy is a part) to the airport. We were speaking about Troy's homeland of Colombia. In the middle of the discussion he mentioned Panama. As he did so I searched the chemical data banks in my mind and remembered that it was the United States that had been instrumental in supporting Panama to break away from Colombia in 1903 (it had been part of Colombia since 1821). The support came because the Colombian Senate would not ratify the treaty to build the Canal, which was desired by the U.S. So we used our military power to help "free" Panama thus insuring we could build the canal. It was nationalism at work…our national interest trumped those of another sovereign state.

I realize all too well that by even raising this issue I am already on shaky ground. I am on shaky ground because we love this nation and are hesitant to believe that anything we have done as a state was less than honorable. We look around at the freedoms and opportunities we are given; at our ability to meld persons of different nationalities and races, languages and ethnic identities, sexual orientations and religious beliefs into a politically stable state; our saving the world from imperialism, fascism and communism; and our being the economic engine which keeps the world humming and we wonder, how could anyone critique such a wonderful nation? The answer is that the United States, like all other great nations before it, has been and is tempted to fall into the sin of nationalism.

I define nationalism as the belief that a particular nation is intrinsically more valuable and deserving than other nations and therefore that nation has the right to impose its will and way on all other nations. Nationalism is not a new phenomenon. In fact is has been around as long as there have been larger societal groups with the military and economic power to dominate their smaller neighbors. History is replete with the names of these nations: 
Sumer, Uruk, Akkadia, Assyria, Babylonia, Persia, Greece, Rome (in the west); Harappa, Vedic (India); Maya, Inca (Americas); Xia, Shang, Zhou (China); Egypt, Nri, Oyo, Asanti (Africa). Modern nationalist empires have included those of most Western European nations as well as the United States (by defeating Spain in 1898 we took Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philippines as part of our "empire"). 

These nation states (empires) believed that for whatever reason (race, power, the blessings of the gods or God) they were privileged and thus could conquer, enslave and even annihilate those around them. In addition it meant that these nation states (empires) could take the resources of their neighbors which often led to starvation and impoverishment (look at what the Stalin did to the Ukraine in 1930s where he starved almost 7 million people). The belief in national superiority leads persons to demean and diminish others as if the others were not equally children of God. The belief in national superiority leads nations to use their power to negotiate unilaterally rather than mutually beneficial treaties. Finally nationalism is probably responsible for more wars and deaths than any other sin in human history because it allows for large scale oppression and dominance. 

While the effects of nationalism are being somewhat mitigated by the increasing integration of the world through economics, technology and communication we continue to see its impact in the world (China and its push for dominance in the South China Sea is one example). As followers of Jesus Christ in the United States our calling is to be alert to those moments when our nation is poised to succumb to nationalist tendencies and to speak out about them. While we are to be proud of our nation, we are also to hold ourselves accountable to a larger vision of God's kingdom in which we are a part and not the whole. Our task as the church, as Amy reminded us last week, is to be a blessing to the whole of creation and not simply to our national interests.

sin:  brokenness due to anti-semitism

The word anti-Semitism was first coined in 1860. It was used to describe the attitude throughout Europe at that time which argued that Semitic races (especially Jews) were inferior to Aryan races. While it would be comforting to think that this kind of anti-Jewish sentiment was new to that time, it wasn't. The Jewish people had been the victims of oppression, expulsion and death for more than two thousand years before this. From the Babylonians who tried to destroy the Hebrew nation and society in 587 BC, to Antiochus IV Epiphanes who tried to destroy Judaism around 267 BC, to Roman persecution between 70 and 130 CE, to crusader slaughters in the Middle ages, to expulsion from Spain and Portugal in the late 1400s and to ongoing pogroms in Russia, Jews were abused and oppressed long before 1860.

Helen Fein, a Holocaust scholar defines Anti-Semitism as "a persisting latent structure of hostile beliefs towards Jews as a collective manifested in individuals as attitudes, and in culture as myth, ideology, folklore and imagery, and in actions – social or legal discrimination, political mobilization against the Jews, and collective or state violence – which results in and/or is designed to distance, displace, or destroy Jews as Jews." This sense of Anti-Semitism is reflected in stereotypes of Jews that have been used across the centuries: greedy, untrustworthy, desirous of world domination, genetically inferior, and ultimately as Christ killers. These stereotypes and latent hostility have been used to marginalize, brutalize and ultimately attempt to annihilate the Jewish people. 

   Christianity has taken a leading role in this anti-Jewish effort. While it is not as pronounced today as it has been in the past (Henry Ford once published an anti-Jewish paper entitled "The International Jew") there are still those who want to diminish the Jewish people and their relationship with God. A first group teaches what is called "Replacement Theology." 
Replacement Theology states that because the Jews rejected Jesus, they were replaced as God's people by the church. Thus the Jews are outsiders to God's promises. Others who teach premillennial dispensational theology (these are the people who believe all faithful Christians will be "beamed" into heaven before the end times begin) while rejecting Replacement Theology still proclaim that the church and the people of Israel are two entirely separate entities. And while God may have plans for the Jews in the future the Jewish people are essentially irrelevant until the end times. While neither of these views is overtly antagonistic toward Judaism they each express an attitude that somehow the Jews are no longer God's people and thus once again attempt to marginalize the Jews as people.

The sin which is at the heart of anti-Semitism is the dehumanizing of a particular people. This is an extension of human communities' tendency to divide people into insiders and outsiders (insiders being good and worthy, while outsiders are evil and unworthy). By so doing we marginalize men, women and children who were created in the image of God and in whom the very breath of God lives. Additionally with Judaism it means to ignore Israel's place in our own scriptures. The Apostle Paul in his letter to the church at Rome (11:1-2) put it this way. "Has God rejected God's people? By no means…God has not rejected God's people whom God foreknew." Paul makes it clear that while some Jews have rejected Jesus this does not mean that God has replaced Israel with the church. In fact Paul later speaks of the church (Gentile believers) as being grafted into the root of God's people in Judaism. Thus the church is merely an extension of Israel and not its replacement.

The challenge for us as Jesus followers is twofold. First it is to acknowledge our gratitude toward the Jewish people. It was God's originally called people who kept the story of God alive and became the incubator for our Jesus' faith. Second it is to build relationships with our Jewish brothers and sisters to acknowledge that we worship a common God and share common aspirations (to love God and neighbor). By so doing we honor God who desires reconciliation and peace among all peoples.