Why Sin?
Yesterday, in my theology 101 sessions, we talked about sin -- and salvation, but mostly about sin. Disciples don't dwell on sin, for the most part. I asked my earlier group about their experience -- had they heard much about sin over the years? The answer was no. One reason for this is that Disciples, generally don't affirm the doctrine of original sin. We also reflect, even in unconsciously, an optimism that emerges out of the early 19th century American frontier experience. The world lay before them! They also reflected the Enlightenment thinking of Locke and Reid. So, if you go to a Disciples church you will rarely see or hear a prayer of confession and absolution -- except may be at an Ash Wednesday service, and those are relatively new.
With this in mind, we talked about sin -- and last night we kind of got stuck on the issue of original sin. Now, while I personally do not believe in original sin, I do recognize, with Paul, its universality (Romans 3:23). But, I'm struck by Augustine's own story, his own struggles with sin, as described in the Confessions. While Augustine struggled with sex, it wasn't his only vice. Consider this story about stealing fruit during his adolescence. According to him, he acted out of a "contempt for well-doing and a strong impulse to iniquity."
To give some further context -- when I first shared this story with my Doctrine Class at Manhattan Christian College (12 years ago), I had learned of a somewhat similar story. The year before, a group of young men from the college, all studying to be pastors, some of whom were in the class, had gone out the day after Halloween, taken a load of pumpkins from a farmers field and found a place to toss them and break them -- just for the fun of it.
So, my question -- is Augustine on to something? And if so, why do we do such things? Is it nature or nurture?
With this in mind, we talked about sin -- and last night we kind of got stuck on the issue of original sin. Now, while I personally do not believe in original sin, I do recognize, with Paul, its universality (Romans 3:23). But, I'm struck by Augustine's own story, his own struggles with sin, as described in the Confessions. While Augustine struggled with sex, it wasn't his only vice. Consider this story about stealing fruit during his adolescence. According to him, he acted out of a "contempt for well-doing and a strong impulse to iniquity."
There was a pear tree close to our own vineyard, heavily laden with fruit, which was not tempting either for its color or for its flavor. Late one night--having prolonged our games in the streets until then, as our bad habit was-- a group of young scoundrels, and I among them, went to shake and rob this tree. We carried off a huge load of pears, not to eat ourselves, but to dump out to the hogs, after barely tasting some of them ourselves. Doing this pleased us all the more because it was forbidden. Such was my heart, O God, such was my heart--which thou didst pity even in that bottomless pit. Behold, now lit my heart confess to thee what it was seeking there, when I was being gratuitously wanton, having no inducement to evil but the evil itself. It was foul, and I loved it. I loved my own undoing. I loved my error--not that for which I erred but the error itself. A depraved soul, falling away from security in thee to destruction in itself, seeking nothing from the shameful deed but the shame itself.
To give some further context -- when I first shared this story with my Doctrine Class at Manhattan Christian College (12 years ago), I had learned of a somewhat similar story. The year before, a group of young men from the college, all studying to be pastors, some of whom were in the class, had gone out the day after Halloween, taken a load of pumpkins from a farmers field and found a place to toss them and break them -- just for the fun of it.
So, my question -- is Augustine on to something? And if so, why do we do such things? Is it nature or nurture?
Comments
I recently read Marjorie Suchocki's, The Fall to Violence, and was forced to reexamine the issue. The sticking point with Niebuhr is that sin is defined as against God, where Suchocki redefines sin as against creation. What’s at stake? Well, I can’t reduce the point to a few words and highly recommend the book. Suffice it to say for now that by redefining sin as against creation, which includes God, of course, we are forced to acknowledge our culpability in all aspects of our actions against the well-being of all things, humans included. All traditional attempts to explain universal sin failed to explain corporate sin and provide a means to redress it. “Getting right with God” just didn’t go far enough. By using Process/panentheistic thought as her basic premise, she both shows the interconnectedness (universality) of sin and how it becomes corporate. Even more to the point, she shows how forgiveness functions, as the commitment to creation’s well-being, to redress the universal effect of sin.
CP
So yeah, it’s in our genes.
David Mc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxytocin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrenaline
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabinoids
MDMA (ecstasy) may increase feelings of love, empathy and connection to others by stimulating oxytocin activity via activation of serotonin 5-HT1A receptors, if initial studies in animals apply to humans.
Of course, Steve has an interesting point, that might warrant some conversation!
And why is it always "Adam's fall"?
How much of a head start did women have anyway?? Did she have a long talk with God before Adam was brought up speed?
Don't get me wrong, I love and respect the XX ones. They could be me, but not I fully them.
Anyway, to recognize all our sins against nature, to me, would be very dear. This type is more and more obvious as the years go by. Besides, what else can we truly experience, being natural ourselves? The uplifting thing is we learn more "secrets" every day.
Whe're still squeezing that fruit.
God's natural appearance seems like a huge nod in this direction.
David Mc
Chuck
In Isa. 14:12-14 it says that Satan desired to make himself like the most high. He passed on this desire to man in the garden. Science has discovered that human beings have mirror neurons which allow us to copy or mimic others. It is one of the primary ways we learn and gives us our ability to experience empathy. Desire is passed from one person to another through these mirror neurons. In fact I would say that all desire starting in the garden is passed from one human to the next , one generation to the next by this process to this very day.
Desire begins with discontent. I think human discontent happens when we believe something from the material world indicates that there is a problem with our love relationship with ourselves , with others or with God . We then look to the material world for a solution for this problem with our love relationship, this solution is what we desire. Once one believes that the material world will deliver us from our discontent we have entered into idolatry in to sin. You see it all starts with the false belief that the material world has something to say about our love relationships. We have the serpent to thank for this lie. Love is not based on the material world it is without conditions. The garden story and the temptation of Jesus in the dessert are great examples of this process.
Thanks for the opportunity to share
Therefore, to stand firmly upon the presuppositions of the word of the living God, Jesus Christ, we must basically abandon all notions of autonomy and instead, as Proverbs 3:6 says, "Acknowledge Him in all our ways, [that] He will DIRECT our paths."