Disciples of Christ and the Problem of Sin – Part One
Below is the next offering in my attempt to forge a foundation for a theological conversation among members of the Disciples of Christ community and beyond. This is part 1 of 2, with a conversation about salvation to follow.
*****************
The creation story begins with a
resounding “It is good,” but what began well soon went off course.As we read the unfolding biblical story, we
discover that humanity has chosen the wrong path, one that leads to alienation,
death, and destruction. It is the story of sin.
As we read the story, we discover that God is not content to let
humanity continue down the wrong path. Like a good parent, God seeks to restore
a broken relationship. This is the story of salvation. Both issues stand
prominently in the biblical story, though the various Christian traditions have
placed differing emphases on them. For some, this is the primary issue, while
for others it is just one aspect of the story. As Ronald Osborn notes, Disciples have, in general, put the emphasis
elsewhere—on the goodness of creation rather than on the presence of sin. Thus,
as Osborn writes:
Without denying the reality of sin, they have usually given more attention to other aspects of the human condition which also indicate the need for God. Often Disciples worship centers on one or more of these rather than always focusing on sin. [Ronald E. Osborn, The Faith We Affirm: Basic Beliefs ofDisciples of Christ, (St. Louis: Chalice Press, 1979), p. 49].
But, even if sin, and thus salvation, is not a Disciple
preoccupation, it remains part of the conversation— especially at a popular
level. This is seen most explicitly in Disciple circles in the prayers at the
Lord’s Table and in our hymnody. Sin is also an important topic of conversation
in the biblical story.
The Problem of Sin in
the Biblical Story
What does it mean to sin?
What does it involve? This is a question that religious people have long
debated. Is it a question of breaking rules—perhaps culture mores—or choosing
to follow a different path from the one God set out? Whatever our definition of
sin might be, Paul makes it clear that all have sinned and fallen short of
God’s expectations (Rom. 3:23).
As we
consider what this means – to sin – perhaps the words of Hans Küng might help
us understand the paradoxical nature of a human act of rebellion against the
one who is the foundation of our existence.
Sin is a fall from the covenant, a fall from God. Sin is separation from God; that is its essence. Man's whole existence depends on God's love, turns away in sin from the foundation of his existence, and thus this foundation is for him—lost. He does not possess this foundation in himself. [Hans Küng, Justification, Thomas Collins, Edmund Tolk, and David Granskou, trans., (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1981), p. 153.]
In trying to understand the nature of this act of rebellion,
theologians have found themselves wrestling with the question of whether this
is something of a genetic defect or something that’s in the environment.
Most
definitions of sin are individualistic in nature. That is, they focus on our
individual human inclinations and actions. But there are those who ask the
question of wither or not sin can be corporate or systemic. To give but one
example—one might ask is slavery as a system sinful? Alexander Campbell
apparently did not think that so, for he believed that slavery was a social
issue and not a theological one. As a result, he did not believe that it should
be made a test of fellowship. Although he was opposed to slavery, thinking it
was a bad idea, since Scripture didn’t clearly condemn it, then the church
should stay out of the debate. It’s unlikely that most Disciples today would
concur with this sense of things—most would see slavery as an institution or
system being sinful, not just in terms of the way individual slaves are
treated. That is, just because you don’t beat or rape your slaves, doesn’t mean
that you are free from sin. The question of whether sin is systemic is related
to the broader question of whether something like slavery affects the nature of
society of itself. This is an important question, since one needn’t own slaves
to benefit from it—even if it is an indirect benefit. Thus, we would assume
that Campbell was in error in his interpretation, for the system is inherently
sinful and contrary to the ways of God. [Darryl Trimiew, “The Problem of Social
Sin for Twenty-first-Century Christians,” Chalice Introduction to Christian Theology, (St. Louis: Chalice Press, 2008), pp.
182-183].
In wrestling with the
question of sin, it is helpful to attend to the core biblical texts that deal
with the issue. Among the key texts are Genesis 3, Psalm 51, Romans 1:18-3:23,
and Romans 5:12-14.
The
problem of sin enters the biblical story in Genesis 3, which functions as part
of the second creation narrative. This story assumes that God created man and
woman to be in relationship with God (as well as with each other). According to
this story, the relationship between God and humanity was broken, because the
original couple chose to disobey God’s commandment. This lead to their
expulsion from the garden. Although much ink has been spilt in debating the
historicity of the account, one needn’t affirm its historicity to understand
what it says about human nature. In this story a serpent (identified in
Christian tradition as Satan) tempts Eve, who in turn tempts Adam, so that both
eat the forbidden fruit and introduce sin into the world. The issue here isn’t
the eating of the fruit, but the decision to disobey the command to not eat
from one particular tree, the "tree of the knowledge of good and
evil" (Gen. 2:15-17). One could think of this story as a parallel to the
Greek myth of “Pandora’s box,” the opening of which introduced all matter of
disorder into the universe. It is this command that the serpent addresses, when
confronting Eve in Genesis 3:1—their decision to eat the fruit ends up
distorting their relationship with God. The point of the story is not that sin
came into the world because there was something magical about the fruit, but
instead, sin entered the world because humanity rejected God’s provision and
guidance. By raising the question as to why God might prohibit the eating of
this fruit, the tempter was suggesting that God was hiding something from them.
Doubts were raised about God’s veracity and wisdom. Indeed, we hear in this
exchange questions as to what God might fear, should they gain this forbidden
knowledge and become like God. Could it be that they might no longer need God?
Could it be that the desire to be one’s own god was stirred within them? (Gen.
3:1-7).
A
second important text that speaks to this question is Psalm 51. In this Psalm
David laments the consequences of his decision to take Bathsheba as his lover
and then cover up the affair (along with the resulting child) by having her
husband killed. In reflecting on this choice, David asks for mercy and for
cleansing so that he might once again stand before God. Listen to verses 4-5
which speaks to the true nature of sin: “Against you, you alone, have I sinned,
and done what is evil in your sight, so that you are justified in your sentence
and blameless when you pass judgment. Indeed, I was born guilty, a sinner when
my mother conceived me.” As one reflects on this passage, one must decide how
literally to take this last sentence. Is the psalmist simply reflecting the
depths of the sinner’s lament, or is the psalmist making a definitive
theological point? Augustine took this phrase very literally and saw in it the
foundation for the doctrine of original sin. That is, I am born guilty—from
conception. I sin because I can do no other. Whether or not this is the intent
of the passage—to demonstrate that sin is inherent in our being—it does suggest
that sin ultimately is committed against God, even if the victim is another
human being.
This long section of Paul’s
letter, lays out God's case against humanity. No one is without excuse, so
don’t judge others, until you first face the fact that you are a sinner and
under judgment. (Rom. 2:1). Of course, Paul was not alone in this assessment. In
the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus declares: “You have heard that it was said,
"You shall not commit adultery."
But I say to you that everyone who looks on a woman with lust has
already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matt. 5:27-28). In making
that statement, Jesus suggests that there is no room for self-righteousness,
for all are equally under the judgment of sin. This discussion of our tendency
toward sin culminates in the statement found in Romans 3:23, a passage familiar
to many. It declares, quite boldly, that
we have all sinned and “fall short of the glory of God . . .” These sentiments
are echoed by 1 John 1:8: “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and
the truth is not in us.” There is a paradox here. It would appear that God does
not reside in the one who sins (God does not have fellowship with darkness),
but if one thinks he or she does not sin, that is also a sign of darkness. So,
how do we remain in fellowship with the Holy God, if we are not holy ourselves?
Paul’s emphasis on the
universality of sin is extended in Romans 5:12-14, which suggests that this
tendency is inherent in our very being. Paul writes: Therefore, just as sin
came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death
spread to all because all sinned . . .” What did Paul mean when he wrote that
"death spread to all because all sinned" and that this sinfulness is
rooted in the act of one man—Adam, who is the type for the one who is to come,
namely Jesus, the second Adam, while undo what the first Adam did? Augustine
believed, and many Christians with him, that we all sin because Adam passed on
this predilection. This is one possible interpretation, but what if it is not
genetic.? Why might we sin as Paul suggests? Why do we make bad choices? The answer isn’t clear, except that there is
solidarity with our ancestors in choosing to walk away from God’s directives. Perhaps
the meaning here is less genetic, and more environmental. That is, sin is
systemic, and thus we get caught up in its web. While we may not be born
racist, it is easy to catch if the environment is racist.
***
In Part 2 we will
explore the question of free will, which is central to the Disciples
understandings, as well as the seriousness of this concept of sin.
Comments