Author, Simon.
Published, February 5, 2009.
Before I am accosted for suggesting that the church needs more misbehaviour from it’s members, let me clarify myself. (Also, I am going to use two dirty words; ‘doctrine’, and ’sin’. Brace yourselves!) I am referring exclusively to the doctrine of Sin. I speak, here, of what the Bible says about our condition, and the centrality of Sin to our understanding of the central event in Christianity.
Sin isn’t talked about much. People tend to avoid the topic, and many people are clearly uncomfortable about it. It’s treated a little bit like the black sheep in the family; they’re there, but it’s better not to make light of them to save awkwardness and embarrassment. This is a curious trend. If we are intent on making others comfortable in Christian company, then fine. If we don’t want people to feel like we’re judging them, good! However, not mentioning Sin, it’s consequences, and it’s effects, makes our faith seem rather odd. If Sin is not apparent, and God is not really going to judge us for our Sin, we are very strange people indeed.
Firstly, Jesus would have died for no reason whatsoever. Leviticus 16 and Hebrews 9 are talking about the same thing. Christ died in order to fulfill the Old Law, and to be the atoning sacrifice for our sins. Also, see Galatians 2:21.
Secondly, many of the things Jesus said would have to be deemed rather insane. See John 3:16-17, Matthew 26:27-28 as examples.
Thirdly, the Old Testament sacrificial system would appear to be rather an overkill if sin was not a big issue.
Fourthly, much of what Paul, John, James, Jude and Peter wrote would make little sense. See Ephesians 2:1, 1 John 1:8, Romans 7:5, Romans 7:14-20, Galatians 2:15-18,
Fifthly, in the book of Revelation, we see that the centerpiece of heavenly worship is ‘The Lamb who was slain’. Again this refers directly back to the Day of Atonement in Leviticus, and to Christ’s atoning death. See Revelation 5:9-10.
I am not suggesting that we return to hellfire and brimstone sermons, or drumming out dirges about how dreadful we are as human beings. In fact, the opposite should be the case. However, the opposite simply isn’t possible when Sin is not a big problem and an important doctrine. Without a good and biblical understanding of Sin, we have no real reason to be joyful or celebratory. If we do not understand what God has saved us from, then how are we to truly appreciate, enjoy and glorify him? Also, how can we expect non-believers to take any notice of Jesus, if we don’t make it clear that he is more than just a nice guy? How is Jesus going to be at all meaningful if we don’t communicate the depth of our sin-problem? Also, how can we ignore that the whole Bible points to Jesus Christ, the God-Man, as the atonement for our sins? And what s all this talk of God’s grace, if he has nothing to be gracious about?
Sin may appear unpleasant, and it is. However, grace isn’t grace without sin. And sin is clearly a problem, both from our experience, and from what the Bible says. The beauty of what God has done for us on the Cross is only understood if the weighty doctrine Sin is clearly understood.
good on you. this is good.
if we were to have a sermon series on sin - lol, not saying that that’s what you’re suggesting, i’m just dragging it out! - what would you have the titles be for the sermons?
good topic- Christians do seem wierd. I mean if we don’t take this concept into account:) I didn’t know we departed from hellfire preaching? That made me think of the times that Jesus said, “unless you repent you will perish” so I looked up the word Perish and found the corresponding verses in Luke 13 but I noticed that the word was used more in the NT in a Saving sense, rather than a condemning one- eg”For God so loved the World that He gave His only Son, so that none should Perish”
I like it!
Thanks Simon. It is a good reminder that the phrase, “Saints who sin” is probably a bad one, or at least an unhelpful one! Whether by extreme polity (polite-ness?), or by poor post-grace theology we don’t identify sin within ourselves very often, and sin is a topic of discussion even far less.
Indeed the work of Christ centres around our salvation, and redemption from.. what was that word again?
From my experience of Church, I never found sin lacking. It was always top of mind. I would find sin here, there and everywhere. Eventually, I grew tired of finding it everywhere and let it blur into the background. I understand guilt can be helpful if it resricts you from doing bad and destructive things, but it can also be very destructive itself. And if we are guilty of being sinners, which inherently means guilty of being human - of existing - then I find it difficult to separate that bland notion of sin from the sharper notion of sin when it rears its ugly head in very tangible ways. If sin is, for us, always present - if it is just part of our genetic make-up - then how are we guilty of it? Yet, if it is something we choose, then we must be guilty of it. Sin is sometimes a phenomenon that we have no choice over, and other times we choose to participate in it.
Is it possible to reserve the ‘guilt of sin’ for greater, more obvious and real ’sins’, instead of all the petty ones we identify? It’s difficult to feel guilt for something you didn’t choose or which is of little and indiscernible consequence.
For me, sin is the opposite of freedom and transformation, taking into account the freedom and well-being of others. I also think sin is probably more apparent in the public sphere. The consequence of sin has negative social effects.
Adam, your interpretation of Sin here is that it is a particular act, where as I am talkin about inherent sinfulness. Someone can never kill, never have extra-marital sex, never steal, never lust, never be jealous, etc… and still be sinful. I am saying that in the church, we should be open to, and about, the biblical truth (and I think it is an extra-biblical truth also) that human-kind is sinful. I CHOOSE to sin, even though it is inherently in me. Just because someone is born with an inherently exceptional ability to play the piano doesn’t mean that they cannot choose to play exceptionally. From my understanding and my experience (ie. biblical understanding, and real-life events), I am sinful, along with the rest of humanity. Yet, I am responsible for my actions and my sin.
Trying to distinguish betweeen more obvious ‘real’ sins, and petty sins is not the point at all. In fact, what you are describing is legalism, which I’m sure you agree should be avoided. My point is that a full understanding of SIN leads to a full understanding about the preciousness of Christ’s work on and beyond the Cross.
If we are inherently sinful, by being human, do we have any responsibility for being that way? Or did God make us that way? If God made us human (sinners) then why are we found immediately guilty of it? We were not responsible for being born into sin. That is just the way it is. I’m not saying that humans do not produce sin, but that if we are inherently sinful we cannot help but to produce sin. And if that’s the case, we are merely guilty of being human. I think that, as humans, we are prone to be affected by sin, just as we are prone to produce sin. It’s a cycle that works in both directions.
I guess this is what I do not understand about all of this. God makes us a certain way (inherently sinful) and reserves the monopoly on setting things right again. He ultimately has the power over all of these things. So, why does he make it that way? So that we are reminded that we are creatures and not the Creator? If we are found to be guilty for being sinners, for something that is out of our control, then I don’t believe God can be absolved from the responsibility of the existence of sin. But, I guess, neither can we. If all that is the case, the burden of sin is something that both God and humans need to carry. Yet, because we cannot do anything about our inherent guilt and can find no way out of the way we are, God must find a way out for us, for He is the only one who has the ability to do so. And, if He has the ability to find a way out for us, then He has always had that ability. Why, then, did He not make us differently in the first place?
All that being said, I think humans are inherently, inescapably selfish. Yet this selfishness is not necessarily a bad thing. It can be directed towards good or evil. God, according to Genesis, made us good from the start. It went wrong, so the story goes, when that original goodness was corrupted through an action. For this reason, I think human beings, whilst being selfish creatures, are neutral to good and evil. We choose good and evil as it comes to us. CS Lewis once said that humans never choose to do evil for the sake of evil, but commit evil when it is a corrupted form of goodness. Power, pleasure, security, and the rest are all good things in themselves, but these things are evil when they are in a corrupted state, or when people go about obtaining them in the wrong ways. I might have to re-read how Lewis so eloquently explains this notion.
Adam, though your argument sounds good it is based on some fundamental flaws.
You need to make a distinction between sin and guilt, you need to make a distinction between God making us that way and us choosing sin. The bible never links these concepts together in the manner in which you are presently. Of course sin has something to do with guilt, but I fear you have it all arse-about. Your comments on God holding the monopoly are clearly mixing two very different world-views, as is evident in much that you have said.
I truly fear that your ideas have come from within the church, for I know many who share similar confusion on the nature of sin, and humans. But this only highlights Simon’s central thesis which is that the Doctrine of Sin is not often discussed, and is definately not a developed one amongst more modern churches.
I agree with Simon, the doctrine of sin is not often discussed, and thus wrong interpretations, and understandings of what the bible actually says about sin are purported.
Roger and Adam, I reckon you both have some good points here.
Adam, I can follow your line of questioning, and I think it is a good one. Yet, you seem fairly sure that either Christianity has it all wrong, or God does. I submit to you that neither does. In fact, you should read more Lewis, because I think he may have some answers to your objections. I can’t really recall where exactly. Perhaps Mere Christianity? And even some of the essays in God In The Dock. Anyway, I’m not in a position to give you a satisfactory answer to those questions, suffice to say that they are good questions.
Roger, I think that you have understood me well. The lack of “development” of the doctrine of sin is an interesting way to put it - a good one, I think!