Sin: It's Not What You Think It Is

During much of this past week I've been thinking a lot about the concept of sin. I understand that sin is a concept that is clearly addressed in the Bible, but I am wondering how much that concept has been misinterpreted and misused over the past two thousand years. Traditionally the term sin has denoted wrongs committed and has been used for the purpose of condemnation and has caused the alienation of many people because of the so-called sins they have committed. So how can we look at sin differently that might help clear things up and portray scripture in a more accurate light?

Last week I discussed sin as being a symptom of a problem rather than the problem itself. What if we look at sin this week as a hurt or a pain that one experiences? One of the definitions for the Greek word typically translated as sin is "to miss the mark," or "to be without a share in." These are both things that cause a great deal of distress and pain in the person who misses the mark and is without a share in. So it is reasonable that "sin" refers to a hurt of some kind which may result in bad behavior.

I think this is a better definition because it doesn't allow for the exclusion of someone because of a sin, but instead welcomes greater love and compassion toward sinners. Defined the traditional way, sin tends to bring about criticism by people for the way a sinner might live his or her life. If you are gay you are seen as a sinner by many in the church who will then shun you. If you have had an abortion, you will be excluded from certain church groups. The pastor gets up to the pulpit on Sundays and preaches against sin, bringing about a feeling of condemnation in those who are in the pews.

Defined in this new way, sin breeds a sense of empathy from those who sense the pain of the "sinner". Instead of creating an atmosphere of exclusion, sin now brings people together because people want to help those who are in pain. When we view sin not as a wrong committed but a pain felt, it lends itself to a more loving church body that wants to bring in sinners instead of keeping them away.

This interpretation also changes how we interpret the saving act of Jesus's crucifixion. Instead of Jesus being punished for our sins, an interpretation which breeds more guilt in me than relief, Jesus bears our burdens and our pain, making what we bear a little less burdensome. This accords with the words of Scripture where Jesus tells us that his yoke is easy and his burden light, easing our burdens. It also is in tune with Isaiah 53:4, a prophetic passage about the Messiah, which reads, "Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted.". Not only does this prophetic passage interpret sin in the new way we have interpreted it here, but it also predicts that we would interpret sin in the traditional way in which we have by calling the crucifixion a punishment from God for our sins. It seems to me this newer way of interpreting sin is more biblical than the traditional way.

But what about those passages in the Bible where Jesus and John the Baptist are telling people to repent and turn away from their sin? Here is how that comes to be translated. The term "repent" means to turn away from one thing and towards another. What these men are saying is that I can turn away from my pain and face Jesus where I will receive comfort. When repentance is called upon by us, it is repentance from our hurts toward a man of compassion, Jesus Christ, from whom we can be healed and comforted from all of the pain that we experience in this life. Won't you repent with me and turn away from what is causing you pain, to receiving the ultimate healing from Jesus?
Blessings,
-Brandon

What is Sin, a Marginal Belief: A Series on Christianity's Core Beliefs

As I have been listening to Christian conversations and browsing through the Christian forums, I have realized that one of the most prevalent, and most volatile marginal doctrines that Christians fight over today, is the doctrine of sin. Before I go any further let me make clear that I believe sin itself, in its general form, is a core doctrine. If sin did not exist, there would be no need for a savior. Sin is therefore a very important and necessary doctrine for Christianity. What I count as marginal, and unnecessary for us to fight over, is what counts as sin.

I have a feeling this is going to be a much more controversial idea than I discussed about end times theology in my previous post, End Times, a Marginal Belief: A Series on Christianity's Core Beliefs, so let me be as clear as possible. Some of the areas most heavily debated as regards to their status as sins are the issues of abortion, homosexuality, and premarital sex. These are not the only areas, but the ones I would consider the hottest topics in current sin debate. Each side has Scripture to back up their argument. There are those who can "prove" abortion is a sin, and those who can "prove" it is not. There are those who can show conclusively that homosexuality is a sin, and those can show that it is not. There are plenty of parents who can show in Scripture where premarital sex is a sin, and plenty of teenagers who can show their parents from the Bible that it is not.

We spend countless hours arguing that certain actions are or are not sins. But here is the question we must ask ourselves: how does "proving" an action to be a sin or not effect our salvation? If I prove to a gay man that homosexuality is a sin, does that somehow nullify his status as "saved" until he overcomes that sin? Absolutely not, because the promise and the good news of the Bible is that Jesus forgives us our sins even if we are still committing them. But if that same gay man is shown that homosexuality is not a sin, does that in any way change his relationship with Jesus Christ? Absolutely not. His status as a Christ-follower remains the same whether homosexuality is shown to be a sin or not.

If a woman who has had an abortion is shown that her act was a sin, how does that effect her? It makes her feel terrible and places a great deal of guilt on her that Jesus himself does not place on her. She cannot go back and undo the abortion. And just the same as the gay man, if she is shown that her action is not a sin, it does nothing to effect her relationship with Jesus. She remains saved and in Jesus' care whether her abortion is proven to be a sin or not.

Proving something to be a sin and proving something to not be a sin do absolutely nothing for a fellow Christian's salvation. All proving something to be a sin does is to place a heavy burden on someone that we are not willing to carry ourselves (Matthew 23:4). And proving something not to be a sin, does nothing at all, except at the very worst to lead into a belief that there is no such thing as sin, which clearly contradicts Scripture, which leads to my next point.

I am not saying that we should preach a "no sin" theology. Scripture is clear that humankind needs salvation from sins. What the Bible is not always clear about, however, is what constitutes sin. Yes we have the commandments in the Old Testament, but not all of them apply today. The trick is trying to decipher which commandments apply under the new covenant and which do not, and there is not agreement on which ones apply and which do not. And certainly Jesus and Paul give certain sin lists, which I think we would do well to abide by to the best of our ability. For those sin areas that are clear, I think it is our responsibility as Christians to do our best, with the help of Jesus, to overcome them and live upright lives. But it is not our responsibility to tell other people how they need to live their lives as is clear from Matthew 7:3 ""Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?" It is condemning upon ourselves to point out the sin in others, unless it directly affects us. Matthew 18 certainly indicates that if someone has sinned against us, we need to point it out to them; but anything else it outside of our scope.

Back to my main point, the Bible is not always clear about sin. Paul himself explains in 1 Corinthians 10:23-30,

23 All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable All things are lawful, but not all things edify.

24 Let no one seek his own good, but that of his neighbor.

25 Eat anything that is sold in the meat market without asking questions for conscience' sake;

26 FOR THE EARTH IS THE LORD'S, AND ALL IT CONTAINS.

27 If one of the unbelievers invites you and you want to go, eat anything that is set before you without asking questions for conscience' sake.

28 But if anyone says to you, "This is meat sacrificed to idols," do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for conscience' sake;

29 I mean not your own conscience, but the other man's; for why is my freedom judged by another's conscience?

30 If I partake with thankfulness, (AU)why am I slandered concerning that for which I give thanks?"

Paul went on to say to act in a way that glorifies God. The best way we can do that is to love one another and not to focus on what is or what is not sin in another person's life. There are so many things in our culture today that are not clearly reflected in Scripture as sin or not. And as I have shown, if these things are sins, we can be confident that Jesus forgives them. If they are not sins, then we have nothing to worry about.
Blessings,
-Brandon