Friday, September 25, 2020

Whatever Became of Sin?

Chapter Eight of my book The Limits of Liberalism is titled “The Limits of Liberals’ Views about Sin,” and this blog post is based on that chapter, which I have updated and slightly revised this month. In it, I make reference to psychiatrist Karl Menninger’s 1973 book published under the same title as this blog article. 

Defective Conservative Views of Sin

As is true with other matters that I have previously discussed in my book, the liberal ideas that I have often found defective are reactions to defective ideas that are prevalent in fundamentalism and conservative evangelicalism.

For example, in the popular mind, sin is basically thought of as bad deeds, and sinners are thought to be bad people. That popular idea reflects the religiosity of the Puritans, whose ideas were rooted in Calvinism. They identified many “sins” they thought faithful Christians should shun.

In addition to the obvious sins of breaking the Ten Commandments, until the middle of the twentieth century, and even later, evangelical Christianity that was based on Puritanism commonly condemned “sins” such as drinking alcoholic beverages, smoking, social dancing, playing cards, going to the movies, and the like.

That trivialization and narrowness of sin among conservative evangelicals led progressive Christians to cease talking about sin. Several years ago, I heard a long-time professor at William Jewell College publicly state that he rejected the use of the word sin, saying that it no longer signified anything meaningful.

Defective Liberal Views of Sin

On the other side of the theological spectrum, some liberals began to talk about human goodness and potentiality and to neglect ideas about human sinfulness.

Many liberal Christians of the past and present regard(ed) sin primarily as imperfection, ignorance, maladjustment, and immaturity.

What was popularly called sin was, they thought/think, largely a vestige of the animal nature of human beings that could be, and is being, overcome by Christian education, moral instruction, and spiritual striving. Some “sins” were, perhaps, problematic, but they could be overcome by human endeavor.

That is why Menninger (1893~1990) contended in his book that sin “was once a strong word, an ominous and serious word. . . . But the word went away. It has almost disappeared—the word, along with the notion” (p. 14).

Chris Hedges is the author of a book titled I Don’t Believe in Atheists (2008). A sub-theme of that hard-hitting book is the pervasiveness of sin and flawed human nature. Here is one of his most striking statements in this regard:

We have nothing to fear from those who do or do not believe in God; we have much to fear from those who do not believe in sin. The concept of sin is a stark acknowledgment that we can never be omnipotent, that we are bound and limited by human flaws and self-interest (p. 13).

Between the Extremes

As I emphasize in the tenth and final chapter of my book, in Christianity there badly needs to be a broad and heavily populated position between the extremes of conservative evangelicalism and liberalism. Fortunately, there are now some indications of that sort of position with regard to sin.

For decades, progressive evangelicals have been emphasizing the importance of combatting social sins, not just personal sins as is prevalent in conservative evangelicalism.

For example, back in 1992 Jim Wallis and a colleague published "America’s original sin: A study guide on white racism." That publication has been updated and expanded several times and was last published in 2015 as America’s Original Sin: Racism, White Privilege, and the Bridge to a New America (with Wallis listed as the sole author).

There is also, significantly, at least some recognition of the reality of social sin by those who are not evangelicals. Recently, there have been references in the “liberal” media to America’s “original sin,” and mentions of “the sin of racism.”

Speaking in Kenosha, Wisconsin, earlier this month, Joe Biden declared that “we’re going to address the original sin in this country . . . slavery, and all the vestiges of it.”

So now, perhaps, sin is being more widely recognized than it was 50 years ago when Menninger was working on his book. I hope so.

15 comments:

  1. Thank you for this post Leroy. As a Lutheran, I've always appreciated Martin Luther's theological insights into human nature and sin. We Lutherans make the distinction between sin (lower case) and Sin (upper case). An example of lower case involves deeds that violate the 10 commandments. Upper case is regarded as a state of being. Since the fall from grace in the Garden of Eden, we are in a state of rebellion against God, we want to be gods/goddesses in the true God's place.

    Years ago, I did read Menninger's book and appreciated his insights.

    I think the obvious truth of sin's existence is the mass media. Read any newspaper, listen to and/or watch any news cast and you will discover ample examples of sin.

    Moreover, the pages of history are filled with examples of sin: wars, crusades, the Inquisition, slavery, the Holocaust, and the list goes on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Garth, thanks for your significant comments.

      The distinction between sin(s) and Sin is a good and important one--and not just limited to Lutherans, although I am glad you Lutherans make that significant distinction. When I was in seminary I wrote a paper on Paul's concept of sin, and one of the major point of my paper was the differences between sin as rebelling and sins as the myriad of ways sin is expressed.

      Your third paragraph reminded me of this, which I just Googled to confirm: "G. K. Chesterton once noted that Certain new theologians dispute original sin, which is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved," ("Orthodoxy," chap. 2).

      Your last paragraph lists many social sins that fundamentalists in the past (and maybe some still in the present) didn't say much about but which, thankfully, many progressive evangelicals along with more liberal Christians are now correctly recognizing as sins.

      Delete
  2. Thinking Friend Glenn Hinson of Kentucky shares the following brief comments:

    "I agree with you that sin is real, Leroy, as we have seen confirmed in human history again and again. But exclusive focus on it may have led some people to despair. Thus I think it is important to balance that emphasis with a recognition that human beings also have great potential for good. There are persons in whom the good outweighs the propensity we all have to sin."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dr. Hinson, I fully agree that many of the traditional Protestant (Calvinist) Christians of the past focused too much on human sinfulness, and I am always in favor of balance. But that is the problem I have some liberals: their emphasis on innate human goodness and potentiality tends to outweigh or overlook the ongoing problem of human sinfulness.

      Delete
  3. Here are thought-provoking comments from local Thinking Friend Debra Sapp-Yarwood:

    "Thanks for this. It makes me think about how social sin has become an area of conversation and connectedness that I share with a conservative Christian friend. She suffers from Chemical Sensitivities (she was wearing a mask long before COVID made it cool). I told her how I sneeze whenever I'm in the laundry detergent aisle, and she cautioned that a mild reaction like that can grow into a debilitating condition. She has opened my eyes to the proliferation in the past 50 years of pesticides, herbicides, food additives, synthetic fragrances and other things that may be disrupting our endocrine systems and making us sick, fatigued, cranky, fat and even . . . sinful (when we value 'convenience' and pleasure over the health and well-being of others and ourselves). She and I bond over our common distaste for Monsanto and other corporate bullies.

    "I do think that 'personal sin' is cause for sadness and discernment, and we need to be slow to judgement. When I ran Arts in Prison (at that time a nonprofit ministry housed in Rainbow Mennonite Church), I didn't look at the criminal records of our participants. It was wise, because it would have affected my interactions with certain people. Inside of even the most egregious sex offender is often a sad poet, water-colorist or tenor who rues the day he first opened a page of internet porn and began his descent into a place most of us don't allow ourselves to contemplate. He needs his art form to grieve and process his guilt and shame, and discover his humanity and that of his past victims. He also needs therapists, meaningful work . . . and God's grace . . . in order to find a path to redemption/restoration, if that is indeed our goal with imprisonment, which is a topic for another day. The conservative Christian prison ministries often offered a 'quick grace' for personal sin that arguably allowed certain convert-convicts to bypass true redemption."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Debra, thanks for your thoughtful comments. You are so busy you don't have the time to comment often, but when you do your comments are always of considerable import.

      Yes, concern about social sin can bring conservatives together as advocates for the common good and opponents of common evils, and I think there needs to be more attention given to that possibility. Thank you for sharing your "testimony" about that.

      I was impressed with your second paragraph. It reminded me of words in the book that June and I have been reading for Clif Hostetler's book discussion this evening. It is "The Consolation of Philosophy" by Boethius (c. 477 – 524), and in it "Philosophy" says, "Those who have done wrong should not be prosecuted with outrage and anger, but should be treated with kindness and sympathy . . . . wickedness is a disease of the mind. We feel sympathy rather than hatred for those who are sick, and those who suffer from a disability greater than any physical ailment deserve pity rather than blame."

      Delete
  4. Bob Carlson, another local Thinking Friend who like Debra and I is also a member of Rainbow Mennonite Church, writes,

    "Thanks, Leroy.Your summary of 'thinking about sin' seemed accurate to me.
    and I, like you, have had an evolving view of sin. But living in this world, I can never bid 'goodbye' to 'sin.'"

    ReplyDelete
  5. Once again, I appreciate your balance, Leroy. And to my way of thinking, liberals don’t have to choose between evolution and a doctrine of original sin: Sin can certainly be thought of as “a vestige of the animal nature”—thus universal and inherited (the two main features of original sin). I once reviewed a book making that point titled Original Selfishness, by paleontologist Daryl Domning.

    And it doesn’t appear that either our personal sins or our social sins are going to fade away from the human race any time soon. Perhaps this too is not an either-or choice. And perhaps we still need to face both kinds squarely, change our minds and our paths, and be "saved" from them as we look to Christ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your comments, Fred.

      In Chapter Eight of my book, I have a subsection titled "What about original sin?" and there I refer to Domning and his (and Monika Hellwig's) book "Original Selfishness." It's been quite a while since I read it, but I remember it as being helpful in thinking about the meaning of original sin, which perhaps can rightfully be called "original selfishness."

      I agree with your last paragraph and the rhetorical question with which it ends. One of the weaknesses/limits of Christian liberalism, as I see it, is its neglect of the need of conversion/forgiveness and redemption from both personal and social sins.

      Delete
  6. This morning I was happy to receive the following comments from my faithful Thinking Friend Eric Dollard in Chicago:

    "Thanks, Leroy, for bringing up this challenging subject.

    "While how to define 'sin' its causes and its remedies, is an important topic, I am currently much more concerned about the spiritual poverty in which America now finds itself. We have become, or maybe we always were, a nation addicted to materialism, hedonism, instant gratification, narcissism, a toxic individualism, racism, and power for its own sake. We have a president who exemplifies those values and he has a good chance of being reelected.

    "What happened to the spiritual values of humility, compassion, simplicity in living, nonviolence, and honesty? There are many persons who exemplify those values, but they appear to be a distinct minority. I am becoming increasingly dismayed as I fear that the 'sins' of racism, greed, and the exercise of raw power may yet be our undoing. I do not wish to be downbeat, but we have a long way to go."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, as always, Eric, for your thoughtful comments.

      Well, it seems to me that all the serious things you mentioned as a part of America's "spiritual poverty" are manifestations of sin--and that is why it is important to think about the causes and remedies of sin.

      I agree with your last paragraph--and that is one reason I write about the limits or deficiencies of liberalism. If humans are all basically good, why are the sins of racism, greed, and the exercise of raw power so prevalent?

      Delete
  7. Yesterday, Thinking Friend Greg Hadley in Japan posted the following comments/question on Facebook, where I had linked to this blog article:

    "Theology in the stream of Greek Orthodoxy tends to view sin less as legal violations of God's Law in the way it is framed by the Roman Church, and instead frames it as an illness, a woundedness, and deformities of the soul. In the spaces, Christ brings salvation and healing. We are all seriously ill and need the healing that can only come from the Great Physician. I find this notion to be helpful, but what do you think, Dr. Seat?"

    ReplyDelete
  8. Thanks for your comments and question, Greg.

    I don't know a lot about Greek Orthodox theology, but what you wrote sounds good to me. I think sin needs to be seen far more as the breaking of relationships (with God and with other people) than as the breaking of laws. And salvation, rightly understood, is, I think, the restoration of those broken relationships.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Various random thoughts:

    Bravo again, Leroy! We need a revival of talk about sin--and redemption.

    Sin as "smoke, drink, or chew, or go with girls who do." Did you hear that when you were growing up, Leroy? https://www.dictionaryofchristianese.com/dont-drink-smoke-or-chew-or-go-with-girls-who-do/

    When I was growing up, Bill Link preached a sermon in which he referred to the Menninger book. It made quite an impression on me, so much so that I went out and bought a copy. I suppose that part of the attraction of the book was that Menninger was from Topeka KS. But even as a youngster I had a profound sense of sin.

    Sin as separation from God and humanity, even one's own humanity. That's what's going on in Romans 1 and 7.

    I don't remember the prof at Jewell who didn't speak about sin. Who was that?

    I'm reminded of a story about Silent Cal Coolidge. He went to church, and after coming home, his wife asked him what the sermon was about. "Sin," Cal said. "What did he say about sin?" she asked. "He's agin' it."

    Again, bravo!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Michael Willett Newheart, Leroy's former student and colleague, made the above "Unknown" remarks. (I don't think that they're from an "Unknown god," Acts 17:23.) How might I come out of the shadows and be able to identify myself automatically? This inquiring mind wants to know.

    ReplyDelete