Return to main site

ARTICLE 4: SIN I was thinking about society's view of sin. The ad just on TV claimed that adultery is the ultimate sin. Now, when you're talking about sins against our fellow man, sure adultery is up there with the worst. But it occurred to me that we're not concerned about the sin, in the case of unfaithfulness; we're concerned with the disloyalty of the adulterer. Sin is a state of being, more importantly than refer to the action. And the confusion may be one reason why society is at odds with the church. Biblically speaking, sins are not a list of acts that God considers evil. The Ten Commandments were the religious laws. Breaking them or any other law simply makes you a lawbreaker. The word sin (or rather the Greek hamartia) is borrowed from archery, meaning any attempt that does not hit bulls-eye. And that is the essence of sin – imperfection. It is not specifically committing adultery, or telling a white lie to your parents that makes you a sinner. The real issue is that we are by nature imperfect by God's standard. Now when I tried to apply that to the ad for Medium, it hardly made sense to say that the act of adultery would be the ultimate imperfection – although obviously I understand what they meant by "the ultimate sin". We are suddenly applying the word sin to crimes against one another, rather than against God. And then, identifying the two different uses of the word, we find that for a long time people have understood sin in the wrong way. We are no longer dealing with sin, but that which exemplifies it. A term we should rather use is, formally, an offense against propriety. As Romans 7 tells us, it is through the laws of the Bible that we become aware of our sinful nature. In that way, it is not breaking the law that then makes us sinners. "But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire." When sin – rebelliousness – which is part of our human nature, sees the chance, it acts. Commonly we refer to the act as the sin, rather than that ungodly part of our makeup. Sin was there first. I presume we have been confused by this for some time. The Judaeo-Christian laws and the Ten Commandments are commonly seen as the strict rules by which sinners are distinguished from the pure. Why else do so many people think they're good enough to deserve Heaven when they die? Most people think they live up to the Biblical model pretty well – if you don't murder, lie, steal (at least in any significant way) then assumedly you're fit for Heaven. And when the word sinner gets thrown around, it is taken as meaning "nasty conniving vermin", rather than just meaning imperfect like the rest of us. And naturally, people don't appreciate being accused in such a way. We all need to understand that by God's standard we are dishonourable – that is the essence of sin. It is wrong to declare an unwed mother to be a sinner because of her past actions. It also has an adverse effect to what the accuser may intend. Such a judgement is not inviting. But let's not forget that knowing we are sinful is central to the Christian message. Without sin there would be no need for redemption – no need for the sacrifices of Old Testament times; no need for a Messiah. But since society at large feel like "sinner" is the slander of a self-righteous churchie, it will fail to merely raise an interested ear. Rather, we need to bring attention to our understanding that God exists; he is perfect and we are not. And because of this, humankind can't get too close to God, lest He become tainted. But because He loves us, He did what had to be done to give us another chance. That is surely accurate and a more appealing summary of the Faith than "you're a sinner and you're going to Hell if you don't repent" – true though that may be. Our choice of words is crucial. Sinner should be avoided. Sinful or maybe an adjective sinned would better describe the human race's state of being. Imperfect or unrighteous might be appropriate choices, keeping in mind that the term should imply "as compared with God". Wicked or evil should be avoided when describing the average person, as this is reserved for the worst of the worse. And we don't like being accused so, even though in God's eyes any sin is as significant as the next. As society progresses (be it in the right way or not), the "sins" of the past are not only accepted, but glorified. Promiscuity, homosexuality, swearing, violence, disrespect, lying (who gives a toss about that anymore?) – all these things are paraded on the streets and in the media with no rebuke. The only virtue is tolerance. And the church is intolerant of all of the above. Suddenly we are the dissenters and we impede on the freedom of others – at least, the freedom to do these things with a clear conscience. In this way, sin has no relevance because there is no God or even a moral code to breach. Additionally, we're taught to "look out for number one" and "he who dies with the most toys wins". As much as ever, life is the pursuit of pleasure. Why spare a thought for the eternal realm? It is no good proclaiming the abundance of sin in the world when there's no knowledge of God – the former demands the latter. Currently, sin is still mostly a religious word. But if we start using sin to describe an undesirable action between people, with no mention of God, the word will lose its meaning. Like the word truth, which before it became used to describe something relative (ie viewpoint), meant the exact opposite. What I believe the church needs to do – in the best way it can – is show that sin means our ungodly nature. At the same time though, we must not downplay the importance of adhering to our religious laws. Without the laws given to us, there is no knowledge of God's nature, and no appreciation of Jesus' teaching. Without repentance there is no salvation. Lindsey Joel 10 May 2006 If you read this, please leave me your thoughts: