‘Sin’ The Language of the Law!

 

This post does not take into consideration the different levels of disobedience;

• Corporate
• Structural
• Systematic

…Nor the graduated levels.

 

My comments on the issue of sin are more a personal observation, as apposed to that of theological exegete. It’s my view, (and I’m willing to admit that this may be my view alone) that the word ‘sin’ carries with it an ‘unspoken’ negative expectation, that is somewhat difficult to articulate, but needless to say, this same expectation, is not only unique but also unhelpful and unnecessary.

Because this expectation is based, supposedly, on a common mutual understanding it has at the same time created significant confusion in terms of the origin of its real meaning. What is not understood, is either avoided or discarded, or, as is often the case, converted into a wrong context, creating in the process a theological understanding that is nothing more than meaningless useless baggage. Sin had a renascence in the latter half of the 19^th century; it was used famously by fundamentalist preachers such as Jonathan Edwards and then later by Finney, Spurgeon, Billy Sunday, and Moody etc. It was used almost exclusively within a negative context, sin was used as the primary catalyst to elicit decisions, it was used as the final ace, for ‘good number of converts’ a good example would be Edwards famous “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God”.

What sort of view would any of these same converts take with them throughout their life and how could they see sin in any other light, except to use repentance as a way of keeping this same angry God at bay. It could never be a relational response based on the intimacy of understanding that is part of any real relationship, but one that would come to depend and rest exclusively on a thorough understanding of the divine law, where God was seen as the one who would concede again and again to the letter of the law, creating in the process the impression that God would forgive because of some sort of legal transaction that took place in the cross.

A legal frame of reference is not based and never can be on relational nuances, but more on the strict understanding of the good and bad implications of laws that are kept or not kept. It’s my contention that some 200yrs later our view of sin (although not described in such a fashion) forgiveness, the legal code of conduct has not changed, and this is due primarily to a lack of understanding of sin within its original context. Its my view that sin within this context is more than likely to immunize those very same people from a relationship with this very same God. This theological understanding may not be articulated in the same fashion as in this post, but runs at a deep almost subterranean level, where one acts and then reacts, without at the same time knowing why. In a healthy relationship one responds, and this response is cognitive. To not feel physical pain, would reduce ones life, to a thorough dependence at all times on a rightful mechanistic response.

 

 John is correct; it is Augustinian in its origins not Greek or Jewish. This is the very point, within which my post was made, sin can only carry any weight within a frame of reference that is relational, not abstract and removed. If we fail to take this into consideration, if we fail to include this as a foundational premise from which all else takes reason, we fail before we begin. There is a fluidity and spontaneity within all relationships, and this becomes the yardstick from which decisions are determined, we draw upon the intuitive elements of this relationship rather than a mechanistic response, now having said that I’m not dismissing the later, but it would and should be the final frame of reference not the first.

 

Some Christians subscribe, (by default) to a relational connection with God that is not that dissimilar to those with asbergers syndrome. Facets of our western theology have created, and by their very nature, also sustained a propensity towards mechanistic responses with similar outcomes expected by God, he become the transactional God, this is due primarily to the lack of any true relational context. Augustine needed to identify, and further, also create a separation of understanding; this could only be done within the context of a legal transaction. If we look at sin within this framework, it is reduced to a series of ‘checks and balances’ where sin is treated in the same fashion as that of a lawyer treating a legal transaction. Sin then becomes the process of establishing law, either broken or kept, no longer is this a relational exercise, where fluidity, spontaneity and intuition are essential, but a simple process of reminding God that he has a legal obligation to forgive.

This process is the antithesis of forgiveness within a relational understanding. Little wonder that the Jewish translation for ‘sin’ is that of missing the mark. Within the old framework sin was understood as ‘separating us’ from God, where God removed himself until the sheet was clean and he could then return and take of from where he left, so to speak. If one holds to this view it creates a view of an interventionist God, who must ‘retreat and return’. The Jews saw sin as a ‘misalignment’ and the process of making good or right, meant that one ‘realigned’ oneself once again with reality.

 

When ever one felt out of ‘alignment’ it then became necessary to ‘re-fix’ ones attention then ‘focus’ and finally ’ follow through’ this is not the language of a legal transaction, where a pseudo response is encouraged, but one that comes out of a relational response. It would also do good to point out that this is not a process where I become the most important missing link, one that is depended exclusively on MY action and MY response and MY repentance. This divide can only be breached by the power and strength of my repentance, this is a one-dimensional response, not cooperation or a mutual reciprocity that is birthed out of an ongoing conversation between two intimate parties. Finally, the focus is on walking in mutual alignment with the other, not majoring on a process that divides and then must always be breached. How do we walk in alignment with the other, we do it by first focusing on the other. St Paul says; “Fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and finisher of out faith”. We miss the mark, when we fail to ‘fix’ our attention on the goal; this is not sin, but a missing of the mark. This view (at least in my opinion) is helpful in terms of a practical relational response. Sin has always been described as some sort of evil, which also brought with it a destructive contaminant element that left one feeling that he or she was now in quarantine.

 

My final point is this, how does one know, when one has sinned? This will have to wait for another time. (Sorry! this post does not have any scriptural references this is not my strong point)

Finally…..your comments are most welcome and also saught, This may constitute heresy, but bear in mind that heretic means; ‘one who finds his own way’ and this we all must do.