The more I've thought about this definition of sin, the more I've come to like it. At first it seemed overly simplistic, or at least incomplete. It seemed to exclude a lot of things that I considered to be sin.
First, let's look at what is obviously included in this definition. In the section that this "quote" appears (as I remember it, anyway), Forde is talking about salvation as God's gift to us, and our tendency to refuse that gift and insist on doing it ourselves, or at least helping. This insistence on making salvation depend on something that we do* rather than what God has done is the essence of sin according to this definition. This seems strange when you really consider it, because the manifestations of this insistence (see footnote) are often exactly what we would list if we were asked to describe "holiness." It seems that sin is indistinguishable from holiness, at least from the outside.
But what about the inside? Can we at least make the distinction that these "good works" are sin when done with an ulterior motive, and holiness when done with pure motives? Well, what exactly would a pure motive be? Take tithing as an example. Obviously we would consider doing it for glory or influence to be an impure motive. What about doing it for the reward in heaven? Doesn't seem much different than doing it for a reward on earth. How about doing it to better the church which we attend? Well, that's also fairly self-centered, who's to say that my church is more deserving than another church? What about doing it to please God? That depends, what am I hoping to get out of it? If I'm hoping to gain favor or something, then I am really trying to manipulate God, which isn't much different than performing a ritual to coerce the spirits to my purposes. What about just doing it because I am told? Well, again, what do I hope to gain from my obedience? How about the satisfaction of knowing I did something good? Once again, I'm doing it ultimately for my own benefit. Even assuming we could agree on a pure motive, do you honestly believe that you could ever be completely free of any other motivation? My point in saying all this is that we almost never do anything altruistically. In fact, it may be that the only time we do anything with 100% pure motive is when we don't even know we're doing it. Perhaps the only time we ever actually do anything good is when we do it mindlessly, or better yet, when God does it through us while we aren't looking. Perhaps good works themselves are a gift from God.
So this definition covers all of our good works and classifies them as sin... what about our bad works? At first, I didn't think this definition included those things such as lying, adultery, and murder, but now I think that it may. The gift of eternal life isn't all that we receive from God, there is also scripture. Even though the law may be of little use when it comes to getting into heaven, and in fact may be worse than worthless, it still has plenty of use when it comes to the here and now. Scripture has been given to us, and failure to give heed to scripture is in fact a failure to receive a gift from God.
Still though, I think the most important part of this definition, especially for those of us who consider ourselves to be religious, is that part which deals with our "good" works. So, maybe instead of focusing so much on not doing bad things and trying to do more good things, we should be trying to receive all that God is giving us.
What do you think? What are you refusing to receive from God?
*such as: living a moral life, "making Jesus the Lord of my life" (as if he isn't already), being circumcised, making my "decision for Jesus" (as though there is just one decision to be made), voting Republican, asking Jesus into my heart, doing volunteer work, having "a personal relationship" with Jesus, charity, fasting, tithing, not watching rated R movies, joining a monastery, looking the "right" way, trying my darnedest, etc.
I really like this definition of sin, and I think it ties in pretty well with Augustine's idea of disordered love as being a true definition of evil. Tithing is a fantastic thing to do, but when we do it for ulterior motives it is choosing to love something more than God.
ReplyDeleteThe tough thing with this definition of sin is just the practicality of trying to live in opposition to it. But I also see that as the real beauty behind it. It's impractical because we can't really do anything about it; our motives will always be impure. But we have to realize that sanctification, like justification, is a gift fully from God. There is no sanctification without the forgiveness of these trite motivations. We need God for everything. There is nothing truly good we can do for ourselves or anyone else without Him.
But, all of that aside, this is how you REALLY increase in God's favor. Because, you know, it's all up to us:
http://www.amazon.com/Its-Your-Time-Activate-Increase/dp/143910011X
Agreed.
ReplyDeletemy comment is a digression to what you wrote. I liked your approach and analysis very much.
ReplyDeleteAlright, so I'm currently brewing over the famous Barth at the moment, and his whole deal on election, and (I use with caution so my friends at Multnomah Bible School won't shun me), universalism.
The contemporary church's stance on salvation relies on praying the sinner's prayer. Baptism is always considered a good thing, but not mandatory. Oh, and take communion too.
Does this perspective fall into the category of the definition of sin, trying to achieve salvation ourselves? I don't think so, but I'm puzzled. Barth claims that all humanity is restored to God through Jesus Christ. Period. Human intervention other than Jesus Christ is exempt from the way to salvation. How does the sunday school lesson of John 3:16 "whoever believes in him will not perish but have everlasting life" fit within the context of God fulfilling everything without the sinner's involvement?
I do have a clarification issue with the last sentence, "maybe instead of focusing so much on not doing bad things and trying to do more good things, we should be trying to receive all that God is giving us."
I thought the point was not to try. What does it mean to "try to receive"? Urgh! I guess the answer is prayer. it always is. the answer is either jesus, prayer, or more wine, please.
Annie, here's my somewhat developed perspective on salvation:
ReplyDeleteI think that the idea of a conversion experience (a sudden moment of clarity where you say the magic words and become a Christian, whatever those magic words happen to be) has been emphasized far too much in the American Evangelical movement. (By the way, when you say "the contemporary church" I think you are really referring to evangelicalism. I have never heard a Lutheran say that salvation relies on the sinner's prayer.) I don't think salvation is so much a one-minute-you're-damned-one-minute-you're-saved kind of thing as it is a gradual process finally being completed in death (and resurrection). I don't think this process is one that we have much control over, rather it is God who is in charge. It's just not the case that God sits back and waits for someone to pray the sinner's prayer or ask Jesus into their heart or make Jesus the lord of their life or whatever the terminology of the movement is. By the time the sinner says that prayer, God has been drawing them to him for their whole lives. In a sense, God has already decided to save them, which is effectively the same as being saved already. In fact, the sinner could not say that prayer in the first place if they had not already been empowered by the Holy Spirit (see John 6:44).
About the sacraments: the reason that Lutherans (I don't know about Presbyterians, but I imagine it's about the same) take the sacraments is because we believe that they bring about our salvation. In baptism we have the promise of new life (See Romans 6:1-4) and in communion we have the promise that Jesus will be present for us (See Matthew 18:20, 26:26-28).
As for your reference to John 3:16, I think the emphasis is less on what we do (believe) and more on what God has done (send his Son into the world). Also, belief itself is a gift from God, so we can't really take credit for it anyway.
As for the last sentence, yeah, it doesn't really make sense to me either. I'm not exactly sure how to say it, but maybe this will help: I think trying to do good works to make ourselves worthy of heaven and trying to receive from God are different kinds of trying. The first involves actively doing something, the second is passively receiving something. In fact, "trying" is probably a bad choice.
Sorry for the extreme length of my response. What do you think? Did any of that make sense to you?
On second look, it wasn't as long a response as I thought.
ReplyDeleteFrom an actual review of Osteen's newest book (Josh's link):
ReplyDeleteI have read all of his books. They keep getting better. Some people say that he is just a "feel good" preacher looking to get rich. I think he is a wonderfully insightful God filled man with a great way of letting us know what God's best is for all of us. We just have to believe and let Him.
I was a critic of Joel Osteen at first. However, after reading his books and watching him on his weekly shows I have opened up to what he is saying and I can tell you from personal experience that his message works if you work it. Thank you Joel and keep it up.
My favorite part is the "...letting us know what God's best is for all of us. We just have to believe and let Him."
ReplyDeleteOops Mr. As an English teacher I can actually say you just turned Mr. Osteen into God, amid other errors.
*Inhale*
ReplyDeleteKierkegaard agrees with you, John.
From 'The Sickness Unto Death'
Kierkegaard first comes to the conclusion that sin is open rebellion because it lies in the Will. He begins by contrasting his own definition of sin with Socrates', who defines sin as "ignorance". For the sake of confusing the crap out of people, Kiekegaard gets all dialectical and argues that that definition both is and isn't correct.
First, it isn't correct...
Because it negates the actual possibility of sin. Socrates did not believe that a person who actually "knows" right from wrong would ever do wrong and thus anyone doing wrong must not truly, actually, "know." Thus ignorance of true right and wrong is the only sin in Socrates' understanding. Kierkegaard says no, it's not in the lack of education that makes sin sin, it's in the Will's rebellion against God.
But it also is correct, because...
"[It] means that the Greek mind does not have the courage to say that someone knowingly does wrong, that knowing the right thing to do he still does the wrong thing. So it covers itself by saying, 'When someone does the wrong thing, he has not understood the right thing.' [This is] quite correct. And no human being can come further than that. No human begin, of his own, by himself, is able to say what sin is, for sin is what he is in [AKA ignorance]. All his talk about sin is at bottom a glossing over sin, an excuse, a sinful extenuation. For this reason, Christianity begins in another way, by saying that for man to learn what sin is there must be a revelation from God."
He says even the definition of sin we must receive from God. That is in fact the starting point, as you said, in scripture. We are sinful in our ignorance and ignorant in our sinfulness, and only revelation can point out what sin is and teach us what sin is.
"Sin does not consist in a man's not having understood what is right," says Søren, "but in his not wanting to understand it, and in his unwillingness to do what is right [after revelation]."
Kierkegaard goes on to say that this is impossible to "comprehend" (which is how humans relate to the temporal sphere), and must simply be "believed" (how humans relate to the divine).
Bottom line, everything is received from God as grace through revelation, and all else, any attempt at even trying to comprehend what sin is outside of God's revelation is, well, sin.
This definition of sin, however interesting to think about, seems inoculate to me. It doesn't match with reality, at least how I see it. Doesn't shore up with the shittiness of sin, the fall out, and how we can hurt each other.
ReplyDeleteBesides, what's the point in defining sin if leading a moral life (a.k.a trying not to sin) is a sin? And in that line, trying not to try not to sin is also a sin.
Amy- First, I don't know what you mean by "inoculate." Second, can you explain more how it doesn't match up with reality? Third, the point is that sin is inescapable. We cannot help but sin. In fact, we cannot help but want to sin. Righteousness, or sinlessness, or good works in general, are only possible when given by God. Many people try and live good lives as a way of making themselves more deserving of heaven. My point is that even the good things we do are really self-motivated, and therefore even they just highlight our unworthiness all the more. Luckily for us, admission to heaven isn't based on merit. Living a moral life, no matter how worthy a goal it is, is not the point of the Christian life.
ReplyDeleteBy inoculate, I mean weak. The effects of sin in the world are really bad. That doesn't match with sin simply being a failure to receive something, which is doubly passive.
ReplyDeleteI'm with you on the rest of it.
john--
ReplyDeletethank you for explaining your ideas on a very elementary subject; i apologize for the detour. I think it was right to narrow down my critique to the evangelical mindset. Ever since I was a little girl I've always been annoyed with the sinners prayer lalalala mind frame. It was boring and well, not correct. What are your thoughts on Universalism? You mentioned that God works through people to bring about the idea of the need for salvation. Does this apply to everyone?
It seems as if kyle and amy actually agree on something in regards to theology. When reading the comments on Coen brother's film, A Serious Man, I would have thought such an idea impossible. I tip my hat (if i ever wore a hat) to the both of you.
Kyle exhales the ideas of Soren, who defines sin as a deliberate act of evil, and amy argues the same position more or less, by stating that the sin in the world isn't just passive refusal of God's gift; it is extremely bad.
The quote john gave, a failure to receive sin, doesn't quite negate the ideas that both ky and ams are presenting. To fail to receive from God (according to this definition) can only mean evil, thus intentional, and awful acts of injustice and selfishness.
Amy: first of all, I don't think that sin is a passive thing, and I don't think that this definition implies passivity either. In fact, I think it says exactly the opposite. Sin is being active when we should be passive. The definition says "fails (kind of a formal logic way of saying doesn't) to recieve (which is passive)." "Fails" doesn't imply passivity, it simply means not doing (or being, depending on the context) whatever the condition is, whether that be active or passive. If someone fails to walk to work, it could mean they just sat at home (passive), or it could mean they ran to work (active). So, to sum up, in a sense the definition means that sin is to not be passive. (I kind of feel like I'm beating a dead horse here. If I am, let me know. I'm not a doctor, so sometimes I have a hard time figuring out whether the horse is in fact dead or not.)
ReplyDeleteSecond, I can see what you mean by the bad effects of sin not being explicitly in the definition, but I think they follow from it. When we self-centeredly refuse to receive morality or good works from God, we end up acting in ways that are immoral and hurt others.
I don't know though. What do you think would be a better definition? Or how could this one be modified to make the bad effects of sin more clear?
Annie: your welcome! I'm glad that made sense to you and I hope I didn't come across as condescending. Also, no need to apologize, I love detours!
ReplyDeleteAnyway, here's what I think about Universalism. I think that Jesus' sacrifice is for everyone, but it seems that not everyone accepts it. I know that may seem backward considering what I wrote earlier, but I think that belief itself is a gift from God. Does that mean that God didn't choose to give faith to those who don't believe? I guess so, I'm not sure. Does that mean that God chose some for heaven and others for hell, as TULIP says? Again, I don't know. What I do believe is that Jesus died for everyone but not everyone recieves it, although whether that is the fault of God or of the person I have no idea.
John,
ReplyDeleteHmm. I failed to receive my New York Times today, grunt. :(
Thanks for answering me and everybody, by the way.
I'm not sure why it's important to have a definition of sin. At least if we agree that sin is a) unavoidable and b) forgiven. Why do you think it's important?
But anyway, I've heard sin compared to a disease or condition, or it paired with words like brokeness. Stuff a bit more emotive and not quite as academic. Hehe, epidemic not academic. Pandemic!
Maybe something as simple as adding expletives would help it resonate (to me): a sinner, in the final analysis, is someone who #$%#$!@ fails to receive from God.
Sorry if this is stupid.
But how do we come to the conclusion that sin is unavoidable? You can say that the bible says so, but a lot of "bible believing" christians would say that unavoidable means you'll sin at least once your whole life. I like this definition because I think it has something to say to a lot of people. You may not be one of those people.
ReplyDeleteAlso, it helps me to give a basic definition and work from there, rather than try to define something by it's effect, which (with sin anyway) seems like it could be a slippery slope.
see i told you that you needed to write more. look at your popularity!
ReplyDelete