On Sin, Sinners, and Going to Church
Yesterday I wrote a post on why I go to church and asked you to reflect on the same. I said, in sum, that I go because the good news of God’s abundant and abiding love of all of us is difficult to hold on to and believe in the face of a difficult and challenging life for more than about seven days in a row. I said, in short, that by week’s end I am desperate for another chance to hear the almost-too-good-to-be-true news of God’s love and grace. And then I referenced a video of portions of a sermon from Pope Francis in which he talks about a similar sense of desperation, but from the point of view of the sinner’s need to receive forgiveness.
Even as I made that segue, I felt a slight discomfort, as in my reflection I wasn’t zeroing in on sin, per se, but rather on grace. But I referenced it anyway, thinking that it got at much the same point. Then, in the comments to that post, a wonderful thing happened. One reader, Craig, took my discomfort (though I don’t suspect he knew of it) and raised to the tenth degree by asking whether it may be, in fact, the church’s single-minded focus on us as sinners that has alienated so many from the church. I’ll quote his eloquent comment briefly here to share what I thought was the heart of his point:
It seems the church wants only to see us and receive us as “sinners.” I believe I am so much more than that. I have hopes and dreams, fears and anxiety, I feel lonely and trapped, I need to be touched and loved, I have needs and gifts, I am creative and I fail, I hurt! My relationships struggle. And more.
Craig, thank you. I agree. We are so much more than sinners and have often focused too much on that to the exclusion of the rest of our humanity and (I would argue, the biblical witness). Several other readers invited us to imagine that when we use the word “sinner” we are actually trying to catch more of what Craig said, and I think that’s a fair response, one I’ve also used. But while I agree with that tack, I’m also no longer sure it’s adequate. Indeed, I think it’s time we think carefully and fully about reframing some of our primary theological categories and language. While I can’t explain all of that in this space – truthfully, I haven’t worked it out yet myself! – let me touch on three things that came to mind when reading the discussion around yesterday’s post.
1) The Pope was responding to a particular question: why should I go to church when the people who go continue to be sinners. In that light, I don’t want to take his statements out of context or to imagine this is all he has to say about the human condition, let alone God’s grace.
2) “Sin” for me is a big word, covering not only the “things we do wrong” – which I suspect is the typical use of the word – but also larger issues of pain and want and dislocation and disease that are part and parcel of the human condition. It strikes me as interesting that when Paul talks about sin, it’s almost always in the singular. That is, Paul doesn’t talk about our “sins” but rather about “Sin,” and I capitalize the “S” because in Paul’s writing it feels like Sin a force that is directed against us, a power that seeks to rob the children of God of life abundant in Christ. Hence, poverty, illness, inequality, brokenness – all of this and more reflects “Sin” as I understand it. (Which, I believe, is what some of the folks who commented yesterday were saying.) But we don’t always use the word that expansively. Indeed, we usually narrow it down to moral infractions (most often defined by the religious elite du jour).
3) “Sinner.” Yes, I am a sinner, one who “falls short of the glory of God,” to again borrow from Paul (Rom. 3:23). But is that the whole of our being and, further, the best descriptor of our condition? I wonder.
I heard Rob Bell once say that Christians too often start their story at Genesis 3 – the fall – rather than at Genesis 1 – where God not only creates but calls all creation good. So here’s the question. Can the fall and “original sin” (a term not found in the Bible, by the way) wipe out God’s original blessing?
I sometimes think we’ve fallen into a theology of lack and inadequacy when we are called to a theology of abundance and empowerment. In a theology of inadequacy, sin becomes merely a catalogue of things we’ve done wrong rather than take seriously all the things that keep us from God’s good will and desire for all of us and the whole creation. And grace, too is reduced, as too often grace is shrunken to mean only forgiveness and forgiveness itself no longer implies a restoration of relationship but rather is God overlooking our offenses. From this point of view, the whole enterprise of the Christian life can be reduced to having to face St. Peter at the pearly gates with his long ledger, each sin recorded and then erased by forgiveness understood as divine “white-out.”
And that’s not all. In a theology of inadequacy, the cross seems to function as a device or instrument that makes it possible for an angry and outraged God to forgive us, whereas I see the cross as a visible and poignant expression of God’s love for us already and of God’s victory over all that would separate us from God and each other, including death.
In all these ways, I find much of our typical way of formulating things, well, inadequate. So I am working on articulating what a theology of abundance and empowerment would look like. A theology, that is, that take seriously that Jesus didn’t actually speak of sin all that often, at least no more than he talked about abundance and healing and the day of release, and more.
In this theology of abundance, are we still sinners? Yes, although I’d suggest that that is no longer our primary designation. Rather, we are God’s beloved children whose lives are still colored by sin but who also know themselves to be redeemed and set free to live with purpose.
This is just a start, of course, and hastily written down at that. But I appreciated so much the discussion that got started that I wanted to take some time and space to keep it going. Thanks for reading, all, and for responding as you have time.
I have enjoyed very much the last two posts as well as the discussion and questions raised. The last sermon series we did was entitled “Why Church?” where we ran from the macro to the micro from “Why God?” on down over the course of 8 weeks, and it really was in response to this similar felt need of the ‘value’ of gathering in this way or under this particular reason, etc, especially when the church seems to be so out of touch with the daily living that all of us who make up the church struggle with.
To the concept of “sin” and “sinners”- one of the largest pieces of feedback I fielded was the understanding of talking about sin as brokenness or even more simply the distance and barriers we have in our relationship with God. In a culture that uses the moral designation of “sin” so readily as is the case out here in Kansas (thanks WBC), it is much more of a loaded term than I first knew.
Instead, understanding all the ways we divide and exclude really became a better way for us to discuss the struggle of brokenness. When using “brokenness” it became easier for us to discuss the possibility of moving beyond simply “sinner” to being a participant in God’s big mission, utilizing all those things that God has given us in our daily lives to bear witness and bear Christ in daily living. After all, if we are both sinner and saint, if we spend all our time trying to woo those ‘sinners’ in the doors, what kind of ‘saints’ are we when we go out of these doors- condemnatory? Theoretical and not practical? We must bring to bear all of the nuances that we have and help equip and walk with everyone, those who label themselves sinners and those who feel inadequate in the face of a judgmental God. Both are loved children of God and yet, as the ‘church’, we too often ignore the radical expansiveness and open arms of the crucified God who hugs us close and then pushes us into the world to be those wounded but open hands and feet of God.
I could not read all of “why we go to church – because we’re sinners” post- because it is the same negative stuff I’ve heard for my almost 60 years of my life and most every church I’ve attended. The focus on sin and how humans can never get out of it is very discouraging. Having the Confession in the beginning of worship in order to set us and God straight sets a tone to worship. However, is this really the good news for those who go to church: we confess, God knows because God hears and then forgives us through a Pastor -and Jesus – and then supposedly we are relieved to have been forgiven and continue on our way. For me, this is not the good news. I go to church to hear about love; God’s love for each of us. God’s love which is beyond our comprehension and is so huge, immense and deep that we must, we want to enter it. And if we enter into God’s love, we are changed human beings because love changes a person. I go to church to hear scripture in a fresh new way. To hear the new song being sung to God (by mere sinning mortals)so I feel like I am part of something larger and greater than my little corner in the world. I have always wanted church to focus on how much God loves me – all of us – so when we go out into the harvest we work boldly and confidently out of love. Love is the powerful message for the church not sin.
Right the Confession is not the Good News. The Assurance of Pardon is. The Confession (and the Call to Worship) are intended to get us to the place where we can here the words that convey the meaning, “anyone [anywhere, any time] who is in Christ is a new creation, the old life is gone, new life begins; know that Gd loves you and be at peace.”
That may be the first time I’ve seen written in “theology-speak” what I’ve believed for a long long time. The theology of abundance and empowerment in light of lives still colored by sin… is really good stuff. Because I had an upbringing where love came first (instead of growing up believing I had to earn love), this theology / faith is all relatively easy for me to believe. My heart goes out to those who’ve lived a life believing they have to earn love in human relationships, because how in the world could they ever come to believe in a love so much greater from the Divine!? For pastors to first preach the love EVERY time they preach about life colored by Sin, is vital I believe.
As I watch my daughter and her husband raising little Isaac…. some first responses tend to be about what went wrong. Other first responses tend to be about immediate assistance to make things right. THAT’s what the cross does for all of us. Yep. stuff is wrong. Sin is alive, never going away in this life. Love is immediate and present because of Easter. The immediate response to feeling that love (no matter what) certainly must always be devotion to the Source!! Amen.
“Sin” is a loaded word. Church jargon that is so broad and yet so nuanced that is it almost impossible to know exactly what is meant when we hear it. I do think countless people have walked away from faith communities because they felt their “sin” was too much the center of things. For years, I have tended to use instead “brokenness,” partly because it doesn’t have as much cultural and historical baggage. Brokenness separates me from God, from my neighbor, from the best of who I can be. Over the years, colleagues have accused me of trying to deny or hide human failings by avoiding the word “sin,” but quite honestly, if there are others ways to get at what we really mean that don’t bring all that baggage, I’m all for it. My heart aches for those who have heard condemnation and not heard grace. My heart aches for those who have spoken condemnation, and not forgiveness. My heart aches for all that the community of faith can be in the lives of the people of God, and how many obstacles we seem to have created. . . obstacles that get in the way of our pointing out the love and grace and faithfulness of God. Thank you for your work to find another way to talk about all these powerful and life-giving realities.
I agree with you Alicia
I’m with you (and Dave), Alicia. I try to use brokenness as the word as well to describe our condition of “Sin”, although I’m not sure folks really understand what I’m talking about even though I’ve taken 39 years to try to explain. Paul Tillich was helpful to me on this when I read him at the urging of my campus pastor. Sermon entitled “You are Accepted” in “The Shaking of the Foundations”. Those campus pastors and ministers are so wise!
When the baggage distracts it is best to use other words… maybe sometimes the baggage needs to be explored? Baggage/history might be able to go either way?
As a pastor, I am somewhat immune to the word sin. After a lifetime in the church, it doesn’t pack the punch it did for me years ago. Thank you for the fresh perspective and the reminder about the power of language. The best book I have ever read on the subject is Barbara Brown Taylor’s “Speaking of Sin.” Basically she says that sin is not the deed, but the state of our hearts that caused us to do the deed. It is our hearts that need work and that is where God can help. I come to church because I need my attitude adjusted and be reminded of God’s love for all of us so I can continue to live a life that goes against the grain of the culture. Thanks for your good work. I do appreciate you.
Thank you, thank you, thank you!
I have often thought that, while accepting our sin and repenting of it we are at once accepted, forgiven, and restored; so much more than that, if we yet fall down in our journey we are always loved and will be forgiven by God who is abundant in grace and mercy. I agree that Jesus message seems, on balance,more weighted on love and inclusion rather than sin and judgement and this is the message we need today.
As desparately as I want to be loved, or feel loved, I will not always accept it when offered. For those responsible for leading Confessions and Pardons, please hear and speak these as preparation for love.