Let’s talk about sin and its consequences

In a column I wrote three weeks ago, I mentioned a book that had been given to me as a birthday present. The title is “Sin.” The sub-title is “a history.” The author is Gary Anderson, Old Testament professor at Notre Dame.

I thought the book was important because of the person who sent it to me. I did not at first realize how important the book is. I have now read the book and, to the best of my ability, digested its contents.

The importance of the book is reinforced by reviewers. It was the subject of a long review by Biblical scholar Walter Brueggemann in Christian Century. Christianity Today carried an extensive interview of the author. Martin Marty’s publication Context called attention to the book with a lot of lines. Every commentator gives high marks to Anderson’s scholarship and the importance of his work.

Why is the book so important? There are a lot of things that all would agree are not the way they ought to be. Americans tend to be superficial in our understanding of the world’s woes and give unthinking, ineffective answers to what to do about them. It is my own conviction that sin is a helpful word and needs to be used more often. But what do we mean when we speak of sin? Until we get a grasp on the problem we call sin, we will not find workable solutions.

Secular Americans are especially afraid of the word. In the process of their contemplations, they dismiss the wrongs of the world as breaches of social contracts, transgression of behavioral norms, unwise choices, inadequate impulse control and failure to recognize the rights and interests of others.

Anderson’s first observation is that sin and its underlying images have a long history. With that said, he takes us on a journey. He names three Old Testament images of sin. Sin is a stain that must be cleansed. Sin is a burden that must be removed. Sin is a debt that must be paid. He gives sin as a stain only a brief mention. He spends a chapter on sin as a burden. The bulk of the book is the pursuit of understanding sin as a debt that must be paid. He follows the development of sin as debt in the Bible literature, in the Rabbinic traditions of Judaism and in the fathers of the Roman Catholic Church.

The author makes his case, and is clearly correct, that the image of sin as a debt that must be paid became dominant in Christian understanding. It is the understanding of sin as debt that undergirds the Christian belief that Christ died as a payment for the sins of the world. Sin as debt is the foundation of Roman Catholic Mass and almost all Protestant celebrations of communion.

Anderson makes his point. Life is consequential. Abuse life and there are consequences. God and God’s creation will hold us accountable for abusing one another and earth itself.

I appreciate the scholarship of Gary Anderson and willingly sit at his scholarly feet. However, I do have serious complaints.

Today many Bible scholars recognize not one tradition in the Bible literature, but two. They speak of the great tradition and the lesser tradition. The great tradition was always written by those who were in positions of power. The lesser tradition is always given voice by those outside of the ruling hierarchies. The great traditions of the Old Testament require faithful visits to the temple, proper rituals and sacrifices. The lesser tradition called for pure hearts and kind deeds to widows and orphans. The great tradition demanded sacrifice of bulls and goats. The lesser tradition asked that God’s people do justice, love mercy and walk humbly with God.

Anderson takes no note of the lesser tradition. He is so involved in his meticulous tracing of sin as debt that he never mentions the dissenting voices. He does not give consideration to the other images of sin that are found in the Bible.

The New Testament gives us alternative understandings of sin. In I John the writer speaks of being cleansed from all sin. He was obviously referring to sin as spot or blemish or stain. Paul speaks of sin as burden and suggests that we bear one another’s burdens and so fulfill the law of Christ. He also speaks of sin as falling short and missing the mark of our calling in Christ. In the offering of other images of sin, Paul does not neglect the consequential nature of sin. He reminds us that whatever we sow, we will also reap.

My own understanding is that sin has many faces, and many images are needed better to portray the things that are wrong in our world. Sin must be addressed, and a single image will never give us the answers to what is wrong with the world. Along with the acceptance of the many faces of sin, Christian people need also to accept that the grace of God has many faces as well.

As I have written this commentary my mind keeps going to the burgeoning American prison system. It is a classic example of a mindless application of the understanding of sin as debt. I shudder each time I hear the words, “He must pay his debt to society.” A lot of what ails our world can be addressed with love, kindness, justice and mercy. There are times that sin as debt doesn’t work.

I understand that Prof. Anderson plays golf. I can imagine having the privilege of playing a round of golf with him. Would I dare suggest that there are reasons to have more than one club in his bag?

The Rev. Howard Bess is a retired American Baptist minister who lives in Palmer. His e-mail address is hdbss@mtaonline.net.