SIN
What does sin have to do with anything?
Let's get the definition from the dictionary. Sin is a transgression
or a religious or moral law, especially when deliberate. In theology
it is a condition of estrangement from God as a result of breaking
his law. It can be any offense, violation, fault, or error. I have
had sin on my mind the past few days. Actually, it has been on my
mind more often over the last two years since Trump was elected. Of
course, I have calculated the wages of sin in my own case almost all
my life and I think it is the persistence of sin that has kept me on
the path of right behavior, to the extent it is possible for me to do
that. Much depends on my mental life and experiences and those have
shaped my idea of sin.
Sin has been a weighty topic for me in
my Christianity and less so in my Zen Buddhism. As a Christian one is
forever reminded of what price Jesus paid for all of our sins. The
foundation of the Christian faith is based on the story of Adam and
Eve and how now everyone born to the earth is born a sinner—all
because our spiritual progenitors ate an apple. I suppose that
supposition of a sinful beginning infused my initial experiences in
Christianity and in Quakerism. It wasn't so noticeable in Quakerism
as practiced in an unprogrammed way. There wasn't anyone to reinforce
one's sinfulness. What sins one had were taken before God in silent
worship and dealt with there. I think this is how I have come to the
idea of sin.
Now, what has gotten my curiosity is a
combination of some promptings from the likes of Krista Tippett and
David Brooks. They were included in my musings in this week's letter
to the kids. I tend to churn some ideas for a while and try to see
them for different angles to better understand them and me. My
recent reading of David Brooks' The Road to Character and
a Krista Tippett interview with Anand Giridharadas in which they
talked about aspects of spirituality related to the economic system
we live under. David Brooks calls for a heightened “moral ecology”
in his book, all of it devoted to profiling the lives of a few people
whom he thought had lived a moral life, given different life
circumstances. Both sources probe the question of sin in indirect
ways, just as we now acknowledge sin in ways that do not directly
name it.
Krista
often laments (I think that is the best word to describe her
frustration and tone of loss) that we don't have adequate language to
talk about some of the most troublesome problems in our society in
the 21st
century. She says we don't have the words to create common ground,
words that people on different sides of the political and economic
divides can agree upon to discuss their biases. My thoughts are that
we do have the words and they are common words with many definitions
and nuances. We are limited to the words that have always been used
to describe everything we now share or experience. I don't think
Krista would want to invent some new words for concepts that lie at
the heart of our differences. New words in this context would make no
sense and would be a return to the Tower of Babel. There would be no
way to create a context of sharing in which warring parties could
communicate. So, what is the lamentation all about?
I
think some of the answer to that question stems from having words
with robust meanings drop out of our lexicon. The word “sin,” for
example, is a word with meanings almost everyone on the planet can
agree on. But in my recent experience, I don't read or hear anyone
using it in daily discourse. I don't hear anyone using it in the
contexts of politics, economics, social media, medicine, law,
journalism, or commerce. In some ways, sin has become a relative term
in an age in which the president has normalized sin. He has deceived
his own followers with talk that is blatantly false. He has claimed
that the media publish “fake news.” He has as much as admitted to
acts of misogyny and molestation that in the public square for common
citizens have resulted in indictments and convictions. He has
criticized and pilloried those he suspects of being “disloyal” to
him. He has in this way committed acts of character assassination and
outright defamation of character. He infringes on the rules of law
and those of globally recognized human rights. He is rude and coarse
in his language (not that that is a sin, apparently) and demeaning of
others. When his behavior is highlighted in the media (as it is every
single day now for two years) there is rarely a reference to his evil
nature. The word “evil” can't be used by those who recognize the
behavior for what it is, but themselves have some internal
proscription against using it in public.
I
think we are co-opted by this man and by our own ambivalence with
concepts like evil and sin. He has intimidated almost
everyone into accepting his normalized sinful and evil behavior. I
think we can use the power of these two words in ways that uphold
their opposites. We can reinforce the strength of making moral and
ethical choices by once again using powerful words to defeat the
ideas Trump's alternate reality promulgates. I think these evil ideas
and motivations have always been a part of our human condition but
over the centuries they have sulked into the woodwork and then
resurfaced—over and over. We have had a period with Obama in which
they were solidly in the woodwork but now they have emerged once
again and they have a voice of a president to give them power they
don't deserve in a civilized country. I see this happening in
different societies across the globe and an emergence in one place
reinforces its appearance somewhere else in the world. Anti-semitism
is one of these tools of the aggrieved and it is now on the rise in
America. It has always been part of our national character, an evil
occurrence at any time. It is not clear to me why the Jewish people
have been so targeted over the centuries and it is even less clear to
me why it should be reignited now. In any case, we ought not attach
the word “evil” only to the killing of Jews in their synagogues,
but to call it evil when the slightest hint of anti-semitism arises
in conversations, in print, or on the walls of the synagogues
themselves.
I have been thinking about the extent
to which language and social structures intersect and interact to
shape one another. I have curiosity about how language evolves along
with society and the parameters that change the way societies change.
In what ways has society changed now that has us normalizing evil and
sinful acts and speech? If we haven't had a need for the words “evil”
and “sin,” then why should that be if the facts of their
existence are part of human behavior, albeit an unseemly and
primitive aspect? Who can help me understand this?
I recalled reading a Jonathan Edwards
(his image graces this post) sermon titled Sinners in the Hands of
an Angry God in my high school
class on American history/literature, the “combined class” of my
junior year. Even then, there were no yawning pits of hell described
or subscribed to in the Christianity of my youth. In fact, the
sermons of Billy Graham I heard on the radio on Sunday mornings were
more intimidating and threatening than what I read of Jonathan
Edwards. With that in mind, I reread that sermon and tried to
reposition myself in the mindset of his times. We have had layers of
centuries to bury the fear and trembling that must have been part of
daily life in the early colonies. On this side of life there were
fears and threats of a subsistence existence that made a life in
heaven desirable. Thinking that all of that safety and comfort from
pain and suffering could be wiped away by one's sins on earth must
have kept the attention of the faithful. What in our society today
could equal the conditions under which morals, ethics, and a faithful
life would be the desirable path? What would our hell look like? And
to whom would we turn to save us from it?
I read today that a
Pew Center for Research poll found that 90% of Americans believe in
God or some transcendent force. This was surprising to me, given that
it is also true that many now call themselves spiritual but not
religious and attendance at formal places of worship has dropped over
time. Apparently, there are new expressions of spirituality. Four new
paths were profiled in the article in the Washington Post. One was
the Christianity of the rodeo circuit where contestants find their
spiritual lives in the arenas. Another was the pursuit of witchcraft.
A Buddhist monastery in the South was also included—a nod to
spiritual but not religious. Buddhism is a mixed concept for many
people because it is non-deist but still considered a religion. It
attracts many people who don't feel comfortable with present day
Judaism, Christianity, or Islam.
I
admit to the comforts of Zen in my own life during periods when I
questioned the role of Christianity in my spiritual life. I used it
as cover for not facing the importance of Christian discipline and
commitment in the formation of my own faith. But my own life has
evolved and over the years I have found a place for both Christianity
and Zen Buddhism. I have been haunted by the likes of Dietrich
Bonhoeffer and Thomas Merton and have found daily comfort and
spiritual direction from the simple faith of Brother Lawrence (The
Practice of the Presence of God).
Yet, Zen has opened many doors onto the spiritual landscape for me
and I adhere to my bodhisattva vows (vows we took as chaplaincy
students in our commitment of service) as a path to right behavior. I
don't remember Roshi Joan Halifax, my teacher, discussing evil or sin
during our chaplaincy training at Upaya, but it was in the background
of the teachings around facing one's obstacles, facing social
injustices and transgressions, and developing a habit of social
action to combat inequities and suffering. So, once again, the
powerful words “evil” and “sin” were there but not used in
the robust way they could have been. If one doesn't use the word for
what it signifies, then there is some commission and omission in
bypassing the essence of what they describe. Buddhists refer to such
things as delusions which includes the usual human faults and
failings such as lust, greed, anger, etc. But the word “sin”
isn't used. Perhaps that is a result of the Buddhist belief that all
of us are born pure and without fault and that we spend our lives on
a path to redeem our purity after backsliding into those states that
characterize human nature.
I don't claim any
great insights into this dilemma of making meaning of our present day
circumstances and somehow relating them to some sort of redemption.
In fact, what I say here is pretentious and assumes more than I know.
I am in a state of curiosity and that makes me sound more erudite
than I really am. But I want to return to Jonathan Edwards and let
you read what he spoke to his timorous flock on July 8, 1741.
“There is laid in
the very Nature of carnal man a Foundation for the Torments of Hell.
There are those corrupt Principles, in reigning Power in them, and in
full Possession of them, that are Seeds of Hell Fire. These
Principles are active and powerful, and exceeding violent in their
Nature, and if it were not for the restraining Hand of God upon them,
they would soon break out, they would flame out after the same Manner
as the same Corruptions, the same Enmity does in the Hearts of damned
Souls, and would beget the same Torments in 'em as they do in them.”
“Sin is the Ruin
and Misery of the Soul; it is destructive in it's Nature; and if God
should leave it without Restraint, there would need nothing else to
make the Soul perfectly miserable.”
“But the foolish
Children of Men do miserably delude themselves in their own Schemes,
and in their Confidence in their own Strength and Wisdom; they trust
to nothing but a Shadow.”
“Were it not that
so is the sovereign Pleasure of God, the Earth would not bear you one
Moment; for you are a Burden to it; the Creation groans with you; the
Creature is made Subject to the Bondage of Corruption, not willingly;
the Sun don't willingly shine upon you to give you Light to serve Sin
and Satan; the Earth don't willingly yield her Increase to satisfy
your Lusts; nor is it willingly a Stage for your Wickedness to be
acted upon; the Air don't willingly serve you for Breath to maintain
the Flame of Life in our Vitals, while you spend your Life in the
Service of God's Enemies. God's creatures are Good, and were made for
Men to serve God with, and don't willingly subserve to any other
Purpose, and groan to their Nature and End. And the World would spue
you out, were it not for the sovereign Hand of him who hath subjected
it in Hope.”
“The wrath of God
is like great Waters that are dammed for the present; they increase
more and more, and rise higher and higher, till an Outlet is given,
and the longer the Stream is stop'd, the more rapid and mighty is
it's Course, when once it is let loose.”
“... you are in
the hands of an angry God; 'tees nothing but his meer Pleasure that
keeps you from being this Moment swallowed up in everlasting
Destruction.”
“You hang by a
slender Thread, with the Flames of divine Wrath flashing about it,
and ready every Moment to singe it, and burn it asunder; and you have
no Interest in any Mediator, and nothing to lay hold of to save
yourself, nothing to keep off the Flames of Wrath, nothing of your
own, nothing that you ever have done, nothing that you can do, to
induce God to spare you one Moment.”
It is at this point
that I turn to the news of the day and the ongoing holocaust wildfire
that has destroyed so much of California geography, including the
town of Paradise. Its power and ferocity has caught people seeking
escape in their cars on clogged roads and incinerated all in its
path. How could these people have prepared for such a tragedy? And
how about the innocent victims of wars in Syria, Yemen, Iraq, and
Afghanistan? And the genocides in Yemen and Myanmar? I think about
the catastrophes of Indonesian and Japanese tsunamis and the
devastation of hurricanes such as the one striking New Orleans some
years back. How does one predict the power of such circumstances and
isn't one brought to one's knees without recourse to conventional
methods of control?
What is in the
offing of a life lived coarsely, deceitfully, evilly, and without
regard for the separation that exists between life as a thug on the
street (or in the White House) and a life with a view of heaven? What
does one turn towards in times of catastrophe and thuggery? Are we
not challenged to imagine our lives differently? Isn't Jonathan
Edwards pointing towards the inflation of ego that David Brooks names
the “Big Me”? It is possible to meet these challenges to ego
inflation by reshaping a moral base and reintroducing the words and
concepts that “sin,” “evil,”and “soul”, connote. It is
possible to formulate a secular and somewhat sanitized “platform”
for revising our relationships with the earth and with one another.
It is also possible to revitalize the religious base of belief that
is still present in the traditional religions as well as the
alternative spiritual practices now being explored.
The
idea of a newly imagined public theology is surfacing in pockets of
discernment. I suggest that we reexamine and reexplore the roots of
our American public theology to see if there might be some useful
material that could contribute to this dialogue. Is it possible for
us to bring Jonathan Edwards and the scientists investigating climate
change and its consequences together in the same dialogue about what
might be a humane course forward in our fractious world? What do we
have to lose by thinking out loud about human pride, acquisitiveness,
accountability, and responsibility in light of natural occurrences
for which we still have no full explanation, let alone any reasonable
means of dealing with their consequences? Public theology must
imagine its intersections with science, consumerism, the fate of the
earth, as well as the human need, desire, and drive to make meaning
of not-knowing and what it means to lack the control over our own
destinies that we now assume to possess. Could we turn to faith as a
beginning? Could we use our faith not as a way of avoiding our
difficult circumstances, but as a way of confronting them and working
with them for humane purposes? Could we face sin and evil head on and
name them for what they are as a way of deflating their power? What
are our intentions for our common fate?