Do we still sin?
The doctrine of sin in contemporary theology
by David Phillips
Published: 6 August 2009(GMT+10)
In the last half century the Doctrine of Sin appears to have become a doctrine under
attack in theological circles, but this has largely gone unnoticed. This article1 aims to show how in various
ways the classical doctrine has been challenged. That doctrine can be summarized
as:
- Creation took place in the recent past.
- Sin began in the spiritual realms with the fall of the angels.
- Sin spread to mankind when Adam and Eve fell to temptation.
- Sin was first and foremost a breach of the commands of God.
- There followed a breakdown of relationships between God and mankind and then between
people.
- Death entered as a consequence of the fall.
- The creation became corrupted and corruptible.
Protestantism, Catholicism and Orthodoxy have disagreed about how sin spread from
Adam to his descendants but they were all agreed that it did spread and that the
physical descent from Adam is fundamental to the doctrine.
1. Our understanding of ourselves
In the intellectual arena (rather than what real people think) it is said that the
challenge arose first from the theories of Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung. But, with
the passage of time, their views have infiltrated the popular mind.
1.1 Original goodness not original sin
Do you believe in original sin, or original goodness? The “creation-centred
spirituality” of Matthew Fox and in the controversial The Lost Message ofJesus
by Steve Chalke and Alan Mann have both been accused of having an unbiblical
understanding of human nature. The Orthodox theologian Michael Pomanzansky put it
starkly: “As for the newer sects of Protestantism … they have gone
as far as the complete denial of original, inherited sin.”2
It is bad enough to deny what Scripture teaches but if sin is not really that serious
then the need for the Son of God to bear our sin also becomes unnecessary and the
Biblical doctrine of salvation is a swift casualty.
1.2 Sin as alienation
All the views about the origin of sin assume, to some degree, the truth of Darwinian
evolution and that the earth is very old, contrary to the classical view
Paul Tillich is attributed with first arguing that sin is fundamentally a breach
of relationship. The plight of man does not have to do with immorality and evil
but with alienation and meaningless. “In every soul there is a sense of aloneness
and separation.”3
Alister McGrath has defined sin as “something that separates humankind from
God” and thus “salvation is the breaking down of the barrier of separation
between humans and God on account of Christ.”4
The appeal for many is that it is possible to see the fall as a picture, or story,
of alienation rather than historical fact. In the classical doctrine this breach
of relationship is a consequence of rather than the heart of sin.
1.3 Victimhood
The breakdown of relationship comes into sharp focus when Cain murders Abel. If
one person sins another is often the victim. The idea of victimhood has particularly
appealed to liberation theologians and the cross is seen as showing Jesus as the
victim of others’ sins.
It is a small step to thinking that victims are essentially sinless. But if the
rich and powerful are the greater sinners why did Jesus, “the friend of sinners”,
not spend more time with them? The argument breaks down, but it is nevertheless
widely held. It is safer to say instead that all have a sinful nature but some,
because of their circumstances, impact others more when they fall into sin.
1.4 Failure of potential
Process theology was an attempt to re-cast classical theology in an evolutionary
framework and is particularly associated with Norman Pittenger. In this view “sin
consists of man’s failure by free decision, whether his own or that of the
society in which he shares, to become in reality what in possibility he is made
for.”5 God is no longer
sovereign, and sin marks our failure to live up to our potential. Those who try
to resist theological “progress” and development are therefore particularly
guilty of sin. This is developed particularly in feminist theology.
1.5 A man thing
Valerie Saiving is attributed with the beginning of the feminist attack on the classical
doctrine of sin. Ironically feminist theology is the one area where the doctrine
of sin has remained a prominent theme. Often in the past, women, in particular Eve,
were blamed for sin. Men, it is said, formulated the doctrine of sin but it does
not reflect the experience of women. For feminists Eve’s failure was that
she did not take responsibility for herself. Women will break free of sin when they
do what Eve failed to do, live up to their potential.
In all these ways our understanding of ourselves in the classical doctrine of sin
has been and is being assaulted today.
2. Our understanding of our origins
The second type of challenge relates to human origins. All the views about the origin
of sin assume, to some degree, the truth of Darwinian evolution and that the earth
is very old, contrary to the classical view. If the earth is old, when did sin begin?
2.1 Sin radically new
The first view is that though the universe is old sin had a definite starting point.
Rarely do people spell out what they really believe on this point;. Most hide behind
generalities or plead ignorance but there are two broad variants.
2.1.1 Recent humans, recent sin
Human-like creatures may have been evolving for millions of years but man in the
image of God is a recent arrival. Either man was made by special creation or God
gave an existing creature a soul thus making them human.
2.1.2 Old humans, recent sin
Human beings have been around for a long time, but sin is relatively recent. Again
many writers are wary about spelling out what they believe but many conservative
evangelicals appear to adopt this approach.6
What this means is that death, destruction and disasters occurred long before the
Fall and must have been included in what God calls “very good”. It is
rare that those who put forward this view address how and why they deviate from
the classical doctrine; usually they are content to plead ignorance.
2.2 Sin emerges
The second view asserts that man has fully evolved in the natural world and sin
emerged along the way. There was no special creation and no Fall but again there
are different ways in which this view is articulated. All of them represent a fundamental
break with the classical doctrine of sin.
2.2.1 Sin and survival
“Sin is the inevitable outcome of the struggle to survive.”7 Sin is entirely human, it has no spiritual content;
“evolution, even death and extinction are good unequivocably.”8 Natural evil is thus an illusion
or just a helpful way of describing things. Sin, death and corruption are just natural,
they cannot be avoided.
2.2.2 Leaving sin behind
An alternative is to see sin itself as a stage in the evolutionary process. The
challenge is to rise out of the evolutionary soup and leave sin behind. This resonates
with process theology and appeals to those most concerned with the survival of the
eco-system. Under this view the greatest sins are those things which seem to threaten
our survival. Try questioning Global Warming and you will soon discover this for
yourself.
2.2.3 The Sin Myth
A third variation is found amongst the theological revisionists including the former
Bishop of Newark, Jack Spong and the Cambridge academic Don Cupitt. Sin is just
part of evolution so there is nothing wrong with it. The idea of sin was invented
by men as a weapon of power within religion. They argue that this has turned the
idea of God into a monster and Spong likens the doctrine of atonement to child abuse.9
We see, therefore, that the revisionists are just old-fashioned idolaters; God is
a projection of their own thoughts and ideas. They have no sense that He has revealed
Himself to us.
Summary
The doctrine of sin is far less prominent in theological discussion than it once
was except, curiously, amongst feminists. Classically it was fundamental to explaining
human nature and the doctrine of salvation. Today different understandings of human
nature and human origins lead to a very different idea of sin.
The revisionists are just old-fashioned idolaters; God is a projection of their
own thoughts and ideas. They have no sense that He has revealed Himself to us.
At one end of the spectrum we have seen conservative evangelicals who wish to retain
most of the classical doctrine except the first point—that creation and the
fall occurred in the recent past. It is rare to find that the consequences of this
approach are explored.
Along the way are various views which have sought to shift the focus away from sin
as first and foremost a breach of the commands of God and place the emphasis elsewhere.
Whereas the classical view sought to represent a straightforward reading of the
narrative of Genesis (God said “don’t”—Adam and Eve did)
these contemporary views lean much more heavily on human insights about human nature,
although they may go on to search for support for these insights in the text of
Scripture.
At the far end of the spectrum are those who reject every point of the classical
doctrine. What is more, they argue that the biblical teaching itself is sinful,
because it was invented by men to oppress their fellow men and women. In contrast,
those who accept the biblical teaching cannot but conclude that the revisionists’
attempts to redefine sin are actually a exact illustration of what sin really is:
a failure to accept and live by the Word of God.
"When with his whole soul Adam believed the serpent and not God, then the Divine
Grace which had rested on him stepped away from him, so that he became the enemy
of God by reason of the unbelief which he had shown to His words."10
Further reading
Related resources
References
- A fuller version of this article was published by Church Society
in Churchman Vol 122/2, 2009; (www.churchman.org.uk).
Return to text.
- Michael Pomanzansky, Orthodox Dogmatic Theology,
St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood Press, p. 165, 2005. Return to text.
- Paul Tillich, The Shaking of the Foundations, Charles
Scribner’s & Sons, NY, p. 156, 1955. Return to text.
- Alister McGrath, Theology—The Basics, Blackwell,
Oxford, p. 96, 2007. Return to text.
- Bruce A. Milne, The Idea of Sin in Twentieth-Century Theology,
Tyndale Bulletin. 26:25, 1975. Return to
text.
- For example: Robert S. White, Genesis and Creation,
Reform, Sheffield, 2006, and Sandy Grant, The Design of Genesis, The Briefing,
Issue 337, October 2006. Return to text.
- Charles Sherlock, The Doctrine of Humanity, IVP, Leicester,
p. 63. Return to text.
- Russell and Wegter-McNelly, Science, The Blackwell Companion,
p. 527. Return to text.
- John S. Spong, Why Christianity Must Change or Die,
Harper, San Francisco, p. 95, 1998. Return to text.
- St. Symeon the New Theologian (949–1022AD) cited in:
Pomanzansky Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, p. 158. Return
to text.
|
