It rained yesterday: an unusual occurrence here in Raleigh over the past 3 months or so. In order to further enjoy the precipitation (and a little bit of humidity), I took my newly arrived edition of Time Magazine out to the front porch, plopped down in a camp chair, and set to reading. Articles about the governor of New York who recently resigned due to exposure of involvement in a prostitution ring, the decline of the movie star, and the 'reinvention' of Jesus as a Jew (you mean he isn't white!?) all drew my attention. But the one that was the most thought provoking was the final essay in the magazine.
Titled 'The New Road to Hell,' the essay comments on the Vatican's new additions (unofficially, I think) to the list of the seven deadly sins. According to the Pope, "We are losing the notion of sin." Their (the Papacy and some Catholic officials) solution is to, in a sense, broaden the list of sins which must be confessed. To sins like lust, pride, and gluttony are added a laundry list of social sins: " "You offend God not only by stealing, blaspheming or coveting your neighbor's wife" but also by polluting, cloning, taking drugs, promoting social injustice or becoming obscenely rich." (Double quotes are Gianfranco Girotti's, #2 official over confessions and penitence)As Gibbs, the author points out, "...sin is the saboteur that keeps us from grace, separates us from God. The new list is about what separates us from one another." She suggests that this broadening of the spectrum of sin will ultimately "make sin smaller, not bigger or more relevant."
I agree with her, but for different reasons. It is not the "abstraction" of formerly intimate failings, as Gibbs suggests, that will make sin diminish in severity. Rather, it is the object of our sin that will result in this decline. Joseph, in his defense against Potiphar's Wife, says "How can I do this great wickedness and sin against God?" (Gen 39:9) David, in confessing his sin with Bathsheba, declares to God "Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight." (Psalm 51:4) Paul, on the road to Damascus, is questioned by Christ (who, by this point, has ascended), who says "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?" and "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting." (Acts 9:4 & 5) Clearly, the understanding of sin in the Old and New Testaments is that sin is always against God.
This poses a problem. Sin is only as bad or serious as the one sinned against. (I'm pretty sure somebody else said that, but I can't for the life of me remember who.) The problem with the new list of sins is that it switches the victim of our sin from God to men. When that happens, the severity of our sin lessens infinitely: men aren't so great, so what's the big deal if we offend a couple? But if we maintain a right view of sin, that it is always against God, the seriousness of our sin and our plight remains. God is infinite, and therefore we, in our sins, are infinitely in need of grace. The glory of the cross is that our infinite God came to Earth in human form (for only a man could pay for the sins of man) to pay the infinite cost of our sin. The triumph of the resurrection is that this infinite God credited to us His own infinite righteousness, allowing us to come before Him in prayer, supplication, and praise.
5 comments:
"...sin is the saboteur that keeps us from grace, separates us from God."
Those are interesting words. I'm so glad this statement is only partially true. Sin indeed separates us from GOD (holy can have nothing to do with unholy). But NOTHING can separate us from his love and grace. (Rom. 8:38-39)
This quote is indicative of works-theology: I have to stop sinning in order to get to (earn?) grace. Lady, if sin avoidance is what's needed in order to get to grace, what you're getting to is not grace.
Sin and GRACE have ann odd relationship: "The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord" (Rom. 5:20-21).
Very true.
I had a similar conversation with my only other reader (my mom is the only one who posts on my blog. :( sad day), but she isn't brave enough to post on here.
As I told her, the author is not a Christian and I don't have the right to change her quotes. Maybe I should have pointed it out in the post, but oh well. People seem to recognize the fault.
I do think that one of the reasons for this idea that 'sin separates us from grace' is the popular conception that 'God' and 'grace' are interchangeable. People recognize grace as a characteristic of God, not a gift extending from His perfect justice. Obviously this is a faulty assumption, but it exists nonetheless.
No, no -- I knew it was the author's voice, and knew that you saw the error in her remark. I raised you from a pup, after all.
I knew that it was her saying that, and that she, more than likely, is not a Christian. I was just stating what I thought about when I read it (which is apparently what your mom thought as well-- except she said it way better than I ever could)... AHHHHH... I'm about to post on a blog... how's that for bravery?... still a little nervous, though...haha
~Hannah
Glad to be in the company of such astute and observant readers who already corrected the wayward theology of the article's author. It seems my fellow readers are more timely, too...I´m what might be referred to as a minor aftershock.
Post a Comment