How others see us: on sin

If you needed evidence that 'sin' is not a category that is well-enough understood in contempory society for us to use it blithely in evangelism this is a salutary article. It starts by using the term as if expecting everyone to know what is meant, but then, after suspicions have been aroused we discover that, although it is critiquing an ostensibly Christian concept, it is actually dealing with a sub-Christian understanding.

If you’re a Christian and believe that adultery is a sin and after repenting to God via a priest that it’s all forgiven like it never happened, then all effects of it should be gone on Earth as well as in “Heaven” and every other plane of existence. Yet, as we know, it doesn’t work that way. If the Christian God forgives you via the priest’s absolution of sins, then according to that faith/religion, you are indeed forgiven and it’s like it never happened in the Christian God’s eyes. However, that doesn’t mean the partner you cheated on will forgive you and that the consequences/results of your actions will just suddenly go away.
If you’re a Christian and you believe in sin and the forgiveness of it, then you can easily escape the Christian God’s wrath by repenting and working on not repeating the action that is a sin in your faith/belief system/religion. But that does not mean you escape the Law of Return/Threefold Law. You will bear the consequences/results of your actions whether you like it or not. Whether you realize it or not. Whether you admit it to yourself or not. It is what it is - and there is no denying that fact.
“Gee honey…I’m sorry I banged my secretary. Father O’Donovan forgave me, so we’re all good, right? I mean, if I’m all good and OK with God, then it should be OK with you, right?”
If you cheat on your partner and try to use an excuse like that (assuming you’re a Christian or someone that believes in sin/forgiveness), somehow, I don’t think an excuse/explanation like that is going to work.

At least I think that it's sub Christian, [but understandably so]. The main areas of misunderstanding seem to be around: sin as personal in relation to God rather than as somehow karmic; forgiveness not necessarily taking away the knock-on consequences [which is where the notion of penance developed from, which despite medieval misuse deserves thought in terms of repentance including putting right where possible -you know, Zacchaius paying back fourfold kind of thing].

What this article indicates to me is that we may be better to retire the word 'sin' for a while and learn to think about faith without it. -Alan Mann in the book "Atonement for a 'sinless' society" proposes 'abuse' which may be worth pursuing but I suspect we will need a battery of half a dozen words and metaphors. Nothing new there, the original Bible texts actually use several words/metaphors and even the Book of Common Prayer does too... You might want to look at the Open Source Theology review for more info.
How others see us: sin:
Filed in: sin, forgiveness, Christian, pagan