|
Ian's commentary today has partly been triggered by recent
commentaries by Andrew Kania and Peregrinus on morality. Ian's indicates
that what he is endeavouring to do in this commentary is to augment what
they had to say with these further thoughts written from the perspective
of a biblical scholar.
 The
traditional teaching of the Church on sin, especially what we used to
call "mortal sin", is that for an action, thought or inaction
to be considered "sinful" it requires full knowledge and complete
consent. This position seems straight forward. It presupposes
that the potential "sinner" must have knowledge of the sinful
character of the act; that is, of its opposition to God's law. It also
implies consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice.
The world has radically changed, however. Huge paradigm shifts have occurred
such that we are beginning to question the basis of all "truths"
that we once held to be immutable and unchanging. This is a common trend
in what we call the "Post-Modern World". This age challenges
us to question the accuracy of our moral compass. In particular, in the
present climate and at the current state of our knowledge of genetics
and human development (physical and mental) we might ask questions about
the degree of knowledge and consent individuals have in their actions.
Dr Andrew Kania has contributed several very good essays on this issue
over the last few months ("Andrews Take"
2007). However, I would like to add some biblical insights into
the more fundamental question: what is sin?
Nature, Nurture and Circumstance…
Once upon a time we thought of alcoholics as sinful. Now we understand
that the alcoholic may have both a genetic predisposition to addiction,
and personal experiences may have forced certain actions upon him/her.
Moreover, once "hooked" the alcoholic is no longer completely
in control. Few of us would still consider the alcoholic to be engaged
in committing a mortal sin. But what of other "sins"?
More thorny is the question: Can we say the Homosexual is sinful? I know
that we distinguish between homosexual acts and the person who is so inclined
to those acts. But are the acts in themselves inherently sinful? The traditional
Catholic answer is yes. But need this also mean that a particular person
engaged in such acts is committing mortal sin if they have neither full
knowledge nor sufficient control to give adequate consent? After all,
the Church has always recognised that "the
promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and
free character of the offence, as can external pressures or pathological
disorders" — so says the Catechism (1860).
Perhaps we could be even more provocative. What about the paedophile?
I am not in any way suggesting that paedophilia is acceptable or excusable
on the basis of either nature or nurture. But I am asking if we assume
that the paedophile is in some way controlled by genetics or upbringing
(an assumption that is implicit in much that is written about the difficulties
involved in rehabilitating paedophiles) must we also say that their actions
are not "sinful"? Surely they have a "pathological
disorder" that mitigates the sinful nature of their inclinations
and actions.
What of murder? We would all agree that murder is inherently sinful,
but some might be willing to say that murder is sometimes unavoidable.
For instance, in times of war or in an act of self-defence we might be
inclined to say that the "murderer" was not acting with sufficient
freedom so as to allow us to classify his or her actions as "sinful".
In this case "external pressures"
may mitigate the act.
But, where do we draw the line? What is "sin"
today? How do we judge what is sinful and what is beyond our control?
For Christians there is the added conundrum of determining what role
Jesus' death played in "paying the price" for our sins. Whether
we believe that Jesus died to atone for our sins or was murdered because
of human sinfulness (Elmer, 2006), there is
implicit in both theologies the notion of redemption. This idea of redemption
incites questions about our "fallen state" - from what do we
need to be redeemed?
From What Do We Need to be Redeemed?
Once upon a time we could answer that question rather glibly by reference
to the Original Sin of the
man and the woman in the Garden in Genesis 2-3. We have inherited from
our first parents a propensity for sin and evil. But biblical scholarship
and biological science has long since taught us that such literalist readings
of the scriptures can no longer be tolerated. And yet the doctrine of
Original sin continues to speak to the human condition in such a profound
way — it speaks powerfully of all our inherited limitation.
In some cases human limitation is genetic, in others it is the result
of poor nurturing or past trauma. Nevertheless, there is probably very,
very few of us who reach adulthood without some severe limitations on
our ability to act lovingly and selflessly. The human condition is a shared
experienced of a fallen humanity. We all feel the need, indeed we all
have a need, for redemption and liberation.
From another perspective, teaching young people about the Catholic faith
has led me to realise that we still have a long way to go in terms of
reinvigorating our image of God. So many Catholics still think of God
analogically as the Judge who tallies
up our good and bad deeds in a balance sheet that will commend or condemn
us in the end. Consequently, we continue to view morality and ethics in
juridical perspectives, speaking in very "black and white" expressions
of "just punishments".
We have lost the sense of what we mean by sin and, even more importantly,
we have loss the notion of redemption.
God is not seen as the forgiving lover, but rather many assume that the
Church still teaches a God who is the formidable judge — and as a
result that vision of God is roundly rejected by most people "outside"
the Church (even by many of us "inside" as well).
Our theology has changed, but we haven't been very successful in spreading
the word about that change. The Church does have a wealth of wisdom in
terms of the nature of the human condition, but it is still, in the popular
imagination, tied to old worn-out literalist readings of the scriptures.
We Are All Adam and Eve…
I would encourage people to go back and read the story of the Man and
Woman in the Garden (Genesis 2:4-3:24). Peregrinus
(2007) has previously offered us an excellent
exegesis of this ancient myth in a two-part
commentary; but I would just like to add a couple of further comments
relevant to the present discussion.
The story of the Man and Woman in the Garden is a remarkably rich story
that tells of the primal, genderless "everyman" (ha adam)
who is born of the earth (ha adama) and the breath or wind (ruarch)
of God - an anthroplogy that says so much about our basic makeup, torn
between the earthy matter of day-to-day existence and the intangible spiritual
quest for meaning.
The earth creature is split into two sides (sela), which are then
covered over to make man (ish) and woman (ishshah) (Gen
2:21-24). The man and woman are tempted to disobey God's commands
and as a result all of their most important relationships are shattered.
Their relationship with God is destroyed when they feel shame in his
presence and are forced to leave God's presence (Gen
3:10).
Their relationship with each other is skewed when the man gains dominion
over the woman (naming her Eve) and establishes the patriarchal society
(Gen 3:16).
The relationship with the environment is changed as humans must now labour
hard to make the earth bring forth its crops (Gen
3:17-19), while snakes, which represent all the wild beasts of
creation, become a thing of fear (Gen 3:16).
This is a profound story that speaks of the notion of sin as a
breakdown in relationships. It stresses what is the quintessential
hallmark of the Christian-Jewish tradition — morality, ethics and
sin are all to do with relationships.
The Ten Commandments are interesting in the fact that only three of the
laws pertain to how we relate to God, but seven teach us how to treat
other people. Not by accident did Jesus say that Love of Neighbour is
related to Love of God - that we cannot love God if we do not love our
neighbour. This is a central tenet of the Judeo-Christian tradition that
goes all the way back to those wonderful myths of the primal human in
the Garden.
Sin is Social…
My understanding of sin as a breakdown in relationships is a biblical
one. The biblical concept of sin is far more complex than our more recent
bipartite distinctions between mortal and venial sins. The latter approach,
which is that of modern moral theology, is defined according to individual
volition in the transgression of divine law. In the scriptures this approach
is only part of a broader set of concepts.
The basic Hebrew word for sin is hatt't,
which means "to miss the mark" - i.e. to fail to achieve a benchmark
or hit a target set in terms of one's relationships with either God or
other people. Linguistic studies reveal that the word has its roots in
ancient political language where the same word is used to describe a rebellion
of a vassal against and overlord. Given that the Decalogue (Ten Commandments)
appear to be structured according to the template of an ancient suzerainty
treaty (a set of conditions imposed by an imperial nation upon its vassal
states) this basic notion of sin is the closest the scriptures come to
our notion of sin.
The best example of this kind of sin is that of the Man and Women in
the Garden who fail to live according to the minimal commandments made
by God regarding the tree that bore the fruit of knowledge of good and
evil.
Another word, 'awon, suggests
a further sinful condition where one is twisted or distorted by an unwillingness
to live according to acceptable standards within one's relationships.
The word is often translated as "guilt", but the concept is
far richer than this. The condition is seen in terms of permanent damage
done to one's psyche by regularly acting inappropriately towards others.
The constant failure to seek open and loving relationships perpetuates
and increases one's self-centredness and selfishness. Evil begets evil;
selfish choices ultimately lead to loneliness and self-hatred. Here the
most obvious example is that of Cain whose hatred of his brother seethed
within him leading to murder and exile.
Still another term, peša',
means outright rebellion against God and against others. It is primarily
seen in terms of interpersonal relationships where it designates the violation
of the rights of others. It is a sin that can be committed by both individuals
(as in the traditional prophetic condemnation of the ill treatment of
widows, orphans and strangers) or communally (as in Israel's failure to
live according to the demands of the Covenant).
We are told in the story of the Flood that human sin had spread wickedness
across all the world and that "every inclination of the thoughts
of their hearts were only evil all the time" (Gen
6:5). Murder and mayhem had become rife and humans were now in
open rebellion against God's standards.
Finally, scriptures speak of ma' al,
which is understood as infidelity or the breaching of an obligation that
was freely given. In that sense it is most closely related to the covenant
contract, of which the Ten Commandments are the "fine print".
But this form of sin is also seen more fundamentally as a folly; as living
a lie or being a hypocrite; as acting falsely and abandoning the truth.
The people who built the tower of Babel thought that they could reach
God by their own efforts, a folly that led to the disaster of disunity
and ultimately war between nations. This form of sin owes much to what
we would later call "Natural Law", the idea that right moral
behaviour is self-evident and the failure to adhere to that moral code
is foolish, leading only to disaster and self-destruction.
Final Reflections…
There is here a rich vein of ancient wisdom that needs to be mined anew
in our quest to re-envisage our moral theology in this post-modern world.
We need to rediscover the more radical notions of human moral relationships
and eschew our almost unwavering focus on the far too narrow concept of
genital relations. All-too-often "moral theology" has come to
be seen as all about "sexual ethics". Not that the latter is
unimportant, but it must be seen against a broader background.
I have spoken elsewhere about "appropriate" levels of contact
commensurate with relationships. Genital relations are appropriate within
long-term committed loving relationships, but not in short-term ones that
focus more on selfish needs. Still the issues relating to genital relations
are but one aspect of the larger set of issues concerning moral behaviour
within relationships.
 In
the past, we would simply attribute our sinfulness to our "fallen
state", the sinful inheritance of Adam and Eve. Traditional atonement
theology would say that Jesus died to atone for our sins and liberate
us from the bondage of "original sin" — but I think that
we need to rethink this traditional view before we can fully appreciate
the true nature of sin.
This is not to say that we can abandon the doctrine of "Original
Sin". However, I would not hold to the idea that God imposed original
sin on all humanity. On the contrary, I would argue that a loving God
would no more demand a blood sacrifice of his Son than he would have placed
blame upon the blameless in the first instance. Both of these "beliefs"
are conclusions drawn from a literal reading of the Scriptures.
My approach begins with a fundamentally different presupposition. I believe
that the scriptures are myths, not in the sense of being untrue or fictional,
but in the sense that they are timeless stories that speak to our shared
experience of the human condition.
The story of the Man and Woman in the Garden is a very ancient story
that is meant to "explain" human suffering and limitation. It
is not meant to be read literally - that God punished our first parents
for their sin. Rather, this story "explains" that when relationships
break down (i.e. relationships between god and humans, men and women,
humans and nature) things go awry. Humans try to be "like gods",
men dominate women, humans misuse and destroy the earth; and, as a result,
we have societies that are beset by crime, immorality, and manmade disasters
(like global warming).
In this view, the doctrine of original sin retains a strong mythic quality
that continues to speak to human inadequacy and limitation - inadequacies
and limitations that can, if unchecked by recourse to God, lead to sin,
depravity and tragedy. The concept of original sin evolved out of our
shared experience of being limited humans as well as our shared experience
of being totally dependent upon God for redemption and salvation from
those limitations. As such, I think that the doctrine of Original Sin
is far too valuable to simply discard; but we do need to repackage it
as a first step in attaining a fresh appreciation of the nature of sin
per se.
 Bibliography
and Further Reading:
Elmer, I. (2007), "Why Did Jesus Have to Die?" Catholica
Australia.
URL: www.catholica.com.au/ianstake/016_it_281006.php
Kania, A. (2007) "Index of Commentaries by Andrew Kania". Catholica
Australia.
URL: www.catholica.com.au/andrewstake/index.php
Peregrinus, (2007) "Interpreting the Meaning in the Story of Adam
and Eve, Part 1" Catholica Australia. URL: www.catholica.com.au/peregrinus/039_pere_110407.php
Peregrinus, (2007) "Interpreting the Meaning in the Story of Adam
and Eve, Part 2" Catholica Australia. URL:
www.catholica.com.au/peregrinus/040_pere_180407.php
Photo Credits:
"After Eden" © 2007 Dan Leitha
URL: www.answersingenesis.org/AfterEden/cartoons/aftereden_cartoon.gif
"Confessional" Holy Name Church, Dunedin, NZ. Wikipedia Images
(2007)
URL: upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/84/Confessionalnew.jpg
"Creation of Adam" Michelangelo. Sistine Chapel. Wikipedia
Images (2007)
URL: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:God2-Sistine_Chapel.png
"Decalogue" Catholic Supply (2007).
URL: www.catholicsupply.com/christmas/_borders/26733.jpg
|
 Ian
Elmer is a lecturer in New Testament at ACU National (formally Australian
Catholic University). He is also a member of the Centre for Early Christian
Studies, and was recently admitted into ACBA (Australian Catholic Biblical
Association). His research specialities are Paul and First-Century Christianity.
He is the author of published articles in the Australian Ejournal of Theology
and in Prayer and Spirituality in the Early Church (a publication of the
Centre for Early Christian Studies). He has recently submitted his doctoral
thesis, entitled Paul, Jerusalem and the Judaisers: The Galatian Crisis
in its Broader Historical Context.
|
What are your thoughts on this commentary?
You can contribute your thoughts in our forum.
Ian Elmer can be contacted at: Ian
Elmer <ianelmer@catholica.com.au> Please
Note: You need to remove the "NOSPAM" words at the
beginning of the email address before sending the email"
©2007
Ian Elmer
[Ian's Take Archive]
|
Email
this page to a friend
Print
friendly view
Post
your feedback in our forum
