Missing the Mark: On Sin

MOVED!

2011-04-01T12:32:00.002-04:00

Come and check out my new blog - hopefully it will be a blessing.

Just click the title above or go to pa5t0rd.com

A Question…

2010-11-17T20:01:00.001-05:00

When threatening someone with permanent irreconcilable damnation – how do you bring up the potential punisher (G_d) as All-Loving?

Sabbatical from Sin

2010-11-15T19:14:00.001-05:00

It has been an interesting few (several) months – I haven’t had (made) time to continue my studies and writings on sin…but I’ve continued to be engaged by the topic.

I have discovered through many conversations, with many wonderful people, that without sin - Christianity is dead! (note my tongue-in-cheek reference to James) I find this concept fascinating…people can’t fathom a faith that is not based and steeped in the total depravity of man! A faith that doesn’t hinge on sin. Don’t get me wrong – I believe that sin is a topic that needs to be discussed – but not be the lynch pin of our faith! That is the place that is reserved for G_d.

What would it look like if we were truly satisfied with a faith that hinged on love, mercy, and justice.

Sin is indeed a reality but LOVE is the propellant that should compel us towards G_d. A place where there is healing, hope, and wholeness. We don’t NEED sin to see that a life rooted in the Justice of G_d is a better way to live.

It has been an interesting stretch of conversations – covering the landscapes of doctrine and denominations – that has led me to see that we’ve taken our eyes off G_d and set our attention squarely on a theology of sin – a sinology if you will!

May we begin to see the value of love, mercy, and compassion as the fuel of our faith – and leave sin alone!

Interesting...not my cup of tea!

2010-08-11T10:03:00.001-04:00

Link to buy on Amazon

I really wanted to love this book! When I first received it I looked on the back and saw this quote, "OK, so the church is broken, now what?" I was immediately engaged - my interest peaked! You'll probably love this book if you are already angry at the evangelical movement - for you to find a voice that tends to your wounds; I am grateful.

The first thing I'd like to mention is that the format of this book feels like you are the third wheel of an IM discussion about you and to you without you getting to put in your own two cents. They said their reasoning for creating the book in this way was to make the reader feel like a part of a discussion - that didn't work for me...though I am certain that there will be many that find this approach refreshing and maybe even better at holding their attention. I found the responses to not be genuine to real conversations - there is never disagreement and there is a lot of unnecessary dialog between the authors. At the end of the day it felt less conversational and more scripted.

The book begins by stating some great questions and explaining the journey of each of the authors to where they are currently (neXus). They talk about no longer fitting within the current structures of the Evangelical Movement - saying it's not about the people just the structure and sub-culture (this is like saying, "Hate the sin not the sinner" - which feels like hate when you're the sinner). They allude to the evangelical movement as not being open to dialog yet turn and disregard the evangelical movements discussion(s). You can't tell someone they aren't listening or willing to talk and then refuse to listen or talk.

The part that I found to be the most fascinating is that though they speak about how they are so much different than the rest of the church because of their highly evolved grace gospel - I found them to not be gracious at all about any view other than their own. In fact there were several parts throughout the book where I was offended by, what they'd probably call - playful banter...it felt more like mocking to me. This aspect of their personality came through when speaking about the "old-covenant" - in fact their handling of many of their doctrines felt very much like the evangelical movement...they weren't saying anything new except that they felt it was "absolutely bizarre" to make "reading the Bible daily a central evidence of growing faith."

It seems that as a reaction to the often oppressive teachings of many churches (the notion that to become more like the Christ is to become more perfect - therefore performance driven) they've thrown out any semblance of personal responsibility for participating in God's creation. They encourage you to participate but it feels like they are saying that participation is a bonus.

Much of the biblical exegesis was poor at best - and even if it was good - most wouldn't know because they give no reason for going against long held understandings...many of the long-standing beliefs need to be reworked and questioned but please don't state as matter of fact your view dismissing tradition and not give any real support.

I'd be interested in reading more from these gentleman and it sounds like what they are attempting to do with neXus is a great thing - God's Kingdom needs to be more inclusive but we shouldn't disregard the great cloud of witnesses that have gone on before us.

Soul Bowling, Hat Hammers & Love Funnels

2010-05-21T13:55:00.022-04:00

In keeping with my theme of “backing talkwards”, I continue to chip away at finding what sin is not (in hopes of narrowing down what it is). Here is #3:

3. Sin is not what we were designed for- “God is love.” (1 John 4:8). If read correctly; this quote is big, profound and intense. I believe we can dwell on those three words for our entire lives and never really understand how many questions they answer, how many problems they solve, how much hope they inspire or how humble we should be. It also defines our purpose too.

Read the beginning of Genesis again. The very first action verb we see is that God “created”. Remember, God is love. It’s a lesson by example. Love is creative. It’s active, progressive and inventive. As designed in his image, I believe we were meant to continue the spread of his love by following his instruction to be the stewards of the earth (Genesis 2:15, Hebrews 2:6-8, Psalm 8).

Stewards are caretakers of someone else’s property.

But, we’ve ignored the example of creativity. For instance; we begrudgingly interpret the 10 commandments as rules to bind us. We should rather see them as restrictions that propel us to focus on being more creative about love (so we don’t “miss the mark”). They’re kinda like bumper bowling for the soul or a love-funnel (for all you hippies out there).

It’s important to know our purpose. Folks whine constantly about seeking the meaning of life. There. You got it in chapter one. We were built to creatively release and expand love (but instead we desired to capture and collect it).

We were deputized to oversee the care of Gods creation. It’s a blessed responsibility. This notion is furthered in Psalm 24:1: "The Earth is the Lord's and all that is in it, the world, and those who live in it". We weren’t designed to own it ourselves and see if we could handle it in some weird test. We weren’t designed to improve it. We weren’t made to decide for ourselves what to do with it. No. It’s his. We are to be loving custodians. We were blessed to love our work.

In Leviticus 25, God gives uber-specifics of how to best care for ourselves and the land assigned to us. These instructions (as well as many other scriptures on tithing, farming, sacrificing, etc.) indicate that we were intended to display certain attributes like saving, sharing, rationing, planning, waiting, and faith (These correlate well with the writings that love is patient, kind, non-envious, etc. in 1st Corinthians)

We're made for one thing, but being used for another. Is it any wonder that a good understanding of sin evades us? We weren’t meant to understand it. Is it any wonder that we over-fear sin? Everyone fears the unknown and sin is most foreign to our core. Is it any wonder that we suffer due to sin? Put leaded gas in a car designed for unleaded, you will see suffering in metaphor.

In returning to 1st Corinthians, we see in the start (Vs 1-3) that even if many great and noble things are achieved, none of them matter at all without having love. Is it any clearer that we were geared for this one thing? Yet we usurped the design for our own wants. It’s like pounding a nail with a hat or carving water with a knife or cleaning windows with a rock. Using something for other than it’s intended only ruins it’s real purpose.

To sum it up; God is Love. That love is perfectly actively creative. We and the earth are one result. We are designed to respond and interact with God. The only response to omnipotent pure love is worship and obedience. We were instructed to be caretakers, savers and sharers. It was a perfect design. We diverted from it. We desired to be consumers, blamers, and takers instead. We suffer. We allow others to suffer. We struggle to understand all this. Obedience would be a proxy for understanding if only we would embrace it. Unfortunately, that’s not our nature anymore. We are sickened with sin.

Genesis 2:7 says “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” If we are to take care of the earth and man is molded from the earth, aren’t we designed to be stewards of each other? Doesn’t this explain the scriptures continued theme of serving, protecting and giving? Doesn’t this explain the mystery we feel as we try to comprehend the meaning of serving any purpose other than our design?

“Love…always protects.” Paul, 1 Corinthians. We should get more creative as mandated.

If sin is not what we were designed to understand then the logical reaction is to obey the one who does understand all things. Like children, we should always be curious to learn, yet never rely on knowing everything prior to submitting to our higher loving authority.

Mountains, Moonshiners and Malignancy

2010-05-14T23:11:00.007-04:00

From the hills of Kentucky and across the Big Sandy River into the most isolated portions of West Virgina, a complex relationship was born long ago and still continues today. The ‘shiners noticed a growth in demand whenever the local preachers gave hard sermons on drinking. The hollers were small so no one wanted to be seen buying it; instead they purchased the backwoods goods. However, the more they drank, the guiltier they felt and therefore they attended church more regularly for "Heaven-pass" assurances of forgiveness and “fire and brimstone” pep-guilt talks.

The Moonshiners promoted the unreasonable expectations of the church as it drove folks to drink in secret more. The church was dependent on drunken regrets to increase attendance and sin-offerings. Both publicly blamed each other for the town-folks unhappiness, yet they were necessary for each others benefit and existence. This beneficiary relationship between rivals has been termed a “Baptists and bootleggers” scenario.

In continuing with my theme of identifying what sin is not, I present to you my second “Not”:

2. Sin is not benign (neither are we)- I was raised modern evangelical, I guess. In hindsight, my mentors seemed to minimize the importance of the Old Testament (presenting as "past tense"), and magnify the New Testament as a replacement to make the original writings more of an obsolete back story. I kinda even worry that we will now overcompensate for the next generation before we rally to view it as “The Testament” and let it flow as equal in relevance in every way. My point is this though; it had once steered me to view sin as old news that I need not attend to.

But sin is active and interactive. It’s insatiable and hungry to separate us from God’s law (1 John 3:4). It’s never satisfied (Romans 7:5). It does not stagnate or plateau. It can grow, compound and fester (James 1:15 ). It can be inspired or inflamed by spiritual influences beyond our capacity of understanding (1 John 3: 8-10). Sin is an aggressor on the offense (Romans 7:23 ).

Let’s not get too comfortable being the victims though. We’re not passive in this. It’s a sickness by invitation only. With knowledge comes choice. The "tree of knowing" quite possibly was our moment of owning responsibility. Sin, to me, appears symbiotic. Chickens and eggs, you know? Sin is nothing to us without our behaviors, nature and flesh as a vessel. Our unholy tendencies are nothing without the vulture-like persistence of sin.

I think we choose mutuality with sin. It is ever-consuming and we are ever-drawn to it (John 8:44 , Romans 7:15). You may notice that the Ten Commandments do not read as unfortunate victimizations. Imagine; “Thou shalt not be forced to kill”, “Thou shalt not be tricked into coveting” or “Though shalt not be manipulated into stealing”. No they read as directives to people who have investment of choice and behavior. Sin is prowling but we own our consummation with it.

I think we have a Baptists and bootleggers relationship with sin. We often blame it as an outside party rather than claim it as a partnership. This discounts our requirement to mind our ways. We devalue our debt simply because we’ve heard that it’s already been paid for. Conversely, sin benefits from “blaming” us by omission. The sick relationship is empowered when we over-fear it (though we have been redeemed) because helplessness induces laziness and hopelessness inspires carelessness.

I don’t mean to present sin as a conscience being (that sounds like a whole ‘nother topic) but as a fuel that means little without a willing vessel. It sits in our tank, yet we must admit to turning the key.

As a non-stationary state that just exists; it’s vague yet complex. Sin’s not dependent on being deliberate, known, inspired, an action or even known of. It can be all of those things though. It’s sometimes just the thought of an action or even an inaction (Matthew 5:21-30).

In the flesh, we all see the effects of sickness in this world, but we wouldn't even need a word for it if everyones body was perfectly healthy at all times. It's defined only in contrast to health. It has many forms and degrees of consequence. But, it "is" only because of what it's "not".

Does sickness actually exist other than being “non-health”? Illness is nothing without a body to corrupt. It's certainly still assertive though, aint it? Similarly, is sin not just any state of being non-Godly? Does sin “be” outside of corrupting our connection to God’s love? I don’t know, but am curious as to other thoughts.

Either way, it is malignant and should be treated as such. So even though sin is not easy to define (see my “Not” #1), it is still defin-able, worth trying and worth allowing the definition to evolve further.

Webster & Sin

2010-05-13T14:36:00.004-04:00

OK. Don’s outta town, I think. He invited me to contribute some thoughts to the Sin-blog. I’m not sure what I bring to the table (I worry that this only implies that he thinks I’m “extra-familiar” with sin) but I’m happy to be part of the dialogue nonetheless. Ever since this talk started I’ve discovered how little I actually know. I don’t yet have a healthy enough understanding of sin. What to do?

There’s the old Cherokee folk tale of the young tribesman that asks his mentor “How did you carve the canoe from that tree?” His trainer replied “I just cut away everything that was not a canoe.” I’m starting in a similar mindset. If I can’t say what sin is, I can at least hope to narrow down what it’s not. I’ll likely post a few ponderings in this perspective for a while and I hope you’ll help me banter. Here’s my first thing that sin is not (it seems like a no-brainer but I have to start somewhere right?)…

1. Sin is not easily defined- I love words. I’m even a word-aholic, so I’m especially disabled by the expectations of modern language. Sin’s evasive from the get-go. We have a comfort zone of how definitions work. We like short, concise, measurable terms that limit a subject from being anything else. We’re very closed minded when taken out of this haven.

But, sin is mobile. Our prism of view needs to be ever-moving, yet we want it to sit still while we gaze. It’s like we’re trying to film a movie with a still photographer’s equipment. Sin’s both noun and verb. It is and it does. It’s a state and an action. This duality is much like “Love” and you can see how well we’ve accomplished defining that. In fact, we’re obsessed with Love and still fail to find comfort in allowing it to transcend our limitations of language. Sin’s a less than desirable subject, so we under-define it all the more.

As anti-God, sin’s also incalculable. Our words can’t capture the magnitude of infinities. There is not always a lowest common denominator in spiritual definition. Our inability to sum up forces beyond our vision is rivaled only by our ego-driven surety that we should still try to limit what things are, so that we can better control them.

Google the “Definition of sin” until you get a satisfactory short answer…I’ll wait (no, I won’t). I tried it. I kid you not, this was one of them;

Main Entry: sin
Function: verb
: to commit a sin

Sin is defined here as, ummm….yup….”sin.”

Another search turned this gem up; “To violate a moral or religious rule.” I was unfortunately most able to relate to this one. It actually portrays my relationship with sin throughout my 30 years of God-chasing. I reduced a most prominent affecter of my most important relationship to this un-biblical nugget. I think I allowed Webster and modern tradition to define part of my spiritual view. Regretful. Can you relate to this?

I think it’s time that we expand our scope. Sin may not be definable in a comfortable and limited way for us, but it is certainly something that affects, distracts, hinders and harms us all. It is a barrier to our achieving Gods loving intent. It’s often a tool that we use against each other or an obsession that we try to face alone. It’s an inducer of guilt, shame, pain and finality. It’s the cause of death even (James 1:15, Romans 6:23).

Sorry Webster, you gotta go. It’s strictly scripture time now. Can we accept that our answer may never be fulfilling or complete? Does that make our search for answers moot? Why should we try to understand sin more? What does the answer mean to us? How come Webster re-runs are never on TVLand? That kid had a bigger vocabulary than they let him showcase on his sitcom….

The X-Factor

2010-05-06T22:05:00.000-04:00

What does Leviticus 25, if anything, have to do with our understanding of sin? What about G_d's? Why would I even think that it does? (Luke 4 is only one example)

Thoughts?

Oh No He Di’int!

2010-05-05T09:30:00.001-04:00

Ok so we’ve laid some groundwork for the discussion…and have had some great feedback! I want to change gears for a moment and open a can of worms and insert a disclaimer **This post may ruffle your theological feathers – you may find yourself at complete odds with what is going to be asked – defensive and accusatory! Please respond with grace and love – and most of all don’t presume you know where other people are on these questions!**

Ok – let’s just jump in!

Why did Jesus die on the cross?

To forgive our sins?

Consider Jesus forgave sins before his death and resurrection (ie. – Mark 2.1-13)
G_d forgave Israel’s sins before Jesus ever walked the earth (ie. – Isaiah 43.25)

To overcome death?

Jesus raises Lazarus from the dead! (John 11)
Elijah never dies (2 Kings 2)
Enoch never dies (Gen 5.24)
Moses and Elijah appear at transfiguration (Mk. 9)
Jesus argues against the Sadducees that the G_d of Israel is the G_d of the living (Mk. 12)

Fulfill the sacrificial system?

G_d has alread had enough of the sacrificial system according to Isaiah (1.11)
Psalm 51 [esp. 16,17] **(this Psalm actually also demonstrates a sense that G_d is also forgiving sins before Jesus)
Hosea 6.6
The apostles continued to go to the Temple Service daily (Lk. 24.50-53)

So if Jesus had to die and be raised in order for us to be declared righteous in the eyes of G_d – How did Abraham accomplish this? How did David?

It is important for us to remember that there are other passages in the Text that we must wrestle with (or maybe you feel that I must wrestle with) but we must wrestle with these as well! I have many thoughts on this subject and what I perceive to be a biblically sound concept – but I don’t want to color the conversation until I’ve had time to hear each of your reflective thoughts!

I’d also really like our discussion to remain (however loosely) around thoughts on sin! (forgiveness of sins – that’s easy; Death – Paul says the wages of sin is death; Sacrificial system – based on unintentional sins for individuals and corporately)

Thanks! Let’s have some good and fun discussions!

Up the Creek…

2010-04-26T16:41:00.001-04:00

What is our definition of sin? Where did it come from? Why are we unable to avoid it? Can we even overcome it?

When we think of sin it is usually in the context of action [profanity/lying/adultery] but what if it is more than just that? Maybe the phrase “more” is not completely accurate…but what if sin is something that actually precedes the action?

Growing up I found the concept of sin that was taught to me to be oppressive! A constant fear looming over my shoulder – something that waited crouched at my door! But I was also taught that it was manageable…I am not sure how I came to the conclusions that I did but I started to believe that sin was conquerable – but until then it had me in its grasp…but with a few slick techniques I could be free! I read books on overcoming sin, avoiding sin –> defeating bad behavior and actions ~ I read them over and over but with no success.

It dawned on me, “What if the ‘action’ wasn’t the sin rather it was a result of the sin?” – a symptom of sin but not the disease itself. We’ve spent so much time focusing on the actions - “Dead Bodies” and have completely ignored the process that leads up to it!

Let me explain the “Dead Bodies” statement: Many of us have heard the analogy of Upstream Thinking – It goes something like this [warning: bad paraphrase coming]:

Two people come to the edge of a stream and are immediately confronted with dead bodies floating by. They begin to remove the bodies from the stream – but the bodies keep coming – the rate doesn’t change and the work doesn’t end…finally one of the two people says, “You stay here and continue pulling the bodies from the river, I’m going upstream to find out how the dead bodies are getting here!”

This story is usually used when discussing the value of prevention versus treatment…but could we use this analogy for sin? We are identifying that there are “dead bodies” [read::our actions] in the stream(s) of our life and we call that ‘sin’ that must be removed – but what if sin goes further upstream…sin is the cause of the “dead bodies” in the stream.

What caused the “dead bodies” to be in the stream in the first place – can we call this sin? What would we find is “up the creek”?

Missed it by that much...

2010-04-24T11:20:00.001-04:00

Sin a History - Review pt. 1
Sin a History - Review pt. 2

I was going to review this book today on here but noticed Ben Witherington III just posted his thoughts on the book! Awesome...check it out - this book has helped shape many of my thoughts and questions that I am working on!

Matthew 25: “No Goat Left Behind!”…

2010-04-21T09:21:00.001-04:00

…He says sheepishly!

In Matthew 25 there are a couple of parables (Ten Virgins & Parable of the Talents) – but following those two sections is a section that is taught often but not discussed beyond the surface implications of feeding the poor (of which I am a huge advocate). I want to ask – what does this tell us about the Final Judgment? (Matt. 25.31-46)

Evangelicals insist we are not saved by works – James says you can’t have faith without works (James 2.18) – we could argue those nuances…Abraham saved by faith – then entered covenant; Israel rescued (Saved) from Egypt – then entered covenant! Though the prevalent mindset throughout the church has often been an avoidance of good works in order to demonstrate in some twisted way that we are not saved by those works! BUT I digress…

I believe the Text proposes the concept that our interaction with others is based in whether or not we sin…consider; those who did not clothe the naked had sinned –> Why? What was their sin?

I want to assert that sin is the taking of the role of judge from the one True Judge – we, when we ate from the Tree of Knowledge, gained (maybe even stole) the role of Judge of Creation from G_d (Hence the Text declaring that we’d become more like Him)…He has spent the rest of history preparing to return as The Judge. We can see that return in this section of the Text.

The sin therefore in this section is that of poor judging – we didn’t perceive that we even needed to help – our judgment was off. It is the same as our ‘first’ sin – we judged that being naked was bad! We had always been naked – G_d even judged it to be very good.

Therefore – I would like to set before you the notion that the role of sin in humanity is that of an unjust judge (us) ruling over the creation of a Just Judge and G_d desperately wants us to return that role to Him!

Da’Bears…

2010-04-20T09:15:00.005-04:00

err…The Bares!?!

We were created by G_d without the ability to discern between good and evil –> and G_d found this to be VERY good!

We can assume from this that both good and evil existed in the world – the serpent for one – Wrong doing existed in the world – the serpent deceived Adam and Eve.

So…we were created without the ability to discern between good and evil…G_d was okay with this – in fact He created it this way! So if good and evil existed – wrong-doing existed, if we weren’t created perfect…How did eating from the tree bring sin into the world? Wasn’t it already here- at least according to the way we typically define it???

After all Adam lied about what G_d told him (Genesis 2.15-16), apparently, when telling Eve the restrictions (Genesis 3.1-3). G_d said don’t eat the fruit…Adam must have told Eve that G_d said not to touch or eat the fruit!

What does this have to do with the realization of nakedness - and that it was wrong to be naked - when to G_d it must not have been wrong since that was how He created us and found it to be very good!

Beginning Thoughts: A Little Ditty…

2010-04-19T15:14:00.001-04:00

… about Adam and Eve?

In the garden we were created – nowhere, by the way, does Scripture say or indicate that we were perfect…in fact Creation was declared to be “good” not even “great” – when G_d created man ~ He declared man to be “very good” but not perfect!

I am curious as to where we get the notion that we were perfect – flawless – now I do believe that we were indeed sinless but not flawless! How can that be? Well let us consider this…if we were perfect before the tree – how did us losing our “perfection” by eating the fruit make us more like G_d? (Genesis 3.5) Becoming more like G_d is indeed G_d’s concern – not that we are less like Him but more!

What is it that G_d is truly concerned about? Now that we’ve eaten from the tree –> His fear is that we may now turn and eat from the tree of life and live forever in that state we are in since eating the forbidden fruit. (Genesis 3.22)

I’d like to assert that our removal from the garden of the L_RD , therefore, is truly an act of mercy on His behalf.

My Question:

What is it that happened to us when we consumed the fruit? What changed in us? It has to be an attribute that we gained in order to make us more like G_d. Yet, I’ve only heard it taught as what we’ve lost – perfection or, occasionally, innocence.

What do you think about this perspective?

The Poll to the Left

2010-04-14T13:59:00.001-04:00

I find it rather interesting that of the handful of people that have 'voted' on the poll...not a single person has selected Debt...the reason that I find this so odd is that that is the dominant language used in our church culture.

Jesus paid for our sins.
Our debt has been settled.
Wages of sin.
Parable of the Unforgiving Servant (not forgiving another debt after his debt was forgiven)
Lord's Prayer - "Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors."

I wish there were a way to allow people to 'list' what their other is on the poll...but since I'm incapable of figuring that out...if you are willing I'd like you to explain your other in the comment section of this post! Please...I'd love to know!

A Thought on Sin

2010-04-14T09:25:00.000-04:00

This is a page where I am looking to begin an ongoing dialogue (or very possibly - monologue) about the topic of Falling Short (Romans 3.23) about fair wages (Romans 6.23) in regards to our life and relationship to G_d.

We've reduced sin to a single analogy in our current church settings; that of debt...I want to suggest that first we must consider a biblical understanding of debt (Leviticus 25) and its forgiveness (Matthew 18.21-35) - and how that affects the way that we treat those indebted to us (Matthew 6.9-15). In addition to a biblical lens for debt - I also want to look at other analogies used within the Text to imagine sin (ie. a burden to be carried - 1 Peter 2.24; Isaiah 43.24b-25).

We would not consider allowing our understanding of G_d to be wrapped up in one analogy - we need multiple (shepherd, father, creator, strong-tower, mother hen, etc...) images in order to begin to piece together who He is! Therefore I assert that when we discuss a topic such as sin that we do not allow ourselves to be duped into thinking we have a full understanding because of a single analogy (most usually that of debt)...

I am looking to use biblical Texts to challenge and expand our current Theology of Sin; I am hoping for healthy/civil/intelligent debate and discussion on this topic...please join me in this discussion - the future hope is that of a book or essay on the topic.