2 minute read
Have you ever noticed how some Christians seem to have a kink for sin? I don’t mean they have a sinful kink, but a kink for sin itself. It’s like its taboo nature has psychologically twisted into a secret turn-on. It’s weird. Meanwhile, there’s a whole other segment of the Church who’ve become so averse to the guilt trips of those theological circle-jerk sessions that they seek to have both the word and concept stricken from the record. It’s rather dumbfounding, but they’re trying to have Christian faith without any acknowledgment of sin whatsoever. That’s weird, too.
Sin in ancient Hebrew literally means “missing the mark.” In the West, sin tends to be defined in terms of lawlessness and/or rebellion against God’s will. Aquinas said a sin is “a word, deed, or desire, contrary to the eternal law.” The primary consequence emphasized in the West is our broken legal standing before God. Meanwhile, in the East sin is seen in terms of separation. It’s far more about our impaired connection, both among people as well as between us and God. Sin is about falling short of the incredible hopes and purposes for which God created humankind.
While my perspective on this one is far more influenced by the East, my go-to definition of sin comes from conservative Presbyterian pastor and theologian Tim Keller. He defines sin as “that which is detrimental to human flourishing.” I love this definition. It serves as a good theological umbrella as it accurately upholds the beautiful simplicity of the literal definition, focuses upon the East’s relational view, leaves enough room for certain non-shitty insights from the Western tradition, and creates space for healthy, nuanced discussion about the complexity of life.
Also, if sin is defined as that which is detrimental to human flourishing, then it stands to reason righteousness is that which is advantageous of human flourishing. I’m rather fond of this framework because, let’s be honest, most of life’s mundane experiences exist in a subtle reality somewhere between the overt polarities. Christians habitually want things in black or white, but most of life exists in this grayscale space. If a guy walks to the end of his driveway and checks the mail, that’s usually neither detrimental to, nor advantageous of, human flourishing. It’s amoral.
The original beatniks had a reputation for loving to sin. Much of their behavior probably was detrimental to human flourishing, but reality is more complicated than such tropes. What gets labeled as “sinful” is often far less detrimental to human flourishing than is presumed. In fact, I’m convinced that a lot of their impious behavior was way more advantageous of human flourishing than is usually recognized. As just one example, I’ve certainly seen premarital sex bring about good but can’t say the same for gossip, even though it’s socially acceptable in Christian culture.
