Big assumptions

Image via Wikipedia

Part 1 in the World At War series, on sin and how to fight it.

Sin. As you read that one short word, a flood of meaning flashes through your consciousness. It may not be related to belief in God or anything theological. Perhaps your understanding of the word is related to how other people have used it. Or to what you have seen people do. Or even to the longings and appetites of your own spirit. Maybe you do understand sin in terms of God or religion. It may be related to God’s character or to the taboos of a religion. Perhaps it is related to a deep sense of tradition. Or a spiritual sense of things that is more mystical than formal.

Many disagreements between atheists and religious people cut back to the concept of original sin, or the idea of consequences inherited from the past. These are typically very satisfying arguments for those involved. After all, each side walks away convinced they bested their opponent. Meanwhile neither side was truly bettered by the discussion, other than an increased sense of their own prowess in logic and debate. The delightfully frustrating aspect of this particular discussion is that it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence in the past of Adam and Eve, their activities, and the consequences of those activities. All of these points are beyond the microscope, the camera, the equipment of our age. If we are painfully honest.

What is deeply intriguing about this whole subject of sin is that in spite of these frustratingly unproductive arguments over the matter of the inherited consequences of sin, we find ourselves in a world that most of us acknowledge has the presence of sin, is being shaped by sin, and manifests the scars of sin. I see from my vantage point a collection of painfully disconnected philosophers who readily acknowledge the reality of sin, then proceed to discuss and argue how it got here. The greatest, grandest tried-true argument of atheism and dilemma of historic Christianity is how a good God could allow evil in the world.

And so I assume evil. I assume in this writing the very wrong reality, which some call sin from a theological basis and others call by other names. The very philosopher who argues over original sin, would vehemently protest being shot by a mugger as she walks through the city. Christian bloggers who lean in their underwear over the computer keyboard late at night typing out arguments for the existence of God, know the evil of broken family, the stench of anger, the jealousy of others. Atheists around the world who would go to their grave ambivalent to the idea of original sin and a God who is, have felt the pain of failure, the chains of addiction, the grip of doubt.

Do not mistake. I am a Christian pastor. I do offer a theological definition of sin, a biblical perspective of its origin. But I do not see the sense in arguing over the origin of sin, when each one of us knows the reality of sin every day. My calling is to share the good news about Jesus with people who know they are sinners.

Nowhere in Scripture has God ever instructed or even hinted that his children ought to devote themselves to proving his existence through debate and philosophy. Or to convince people that they are deeply flawed and live in a deeply flawed world. The atheist doesn’t need me; he is content in his logic. The religious person will not hear the message, because they are not a sinner. My message is the gospel and it is a message for sinners. And so I assume God. And I assume sin. And there will always be more than enough people in this world who don’t need to be told things are broken.

J.D. Wymer

 printer-friendly post