If you'd like to hear the sermons, which inevitably include more than is in print, they can be found on online by searching for UKIRK Nashville in the iTunes store.
So, here's week one:
Genesis 3:1-24 (read along with The Brick Testament)
Original Sin...Is It Really a Thing?
Throughout Lent, we’re going to explore the theological
topic of “Atonement.” To simplify
such a theologically loaded word, many people like to say it’s is all about
At-One-Ment between God and humanity.
Another question we might ask is, “What happened at the cross?”
My hope is that throughout this series, we might walk
away with a broader, fuller, and deeper understanding of what scripture and
centuries of Christian tradition have to say about how God addresses the
problem of sin in the world.
Before we can get to “theories of the atonement,” I think
it’s important to take a step back and talk about the word “sin.” It’s a word that gets tossed around an
awful lot in our communities of faith, and depending on the theological
leanings of the faith community that raised you, it might have been emphasized
a lot, a little, or really not at all.
And besides that, the definition of “sin” changes depending on one’s
theological tradition. So,
tonight, we go all the way back to the beginning of scripture and take a look
at an archetypal text about sin.
So, hear now, and see, with the help of the Brick Testament. Genesis 2:25-3:24.
READ SCRIPTURE
So, there it is.
The story of “the fall from grace.” The beginning of all sin that has
been passed on to every human being in the history of the world. Many people, if not most, would say
that this is the story of “Original Sin.”
Original sin is defined by the good people at the BBC as:
a Christian doctrine that says that
everyone is born sinful. This
means that they are born with a built-in urge to do bad things and to disobey
God. Original sin is not just this
inherited spiritual disease or defect in human nature; it’s also the
‘condemnation’ that goes with that fault.
Sound familiar?
As Presbyterians, or reformed Christians, we might hear John Calvin’s
voice in the background using the term Total
Depravity, by which he meant that there is no part of our humanity that is
not corrupted by sin.
Basically, in the traditional view, Adam and Eve’s
transgression resulted in a loss of living forever and in their guilt being
passed on to every human being…ever.
This “original sin” is used to explain the darker side of humanity and
becomes the way to explain the presence of sin in the world.
Some of you are fidgeting a bit, I would imagine. One of my former youth would always
push me when it came to this topic, making the case for human beings being
basically good, with good intentions, but that they just make bad choices.
So, which is it?
And what does the scripture actually say?
Does Genesis 3 clearly describe original sin? If you
go back and read it, you might notice that words like sin and fall are
absent. To be sure, there are
consequences for disobeying God, and one of those is being cast out of the
garden before Adam and Eve can get their hands on the fruit of the tree of
life. So, were they created to be
immortal, or would that have happened upon eating from the fruit of the tree of
life? Depending on who you read,
the answer varies.
I stand before you and admit that over the past couple of
years, I’ve come to seriously question the doctrines of original sin and total
depravity. Now, before you all
start calling the presbytery or the denominational headquarters, let me tell
you why.
As I hinted at above, I just don’t read Genesis the same
way as Augustine and other folks who truly believe in the doctrine of original
sin. I just don’t hear God say,
“You all messed up, and now all people in the history of the world will bear
the guilt of your sin.”
This falls into the category of setting aside the
question of “Did it happen?” and instead asking the question, “Does it happen?”
Do I look around the world and see people who willfully
disobey the commandments and guidelines that God has set in place for the
welfare of humankind? Yes!
Have I joined someone in doing something I knew was a bad
idea, or against the rules, been caught, and uttered the cry of every desperate
person, “But-she?” Absolutely.
I tell you what, those But-he and But-she kids are in
every youth group and every classroom in the world.
It seems to me that we can look at the world around us
and speak of fallibility and brokenness without using terms like total depravity and original sin.
There is clearly something about humanity as it exists
now, that falls short of God’s best plans for us.
Oh, but Alan, the Bible clearly presents a theology of
original sin. Right? I mean, it does, doesn’t it?
Does it?
As we read the stories of the Hebrew Bible, we see a
cyclical pattern that goes something like this:
·
God lays out expectations for faithful obedience
·
Individuals or groups of people fall short of
those expectations
·
God sets forth consequences
·
People seek to make things right, either by
turning back to God or offering sacrifices
·
And finally, God offers healing and forgiveness
and relationship
In all of that, I’m not sure the Biblical record really
points to some genetic defect passed along from Adam and Eve to all of humanity.
This is not to dismiss the presence of sin in the world,
but it is to say that I have serious doubts as to that sin being passed along
in sperm and egg.
In fact, I’ve come to believe that we probably need to
take sin more seriously than we do, but not in the judgy, equating faithfulness
with western moralistic values, be a good American kind of way. I think we could stand to take the
entire biblical record into account when we make pronouncements about what is
sinful in the eyes of God.
For tonight, though, and for the sake of our series, I’d
like to think a bit more broadly about the nature of sin and how it affects our
humanity. A few weeks ago, Decker
asked me for a good definition of sin, and that question has been weighing on
me, especially in light of this series.
Up until yesterday, I had a working definition from some theological
textbook that was way too technical, but at church yesterday, Chris Adams
quoted an article from workingpreacher.org that really spoke to me, and I want
to share it with you. So, here
goes:
Biddle rather proposes that
Genesis 3 is the story of the human condition that is complex and paradoxical
in nature. Moreover, instead of viewing this text in terms of a “‘fall’ from
original essential humanity,” one would be better served to view this text in
terms of the human’s “failure to develop into the fullness of being human” (p
7).
The author goes on to say:
Viewed in this way, sin may be understood as the fearful avoidance of human
potential.
Wolfhart Pannenburg said that sin is, “the universal
failure to achieve our human destiny.”
I like those definitions so much better than the many
definitions of sin that sound kind of scary. The fearful avoidance of human potential. Sin is no longer a boogeyman in your
soul, or in your genetic makeup, lurking to work evil in your life. With this definition, sin becomes that
fearful part of you that prevents you from achieving the full humanity that God
has planned.
Scot McKnight in his book A Community Called Atonement, makes the case that we are made for
relationship, just as God in God’s Trinitarian self is relational, and that we
need four basic relationships to achieve full humanity:
·
Union with God
·
Communion with other human beings
·
Love of self
·
Care for the world
In other words, to pursue absolute freedom in all
directions severs us from God, from others, from the world, and therefore the
self, and that is really what constitutes sin, a brokenness in any and/or all
of these relationships.
Throughout the rest of the semester, we’ll be exploring
various theories of the atonement, and I’d like for us to decide, together, how
they address the brokenness we experience in those four areas of our
lives. I hope we will find that we
need many understandings of atonement in order to make sense of the ways God
has accomplished wholeness and calls us toward full humanity.
One final note:
·
Yes, we are in the season of Lent, and we are on
the journey to Jerusalem and the cross, and we aren’t there yet.
·
Yes, we have much to discuss with relation to sin
and atonement.
·
Yes, I started our series with a story about Adam
and Eve being cast out of the garden.
But, did you notice verse 21?
Verse 21 is one of those places in the Bible where I go to
point to the motherly aspects of God, and let explain why.
My Mom, who is here this evening, is a master on the
sewing machine. When I was kid,
she made me and my sister clothes to wear. When I was marching with The Cavaliers, my Mom made me
practice shorts out of fabric that could be washed out in the shower and would
be dry by the next day so my laundry loads would be lighter. When my luggage, and consequently 10
pairs of boxers, was stolen in Honduras, my Mother lovingly sewed me six new
pair, and express mailed them, because she knew I was a broke seminary student. So, verse 21 is one in which I see motherly love, not because God’s
act is inherently male or female, but because I see my Mother doing just such a
thing.
Genesis 3, verse 21: And the Lord God made garments of
skins for the man and for his wife, and clothed them.
Even as God has pronounced strong judgment on Adam and
Eve, and even as God is casting them out of the garden, God takes the time to
make clothes for this man and woman, because those fig leaves just wouldn’t do
for God’s beloved children. In my
book, that loving moment of provision is the prequel to all the at-one-ment to
come.
Amen.
