Let's go taboo. Let's talk about something which, when mentioned, is scorned upon as some ancient, outdated notion.
I'm talking about sin. Unless it's referred to in the category of the "seven deadly sins" (which seems to be the only acceptable reference to this issue), it seems to have been made a taboo subject. It's immediately dismissed and the subject is a hot potato in relation to mankind being "sinners". It's even slowly disappearing from church vernacular.
Now I'm not here to bang on about hellfire and brimstone, so hear me out if you will, as I simply want to address the problems we have in this area and point out the importance of not shying away from this topic. We cannot afford to dismiss the doctrine of sin from our lives as the Church, and our fellow non-Christian friends' eternal lives depend on the church tackling this subject.
So let's break it down a bit:
I'm going to attempt to answer all these questions. But it's difficult when answering them to distinctly split them up into these nice subcategories, so bear with me, as we may stray a little over the edges of each of these questions.
Let's begin with some fundamental facts then, what is sin? Firstly, sin is defined as an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law. A sinner, therefore, is a person who transgresses against divine law by committing an immoral act or acts. These are dictionary definitions. And no wonder we have problems - we see it as transgressing unknown, strict law that actually no one can even define. The new testament definition however, is "missing the mark", and the old testament (or Hebrew) definition is "to miss, or go wrong". This latter definition is more helpful to getting to the bottom of what we are really dealing with: "to go wrong".
The average person today (certainly in our society) does not see themselves as sinners. Sin is considered something terrible - perhaps some of the more stronger of the 10 commandments such as murder, theft, adultery. People certainly don't consider covetousness, keeping the Sabbath or taking the Lord's name in vain as sins. The average Joe on the street, who works hard, provides for their family, doesn't go around stealing or killing people, feels justified that they are living a good life, and therefore isn't a sinner. So sin gets a bad press because we don't actually know what it means. If we don't really understand what it is, if our rudimentary understanding of it is something like one of the "bad" things that 10 commandments asks us not to do, and the little things like keeping Sabbath - which really has no bearing on the non-Jew - then we are doing humanity a disservice by not making it more clear. The other reason it gets a bad press is because it's "preached" at people in the context of, "you're a sinner and you're going to hell". Now, wehter that's true or not, the manner in which people hear this message, i.e. the way it is delivered, immediately puts people's backs up. Because we don't explain what sin is, and we don't explain the issue fully, sin has got a bad press.
So what's the big deal? People miss the mark in our lives, and we forgive them readily. Why can't God?
This brings us speedily onto point 3. Now this is a huge point and not as straight-forward to answer as one might anticipate.
First of all, we need to dispel a myth that these so called small sins are OK, and that the average person, living a good life, not hurting anyone, and doing good things (perhaps giving to charities, volunteering, helping the disadvantaged), working hard for their family, paying their taxes, and generally being a "good" citizen, are doing enough to be acceptable to God. It seems a lot of people believe that if you try and do the right thing in life, if you don't hurt people, then God or the "higher being" that they can't quantify, will allow them into heaven. Surely that's got to be true, right? If He's a good God, or a force for good, then surely He will not turn such people away from heaven? Surely He won't send people to…..(let's be brave and say it)…..hell !
Now, I come across this notion a lot - a good person, trying hard, doing good things should outweigh the small "sins", as they are trying hard to be "good". However, "good" is really not quantifiable. How "good" is good enough? There is always going to be someone doing more good deeds, giving more to the poor and needy, spending more time with the sick and disadvantaged, and generally being a "better person".
Also, these ideas of "good" differ across cultures. For instance, you may pay for your elderly relative who can no longer live alone, to live in the best nursing home in the county, to get round-the-clock care, because you know the alternative (them living alone and in possible danger to themselves) is not good. You pay for it because you want to do good and help them. Yet in some cultures, the very act of not caring for elderly relatives yourself is abominable. Cross cultural ideas of what are acceptable good deeds or behaviours vary. So basing "good" deeds on our cultural norms is dodgy ground. Additionally, cultural ideals change over time.
Then we have the issue of how we quantify what level of "good" is enough? If one person has just enough income to live on for them and their family, and gives £5 a month to charity (as much as they can possibly afford), yet another person lives very comfortably financially, and gives £300 a month, making massive differences to a small local charity who support sick children……which one is doing "good enough"? Both? How do we measure that? Who measures it? What's the cut off level for just not quite enough?
Also, if both these people boast of their giving, does that diminish the good they're doing? Are their intentions truly good, or are they simply giving to good causes for praise and recognition, and not for the pure desire to do "good"? Is that still "good" if it's mainly for recognition and renown? That's just one aspect, and it is a mine-field. We could go on, but every time we hit a wall where we have a potential problem with being justified by good works or deeds, or living a "good life". Anyone who does good can boast in their own efforts.
We've gone way too deep though here, because in reality, it's not these small sins, these small moments where we "miss the mark" that are the biggest issue. We're not perfect, that's more than obvious. So no person can possibly achieve a life of not missing the mark. We’re all missing the mark! But the issue is something bigger. The issue we have is that we are all intrinsically 'infected' with a sin that is greater than these, but we'll come onto this in a moment.
Let's just take a look at a little scenario. I want you to imagine you have a friend who is severely allergic to nuts. In fact, their allergy is so serious that even if a nut touches their skin, the oil in the nut reacts with the skin and leads to severe anaphylaxis. So they can't eat nuts, can't even be around nuts. It's not their fault…that's just how their body reacts to nuts. Now, if you don't have any allergic reactions, or only mild ones, you may find this quite a mind blowing scenario: possible death just by coming into contact with a nut! It's very sobering.
Now, let's transfer this analogy to the concept of God. Imagine that the severe nut allergy is God's holiness, and that the 'nut' is sin. God's holiness means that He cannot stand to be in the presence of sin. Now, this is a clumsy analogy I am quite aware, but holiness is a difficult concept for us humans to comprehend because we don't have it, and we don't know anyone who does. As we don't truly understand it, it helps to have some kind of picture to try and help us, as holiness is difficult to define. The dictionary definition to holiness is "a state of being holy". Not really helpful at all! I reiterate, this analogy is rudimentary and very clumsy, but it is simply to give us a little help understanding a difficult concept.
So to God, sin is like the nut is to our friend. Although sin doesn't physically harm Him, it is completely repulsive to Him, and His holy nature means He cannot tolerate sin, or be in the presence of sin, just as our friend cannot eat or touch a nut. And like our friend, it's not His fault, He can't simply say "it's ok, that one sin I can overlook" any more than our friend can say, "one nut is fine". It fundamentally cannot happen because of His holiness; holiness is part of His entity and essence. Holiness is not something God can turn on and off at will, it is WHO He is. Our friend cannot turn off his allergy and just have one nut - it is just who he is. When we get a grip on what holiness means, and we put away the religious image we've been fed of some man in a dress with a fancy hat, a dress and a crucifix, then we can begin to understand we have a problem.
Having established that, we can comprehend a little easier why in God's eyes, we are just like that nut to our allergic friend. The reason is that, as I mentioned above, we are born sinners. Now don't turn off, we’re approaching the finish line, and you've come so far!
When the first man and woman were created, they were not only perfect (hence no sin), they had free will. They had an inbuilt link or connection to God. When they ate the fruit in the garden, they didn't sin because they ate fruit per se, they sinned because they did something that jeopardised their very state of being: they distrusted God and put their trust in someone else. They believed the word of the serpent over the word of God. They seriously missed the mark.
Now, if you have a loved one, and they believe some random stranger's word over yours, you would be hurt, and your relationship would be damaged. God didn't get stroppy and act out of hurt - please don't misunderstand. But as a natural consequence to this act of breaking the relationship (as per God's prior warning), mankind lost something dear. We lost our connection to God, and this lost connection wasn't the end. As a by-product of this, we lost our rights to the planet God gave us to care for, and we became by default, connected to evil (in our little analogy, we became the peanut!).
We took on something as part of who we are that was inherently sinful, and it became instantly intrinsic, like part of our very DNA (note the simile …I'm not professing it is a change to our DNA. It could be, I don't know. I just know it is something inherent within us that is passed on).
And then this passed down from and to each human thereafter. So the little things we do in life where we miss the mark, they don't really come into the equation in terms of "doing good or bad". Even if we were to do no "bad" deeds that missed the mark, if all our thoughts were good, to God, we're still as repulsive to God as that nut is to our friend. But as we established, we all miss the mark. All nuts to your friend are deadly - even the tiny ones! So, some of us miss the mark more than others, some more severely than others. But in God's eyes, all sin is like a nut to our allergic friend! It doesn't matter how big, a sin is a sin, and He simply cannot be in the presence of sin. Big or small. A big nut or a trace of nut is deadly to our allergic friend.
Is that fair? Yes and no. No, in a sense that we have no control over it and in essence we're doomed as sinners from birth! But then, yes in a way it is fair, in the sense that God gave
free will to humans, because He wants man to trust Him because he wants to, not because God created a robot or a being that is programmed to obey and love. It feels unfair, but actually it really is fair because we have the choice as humans. Choice is a wonderful thing. Choice is fair.
Now, it's also fair for another reason. That reason is that although to God we are like that nut to our friend, He immediately promised that He personally would make a way back to Him, right at the point of missing the mark by those first humans. Not only that, He would make a way that is so easy for us to attain, and that doesn't depend on whether we can hit the mark or not, so that no one can possibly fail to get back into right relation to Him - if they want to.
He made it so that no one would need to worry whether their "good" was good enough. In the process He gave Himself anaphylaxis…..He ate the nut. In fact, He ate EVERY nut for us. He killed HIMSELF, so we could live. All He asks is for us to say, "Yes Lord, I am a sinner. I have sinned, I fall short, and I cannot do anything in and of myself to make amends. But I believe You gave Yourself for me through Jesus; His death, and His resurrection was for my forgiveness. I ask for forgiveness, and I thank you that You accept me because of the sacrifice of Jesus, Your only Son".
A simple declaration from a heart that puts its trust in His goodness and His Son, Jesus - that's what it takes. No need to strive in agonising anxiety of whether we are "good enough", because that sort of striving actually keeps us further from God. That's called religion! One slip up, or one comparison to someone seemingly doing "better" and we're mentally beating ourselves up, worrying if we're pleasing a God that we actually don't know how to please!
God takes all that out of it, so even when we miss the mark, we can come close to Him, knowing He's not seeing us as a lethal peanut!
So why is sin so taboo? Why is it jeered at when mentioned? Why are the church shying away from this matter? I don't know!
It's the admission of sins that bring us into freedom! When we give up trying it our way, when we walk into that forgiveness, and accept His sacrifice, sin ceases to be a problem. It is that knowledge and understanding of sin that brings us to that place, yet the church is removing it from modern day Christianity. How can people be free if they don't understand? How will they understand if we don't explain it? It will quickly become so taboo that it will never be talked of. People will then continue to be like our friend, daily striving to keep away from peanuts, when actually the cure is there for the taking!
We can't dismiss the doctrine of sin. Sin brought us into this mess, but without an understanding and a confession of sin, we cannot get out of the mess.
