One of the trickier challenges for Christians in any culture is disentangling our imagination from the framework given to us by the culture we live in. While Christians believe in God, call Jesus Lord, rest in the achievements of the cross, acknowledge the dignity of humankind, and so on, they may not be doing so in a way fully formed by the norming norm of the Bible. Our beliefs can easily be coloured more by the values of their culture. This has been a challenge since New Testament times—consider, for example, the view the Corinthians had of the human body—formed more by Greek culture than by Genesis. This highlights the necessity of being both acutely aware of how our own culture impacts on our faith and practice, as well as deeply familiar with Scripture.
A Human-Centred Doctrine of Sin
Consider the doctrine of sin. In a secular culture such as in New Zealand or Australia, humanity can loom much larger in the conceptual universe than God. Among other things, this can distort the doctrine of sin. One example of a doctrine of sin shaped in this way is Roger Wolsey’s essay “A Progressive Christian View of Sin & Sinners”. Wolsey describes sin as a failure to do what is right, and highlights the human proclivity to hurt others and to do so against their own better judgement. In his words, humans are “busted and broken”, “cracked pots”, “imperfect vessels”, “beautiful messes”, who make “mistakes”. Sin is “like an addiction” that leads to “self-sabotaging cliffs” from which Christian faith should guide us away. When we sin, “we are causing suffering to ourselves and others.”
Because of this framework, repentance for Wolsey is a process of transformation and reorientation, leading to such a dramatic difference in our persons that we can thus be said to be “born again.”
What is most noteworthy in Wolsey’s article is what is absent. He largely describes sin as an offence against others humans, or in terms of the harm it does to ourselves. True, he does describe sin as “missing the mark”, as transgressing God’s will; he later notes that when we sin we are “out of communion with God”. However, even here, the essay gives the impression that God’s will for us is itself human-centred—primarily concerned with our wellbeing, rather than his glory.
Wolsey is in fact critical of some religious formulations of sin. He states that in Jesus’ day “sin had become reduced to legalistic notions about being ritually impure and ‘dirty’ and unworthy of participating in Temple practices.” He also regards the Old Testament law as “some sort of retributive law books”.
Even Christians who are more theologically conservative can slide unwittingly into similar ideas, even if only by what we emphasise and what we neglect. Unintentionally we might dwell more on the utilitarian and sociological and therapeutic dimensions of sin, and fail to dwell upon its godward orientation.
The God-oriented Framework of an Orthodox Doctrine of Sin
Compare this human-centred framework with Psalm 51, written in the aftermath of King David’s acts of adultery and murder. In verse four David confesses to God that “against you only have I sinned, and done what is evil in your sight.” Although he had seriously wronged several people, he recognised that the greatest offence was against God.
One helpful exploration of the doctrine of sin can be found in John Stott’s The Cross of Christ. In his chapter “The Problem of Forgiveness” he highlights several biblical metaphors for sin as an offence against God. God in his holiness is high above us, and kept distant from us—inaccessible by sinful people (e.g. Isa 6:1; 57:15; Jos 3:4). God is also light that cannot be approached and fire that consumes—he is holy, dangerously so (e.g. 1 Tim 6:16; Heb 12:29). “Most dramatic of all,” Stott writes, is the metaphor of vomiting, “probably the body’s most violent of all reactions.” God finds sin so disgusting that the sinner is vomited out by his judgement (e.g. Lev 20:22–23; Rev 3:16).
Atonement for Sin Against a Holy God
Thankfully our God is not only holy but also loving. A biblically-infused description of the atonement will reveal how the deep and multifaceted problems of sin are dealt with at the cross. Through it we are rescued from the guilt of sin, the punishment against sin, and the defilement of sin, and we are reconciled to the God who is affronted by sin.
A deficient doctrine of sin will require (or derive from) a different doctrine of God (especially regarding his holiness), a different doctrine of the atonement (not one of substitution), a different confidence in humanity (unwarranted optimism) and a different conception of the ills of the world and the solution to them. Most of all, a deficient doctrine of sin reveals a Christian worldview that is insufficiently shaped by what God has spoken through Scripture.
It is crucial to work towards a view of God and his world that is shaped by the revelation that God has given to us. Failing to do this will result in us being formed instead by the foundational assumptions of our culture, in which humanity is exalted and God is marginalised. Such failures are not unusual in the history of the church. Seeing it today needn’t be cause for panic, but it must spur us on to firmer efforts in discipleship, especially in the training of a critical Christian intellect and the formation of a Christian imagination. In post-Christendom times such as ours, the work of Christian pastors and teachers requires nothing less.
