Sin is one of those theological words that I wonder about sometimes. That is, should we relegate to the literary graveyard where words that have outlived their usefulness go to die? I mean, this is the 21st century. Some of my progressive Christian friends believe that all faith language is a barrier to inclusion. Newcomers checking out church shouldn’t have to deal with the “night” language of faith. “Trinity”, “eschatology”, “Pentecost”, “God”, “Christ”, are nothing more than secret code for insiders that outsiders shouldn’t have to learn before feeling like they belong.
But my own sense is that people actually expect to enter a culture different than the one they live in six days a week, and along with this comes new language. There are ways to present our metaphors and symbols that suggest a realm of Mystery with which the modern world is largely unacquainted and hungers for.
That said, the word and the concept of “sin” may be so loaded with negative associations that it’s beyond “redemption”. “Sin” is a translation of the Greek word “hamartia”, which means “missing the mark”. Now that’s a pretty rich metaphor that any preacher worth her salt could sink her teeth into without alienating most listeners. There’s another word, “alienation”, that is useful when it comes to understanding sin: sin is the state of alienation from Reality, self, neighbour, and Earth. Sin is not, in the first place, a list of discrete acts of wrongdoing that I confess on Sunday morning. Still, even with all this word smithing, the jury is out on the usefulness of “sin” as a theological concept.
The problem arises from our historical, pre-scientific, attempts to understand the source of our alienation. Traditionally, sin has been understood as a fall from grace. The primal couple once existed in a state of perfect harmony and bliss. Then they disobeyed God, and were kicked out of Eden, to toil in, and till, the hard soil of life. Death itself was imagined to be a result of their primal disobedience.
Even after we started to understand this in a mythological, non-literal sense, a thought-meme remained lodged in our consciousness of a state of original perfection from which we’ve fallen. We romantically located this state of perfect union with the divine in infants, who came into this world “trailing clouds of glory”, fresh from God, and then as the years past became increasingly separated from an original union. (This is actually correct in the limited sense that we all emerged from a non-dual womb of infinite potential, but once we are actually embryonic we start the evolutionary march from scratch — from undifferentiated union with mother to an individuated soul capable of consciously realizing our unity with all.) We are, as Wilber puts it, “moving up from Eden”,
Believe it or not, I still get parents (typically, Roman Catholic background) who want to baptize their children because they are harbouring an ancient fear that, God forbid, if something should happen to their baby s/he would be with God. The baptism is a magical ritual that removes sin, and makes their baby a child of God who happily receives only baptized souls. Yes, it’s superstitious, and the parents know it, but just in case…
My friends Michael Dowd and Connie Barlow, itinerant evangelists of evolution, are doing humanity a great service in pointing out the biological explanation of “sin”. We have four brains stacked on top of each other, the evolutionary gift of reptiles, mammals, and homo sapiens sapiens. Our reptilian brain is hard wired for safety, sex, and sustenance. That’s all it cares about. Our mammalian brain is wired for kinship, reciprocity, status, and our neo-mammalian/early human brain helps us to interpret, predict, and comprehend. Our prefrontal lobes are what distinguishes humans from other mammals and are associated with feelings of unity and spirituality.
When Paul wrote that he was a man undone because the good things he wanted to do he didn’t do, and the evil things he would refrain from doing he does, he had no understanding of the human brain or biochemistry (Romans 6: 12-14). The war he thought that was going on between his “members” was actually going on between his ears. We want sex. We want fat, sugar, and salt. We want status. And before our rational mind can kick in, we’re downloading porn, gawking at a beautiful woman, pumping up our status by telling little white lies, or finishing off another bag of potato chips.
Are we “sinners”?
No, we’ve been hijacked by ancient instincts and impulses without which we wouldn’t be here. So we can learn to be grateful for these instincts, rather than compulsively denigrating ourselves. Evolutionarily speaking, these impulses are within us, and they ain’t going away. They are part of the reality that is us, and we need to learn to go beyond simply accepting them, to actually being grateful for them.
That doesn’t mean that we’re not responsible for managing them. We are in control. The devil never made anybody do anything and neither do our instincts, hormones, or our early brains. Through psychological awareness and spiritual practice we develop a witnessing relationship to our drive for sex, food, status, and security. We have these impulses, but we are not these impulses.
Interesting isn’t it, that these are precisely what Jesus is portrayed as dealing with in the wilderness when he was tempted by Satan? Ok, so the Bible story omits the sexual temptation, but contemporary interpretations of the life of Jesus were astute enough to have Satan show up in a short skirt and stiletto heals. Jesus was flesh and blood, an evolutionary creature, and therefore had to deal with what the early church desert fathers thought of as “demons”. When Paul was riffing on sin (Romans 4), he also imagined sin to be an external power that mysteriously possessed him. For him, Christ was the solution to expunging this foreign power. But now we know that “sin” is not an external force. It’s an inside job.
By bringing his ancient instincts and impulses into conscious awareness (the story-tellers personify sin as Satan – again an external force), Jesus developed a witnessing relationship with them, and in doing so was able to transcend them. But these never actually disappear do they? Paul discovered this to be true in the early church communities. Notice how he’s always telling them to stop acting like they are under the power of sin. These impulses, as mentioned, aren’t going anywhere and we wouldn’t want them to. They are an evolutionary gift and we will need them throughout our life.
So, we’re not sinners and we don’t exist in a state of sin. We are creatures constructed over vast amounts of time from our geological, biological, and human ancestors, both inside and out. To be “in Christ” is to know oneself to be one with All That Is (including our instincts). The illusion of separateness dissolves and we discover ourselves to be intimately related to the whole shebang. In fact, we discover ourselves to be the part that presences the Whole.
This gnosis (firsthand knowing) is the strategy for dealing with “sin”. It enables us to integrate our earlier adaptive mechanisms and processes in a conscious way, and even use them in the service of Spirit. For example the instinct to procreate is “sanctified” by gnosis and is expressed as the spiritual impulse to co-create. (Thanks Barbara Marx Hubbard). Our security needs become grounded, not in the mad scramble for more stuff or the perfect and ever-elusive partner, but rather in the sacred, evolutionary power that brought forth a universe. Even our thought processes, usually harnessed to justify the defence system of our small self, are now liberated by Higher, Intuitive Mind. Christ does set us free, not by expunging our “lower” or earlier nature, but by a love that allures us into our Big, Cosmic identity.
Enter your first name and email address in the fields below, click "Subscribe", and check your inbox to confirm opt in.
“Sin” is a translation of the Greek word “hamartia”, which means “missing the mark”. This is a similar interpretation to one that I’ve been using for some time that “sin” means “dysfunctional” and we have quite a bit of information today on what this means and some of the implications. There has been a lot written on dysfunctional families and the consequences revealed in the “adult children of alcoholics”, on dysfunctional organizations and how they can be fixed according to change agents such as Peter Senge and Chris Argyris, and on patriarchy as a dysfunctional culture by various feminists. A major perspective change resulting from this is that the objective is changed from punishment to cure. Another is that it is impossible to look through the “dysfunctional lens” without seeing this as a systemic problem, whereas the “sin lens” places blame entirely on the individual.
I’ve read Michael Dowd’s “Thank God For Evolution” so I think I understand the biological effects that you have described, and I would be content to believe that this was the whole story if we were nothing but animals. However, I think that there is an evolution of culture that goes along with the prefrontal lobe stage, that could be used to channel the instincts into non-destructive behavior, provided that we acknowledge the dysfunctional aspect of our patriarchal culture and the need to transcend this dominance based structure.
Thanks OV,
Good points. I think I was trying to say what you said in my last paragraph, the contextualizing and sanctifying of biological urges by a higher impulse – same evolutionary creativity that creates a world, but moving through culture.
This is such a good essay! I’m going to have my almost-grown-up grandchildren read it when they are here in July. I’m glad you told OV that you were trying to say what he said in your last paragraph because I think his words about sin meaning missing the mark and being dysfunctional explain it beautifully.
Many thanks to you both.
Thanks Mary,
Let me know how your grandchildren feel about it. Also, read DW’s response. A lot of wisdom.
When I preached on sin, I sometimes mention that in Norwegian the phrase “det var synd” (that’s a sin) means “that’s too bad.” I think the sense of regret or guilt we experience for acting on reptilian impulses represents the conflict between the brain levels. Indeed, these internal conficts do result in alienation from self and others.
Another image of sin comes from my Theology of John Wesley professor, Rex Matthews of Candler School of Theology. In explaining Wesley’s view of sin and the perfectibility of the human soul, Matthews often says that for the Christian “sin remains but does not reign.” He likens sin to Johnson grass, a perennial weed that grows in the south. No matter how many times you dig it out, it comes back. This image fits nicely with the evolutionary image of the urges buried in the reptilian brain. The image also has an organic, systemic quality that urges you to see that even the things that you don’t want serve or served a purpose under other circumstances.
BTW Bruce, I really appreciate you taking on theological concepts from an evolutionary perspective. A highly refreshing challenge to often-moribund theological discourse!
Thanks DW (sorry, I don’t have your first name).
I love the phrase “sin remains but does not reign” – perfect. As is the Johnson grass image. Perfect. I’ll be using that with your permission. In fact, perhaps in tomorrow’s sermon with your permission!
Nice to know that the evolutionary framework is refreshing.
Yes, you have my permission. Perhaps there is a local equivalent of “johnson grass” there in Vancouver that your congregation will relate to. When I moved from Minnesota to Georgia, I had to stop talking about “buckthorn” as a widely recognized example of a noxious, impossible to eradicate plant, and talk instead about kudzu.
Cheers, Dayna W.
Thanks Dayna,
Our only equivalent seems to be rain – impossible to eradicate. (Most days I’m grateful, but sheesh, it’s almost July).
Bruce,
some possible local “johnson grass”es:
gout weed, morning glory, ivy, or the annual bluegrass (Poa annua) that the best lawns aren’t supposed to contain. i remember complaining to a gardener about horsetails – she said that they were an ancient plant that was around when dragonflies were the size of boomerangs and could grow to tree size. so they aren’t going anywhere, and deserve some respect. so i guess i can respect that ancient brain as well.
Thanks Jim,
Ok, it’s not too late. I think I’ll go with gout weed. Sounds awful!
Thanks, as always, Bruce, for yet another brilliant essays! My family and I have very fond memories of hearing, and meeting you in the flesh, when you preached at the Wembley Downs Uniting Church, earlier in the year, and still remember it. I also had the marvellous pleasure of hearing your interviews with MIchael Dowd over Advent, which were really inspring. Speaking of whom, I’m currently reading “Thank God for Evolution-How the Marriage of Science and Religion will Tranform your Life, and our World”(must get my act together, and read more of it, because it’s so good). Anwyway, I’m just skimming though it at the moment, and one of the chapters iwth which I did just that, is on original sin. You know the book, and no doubt have read it, but the bit I just read, was that these sorts of desires are what comprises the human brain. That’s not to say that we can use them as an excuse for evil, but rather recognise them for what they are, and learn to channel these thoughts into ones of non-violence,and compassion.
Really refreshing stuff, Bruce!! Thanks, God bless, and keep up the excellent work you do!! Cheers!
Thanks Phillip (or Flipper?),
I miss Australia, big time. I’m beginning to think that Connie and Michael are the genuine mystics of our time. It’s a great book, isn’t it?
Hi Bruce
Many thanks for this piece.
Recently i read a definition of ‘hamartia” as the ‘corruptive seduction of power’ in, i think, ‘The Authentic Letters of Paul’ by Dewey, Hoover, McGaughy and Schmidt. To me this is way deeper than the idea of ‘missing the mark’ or ‘breaking a rule’ as the idea of sin seems to be; and also makes excellent sense in the context of Pauline ‘renewing of one’s mind’ (not one’s head but the core of one’s being out of which one ultimately functions, as you have written) in metanoia. I find this a fascinating definition and it seems to me that for anyone who wants to follow Jesus, the daily taking up of one’s cross towards self-awareness – to ‘love others as we love ourselves’ – is a push against the ‘me first’ instinct.
Thanks Hilary,
I’ll check the book out. I like that reframing as well. “Power” or status is certainly one of the neo-mammalian instincts, establishing rank.
Thank you Bruce for your thoughtful theology. It is offers a needed provocation, so that we can find our rightful
Place within & without. And yes, often dropping “truth” is the equivlent of dropping psychic “bombs.” By the way,
I am reading Karen King & Elaine Pages book, “Reading Judas” — not evolutionary, so much as revolutionary, as it takes just about every church ritual we celebrate & turns its original raisin d’être on its precious head. Wow! (& hurray!) Evolutionary & revolutionary blessings, Laura Madsen
Love Elaine Pagels previous work, but haven’t read this one. Look forward to it. Thanks Laura