Graduate 72: A bit more on sin, abstraction, ideality, and Reality

It has been thoroughly fascinating to reflect on the various reactions I've received to my last blog. I think, probably, the most common worry that was articulated had to with the possibility of my being too abstract. Some were concerned that I was developing principles and ideas that could not (and perhaps, ought not to) be applied in normal or ordinary practice.

And I do want to acknowledge this very important truth. A principle that is developed in an abstract or idealized setting must be adapted to real-life situations, where forces and variables are at play that may not have been included in the original, idealized formulation. That is one sense of the term "ideal," which tends to have a very theoretical character. But there is another sense of that word--one that is not so much removed from reality in terms of its abstractness but in virtue of its being so much truer to reality than even reality is. There are truths which we must labor to realize, not because those truths need to be made more concrete and applicable, but because the reality we experience needs to be concretized and adapted to match the truth.

This is, for instance, why I did not speak so much of what the Church ought to be as of what the Church is. And if our experience of church does not match up to that ideal, it is not because the "true Church" is a concept too abstract and ideal that needs to be adapted to accommodate the exigencies of real life. Rather, the every-day church and Christian community need to take seriously the ideal and work towards that. This is still all very abstract (of course). I cannot lay down definitive rules, in a discussion like this, for determining when our principles should change and when our own practice needs to change.

Indeed, I want to assure those who might have been worried that I do not plan on embarking on any rash, unreflective, or unwise course of action. On the other hand, by saying that, I do not want to give the impression that the serious issues that I raised can be set aside (at least for me). What is the difference between a rashly radical course of action and a reflectively radical course of action? Both may seem equally unmotivated to a person who does not understand the issues and does not grasp the Reality that motivates those actions.

And the Reality to which I would draw our attention just is the profound seriousness of sin. We do not grasp, in the modern church, how much harm we do to ourselves, to our community, and to our witness by making allowances for sin to take up residence in our lives and homes and churches. We do not understand how it poisons our relationships and damages our souls.

Consider: There is a question in philosophy about love. Wherein does the good of love rest? Imagine a person who is under the mistaken impression that his friends love him and genuinely care about him. All the material evidence points to their loving him--they hang out with him regularly, ask how he's doing, comfort him when he's upset, and appear to enjoy spending time with him. If asked whether they care about him, they say, "Yes," but in truth, they loathe him and despise him bitterly. Is the young man in question receiving all the benefits of love in that situation? Assuming he never finds out about his friends hypocrisy, can we really say that he is missing out on something or losing something?

Of course, it's hard to see what might be missing when the question is formulated that way--which would tend to be a good reason to not formulate it that way. The picture of love presented in this thought experiment is inadequate. Compare a relationship of feigned affection masking secret loathing with a relationship marked by genuine love and care and affection. It is inconceivable that the two should appear identical or that the behavior of the individuals involved should not evince (at some time, even if not in public) their internal attitude.

All this to reiterate the point that sin is detrimental to relationships (whether or not we realize it). They are less than what they could be because of it. They are less than God's best intention for them because of it. And the harm that is caused is not limited to privation; the presence of sin does actively harm all the persons involved.

--

A momentary aside and partially-related meditation.

I overheard a conversation between some students and faculty on the use of torture and the prison system in America. There was much bemoaning of the deplorability and morally reprehensible state of these practices and institutions. There was much condemnation of military and political leaders who, so it was said, were responsible for the perpetuation of this inhumane and inexcusable state of affairs.

But it occurred to me that these students and faculty were approaching the whole issue from the wrong angle. They were asking how such monstrous individuals could be placed in and continue in positions of authority. Of course, that's a very safe kind of question--no one except the "monster" is really implicated, particularly if one can show that they came to power by underhanded means. But it's the wrong question.

We should not ask, "How do such monsters come to power?" Instead, we should ask, "How serious must the situation be that it would drive normal people (like you and me) to consider and implement such extreme measures to deal with it?" And it seems to me that the situation is, indeed, very serious, dire even, and growing ever more so. There is a problem of escalation, but it cannot be solved by removing the systems that barely keep it in check.

The next question might be, "How did the situation become so serious?" The answer lies, I think, in the particular character of the society from which the problematic situation springs.

The question goes out: "What kind of society produces such a dire situation?"

The simple answer comes back: Ours.

It's very easy to speak of the problems of our world as the work of "monsters." That leaves us very comfortable and secure in our self-righteousness. The truth is much more difficult and the source of the problems are probably much closer to home than we would like. But why should we expect anything else? After all, Scripture reveals to us that we are sinful, inherently selfish, disinclined to give proper care and respect to our neighbors and fellow-citizens. Such a culture would seem to be the ideal breeding ground for criminals of every shade and stripe.

Oh... but as a society we don't talk about sin. We don't take seriously our own depravity and selfishness. It's only monsters who create the world's problems. And having entrenched ourselves comfortably in that mentality, we then wonder at how our world falls to pieces. And since we refuse to look squarely at the problem--namely, ourselves--is it any wonder that we can't find the right solution?

My intention is not to make excuses for anyone or let anyone off the hook. (That wasn't intended to be doubly-ironic, either, but you might read it as such.) But we must take seriously the fact that our common ways of looking at our lives and the world may be the very things that precipitate its problems and blind us to the truth and to solutions. In this blog I've tried to deal more extensively, seriously, and creatively with the reality of sin. Only by acknowledging that can we begin to make real progress toward finding a solution to our problems.

--

What is the solution to our problem? This is a point that I did not address adequately in my last blog and it was appropriate that friends should point this out to me. After all, it is far too easy for meditations on sin to devolve into mere guilt-tripping and condemnation and judgment. I think that taking seriously our sin is something that everyone should do--even Christians. In fact, it is by God's grace in Jesus Christ that we can look our failings and flaws in the face, feel the conviction of the Holy Spirit, and turn those over to God without falling into self-contempt, -reproachment, and -remonstrance which are the ways of the world.

It will not do if we look to our sinful nature and stop at that point or if we identify the problems of the world and stop at that point. And there is a degree to which we don't even need to contemplate those things at all--because the only reason to contemplate them, in one sense, is to drive us more speedily to the feet of Jesus and the throne of grace. To dwell on our faults does us no good if that dwelling does not motivate us to draw closer to Jesus.

But here, again, we find Paul's invitation--his exhortation, his plea on behalf of all those whom he loves: Be reconciled to God. May we look to Him first, look to Him always, and look to Him only.

--

God is in this place,
And that reality, seen and understood by the grace of God in Christ Jesus, through the work of the Holy Spirit.