Dominican Scholar Collected Faculty and Staff Scholarship Faculty and Staff Scholarship 2012 Seven Faces of Sin: A Study Guide to Biblical Models for How Evil Originates and How it can be Overcome Scott Gambrill Sinclair (Retired) Department of Religion and Philosophy, Dominican University of California, [email protected] Survey: Let us know how this paper benefits you. Recommended Citation Sinclair, Scott Gambrill, "Seven Faces of Sin: A Study Guide to Biblical Models for How Evil Originates and How it can be Overcome" (2012). Collected Faculty and Staff Scholarship. 9. https://scholar.dominican.edu/all-faculty/9 This Book is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty and Staff Scholarship at Dominican Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Collected Faculty and Staff Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Dominican Scholar. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Seven Faces of Sin: A study guide to biblical models for how evil originates and how it can be overcome by Scott Gambrill Sinclair 1 Acknowledgments This book began as a series of classes that I gave to the monks at New Camaldoli Hermitage, Big Sur, California. The monks encouraged me to publish the material. Later when I was teaching a course on the New Testament at the School for Deacons in Berkeley, I remarked that every preacher should preach on "sin" at least twice a year. My students seemed surprised and intrigued and asked me to explain. I attempted to do so briefly, but the explanation was not adequate. Later another member of the faculty heard that I thought that deacons should at least occasionally preach on sin, and she was horrified. Apparently she thought, as I also do, that many sermons on sin are destructive, even sinful! This book is a longer and, I hope, more satisfactory explanation of why I feel the Church needs more sermons on sin, what those sermons should say, and what the biblical basis for that preaching might be. I am posting this book on line in the hope that my students, both past and present, and anyone else who might be interested may have access without cost to my more considered reflections. Dr. Caroline Summer read a draft of the book and corrected many mistakes and made many helpful suggestions. The biblical quotations come from the New Revised Standard Version. 2 Dedicated to my students at the School for Deacons, Berkeley, California, who asked me to explain why I felt that every preacher should give at least two sermons on sin each year. 3 Table of Contents Preface: The Present Crisis and the Need to Take Another Look at the Bible Chapter 1: The Theological Problem of Sin Chapter 2: Evil--and how to overcome it--in Genesis Chapter 3: Evil--and how to overcome it--in the Priestly and Prophetic Traditions Chapter 4: Evil--and how to overcome it--in the Wisdom Books of the Bible Chapter 5: Evil--and how to overcome it--in Daniel and Revelation Chapter 6: Evil--and how to overcome it--in the Teaching of Jesus Chapter 7: Evil--and how to overcome it--in Paul's Theology Chapter 8: Evil--and how to overcome in--in John's Gospel Chapter 9: Some General Observations about Evil--and how to overcome it--in the Biblical Traditions 4 5 Preface: The Present Crisis and the Need to Take Another Look at the Bible We may basically define "sin" as destructive attitudes and behaviors that can be recognized and overcome. Thus, for something to be sinful it must hurt someone. There can be legitimate disagreement over the limits of who that is. Is it a sin to choose to harm oneself? Is it a sin to inflict suffering on others to punish them for inappropriate behavior? But clearly sin must involve doing harm. "Sin" must also be voluntary. Sinners must know, or at least be able to know, that what they are doing is destructive. And they must be able to change. Here too the limits are controversial. What does it mean to "know" that something is harmful and that one can produce meaningful change? Were German civilians sinners during the Nazi era when they did little about the Holocaust? Were they completely ignorant? If they should at least have suspected that something terrible was happening, were they able to do anything about it? Here there can be legitimate disagreement. But at least we can agree that attitudes and actions that harm others and can be known and changed are "sinful." In recent times many Christians have become reluctant to talk about “sin.” In a previous era, an era still well within living memory, "sin" was a major topic in most churches. Many sermons were devoted to condemning sin; much Christian education was concerned with classifying sins and warning students against them. The confession of sin, both in private to a priest or in public prayer, was a major part of religious discipline and liturgy. With some exaggeration, the atheist, Richard Dawkins, writes, “The Christian focus is overwhelmingly on sin sin sin sin sin sin sin. What a nasty little preoccupation to have dominating your life” (quoted in Portmann vi). Today—despite Daukin‟s comment--things are different. In many 6 denominations priests and pastors hesitate to preach on sin. Sermons seldom explicitly condemn public or private immorality. In worship the confession of sin has become optional. In the old liturgy in my denomination at every Eucharist we had to say, "We acknowledge and bewail our manifold sins and wickedness" (The Book of Common Prayer, 1928, p. 75). In the rubrics of the new liturgy we read, "The confession of sin may be omitted" (The Book of Common Prayer, 1979, p. 359). Indeed, the Church's silence on sin has become so pervasive that it is the subject of scholarly comment. Joseph Pieper‟s profound book, The Concept of Sin,” begins with the words, “We don‟t hear the word „sin‟ much any more” (p. 1). In A History of Sin, John Portmann writes, "Sin is . passe in America" (p. 3). The title of Karl A. Menninger‟s book, Whatever Became of Sin?, speaks for itself. One reason for the Church's present reluctance to talk about sin is an awareness that the old emphasis on sin did not seem to make people behave much better. Despite all the condemnation of extra-marital sex, drunkenness, failure to attend church, and so forth, all these sins seem to have continued unabated. Worse, the Church‟s condemnation of sin may have led to an increase in sin. The condemnation of sinful behavior encouraged non- conformists, and perhaps male adolescents in general, to demonstrate their independence by sinning. The condemnation of sinning may have led to more sin even among those who attempted to live by the Church‟s guidelines. Those who were able to abide by the standards for righteous behavior faced the temptation to become smug, and pride is itself a sin. Indeed, classical theologians considered pride the most serious sin of all. Those who took their Christianity seriously and yet could not live up to standards felt burdened by self- condemnation, and this self-condemnation produced spiritual weakness that could lead to further sin. In Saint-Exupery‟s fairy tale, The Little Prince, the protagonist encounters a 7 drunkard. The Little Prince, who is always curious, inquires why the drunkard continues to drink. The drunkard replies that he drinks to forget. The Prince asks what the drunkard is trying to forget, and the latter replies that he is trying to forget his shame. When the Prince asks what the drunkard is ashamed of, the latter replies that he is ashamed that he is a drunkard (ch. 12). Underlying this superficially amusing story is the sad truth that merely condemning sin makes sin more powerful. We will have to return to this truth when we discuss St. Paul‟s theology of sin. In retrospect we realize now that the older condemnation of sin in church history usually focused too much on personal sin and too little on corporate sin. In perhaps most times and places “sin” meant individual irresponsibility, especially in sex and alcohol. However, in most times and places corporate irresponsibility—including by the Church itself—was even more destructive. Governmental decree and exploitative economic systems condemned vast numbers of people to slavery or starvation. Christian nations engaged in wars of aggression and committed genocide. Sometimes the Church even actively supported the policies that produced horrific suffering. The Church itself concentrated on amassing power and wealth for its own institutional advancement at the expense of the poor. Surely these were the sins that sensitive Christians needed to focus on. Indeed, these greater corporate sins were often the root cause of much of the personal sin which the Church preferred to condemn. Drunkenness or sexual irresponsibility among the exploited were a response to the misery and hopelessness of their lot—a lot that resulted from injustice. Yet much of the time the Church was silent about corporate sin. Today critics of the Church even charge that the Church used the older emphasis on personal sin to control people to the Church‟s own advantage. By making people feel guilty about their personal sins (and in some denominations making them 8 dependent on a priest for absolution of those sins), the Church gained additional power over the faithful and made it more difficult for them to criticize the sins of the Church itself. An additional problem with the older condemnation of sin, was that it could easily degenerate into a focus on evil rather than a focus on God's love.