Four Ways We Get Sin Wrong
Scott Erickson, Prayer for the Trafficked, 2007
Sin is a central tenant of Christianity. As such, there are significant implications that follow our understanding of it. Yet there is plenty of confusion surrounding the concept of sin today. Specifically, there are a handful of unhelpful but common misconceptions that continue to pop up. Here are four of the biggest and why correcting them matters.
1. Sin is Simply Behavior:
A classic oversimplification of sin comes in understanding sin as bad behavior. We often hear sin and immediately think of something someone does. While it is true that sin often expresses itself in action, the scriptures both old and new provide amble evidence suggesting that our behavior is not the issue (Prov. 20:9; Matt 5:20-48; Matt. 9:4; Mark. 7:20-23). Though it is perhaps Jesus in Matthew 15 that succinctly shows our sinful behavior stems from something deeper within us. Sin has somehow rooted itself in humanity in such a way that it affects our desires.
Secondly, we forget that sin can equally be attributed to inaction. For example, Amos' indictment concerning Israel's treatment of the poor was not in what they were doing, but neglecting to do (Amos 5:10-13).
Unfortunately, this oversimplification can lead to problematic understandings of how God frees us from sin. If sin is merely behavior, then freedom from sin equates to better behavior. This leads to a moralistic view of sin and salvation. God is transforming me into someone who behaves properly. Some have taken this so far that they suggest Jesus' death on the cross simply displays how seriously God takes our misbehavior, so we had better straighten up. With this view, the path to redemption becomes morality, and redemption itself means I become one who follows the rules. This erroneous implication does not understand grace as a necessary transformative act of God in our hearts and leaves our salvation to us.
2. Sin is Only Moral:
Similar to the first oversimplification of sin, we often think of sin as merely moral. Perhaps because of our first erroneous take on sin, we implicitly assume this second one. Evil of all kinds exists apart from direct moral action or inaction. Evil can be understood as a deviation from God and God's intention. Separation from God is a separation from the source of goodness itself and thus a departure from goodness. Therefore sin, though often moral, is not merely moral; it describes anything, whether an action or state that exists apart from God's design. Understanding this helps us better understand salvation. Jesus frees us from the power and bondage of sin while also transforming us from our state of sin. To put it simply, Jesus frees us from our innate desire to perpetuate the violence and brokenness all around us. This makes salvation both future and present. Jesus' is currently saving me, and will also one day ultimately save me.
3. All Sin is Equal:
I think this one stems from faulty illustrations. In an attempt to communicate the gravity of all sin, we unintentionally miscommunicate that all sin is the same. Categorically this may be true. However, while genocide and maliciously stealing cash from your parents are both evils, they are not equal in their scope or effect. No one would ever equate them.
This misunderstanding leads to two possible implications. Let's call the first sinful fatalism. The sinful fatalists believe that since all sin is equal, no sin truly matters. So if I do a little, I should go ahead and do a lot because there is no difference. Once I have sinned, I have maximized the amount of damage done, so it doesn't really matter if I stop there or not. Not so.
The effect of sin varies. Every sinful action does not produce an equal amount of violence within God's created order. As seen in the example above, some crimes naturally carry heavier ramifications and inflict more destruction than others. So while it is true that all sin tears away at the goodness of God's creation. They do not all do so equally.
4. God Cannot Be in the Presence of Sin:
This one is relatively common and fairly problematic for a few reasons. In an attempt to protect the holiness of God, and make sense of Jesus' death on the cross, and articulate the reality that sin drives us away from God, it began to be taught that God cannot be in the presence of sin and thus sinners. So Jesus' death enables us to be in God's presence again so that we can go to heaven when we die.
There are several problems with this.
First of all, heaven is not our ultimate destination (see here). Therefore it is not what I am ultimately being saved to. Second of all, the scriptures themselves refute this notion quite matter of factly.
First, we see Adam and Eve in God's presence immediately after they sinned in Genesis 3. Second, we see the Adversary, Satan, in the presence of God in Job 1. Finally and most importantly, we see Jesus, the incarnate Son of God, who is FULLY God coming down and dwelling among sinful people of all sorts.
This concept is entirely false and, unfortunately, conveys an incorrect picture of a god who keeps us at arm's length until we are clean enough or good enough. This is not the picture of the Christian God of grace.
It also creates a challenge in relating to God as one who loves and accepts us as we are. If I believe God is unable or unwilling to be in my presence because of my sinfulness, I feel shame and an inability to come to God when I most need redemption and forgiveness. While the cross shows us that God does not want us to remain as we are, it also shows us God's love for us in spite of our sinfulness.
We must keep in mind that many of these misunderstandings come from an honest attempt at making sense of sin. We are trying to make sense of this thing that we see in our own hearts, in the hearts of others, and wreaking havoc on the world all around us. Beginning to think about sin correctly and with an understanding that it is complex and multifaceted can help us better understand how and why God has acted in the person of Jesus to rid the world and us of it.