When tackling the topic of transformation, we need to identify areas that need transforming. The church has traditionally defined these areas as “sin.” But what is sin and how do we know? Do we look to history? But here we often find behavior that was once acceptable, yet it is now abhorrent to us today. Do we look to the Bible? But here, among the good, we also find patriarchy and slavery, genocide and allowances for capturing and raping women in war. We find that the way people understood “sin” underwent a transformation even in the Bible.
Sin has a varied history. The way people have understood sin has changed over time. Views on sin have morphed according to the culture and what made sense at that time.
In this new book I’m writing, I want to consider sin as “relational failure” and how this approach can speak meaningfully to people in the 21st century. There are many advantages to understanding sin this way. Some examples: viewing sin as relational failure eliminates a common split between so-called “individual transformation” and “social transformation.” Sin, in this sense, can be relational failure in marriage, relational failure with the world and its resources, or relational failure with “outsiders.” Sin as relational failure, keeps us from the easy attribution of the other person as the “sinner.” Understanding sin as relational failure exposes a legal understanding of sin as inadequate. It is quite easy to follow a set of rules and be mean about it. It also indicts those that use religion or theology to sabotage or destroy relationships. Heretics are now the ones who have used their theology to promote themselves and exclude others.
If you are interested in supporting this project, please see more about it here.