Reclaiming sin?

On haligweorc Derek Olsen has a brilliant post concerning the way in which the Episcopal Church approaches (or rather, does not approach) the topic of sin. The author comments that he sees the language and ideational references to sin and redemption in a good deal of pop music, but doesn’t hear much on the topic within the Church as a whole, unless it is to speak collectively in reference to economic and governmental structures. Have we indeed lost the ability to speak about sin in the ECUSA, having sacrificed that ability upon an altar of ‘inclusivity’ and moralistic therapeutic deism? (Not to say that inclusivity is a bad thing, but it certainly isn’t the only thing worth keeping, of course.)

It is a valid worry, and one I tend to share. I can certainly see where Dr Olsen is coming from, and he makes a number of very good points about why we need an awareness of sin. But part of the reason I believe we tend to shy away from publicly talking about sin in (some realms of) the ECUSA is precisely the way it already tends to be handled in the popular discourse. And Dr Olsen does address this, I believe, when he says:

The cultural view is fuzzy and, I’d suggest, often wrong because it lacks Jesus and accompanying concepts of virtue and sanctification, but to say that people don’t “get” sin is factually incorrect.

But it goes further than this. Even if the ECUSA tends to talk only about social or structural sin, our society doesn’t have the vocabulary for dealing with the concept, which is an important one. Evangelical (and a good deal of mainline) Protestantism has acculturated itself to this dearth in the American self-awareness with rhetoric about having a ‘personal relationship’ with Jesus (defined in wholly therapeutic, ‘me’-centred, health-and-wealth terms, naturally), and the way we talk about sin in atomised, aestheticised terms has followed suit. If there is a need for a reclamation of the language of sin, it has to start with the assertion that sin is not just you doing naughty things or thinking naughty thoughts. I think Dr Olson has it right that a good way to reintroduce a proper understanding of sin may be to use it to supplement our language of ‘right relationship’, provided that we do this in full awareness that each relationship has two sides, and that we need to introduce the language of ‘sin’ specifically to describe cases in which relationships become exploitative or unhealthy.

Actually, aside from these minor caveats, Dr Olson’s piece is quite unexceptionable, and well worth your time to read in full! I recommend checking it out.

EDIT: I may be offline and inactive for several days, as I will be heading up to see my grandfather and uncle and aunts in Vermont between now and Saturday night. I will update and comment if I can!