Speaking of “Sin” – Bradley Jersak

Please follow and like us:

Sins – Or should we say “errors”?

Ed Dunn, my colleague at Christianity Without the Religion asked me, “Why do Christians talk about sin so much?” We decided to work the question as more than a rhetorical statement, and we came up with a few responses.

First, Christians talk about sin because it’s a dominant theme in the New Testament—specifically, “the forgiveness of sin.” The gospel includes the strange but important phrase, “Jesus died for your sins.” That will warrant further exploration, but for now, Ed and I concluded that transactional or retribution explanations are helpful. Perhaps we are better saying that in laying down his life in love, the forgiveness he showed the conspirators in his murder now benefits all people, including us.

But on the other hand, when the topic of sin comes up today, it feels like it’s been fetishized in some camps—an unhealthy obsession that leads to moralizing and self-righteousness. Sin gets harnessed as an obsessive talking point used in condemning us-them divisions or controlling environments where sin management becomes the point.

This led us to wonder how the English word “sin” has come to mean something in common parlance today different than the Greek hamartia in the New Testament—even in tone. And yes, we’ve heard it means ‘missing the mark’ and yet we still debate on what mark we’re missing, and we don’t use that phrase in translation.

It feels like the English word ‘sin’ has morphed enough to become a poor translation, overloaded with barnacles of shame and infused with toxins of condemnation, both too broad and too narrow. So is there a better term now?

I thought of words that describe sin—self-will, egoism, alienation—but while they describe the roots and the fruits of sin, they don’t work easily as translations of hamartia.

Errors:

Just a few hours later, another friend texted me the rumor (unverified) that the next time David Bentley Hart releases a revised edition of his New Testament, he may be considering translating hamartia as err.

I like it for a few reasons. First, it covers a wider range of errors that we do cover in liturgical confessions, but not in popular speech:

  • Forgive us our errors,
  • voluntary (intentional) and involuntary (unintentional),
  • in knowledge (intentional) or in ignorance (unintentional),
  • by what we have done (commission) and not done (omission).

Such confessions recognize that many of our errors unintended and inadvertent, but they still have impact. “I never meant to hurt you, I didn’t even know I did, but now that I see the harm, I ask for mercy.”

So errors may not always imply intent, they still require forgiveness. And at the same time, there’s a recognition that retribution or condemnation are not right or helpful. Yet in using the term “error,” we’re not saying all sins are just accidents. There’s a difference. Malicious intent is not accidental—but it’s still an error. Malice involves self-deception, willful ignorance, harmful delusions. Paul says,

But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory, which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory (1 Cor. 2:7).

See how Paul regards malicious intent as an act of ignorance, even in the crucifixion. And yet Christ forgives them, and us, even while we were still ignorant and enemies (at the same time! — cf. Romans 5).

Let’s try this: “Father, forgive us our errors, as we forgive the errors of others.”

That works for me. And I like that it’s an uncomplicated word that covers so much. I think I’ll try it on for a bit. I’d love to hear your thoughts. Blessings!

To err is human, to forgive divine.
Alexander Pope, 1711

If this post has helped you, please subscribe and share it freely. We also invite you to help us continue to help others with a donation. Click here if you’re able to partner with us.