Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    
    The following is also from _Ultimate Prizes_ by Susan Howatch.
    Here the counselor Lucas tells Neville of his own spiritual crisis
    and the counseling that he, Lucas, received from a monk named Darcy:

"But I said to Darcy: 'I'm not responsible for the camps in South Africa! The
responsibility belongs to the Government-- it's got nothing to do with me!'
Darcy just raised an eyebrow and said: 'Whom do the Government represent?' And
when I started to protest he said: 'We all share in the guilt of man's
inhumanity to man.  We all stand at the bar and await God's judgement.'

"At once I said: 'How can I be on trial?  I'm a good man.  Of course I've made
mistakes in the past --  little slips -- but now I'm a priest and I know that
by the grace of God I'm forgiven.' Darcy just leant back in his chair and said:
'Then why are you now in hell?'

"I fought him and fought him.  On and on we battled.  And then gradually as he
took me through my past life I saw all the sins I'd never faced.  I was forced
to recall how I'd cut myself off from my parents, never bothering to write to
them.  I was forced to recall the husband whose wife I'd taken.  I was forced
to recall all the selfish acts, all the casual cruelties I had committed in the
pursuit of my ambition.  Worst of all I was obliged to confront my shortcomings
as a priest: the bouts of irritation towards my colleagues, the contempt and
revulsion which lay behind my ostensibly noble behaviour towards the poor, the
endless temptation to blot out my restless boredom by resorting to fornication
. . . A good man?  Outwardly perhaps.  But inwardly?  And as I began to see
myself as a good man capable of evil deeds I realised that the concentration
camps were only a manifestation on a huge scale of the disorder which has the
power to cripple each human soul.  It was all one.  Evil was an ever-present
reality, a reality which Christ had conquered..."

"It's a cycle.  You sin.  You go down into hell.  You're under judgement.  You
face the pain.  You acknowledge your sins.  You repent.  You're led out of
hell.  You're shown the way forward -- and the way forward signifies
forgiveness as well as the change to begin a new life, by the grace of God,
in faith and in hope and in charity.  Birth, death, resurrection. yes, it's
all a cycle, isn't it, a timeless cycle far older than Christianity, but of
course Christianity is a divine manifestation of timeless truths.

>"Yes, well, of course sin exists too, as we all know only too well, but I never
>think it's very helpful to harp on it.  Most people are good and decent and try
>to do what's right.  They may have their minor faults, but --" ...

    (1) In terms of what people *do*, how do you define sin in contrast
    with "minor faults" or "mistakes" or whatever?  Is it the seriousness
    of the act that defines it, ex., losing my temper and yelling is just
    "being human" but hitting my kids is sin? Is it a matter of intention
    that makes a "bad" or "wrong" deed a sin or not?  Is it a matter of
    whether or not it was motivated by love? 
    

>"But what use are the forgiveness and
>compassion of Our Lord unless you repent?  And how can you repent unless you
>frankly acknowledge you're a sinner and try to understand why you've sinned?"
>
>"I'm sorry," I said.  "I just have no sympathy for this kind of talk.  It's
>alien to my intellectual approach to God."
    
    (2) Comment?
    

>"But I said to Darcy: 'I'm not responsible for the camps in South Africa! The
>responsibility belongs to the Government-- it's got nothing to do with me!'
>Darcy just raised an eyebrow and said: 'Whom do the Government represent?' 
>
>"I fought him and fought him.  On and on we battled.  And then gradually as he
>took me through my past life I saw all the sins I'd never faced.  I was forced
>to recall how I'd cut myself off from my parents, never bothering to write to
>them.  I was forced to recall the husband whose wife I'd taken.  I was forced
>to recall all the selfish acts, all the casual cruelties I had committed in the
    >pursuit of my ambition.... the bouts of irritation towards my
    >colleagues, the contempt and revulsion which lay behind my ostensibly
    >noble behaviour towards the poor.... And as I began to see
    >myself as a good man capable of evil deeds I realised that the
    >concentration camps were only a manifestation on a huge scale of the
    >disorder which has the power to cripple each human soul.  
    

    I don't believe in "original sin" in the sense that (1) I am a sinner
    because Adam and Eve sinned or in the sense that (2) having limited
    human knowledge, real human emotions (including fear and anger), and
    human limitations = sinner.  But I know that I *do* sin and that *I* am
    a sinner.  
    
    I also believe I am forgiven by God's grace and that He
    understands me just as a good human parent understands his or her
    child.  It's a familial relationship, not a judge-prisoner
    relationship.
    
    But then I come to the biggie questions:  US actions in Central
    America; the fact that I participate in and benefit from racist
    systems; the fact that I -- we who work for DEC -- profit in some
    ways, either directly or indirectly, from war-making.  Etc.  Etc.
    
    I know that some of you who reject the term 'sinner' nevertheless
    feel these injustices -- and your own role/participation in/benefit
    from -- just as strongly as I do.  My question, then, is:  what do
    you call it?
    
    Puzzled,
    Nancy

    Nancy,
    	if there is such a thing as sin and if it consists either of
    failing to follow the laws delineated in either the OT or the NT or of
    failing to act only out of love, then I have sinned and may do so
    again. MAY do so again. Nothing is certain. You may choose to think of
    a person who has on occasion failed to live up to the standards you
    understand God to hold as a sinner. Yet Christ has said that you should
    not call others derogatory names, and he specified a few of them. The
    term "sinner" is a derogatory name, even if it seems accurate, in that
    it infers that the person so named has sinned with that intent, and
    will maliciously continue to do so. Christ did not say "Don't name a
    fool for what he is.", he said " Don't call him a fool."(would an
    expert care to provide a more exact quote?) 
    	Perhaps we are one and all sinners, regardless of the issue of
    "original sin", but that is for God to decide and it is an issue
    strictly between God and each "sinner". Niether you nor I nor the Pope
    nor the Dhali Lama has any business judging another according to a law
    attributed to God, or any business branding another with a disparaging
    label.
    	Yes, well, of course sin exists too, as well we all know only too
    well, but I never think it's very helpful to harp on it. Most people
    are good and decent and try to do what's right.

    Dave,
    
    Your points are well taken, and I *do* take seriously the psychological
    damage that can be done in labeling people.  You also sound somewhat
    defensive, and I tried very hard to word my notes here in a 
    non-accusatory manner; specifically asking here for a more general
    discussion of what is sin, when/if you (generic) call *yourselves* 
    sinner, and what *you* call actions or situations or whatever that I
    may happen to call sin.  If I offended you, I did not intend to do so.
    
    Now, let me push on the point you did not address:  You benefit from
    being a while male in the United States.  You benefit socially and
    economically from the exploitation of others both here and around the
    world.  Your taxes support much that is unjust.  When *I* stop and
    think about this, *I* can only say:
    
    	I am a sinner in that I participate in unjust (= sinful) systems 
    	and profit from them.  I must *share* the blame for them even though 
        there is no way available to me to become a non-participant in 
        these injustices.  
    
    When *you* think about these things, what do *you* say??
    
    Peace,
    Nancy

    Nancy,
    	sorry if I sounded defensive, I guess I hadn't shifted enough
    gears. ;-) I understood your entry as discursive and general rather
    than attributive and personal. Gee, now that I've gotten THOSE words
    out everything else ought to flow more easily.
    	You are right, I did not take on the "guilty for the state of the
    world" portion of your message. Since you pointed it out, here goes.
    	It is not reasonable to lay blame on one person for the sin of
    another unless the person you would blame took an active role that led
    to the sin. It MAY be reasonable to expect someone to attempt to limit
    their known contributory influences. Were I not aware that turnip
    pickers in Ontario were being treated shamelessly in order that I might
    eat cheap turnips, I would bear no burden of guilt for that problem.
    Knowing, I must act to aleviate their hurt. Perhaps by boycotting
    turnips, perhaps by buying the farms and improving conditions, or
    whatever.
    	Moreover, it is not reasonable to expect someone who is working to
    improve things in one place to go somewhere else to work on an
    admittedly thornier problem. My direct involvement in local crusades,
    serving meals to the homeless in Boston etc, and my indirect
    involvement in remote crusades, letter writing for Amnesty Intl etc,
    would have to end were I to pack up for South Africa to attempt to do
    some good there. Were I NOT involved, then the treatment of the South
    African blacks by the whites there might constitute a sin of omission
    for me. But I am, and it is not just that you should attempt to make me
    feel guilty for my failure to devote my full attention to one or
    another cause.
    
    Nancy,
    	I answered this as if you had accused me of failing to serve and I
    was defending myself from that charge. You would not do so and I do not
    feel I need to. It was a stylistic choice only. I'm sure some of the
    others can make a better case for my thoughts without those trappings.
    I know I could do more and I know that my life is easy based on the
    hardness of life for others, but I do try to minimize my negative
    effect on others when and where I can, when I'm aware of that effect.

    I appreciate your comments, Dave! :^)  Y'know, sometimes I kinda give
    up... I mean, I'm able to do very little about any unjust system so that
    it sometimes feels like "why try? -- I may as well even invest money
    in weapons industries (if/when I become wealthy enough to invest
    anything) since I can't even stop the shameless treatment of the
    Ontario turnip-pickers!" 
    
    While I don't believe in "original sin" or in the psychological
    mentality that views oneself (and others) as "worms" or "worthless,"
    the very scope of unjust systems makes we wonder (theologically
    speaking) about the "(generic) sinfulness of man (and women)."
    
    Other wonderings of a very tired brain this evening:
    
    Is it feasible to believe in the "inevitability" of sin (in a responsible
    human being) without believing in "original sin"?   Or to put it
    another way, is there anyone who has *never* sinned?
    
    Well, I tired enough that evenmy own notes don't make much sense to
    me!
    
    Nancy
    
    PS - BTW, are those Ontario turnip-pickers real or hypothetical?

    Nancy,
    	to the best of my knowledge there are no mistreated turnip pickers
    in Ontario, and I've been boycotting turnips for decades anyway. ;-)
    	Is it possible to lead a sinless life ?  Well, I doubt it and I
    think that that's the wrong question to ask. The right question to ask
    is "Is it possible to lead a GOOD life, and HOW ?" Where your question
    focuses on the inevitability of failure - so why not just give up - my
    question focuses on the hope of success. It is important to maintain
    that focus, it gives you direction and strength. Focusing on your
    failure, the fact that you are a sinner, only saps your strength and
    robs you of your will to go on. I guess that EITHER is better than
    skipping through life without a care in the world for anything but your
    own sweet good fortune - maybe. What say you ?

    Dave,
    
    I didn't mean to give the impression that I focus on being a sinner --
    I rarely think that way any more (emotionally, anyhow) except (1) if I
    think I did something really rotten or (2) when I think "theologically"
    about "unjust systems."
    
    Actually, I agree with the essence of what you said earlier -- you try
    to make your own corner of the world and your own impact on it 
    as just and loving as possible.  Listening to one troubled teen may be
    all you can do -- and it may be just as beneficial as boycotting your
    beloved turnips!  :")
     

    Nancy,
    	it was not my thought that you had that focus, but that the devil
    in your earlier quoted entry did. Or was that a bishop ?  I forget. Is
    there a difference ?  No, I was just pointing to a concept suggested by
    an earlier entry and explaining my views. A frequent occurance.
    	Beloved TURNIPS ?    AAAAAAHHHGGGGGG !!!!!!!

    ...then they're tolerable -- at least if you're a little kid and your
    Grandma feeds them to you!

    
      OK, are we talking about Turnips, small white things with purple tops
    or Rutabagas, large orange things with brown tops ? I frequently
    find that people confuse the two.
      Dave, make a note to avoid my vegetable soup. It quite often contains
    both !
    
                                                       Mike
    

There was a thread in topic 91 (Christianity and Gays) a couple weeks ago 
concerning the question of asking a person's sexual orientation on a job 
application.  One side of the argument was that the person being asked the 
question was being forced to lie.  On the other side, it was said that the 
person being asked had the capacity to lie within already and was merely 
choosing to lie.

I was looking around for topics and would like to see a little discussion of 
this question under the umbrella of "Mistakes, Sin(s) and Unjust Systems" and
was imagining a scenario (call it situational ethics if you want .-)... 

For the sake of convenience, let's have two groups of people, the A's and the 
Z's.  Now there are rather more A's than Z's, (say 90 % A's and 10 % Z's) and 
the A's have traditionally had more power, more money, better education 
(though they are not inherently any smarter), et cetera, than the Z's.  (At 
least the Z's anybody knows about...)  The A's own and operate nearly all of
the businesses, (say 99 % of the job opportunities are controlled by A's),
hold nearly all the positions of power in the government, and are generally
more concerned with the welfare of fellow A's than with their neighboring Z's.

Being more concerned with the welfare of A's, they decide that they would 
rather not hire any Z's if they can help it.  They pass laws allowing most of 
the businesses to do whatever they feel is necessary to keep the Z's from 
working for them.  (You are not able to distinguish A's from Z's simply by
looking at them or talking with them.)  One simple solution is to ask them if
they are an A or a Z, so all the A controlled businesses start asking, and if
anyone answers "Z", they are not hired.  (And any Z's found already working
there are fired.)  (Sure, there are jobs available for Z's at Z owned 
companies, maybe 1 job for every 10 Z's, and even then, we can probably do 
away with those too...) 

Of course the A's would also rather not sell food, clothes, housing, or 
provide medical care to Z's if they can help it.  More questions get asked.

So the A's have presented the Z's with a conundrum.  Tell the truth, and you 
are fired.  No job, no money.  No money, you can't buy food or shelter, which 
the A's would rather not provide to you even if you DID have money.  (Oh, and 
if you go to a Z's grocery store, they might not get supplies from the A owned 
warehouse.)  What are you going to do?  Steal a loaf of bread to feed your
family and the A's will lock you up, THOU SHALL NOT STEAL. 

Of course to keep your job, you have to lie, but wait a minute, THOU SHALL NOT 
LIE!  But, hey, no one FORCED you to lie, did they?

Is this a Christian response?  Or perhaps this is an unjust system, where the 
only "sin-free" response is to choose death.  What is a Christian response? 
Does Z sin, because whatever response is made is sinful?  Does A sin, for
setting up a system where the only survivable response is sinful?  Has A 
murdered Z?

Peace,

Jim