Rethinking Sin

June 9, 2014 — Leave a comment

medium_8536811002

It’s easy to imagine holiness as a stoic staving off of temptation, a perpetual washing of the hands to keep from being defiled from the world. But holiness is so much more than that. It’s full engagement with humanity. It means getting dirty up to your armpits. Holiness is about what you’re willing to risk to love others and to see God glorified.

I’m also realizing that holiness isn’t merely about refraining from certain activities; it’s about redirecting and redeeming our desires for holy pursuits.

The nineteenth-century Scottish preacher Thomas Chalmers spoke of the “expulsive power of a new affection.” For him, conquering sin wasn’t just a matter of steely resolve; it was best accomplished by replacing sinful affections with holy ones. “A moralist will be unsuccessful in trying to displace his love of the world by reviewing the ills of the world,” he preached. “Misplaced affections need to be replaced by the far greater power of the affection of the gospel.”

This principle gives us insight into why people indulge in destructive behaviors in the first place.

Take, for instance, a middle-aged man who cheats on his wife. Why does he do it? It’s not simply because of raging hormones. He had more testosterone in his twenties. It’s rarely because he’s dissatisfied with his spouse’s appearance. In fact one study found that only 12 percent of cheating men said their mistresses were more physically attractive than their wives.

So why would he cheat?

Often it’s because he’s thirsty for transcendence, for adventure. He wants an experience that will lift him, if only temporarily, above the boredom of his mundane, workaday existence.

Of course sexual desire plays a role, as does selfishness and lack of self-control. There’s no excusing his actions. But at the heart of the act is a legitimate desire that has been twisted into sinful expression. As someone once said, “Every man who knocks on the door of a brothel is really looking for God.”

Misguided attempts to grasp for transcendence affect many areas of our lives. Connie Jakab, a Christian writer and activist, lamented the ways women have been reduced to their appearances through messages sent through shows like Desperate Housewives. Playing off the word desperate, she challenged other women to reimagine their role:

You weren’t created to be desperate, you were created to be dangerous. You have life-changing impact living inside of you. That’s what is going to make you beautiful and vibrant, not another Botox treatment. Dangerous will look good on you. Go try that on for size.

It isn’t just sexual sin or self-image problems that are fueled by an undercurrent of misdirected desire. We warn against drug and alcohol abuse, and rightfully so. But it’s easy to miss the bigger picture. I believe the primary reason it’s wrong to get drunk or high is because of what such experiences replace. They are synthetic forms of transcendence, cheap replacements for encounters with the living God. When the Bible warns against drunkenness, it includes a corresponding command: “Do not get drunk on wine. . . . Instead, be filled with the Spirit” (Eph. 5:18).

Why is drunkenness wrong? Because there’s a better experience awaiting us—being filled with the Spirit!

Our desire for transcendence isn’t the problem; satisfying it in destructive ways is. Sin is the result of desires that have been sublimated and sent sideways.

Sin hurts people and ruins relationships. But perhaps the greatest tragedy is what sin keeps us from—the grand adventure of a life lived with and for God.

* This post was excerpted from Yawning at Tigers: You Can’t Tame God, So Stop Trying
photo credit: Christos Tsoumplekas (Back again!) via photopin cc

Related Articles:

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Share

drewdyck

Posts Twitter Facebook

Drew Nathan Dyck is an acquisitions editor at Moody Publishers and a senior editor at CTPastors.com. He's the author of Yawning at Tigers (2014) and Generation Ex: Christian (2010)

No Comments

Be the first to start the conversation.

Leave a Reply