German-American philosopher and theologian, Paul Tillich (1886-1965), defined sin as any behavior that does not give our lives meaning and purpose. Former journalist, best-selling author, and ordained Presbyterian minister, Chris Hodges, refers to this definition as “estrangement.”
I think this is an excellent way to think about the topic because it covers the specifics of religious sin and transcends it. And in that sense it is a unifier in a world that is in desperate need of some unity.
And what makes a life meaningful and purposeful? Connection to the world around us and service to others. It is the message of everyone from Jesus to Maslow.
Virtually every one of the Ten Commandments can easily be interpreted by this standard. Every offending behavior stands as a barrier to connection and service.
The first five all relate to authenticity, consistency, sincerity, and humility. All are critical to connecting with the people around us in a meaningful way. People who lack these qualities will never know true connection.
The second five, the “you shall not’s”, all relate to service to others. Murder, adultery, stealing, and coveting are all a form of disservice to others.
The beauty of this definition is that it transcends the prohibitions, and provides a template for pro-actively not sinning. It states the prescribed behaviors not in the negative, but in the positive.
That gives people of faith and secularists of every political stripe a common lens through which to define appropriate behavior. While people of faith tend to define sin in absolute terms, and secularists tend to define sin in relative terms, this definition takes a more holistic view, avoiding the potential conflict. It’s not more flexible per se, but it is more multi-faceted without compromising the facet you choose to identify with.
Moral standards, and the cultural norms they lead to, currently divide the nation. And since proper behavior is central to the identity of each of us, it is easy to understand why.
The divide, however, is largely built around language. Sin has become absolute in each perspective and that, in turn, has created an all-or-nothing nomenclature regarding how we think of each other. If you are a conservative, then you must be a racist, a misogynist, or whatever. If you support gay marriage, then you must be a liberal.
The estrangement definition, however, avoids the trap. In the current vernacular all beliefs are individualized. That fits with a society and a culture that has become increasingly me-centric. The estrangement definition, on the other hand, is more collective in perspective. It focuses on how we relate to society. It re-balances our collective/individual perspective and thus brings both more unity and more civility to our discourse.
In essence, it allows us ‘to agree to disagree’ without having to make judgments about each other’s value as a person. And wouldn’t that be a much more productive way to carry on our public discourse? It is, in fact, what we have lost and must find.
Contact: You may reach the author at gary@gmoreau.com
Follow @gmoreaubooks
A simple, practical guide to getting the most out of life without the orthodoxy of organized religion or the impersonization of political correctness and the “you must” movements.
click here for the paperback
click here for the electronic version
Understanding 