Sin: A History

[iowakatie1981]

Has anybody else read this fairly recent book by Gary Anderson?

The premise is that in the earlier parts of the OT, sin is conceived of as a "thing" - a burden that one carries, a stain on one's hands, etc; and in the later parts of the OT, stuff from Qumran, and in the NT, it's described more "economically" - a debt that one owes, for example. 

Most of the book simply engages the word studies on this, but the final 1/3 or so begins to explore the implications of it, especially in light of the fact that in late Jewish/early Christian thought, giving money to the poor was considered to be giving money to God Himself. 

I bring this up because I had the chance to hear him speak last night.  Lots of "food for thought". 

Anyone else?

[MRoot]

There is an excellent discussion of Anderson's book by Bruce Marshall in First Things here: http://www.firstthings.com/article/2009/12/treasures-in-heaven.
Michael Root

[iowakatie1981]

I think that's where I first read about it, putting it on the mental "to read someday" list.  Then I heard that Dr. Anderson was going to be speaking, which finally inspired me to actually get around to reading it. 

[CSLewis2]

Has anybody else read this fairly recent book by Gary Anderson?

The premise is that in the earlier parts of the OT, sin is conceived of as a "thing" - a burden that one carries, a stain on one's hands, etc; and in the later parts of the OT, stuff from Qumran, and in the NT, it's described more "economically" - a debt that one owes, for example. 

Most of the book simply engages the word studies on this, but the final 1/3 or so begins to explore the implications of it, especially in light of the fact that in late Jewish/early Christian thought, giving money to the poor was considered to be giving money to God Himself. 

I bring this up because I had the chance to hear him speak last night.  Lots of "food for thought". 

Anyone else?

My own opinion is that the two understandings are not mutually exclusive. They go hand in hand. I believe we get into unnecessary difficulties by trying to decide "which" one is better. Both speak to the subject well enough, both sin as a "thing" or burden and as a debt owed. Both speak well to both original sin and committed or actual sins.

Peace in the Lord Jesus Christ!
Rob Buechler

[Michael Slusser]

Has anybody else read this fairly recent book by Gary Anderson?

The premise is that in the earlier parts of the OT, sin is conceived of as a "thing" - a burden that one carries, a stain on one's hands, etc; and in the later parts of the OT, stuff from Qumran, and in the NT, it's described more "economically" - a debt that one owes, for example. 

Most of the book simply engages the word studies on this, but the final 1/3 or so begins to explore the implications of it, especially in light of the fact that in late Jewish/early Christian thought, giving money to the poor was considered to be giving money to God Himself. 

I bring this up because I had the chance to hear him speak last night.  Lots of "food for thought". 

Anyone else?

My own opinion is that the two understandings are not mutually exclusive. They go hand in hand. I believe we get into unnecessary difficulties by trying to decide "which" one is better. Both speak to the subject well enough, both sin as a "thing" or burden and as a debt owed. Both speak well to both original sin and committed or actual sins.

Peace in the Lord Jesus Christ!
Rob Buechler

In the middle of Holy Week, I spent a couple of days in central Minnesota, NE of Brainerd. I had quiet time there to read much farther into this book, and, while there are a couple of points where I'd like to ask Anderson a question, over all it is a very persuasive analysis of how debt-language came to be foundational for Christian discussion of sin and redemption--and not just for western Christians.

Has anyone else taken this book up since it was recommended by our local figment of the scholarly imagination, "Q"? I would appreciate the chance to hear Lutherans on it.

Peace,
Michael

[iowakatie1981]

Hey Fr. Slusser!

One of the interesting things Dr. Anderson said in his talk last fall was that his analysis is helpful for making ecumenical inroads - with the Reformed.  He said the Reformed are all over this, whereas the Lutherans just shut down the instant one says the word "merit". 

(Or maybe he didn't say that in the talk, maybe I heard that second-hand from one of the "hosting seminarians" that had lunch with him that day?  Anyway, it made sense to me, and I found it to be an interesting comment...)

[A Catholic Lutheran]

Hey Fr. Slusser!

One of the interesting things Dr. Anderson said in his talk last fall was that his analysis is helpful for making ecumenical inroads - with the Reformed.  He said the Reformed are all over this, whereas the Lutherans just shut down the instant one says the word "merit". 

(Or maybe he didn't say that in the talk, maybe I heard that second-hand from one of the "hosting seminarians" that had lunch with him that day?  Anyway, it made sense to me, and I found it to be an interesting comment...)

The parallel to this discussion is going on over on the "Social Statement on Criminal Justice" thread where the seemingly thorny issue of Law and Gospel has reared it's head.  Why it is thorny is because seemingly the voice of the Law, which pronounces us "guilty" has largely been lost among (especially the ELCA) many contemporary Lutherans, thereby rendering the Gospel empty of any meaningful content.  After all, how can be be absolved of anything if there is no guilt (or debt) to wrestle with?  How can we be made "clean" if there is no initial uncleanliness?  So it is that Lutherans may "shut down" at the mention of merit, but sadly it seems to me to be fundamentally a different impulse than classical Lutheranism's objection to merit.  The classical Lutheran objection to merit had to do with the sense that if we claimed any merit upon our part it would somehow lessen the Law's pronouncement of our guilt, thereby causing us to doubt the power of the Gospel's absolution.  The contemporary Lutheran objection to merit seems to be more rooted in the sense that, if we recognize the fact that there is an initial debt or imputation of sin (thereby raising the whole question of "merit,") we would be admitting something anathema to the modern mind: our guilt, shortcoming, and culpability.  Such an admission to the modern/post-modern sensibility must be avioided at all cost.

So ethical and moral thought swerves away from talking about the virtues of "merit," and latches onto the idea that we do "good things," not in response to the Law's exposition of our sin--and it's pronouncement of our guilt--and the Gospel's pronouncement of our forgiveness--and it's bestowal of Christ's Righteousness, but because of the idea that in our enlightenment we now behave as "civilized" and "happy" peopple.  (In other words, we are supposed to be moved to care for the poor...not because we recoginze our own poverty and have experienced Christ's benevolence when we least deserved it, so we then are moved to care for the poor as Christ cared for us...but because that's what "civilized" and "happy" (ie. "fully self-actualized" in the Psychological jargon of a generation ago...) do.)

It is currious that the idea of merit would recieve such a warm reception among the Reformed, who in part at least, are the inheritors of Calvin's "double predestination" which completely anathematized any discussion of merit in the idea of pre-election.  But I would point to the often quiet signs of ecumenical convergence that continue to occur even while high-level ecumenism seems to be retrenching. 

Good discussion...  I'll have to get the book.  I've been looking for something worth reading!

Alleluia! Christ is Risen!
Pr. Jerry Kliner, STS