Why Americans Dismiss Sin
October 21, 2011 
12 Comments
by Rabbi Eric H. Yoffie
Originally posted on The Huffington Post
To talk of religion without reference to sin is absurd.
Sin is what results when a human being chooses evil rather than good.It is the consequence of violating transcendent values. Contending withsin is a central theme of both Jewish and Christian religious thinking.
The United States is a religious country, and one might think thatsin would be a major subject of public discourse. Yet this is not so. Wemay talk of “morality,” but being moral is generally a secular matter,cleansed of any hint of evil or sinfulness. And, oddly enough, even inreligious circles, we fear the language of sin and rush to avoid it.
I acknowledge that liberal religion has a part in this. Liberalreligious people are sometimes so anxious to see the good that theybecome blind to evil intentions and divert their eyes from sinful acts.They want to be reasonable and tolerant and therefore assume that otherswill be as well. Conservative religious leaders contribute to theirunease by invoking sin for certain types of behavior that they abhor –such as homosexuality — while ignoring it for everything else, thusgiving the impression that their real purpose in talking about sin is topromote hatred of gays.
But the problem goes deeper. When an individual acknowledges hissins, he recognizes his weaknesses and begins to take responsibility forhis actions. There are many aspects of American culture that discourageus from taking responsibility for what we do. Denying responsibility,we also deny sin.
Ours is a culture of endless explanation. Our24-hour news cycle means that sinful acts of the most straightforwardsort — abuse, violence, fraud — are subject not just to reporting butto non-stop interpretation. Experts of every conceivable variety putforward explanations that in another era might never have been offered;some will be ingenious, some bizarre and many downright ridiculous. Wegain thorough coverage but at the price of explaining what does not needexplanation and excusing what should not be excused.
Ours is a therapeutic culture. Freud and hisdisciples have conquered us all. There is no outrageous act that cannotsomehow be attributed to the interplay of psychic forces or to somenewly discovered psychological “syndrome.”
Ours is a culture of victimhood. Groups of all sortssee themselves as victims, even when they plainly are not. I know Jewswho see an anti-Semite under every bed and evangelical Christians whoare convinced that they are an oppressed class in America. By portrayingthemselves as victims, they send the message that they are notresponsible for their actions; by definition, the fault lies elsewhere.
Ours is a culture of medicalization. (My thanks toWilfred McClay for this term.) We trust medical science more than weshould, expect from it more than is reasonable, and bestow upon itwisdom and insight that it does not possess. We believe we are at themercy of diseases, often of a new and esoteric sort, even when evidenceis scant, and we listen to neuroscientists who assert that biologycontrols both morality and destiny. What all of this means is that ourown responsibility is diminished.
Ours is a culture of relentless realism. Realism isseemingly a virtue; in the political and financial arenas, the”realists” are tough and calculating and call upon us to deal with theworld as it is. But claiming to be shorn of illusions, they are oftenshorn of ideals, and their talk quickly shades into fatalism. If onecannot change the world around us, one has no responsibility for thatworld; and in such a world, apathy makes more sense than responsibleaction.
In light of the above, it should not be surprising that we do nottalk of sin in America. Our culture pushes us to cast asideresponsibility and to find others to blame.
I thought of these matters while sitting in the synagogue on YomKippur. Left to my own resources, I am no more able to admit my sinsthan anyone else. I point fingers, make excuses, hold othersresponsible. But the liturgy on this day is unyielding and harsh. In oneprayer after another, we were obligated to proclaim what we otherwiseresist: “We have violated the laws of God and Torah. We have sinned.”
There is not the slightest suggestion here that our fate isdetermined by societal pressures, “root causes” or any other forcesbeyond our control. Indeed, the liturgy specifies the sin of prikat ol,which means throwing off societal restraints for one’s own purposes, ormore simply, “casting off responsibility.” To cast off responsibilityis a sin and our own fault. Period.
Jews and Christians, to be sure, do not understand sin in preciselythe same way, but both see it as a foundational theological category. Asa Jew, fresh from the jarring experience of Yom Kippur prayer, I findmyself wishing that we would struggle with it more than we do –separately in our respective traditions and collectively as partners inbuilding a more just society.
Absent sin, we are not responsible. Absent sin, there is no moralprecision. Absent sin, there is no moral judgment. Absent sin, there canbe no forgiveness.
As an American Baptist, I would think that sin would not be a word that Baptists avoid. But they do. To say ADONAI is love must be in context with His grace and forgiveness. You hit the nail on the head in the last sentence in the last paragraph when you said,”Absent sin, there can be no forgiveness.”
Admitting that there is sin in one’s life is tantamount to admitting that one is weak, and defective. In the America of today, there is fear of one’s neighbor’s or one’s fellow church members’ gossip. We don’t know what they might say, and what the consequences might be for our reputation.
There was a time when kids learned to read from the King James Bible. They were exposed to the Law just by reading the text. Many of today’s kids are completely ignorant of biblical truth. They think that God’s moral laws are open to interpretation.
It is not too late for America as long as we get back to the basics ASAP!
Wonderful insight. I was actually having this same conversation w/ my 11yr. old son.(In 11yr. old terms). Taking personal responsibility for one’s own actions, and making a conscious decision to be moral, and kind vs. not.
This is coming from a Christian single Mom raising a Jewish son!
Wise words! I wish people were less afraid of sin-language (or, for that matter, God-language). The idea of sin and teshuvah is not antithetical to a liberal religious weltanschauung. It’s jarring and uncomfortable, but ultimately helpful and necessary, and honestly, you feel much better after wrestling with it. When you admit your wrongs and faults, even just to God and/or yourself, it takes a tremendous weight off of your shoulders.
@ Mr. Wallick
It is indeed sad that people think that admitting to sin is a show of weakness. It takes lots of personal strength and courage to be humble and open about one’s failings. People shouldn’t judge or gossip about other people, but rather be supportive and make it easier for people to improve themselves. Humiliation is a poor teaching method.
As far as Biblical literacy for young people, I would tend to agree with you, with one slight modification: I would keep kids AWAY from the King James version with its faulty translation and eisegetic tendencies. NRSV, NIV, and JPS are much better.
I also appreciate your qualification that God’s MORAL Laws are not up to interpretation. I assume that by this you mean ONLY basic moral laws such as the Decalogue and Micah 6:8, and not the various ritual and sexual minutiae that clearly come from an ancient, fallible cultural context…
Encouraging more talk about sin can also increase the level of nastiness in public discourse. One man’s sin can be another man’s sexual proclivity, political opinion, religious belief, or choice of food or vehicle.
With all due respect to our president, I could not disagree more. Sin is a serious mistranslation of the Hebrew word “cheit” with which I have no problem at all. We all fail. We all miss the mark. We all need to repent and seek forgiveness. BUT, sin implies that I have let God down in my human-ness, therefore, I must be punished by the Deity. This is not my Jewish concept of God – it is a medieval Christian notion. How many (women, Jews, gays, minority people, etc. etc.) throughout history have been hurt, raped, murdered, because they fit someone else’s definition of a “sinner?” Our new draft Machzor, as of now, omits this pernicious, judgmental, and hateful word. I for one am thrilled!
Rabbi Caminker, you are correct that the English word “sin” is not a very good equivalent for the Hebrew word “cheit”. The Hebrew word involves “missing the mark” or “falling short”, while “sin” simply connotes a misdeed. Yet, to say that “sin” implies that one has let God down or deserves punishment is reading far too much into it. The idea of being accountable for one’s actions before the Deity is just as much an authentic Jewish notion as it is a Christian notion. That someone who holds s’micha could suggest otherwise is beyond my comprehension. We should not pretend that the English word “sin” is equivalent to the Hebrew “cheit”, but we should recognize that they represent two related, but different concepts, both of which have a place in our High Holy Day Liturgy. If the new Machzor goes to press without the English word “sin”, I will be severely disturbed. The concept of sin is a concept which has great capacity to inspire and heal–this power to change people for the better means that it is quite the opposite of a “pernicious, judgmental, hateful word”. It is only hateful if it is used for hateful purposes. By your reasoning, “God” would also be an inappropriate word to use, since it has also historically been used in a hateful way. How ridiculous!
@Rabbi Harold Caminker
I agree that it is important to understand the difference between the Christian concept of “sin” and the Jewish concept of “cheit”.
There is also a major difference between “repentence” and “tshuvah”.
In both cases, Christianity says to the wrongdoer “you ARE evil”, Judaism says “you DID an evil action”
Most Christians are taught they are inherently evil, and only an intermediary can “save” them from an undesirable eternal destination.
Judaism teaches that no human being is perfect. Therefore, G-d gave us a method by which to return (lashuv, infinitive of tshuvah) to the proper mode of conduct.
However, my longstanding question still remains unanswered: how can a group with constantly evolving definitions of good and evil have any notion of cheit at all?
@ Former Reform Jew
There are indeed many differences between Christian and Jewish conceptions of the nature of wrongdoing and repentance, forgiveness, etc. In some areas, these differences are profound, and in other areas much more nuanced. There is in fact tremendous disagreement within Christianity about whether humans are naturally “evil” and “depraved”, or whether they are inherently good but pre-disposed to doing evil actions (like our concept of yetzer ha-ra). In both cases, they believe that an intermediary is necessary to improve one’s own situation and standing before God.
Regarding “constantly evolving definitions of good and evil”, I can only say that I am also severely disturbed by the degree of moral fluidity and relativism manifesting itself in contemporary non-Orthodox Jewish thought. Part of the genius of Progressive Judaism is that it recognizes that our understanding of morality is supposed to evolve–Torah is a living, changing organism. It is easy to discern from general life experience that there exist many “grey areas” for which there are no definitive moral “right or wrong” answers. However, I believe that there are also areas of morality which are much more clear-cut, and I have no problem saying “yes, this is definitely good” and “no, this is definitely bad”. I think “evil” is a very strong word that must be used carefully, and I would advocate caution in much the same way that Rabbi Carminker cautions against the word “sin”. We should be clear about right and wrong to the extent that it is possible to do so, otherwise our notion of “cheit” would be meaningless. That, I think, is what Rabbi Yoffie was trying to articulate.
Rabbi Caminker has added an important dimension to the discussion of sin, in pointing out that Jews and Christians use the term differently, and that Jewish meanings are derived from our understanding of cheit. There are also nuanced differences between cheit and our other words for sin — ahvon, pesha, averah.
I think it’s important, in considering Rabbi Yoffie’s post, to remember that its first home was the Huffington Post, so it was presumably intended for a secular, not to say Christian, readership.
For a catalog of sinful actions or inactions from a Reform Jewish perspective, we need look no further than pages 148 and 150 in the 1948 printing of UPB II. (My copy of GOR is on a high shelf, but I suspect its rendition of al cheit is not all that different. And I too will be unhappy if Mishkan T’shuva loses “for the sin we have committed against You.” )
Rabbi Yoffie thank you for the thoughtful post. While I agree that liberal religion has ‘had a part’ in Western civilization’s de-emphasis of sin, I would also observe that this only mirrors the larger progressive conception of the idea of right and wrong in our culture. This is manifest by genuflection at the altar of multiculturalism which eschews such dated concepts as sin with its implicit and outdated concept of personal responsibility as being ‘too judgmental’. Indeed, multiculturalism posits that all cultural practices and preferences are equally valid and should be ‘celebrated’. That is, all cultures except our foundational Western culture which is guilty of all sorts of ‘-isms’ and whose remaining advocates (i.e. the ‘bitter clingers’) suffer from all sorts of [fill in the blank]-phobias. The proliferation of ‘phobias’ has medicalized dissent from the multicultural norm. Dissent is stifled by speech codes under the banner of ‘political correctness’. (Ironically, the more progressive the institution, the less free speech you find. Witness the college campus and average newsroom.) Is it any wonder that society is no longer comfortable with the concept sin given the sustained assault on these long-standing cultural norms?
Instead of being judgmental we must seek to explain unenlightened behaviors by searching for ‘root causes’, in essence transferring the individual’s responsibility back to the culture at large. Ironically, this de-humanizes the individual by stripping away responsibility for their actions. And in the absence of personal responsibility, government inevitably fills the vacuum and becomes society’s arbiter of ‘good’ and ‘evil’.