Tinman-
I think that a sin is a transgression against another person that offends God. Sinning can be putting your comfort ahead of another’s need, your desires over another’s humanity, or your beliefs over compassion. At least these things can lead to sinful acts. There is no law made by men that the breaking of is sinful in and of itself, although many of the laws of men do punish sinful acts. Sin is between the sinner, the one sinned against, and God.
This is why I find the definition contained in the quote so limiting-one does not need to contemplate the eternal to sin. What she is describing here is one of the ways in which humans may sin-imposing their will over others in the arrogant belief that their desires are divine. Mistaking oneself for God is only one way in which one may sin. Rape and murder are always sins. Torture is only one of the other myriad crimes humans inflict upon each other that are sins. One need not mistake themselves for God to do any of these things (though I do acknowledge that the nature of these crimes implies a rampant egomania on the part of the sinner, this is not the same thing as mistaking one’s limited perception for the eternal).
I also disagree with the author’s assessment of human nature. It seems dim. Humans are basically compassionate, intelligent and cooperative. It is the sin of the world that beats us into the shape we regard so scornfully. If we dislike what the world has wrought in us then in changing ourselves we may in some small way change the world. Sin is not inevitable despite it’s popularity. I am not suggesting that anyone is without sin or incapable of sin (quite the opposite, in fact), but what I am saying is that none of us must commit any particular sin at any particular time. It is always an individual choice.
-WD
My response:
Winston:
I’ve just awakened and have not yet had coffee. (I’m up early. I’m “on duty” and “in uniform” later.) But I’ll try to be lucid. I’m surprised you find Dr. Cooper-White’s definition limited. If anything, I thought it might be a bit over broad. You wrote “What she is describing here is one of the ways in which humans may sin-imposing their will over others in the arrogant belief that their desires are divine.” Perhaps I have the advantage of having read the whole book, but she really isn’t talking about individual sin. She’s talking more broadly without using the term “original sin.” She says that the fundamental problem of humanity is its arrogance. We think that we have “The Truth” when only God can have that. This fundamental misunderstanding of the way of the universe leads to an individual’s imposition of their will over others.
I was interested in your view of Cooper-White’s view of “original sin”/ human nature. You discussed that in your final paragraph. It is a bit dim in that she argues from the point of view of the depravity of humanity, but she’s not quite Augustinian about it! She seems to allow for us to approach divinity through mutual understanding, empathy and compassion. She certainly would agree with your comment “Humans are basically compassionate, intelligent and cooperative.” Her entire professional identity is based on the premise you describe when you write “If we dislike what the world has wrought in us then in changing ourselves we may in some small way change the world.” (She is a professor and practitioner of Pastoral Care and Counseling at Lutheran Theo. Seminary in Philly.) I think that comment of yours is sort of a mission statement for those in my business. I think the only fundamental difference of opinion we have is about the inevitability of sin. I believe to be human means we will sin. Perhaps we don’t have to “commit any particular sin at any particular time.” But we will commit some sin at some time. We are simply made that way. After all, if we were fundamentally perfect, why would we need God?
