Journalist, Quaker and lovely chap Symon Hill has written yet another thought-provoking article at Ekklesia.co.uk. I’d recommend reading the whole thing, but in the meantime, here’s the first bit…
“A display of snacks in a cafe I used to visit was labelled “sinful treats”. I never asked in which religion the consumption of peanuts is regarded as a sin.
After a fascinating linguistic journey, the word “sin” can now mean “appealing”. On the other hand, some Christians throw the word around fairly unthinkingly. Many other Christians have become rather embarrassed about the term “sin”, worrying that its use will make them appear judgemental.
Understandings of sin have undergone many changes. After the Church became linked to the Roman Empire in the fourth century, Christians gradually accustomed themselves to Christendom – the system that united church and state. The theologian Augustine developed two major new doctrines that still exert huge influence.
The first is “just war” theory, designed to replace early Christian nonviolence. The second is “original sin”, according to which everyone is born a sinner. Augustine taught that original sin is passed from one generation to another by sex.
Oppressive rulers and church leaders have made much use of these doctrines. The strict criteria for “just war” were soon stretched out of all recognition. Contempt for sex, pregnancy and the body fuelled the subordination of women and sexual minorities. And it is much easier to condemn the sexual sin of deviant individuals than the violent sin of imperial oppression.
In short, Christendom placed the focus of sin firmly on sex and away from violence.
In Post-Christendom, this distorted outlook often continues. Many churches focus excessively on sexual ethics, while treating questions of peace and war as a side-issue at best…”
For the rest, click here.
