Home Page
The Rector's Welcome
Worship
Sermons
Music & the Organ
Newsletter
Schedule & Events
History
Programs & Ministries
Tour the Building
Links
Map & Directions
Monthly Calendar
















Home Page
The Rector's Welcome
Worship
Sermons
Music & the Organ
Newsletter
Schedule & Events
History
Programs & Ministries
Tour the Building
Links
Map & Directions
Monthly Calendar
















Home Page
The Rector's Welcome
Worship
Sermons
Music & the Organ
Newsletter
Schedule & Events
History
Programs & Ministries
Tour the Building
Links
Map & Directions
Monthly Calendar
Sermons
Fr. J. D. Ousley
March 10, 2002

"Sin City"

In the Name of God: Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier. Amen.

Some years ago, a famous psychiatrist published a book entitled, "Whatever Became of Sin?"

The author, Karl Menninger, recognized that modern people don't like to use the word "sin." They don't like it; it's no longer part of their daily conversation.

And people, today, have good reasons for not liking to talk about "sin." For over the centuries, the term has often been employed to induce undeserved guilt. Religious leaders who constantly harp about sin and apply the word to the tiniest infractions of religious law have made many decent people feel repressed and depressed.

A boy sneaks out to play with his friends on Sunday is later punished for breaking the Sabbath. A young woman feels an attraction for a boy who is not of her faith, and she's shunned by her parents and grandparents.

Religion seems to manufacture not very important "sins" all over the place. It's hard to believe the results are pleasing to God.

So naturally, we think that the sad psychological consequences of obsession with sin might be avoided if we just forget that dreary loaded word.

But Dr. Menninger pointed out that people still do bad things -- even modern, enlightened men and women do bad things. And because they commit acts that separate them from God's love, they ought to keep the word, "sin" in their vocabularies.

When Menninger's book was published in 1973, it became a best-seller, and clergy were especially pleased. For one thing, the title "Whatever Became of Sin" was so memorable that preachers could quote the title in their sermons without actually reading the book!

But, more important, clergy felt they could justify all the many passages in the Bible that mention "sin."

We have one such discussion of sin in our lessons today. The Gospel reading tells of a man who was born blind.

Jesus and his disciples and various bystanders, including some Pharisees, get into a long and involved discussion about whether the man's blindness was actually a divine punishment for sins committed by his parents.

The Pharisees claim that the man got his handicap as a just punishment for his parents' misbehavior. The Pharisees' judgment was devastating: "You were born completely in sin."

Fortunately, Jesus gives no credence to this appalling idea. For him, handicaps and sickness are never God's will, nor can sin be inherited.

But Christ makes use of the example of the blind man to suggest that the Pharisees are themselves ethically and religiously "blind."

For the Pharisees, this was outrageous! It was even more outrageous than Christ's defense of the blind man. After all, the Pharisee party was composed of the liberal intellectuals of their day. The brightest and the best, at the cutting edge of the life of the mind: they could "see" better than anyone what was what.

How could the Pharisees, of all people, be blind? Well, they missed one stupendous reality: they failed to recognize Jesus to be the Messiah.

Now, in general, I think the point of "Whatever Became of Sin?" remains valid today. People still choose to be blind to their "sins and negligences."

Dr. Menninger might have approved of a recent article that appeared in the New York Times. The article, by psychologist Lauren Slater, questioned our society's current focus on "self-esteem."

For example, Dr. Slater noted that drug addicts are often supposed to be suffering from a lack of self-esteem. That's why they take drugs and commit crimes.

Yet the effectiveness of many drug treatment programs that try to build up the ego and make criminals feel good about themselves seems very much in doubt. A lot of graduates of these programs -- even though they've learned to "affirm" themselves -- still wind up back in jail.

In her article, Dr. Slater makes this proposal. She writes, "Maybe self-control should replace self-esteem as a primary peg to reach for. I don't want to sound Puritanical, but there is something to be said for discipline. "Discipline" comes from the word 'disciple,' which means to comprehend."

Isn't that something? A statement in favor of discipline and discipleship -- in the New York Times!

In this regard, it's interesting that explicitly Christian drug treatment centers and prison rehabilitation programs have a much higher success rate than the secular variety. Discipline seems to be formed more easily when people become disciples -- when they become obedient to the way of Christ.

Now I agree with much that the Times' article has to say. Self-control does seem to be as important to human happiness as self-esteem. The feel-good philosophies often take a superficial approach to the deep problems of human behavior.

That said, though, I still feel uneasy throwing around the word "sin." Like Ms. Slater, I don't want to sound "Puritanical!" The Church has done so much over the centuries to heap guilt on peoples' heads and to lower their self-esteem that we Christians need to use extreme caution when we make moral judgments.

But there is a positive way to look at Christ's teaching in this Gospel text. For while the Pharisees' problem is blindness, the solution to their problem is vision.

Spiritual blindness is overcome by spiritual insight. Ignorance of who Christ is ends when the truth of Christ becomes our truth.

I grant that modern psychotherapy may put too much emphasis on self-esteem. But therapy does seem to me to put the right emphasis on the ideal of "wholeness." Wholeness is what we need. Personal well-being comes when the different parts of one's self are "integrated."

By contrast, sin is a symptom of disintegration. And that disintegration is often the result of blindness: a refusal to accept things about ourselves and our lives that need changing.

If we talk about sin, then, it is so we can talk about wholeness. If we talk about blindness, it is so we can talk about spiritual vision.

Accurate self-knowledge is necessary if we are to become "the persons God wants us to be."

Painful self-awareness is needed if we are to find wholeness and inner peace. The concept of sin points the way out of inner darkness.

As St. Paul writes in today's first Lesson, "Once you were darkness, but now in the Lord you are light. Live as children of light."

And now unto God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit be ascribed as is most justly due all might, majesty, power, dominion and praise, now and forever, Amen.



The Reverend J. Douglas Ousley
Rector
The Church of the Incarnation
209 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10016
telephone: 212-689-6350
fax: 212-689-7311
e-mail: info@churchoftheincarnation.org
Home Page
The Rector's Welcome
Worship
Newsletter
Sermons
Music & the Organ
Schedule & Events
History
Programs & Ministries
Tour the Building
Links
Map & Directions
Monthly Calendar