Sin and evil

Th e content, defi nition and experience of sin diff ers between contexts, cultures and individuals (Swinton, 2007: 17). In defi ning and engaging with the topic of sin and evil this study will seek to not draw narrow conclusions, but to rather draw conclusions that allow for further engagement in diff erent contexts.

Lochmann (2008: 227) suggests that any threat to being and well-being could be defi ned as evil. Th is includes the physical and metaphysical, empirical and spiritual. McCurley (2008b: 23) simmilarly states that all these things that pastors are concerned with, the reasons people come for counselling, the things that pastors want to sort out in the world around them, all of these are in some way related to sin.

While the world, as created by God is good and under God’s authority, within human society the power of sin is at work (Chapman, 2005: 1247), manipulating and distorting relationship. In a sense defacing the image of God. Sin is seen as the root cause of the problems that are faced but, the message preached has oft en focused on sin being purely individual.

Henderson (1980: 20) therefore places sin within the broader concept of ‘evil’, using ‘evil’ as a catch all term for every form of sin. It is the presence, and the activity of evil that results in people’s struggles. It is this that results in the situations that people fi nd in their countries, communities, small groups, and in their personal lives.

Th e struggle in Community Pastoral Care is not against fl esh and blood, but it is again the rulers and powers of this world. Th ese are forces that work through the structures of God’s good creation. Satan’s eff ort is to work to distort the structures that God has set up, and to pervert their divine purpose (Webber, 1986: 27). Th ese powers are then not fl esh and blood, but refer to supernatural powers, active and present, working evil (Hoehner, 2002: 827). Th is said, how does this aff ect Pastoral Care? In dealing with communities as a whole how does this aff ect the way in which pastors must engage? If the problem is not the people then what use is there in working with the people?

For the “enemy” that had to be overcome was no fl esh-and-blood thing but a roaring lion prowling about within the collective spirit of humanity itself-”principalities and powers” greater than, but inseparable from, the very beings who were the object of the divine agape. (Hall, 1986: 125)

Already in 1986 Hall (1986: 125) described evil as something that was present in the whole of humanity.

Th is characterizes evil as touching every part of society, every system, and every individual. He does not reduce evil to people’s intentions or actions, does not makes it a part of humanity itself, but describes its intimate relationship to humanity. It gives a useful corrective to the pure cause and eff ect view of sin.

Webber (1986: 17-19) takes a slightly diff erent approach and very clearly states that the agency responsible for sin in the world is Satan. He puts forward fi ve ways in which Satan works in the world and describes how Satan works both directly and indirectly to corrupt God’s intention on all levels of human society.

Th rough Hall and Webber it can shown that sin and evil are something that is both within humanity, on every level, and something that is exerted into humanity from the outside. Th e eff ects of sin are then also something that is partly a result of humanity’s direct actions and partly something that is a result of forces separate to humanity. More recently Schmeichen (2008: 19) defi nition of sin would agree with these two others. Schmeichen states that sin can refer to an act, a break in relations, or a power that is at work. According to Louw (1998: 162) “Essentially, sin is a problem of distorted relationships”.

In the context of this study it seems appropriate then to say that sin is, primarily, to do with distorted relationship, but is not reduced only to relationship. Rather, for a complete understanding one must also look to the actions of people, actions within relationship, and powers at work within the system. In understanding sin it is

Swinton (2007: 55, 59-60) describes suff ering or an action as only being evil if it results in separation from God, and the hope that relationship with Him provides. Swinton’s understanding is that even a mundane or well-intentioned action can be evil if the result of that action is separation from God, or frustration of God’s intention for relationship with people (Swinton, 2007: 59-60). Th is adds a further dimension to understanding of sin and evil. It begs the question not just of what is done and by whom, but places the emphasis on what the aff ects are.

Finally, Sin should be assessed hermeneutically, and “within the perspective of salvation and grace”

(Louw, 1998: 161). Th is will be engaged with in more detail later. But, it must briefl y be said here that a focus on evil should not bring a negative aspect to theology. For a correct understanding of sin and evil it must be viewed in relation to salvation and God’s kingdom (Swinton, 2007: 55).

Based on the above interaction the working defi nition of evil for this study will be:

Evil is an (1) action or eff ect, (2) that can be either intentional or consequential, (3) carried out or eff ecting any or every part of the system, (4) that has the eff ect of separating people from relationship with God, and (5) distorting relationships with every other part of the system. Evil should (6) be engaged with and understood in the context of salvation and grace.

Th is gives a broad defi nition of evil, which for the rest of this study will be a catch all for sin and suff ering that the study seeks to engage in the further hermeneutic. Th is broad defi nition, while not directing to any specifi c point, and perhaps being easily accused of being to broad, seeks to allow and engagement with evil that is contextual. It seeks to rather be to broad, needing to be narrowed in context, rather than being to narrow and creating barriers to important areas of engagement. Th is allows for engagement in eff ects on the system that come from all levels.

4.2.1.1 Evil as an act: Human agency and evil

Evil actions can be seen as being by human choice, a falling away from the original human position of perfection and obedience to God. In this way it is a category of immoral action. Because of the human action and choice in evil, there is a resulting guilt (McDougall, 2011: 473). Swinton (2007: 60) seeks a broader, more pastorally useful, defi nition of evil. When writing of human action, he seeks defi nition based on the eff ect of the action. Suggesting that there is not necessarily a qualitative diff erence between a good and an evil action. It can only be understood contextually based on the results of that action.

Swinton’s (2007: 60-61) understanding does not remove human responsibility. Instead it allows for people to be responsible for things that are even completely unintentional. It does, however, allow for evil that is not directly the result of human action. More importantly perhaps, he asserts that those who carry out evil acts are not “monsters” but are fellow humans, that anybody is capable of evil actions, and that all are redeemable.

4.2.1.2 Sin as break in relations: Sin and relationship with God

“Man does not only have relations, but is a relation” (Louw, 1998: 133), and then “essentially, sin is a problem of distorted relationships” (Louw, 1998: 162). Primarily, evil is not something that is out there in the world. It is also not primarily a bad thing that people do. Th e core of it is that people have been estranged from God. In this estrangement it is people who have wronged God and have broken the covenant with him (Cotterell, 1990: 23, 108). If the root cause of the problems that people fi nd themselves in is evil, then it is fundamentally an issue of relationship with God (McCurley, 2008a: 15).

While the impression given is that evil is primarily a result of distorted relationship with God, Swinton’s (2007: 60-61) describes it in quite the opposite way. His description also sees evil primarily in relationship to God, but rather sees it in terms of the results of actions. An evil action in his description is not one that results from distorted relationship, it is one that results in distorted relationship God.

While it has been argued that evil is seen primarily in relation to the relationship between people and God, the working defi nition of evil stated that it aff ects relationships on all levels of the community.

4.2.1.3 Personal, interpersonal, systemic

Th e eff ects of evil are understood to eff ect relationships on three levels. Th ese can be labelled as (1) personal, (2) interpersonal, and (3) systemic (Henderson, 1980: 20-22). Th is conceptualization is appealing for this study because of the way it refl ects systems and ecosystems theory so closely.

Personal eff ects of evil refers to the relationship between individuals and God. It is all of those things that people do that set other things before God. It can be putting their own desires before those of God, or placing their trust in other things. In short, it is anything that a person does as a result of a distorted relationship with God (Henderson, 1980: 20). Th is can be seen as the fundamental point of all evil (McCurley, 2008a: 15). As argued above, it is not just the actions people undertake when putting other things before God. Evil is also seen in those things that result in people putting other things before God (Swinton, 2007: 60-61)

Th is personal evil seldom occurs in a vacuum. Interpersonal evil then refers to the relationships, and breaks in the relationships, that people have with other people (Henderson, 1980: 21). Th is would be seen as relationships within the systems that people interact with. It is seen in the breakdown of marriages, crime, divorce, jealousy, etc.

People are not just aff ected by the micro-systems that they are directly a part of. Th ey are also aff ected by the meso-, exo- and macro-systems. Th ese include governments, churches and communities. Personal and interpersonal sin are found in all of these systems, having an aff ect on all of these systems.

As a result systemic evil is seen. Th is is similar to interpersonal evil, but on a larger scale. It refers to the way in which institutions oppress people, thus violating the purposes of God. He refers to oppressive systems in society that serve to prevent people from experiencing God’s plan and purpose. Th ese are the powers that result in darkness in our world (Henderson, 1980: 21-22).

Webber described this as Satan working “through the structures of society to distort, pervert, and disfi gure that which is good” (Webber, 1986: 27). Th e World Counsel of Churches described the plight of the poor as highlighting what they termed structural violence. Th e oppression of the poor results in the distortion of God’s image in creation, and evidence that His intentions are not being followed (World Council of Churches Commission on the Churches’ Participation in Development, 1980: 6).

Louw (1998: 132) suggests six levels or areas of relationship in which evil can be seen. Th ese, taken from Clinebell’s six anthropological presuppositions, are one’s mind, body, intimate relationships, relationship with nature and the biosphere, signifi cant institutions and relationship with God. Th ese direct the hermeneutic of Community Pastoral Care to engage also with relationships in all of these areas, understanding that aspects of all of these areas can

Th is systemic evil is especially important for Community Pastoral Care. August (2010) refers to it as being intricately linked to the kingdom of darkness and those powers at work in the world. Pastors need to be aware of the diff erent ways in which evil aff ects the world, as well as the diff erent levels upon which it has an aff ect. August (2010), in talking about poverty, points out the way in which there are many diff erent causes, and nobody can ever point to a single natural causal pattern. However, congruent with the discussion of this section, he also suggests that sin is both “the” cause and eff ect of poverty (August, 2010: 16).

As evil gives birth to acts of evil, so does a new being in Christ, a new space, give birth to righteous acts (Hubner, 2008: 17). Living under that power of evil that is in our nature, and corrupting each part of our nature and systems, results in acts that destroy relationship, but a new way of living restore and brings new life to relationship. God never allowed sin and evil to have the last word (McCurley, 2008a: 16). Neither did they have the fi rst word. Th e fundamental of God desiring and seeking relationship with people was challenged by evil, but it was not changed. Sin was preceded by God’s intention of relationship, and Gods intention of relationship has not gone away, and will not (Swinton, 2007: 57).

4.2.1.4 Moving forward

It is important to note that the sin is seen as stepping out of line with God (Renn, 2005: 907) and a break in relationship, primarily with him, and secondarily with the rest of creation. And that evil also result in bringing people out of relationship with God (Swinton, 2007: 60-61). Th is is a negative defi nition, that hints at evil being of lesser importance than that thing that it is opposed to. Evil is defi ned in terms of

“falling away or distortion” (McDougall, 2011: 473). Th is must direct focus for study not to evil itself, but rather that thing that evil is a distortion of. Th e focus of our eff orts, especially in Community Pastoral Care should be to nurture relationship and righteousness. Th e opposite of evil would be steadfast love, or more correctly “loyalty within a covenant relationship (McCurley, 2008a: 16).

What is perhaps required is to contrast our own lives to that of Christ, to see His motivation, His relationships, and His selfl essness. In His actions people see God’s selfl ess, steadfast love. Th ey can also see that His love had more than just personal eff ects. It was more than an individual spirituality. Our doctrine of sin may then lead to greater hope and trust in God’s continuing work of salvation (McDougall, 2011: 474 – 475).

It has been shown that pastoral theology needs to focus more on bringing relationship with God than on the evil that blocks that relationship. It must also be said that Pastoral Care needs to focus on understanding what both evil and relationship with God do, rather than attempting to just defi ne (Swinton, 2007: 15).

Th ese topics must not be seen in a cause and eff ect manner, but rather with the explicit intention of real, honest engagement with the community and its experience (Louw, 1998: 133, 140).

Communities that experience suff ering are not so concerned with having their suff ering clearly defi ned for them by an outsider. It is not a philosophical experience for them, but is phenomenological and experiential. What they need is not a philosophical response. Pastors need to engage in how evil aff ects people, and their personal experience (Swinton, 2007: 15). Reynolds engages with this, pointing out that the challenge of theodicy is not theoretical, but is practical. Th e call is not to see the person as a problem, but rather as a presence that requires the affi rmation of a listening ear and a caring shoulder.

One that refl ects back their intrinsic value as God’s creation. It is these relational responses of care and affi rmation that refl ect and communicate the nearness of God in the real experiences of times of distress (Reynolds, 2008: 32).