The Nature of Sin: Lead Paper for Stephanie and Sarah

Sally McFague suggests that people today should use the metaphor of the earth being God’s body when talking about the Christian deity. She thinks that this is a good representation of God because it establishes an intimate relationship between the creator and the creation; humans would feel a personal connection with this God. Since the idea of God changes with this new type of imagery, the concept of sin is transformed as well. Sin deals more with one’s actions and behavior towards God’s other creations rather than just with loyalty or faith. McFague’s depiction of the world as a model for God’s body is a useful representation of God then precisely because it changes the nature of sin; its definition becomes more relevant in today’s society.
Throughout the course of history, language and technology have evolved to meet the needs of the time. Although there has been this constant change in these areas of life, the imagery surrounding the Christian deity has remained the same. Common metaphors for God still include comparisons to things like “ruler” and “almighty king”. While these terms were deemed useful in early Christianity, they are no longer relevant in modern society. This is so for a variety of different reasons. To begin with, this idea of God as being the master of the universe makes God seem distant and removed from the world. If God is a “king”, this means that God is not really involved with the day-to-day lives of his or her “subjects”. God is literally out of this world: “In this picture God is worldless and the world is Godless: the world is empty of God’s process, for it is too lowly to be the royal abode” (65). This metaphor is also out of place then because it not something really recognizable. Most governments today have a democracy in place rather than monarchy.
God’s body being synonymous with the Earth is an image better attuned to present times then because it removes God from God’s more hierarchical position; the deity in this picture becomes an everyday reality since it “lives” among its creation. God then becomes accessible to everyone. It is present in every single committed act. Another important effect of this metaphor is that it includes now all living creations not just humans and this fact becomes important in the discussion of the changed nature of sin. One of the major problems McFague sees with modern society is its tendency towards violence and conflict and she sees the language of kingship as encouraging these types of domineering and intolerant attitudes. The metaphor of the world being God’s body then creates not only a more nurturing environment but it also condemns the “militarism and destruction” (69) promoted by the more traditional model. Sin then, in effect, is when someone fails in his or her responsibility of treating all of God’s creation with respect. “To sin is not to refuse loyalty to the Liege Lord but to refuse to take responsibility for nurturing, loving, and befriending the body and all its parts” (77). Because God is present in every living thing, whether plant or animal, sin becomes a crime against both God and his creation.
 This new definition of sin can affect then the way in which we view current issues. The one that immediately comes to mind is the controversy over the use of natural resources. We live in a society dependent on fossil fuels. Because people need things like oil and coal for their housing and transportation purposes, we often times forget or do not care that we harm other portions of the environment through our extraction and use of these substances. This metaphor then of God and the earth would change this apathetic attitude. The irresponsible use of these materials becomes something more than just bad planning on the part of the government; it is a sin because it hurts not only other forms of life but also God. This same idea can be applied to the destruction of the rain forest. The political regimes in South America destroy the natural environment of their countries for economic profit. They care more for their own monetary wealth than the survival of other species. The people who perpetrate these acts then are guilty of greed and for the destruction, in a sense, of God. They do not demonstrate the characteristics of universal solidarity and compassion, which are valued under this new conception of the deity. The transformation of sin, under this new metaphor, makes it something more directed at the community rather than a personal affront to God.
Society has never been or never will be something static. There will always be new ways of thinking and different issues to deal with as humans discover more about their natural world. Because people live in this constantly changing atmosphere, they need different ways to relate to their God that is most fitting to the present situation. The image of God as being this type of feudalistic “Lord” then no longer has any place in a modern context; it does not address very well the issues of today. The model of earth being a symbol of God’s body is a more appropriate image because it can be related to these very topics. It gives us a more modern interpretation of sin.
.