Galatians 6:15, Part 2: A Shocking Statement to Bounded-Set Ears

Listen to this Blog

For those shaped by bounded group religiosity, imagine how confusing, even shocking, these words must have been: “Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything what counts is the new creation” (6:15). In a bounded-church mindset anything of importance gets pulled into line-drawing. When observing someone arguing strongly against circumcision, as Paul has done, a bounded-mentality person would naturally assume that stance against circumcision functions as a line. They would think, “if I want to measure up and be in that person’s group I need to be against circumcision.” So for Paul to say neither matters is baffling. But Paul is not fuzzy, this is not whateverism. He does not say with an indifferent shrug, “circumcision, uncircumcision, whatever.” There is something that matters, it is new creation. Again, as in the previous verses in this section, the issue is not circumcision itself. In this verse Paul is saying, bounded-church lines, whatever their content, are not important, what matters is living out an in-Christ, centered approach. God’s action through Jesus Christ has freed the Galatians from the former and provides the possibility of living together in a totally new way.

Similarly, from the perspective of the honor system of the day to say this marker of distinction and identity does not matter is not just confusing, but unsettling. David Harvey observes, “Difference was the basis of any claim to honour, ‘for if everyone attains equal honour then there is no honour for anyone.’ The hubris common amongst ancient groups was expressly focused on accentuating difference. . . . Whereas the present age is defined by differentiation, Paul’s new creation is a place where the value of the evil age’s binary divisions have been removed” (Harvey 2016, 153, 163). They do not matter. What matters is in fact the opposite. In God’s new creation what matters is to not grasp for status based on differentiation, what matters is to not shame others as inferior because of their ethnicity or social status. What does matter is being in Christ in a church community that does not make distinctions between Greek or Jew, slave or free, male or female, and where all seek the welfare of the others in the church.

 This is the last sentence in the body of the letter before Paul’s closing words of blessing. It is as if he is saying, “If you have not already understood, let me make this clear, what counts is not whether you are following one set of rules and distinctions or another, what counts is whether you are rooted in the present evil age or in the new reality created by the cross.” Take note what he does not say. He does not say, “If you have not already understood, let me make this clear, it is incorrect to teach that salvation is by works, the correct teaching is salvation by grace.” The sentence is correct, this teaching is part of new creation reality. But it alone does not come close to having the depth, breadth, or richness of what Paul actually said, nor of capturing the actual problems in Galatia. For this reason, Paul began the letter by writing about freedom from the present evil age and he ends with words of new creation.

New creation through cruciform means. God exercised power and brought change through the cross. A new creation vision is compelling, and we can be tempted to work at it through creating godly rules and enforcing them. The cross displays an alternative way, a non-coercive power. A centered approach is cruciform in two ways. First, it is grounded in God’s action—what God did through the cross. Second, the cross serves as an example. Jesus’ actions on the cross were the opposite of the status-grasping ways of bounded group religiosity.

The above is an excerpt from, Mark D. Baker, Freedom from Religiosity and Judgmentalism: Studies in Paul’s Letter to the Galatians (237-240), Kindred Productions, Winnipeg, Manitoba, 2023. Used with permission. Explore the riches of Galatians through reading the rest of the book. It includes reflection questions for group discussion. More information on the book here.

Galatians 6:15, Part 1: What did Paul Mean, “There is new creation” or “You are a new creation”? Does it Matter?

Listen to this Blog

How do these two phrases differ in your mind: “you are a new creation” and “there is a new creation”? What images come to mind for both? The Pauline phrase “new creation” is well known. Was he thinking of a changed person as new creation, or more than that? Or both? Does it matter? I address these questions in the following excerpt from my book on Galatians, Freedom from Religiosity and Judgmentalism.

 At the end of Galatians, Paul boldly states: “Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is the new creation” (6:15). Although most translations of Galatians 6:15 do not explicitly interpret “new creation” as referring to an individual, many readers may hear the words as the equivalent of “new person” because they bring that meaning with them from 2 Corinthians 5:17. Does that verse actually equate new creation with an individual person?

 Following the lead of the King James Version, many translations do state that Paul is referring to an individual person.

 “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come” (ESV). 

 “Anyone who belongs to Christ is a new person. The past is forgotten, and everything is new” (CEV).

Reading translations like these, Christians generally interpret the verse as explaining what happens when a person experiences salvation. The saved person is a “new creation” who acts differently. They have left behind their old behavior and now practice a new morality. This translation and interpretation are not necessarily the most obvious or the best. The New American Standard Bible makes the subjectivity of the translation clearer by putting in italics the words that are not in the Greek original. “Therefore if anyone is in Christ, this person is a new creation; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come.” For the sentence to flow and make sense in English some words, including a verb, must be put into the sentence where there are none in Greek. The original does not identify the new creation as a person; that is an interpretative move. The following two translations are just as appropriate.

 “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!” NIV.

 “So if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new!” NRSV. 

 In the Greek, 2 Corinthians 5:17 and Galatians 6:15 are much closer than they appear in English. The ESV translation comes close to a literal Greek translation of 6:15: “For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation.”

 Let us review what we have learned. Neither in 2 Corinthians 5:17 nor in Galatians 6:15 does Paul explicitly identify the new creation as an individual Christian. Versions of the Bible that do equate new creation with an individual are interpreting what they think Paul meant, but not translating actual words he wrote. Therefore, 2 Corinthians 5:17 does not actually provide extra insight on how to interpret Galatians 6:15. In Greek they are quite similar—both simply state “new creation” without description of what those words refer to.

 Before giving my opinion on how to interpret this phrase I will offer some observations on why it matters. The there-is-a-new-person interpretation leads the reader to think of transformation of the individual and look inward. The there-is-a-new-creation interpretation leads the reader to look out and conceive of Christ's work in a broad way. The broader, or less individualistic, interpretation does not rule out significant changes occurring in individuals' lives, and it points to much more. The there-is-a-new-person reading, however, does rule out broader implications and limits the impact of the gospel to the individual.

 For three reasons I think we do best to interpret “new creation” in a broader sense that includes transformation within and also a sense that the world has changed for those in Christ. First, it is a more restrained, less speculative translation. It does not add interpretative words.

 Second, in a setting much more individualistic than Paul’s we should be extra cautious of a translation that adds an individualistic emphasis that was not in the original. Recognizing that our default is to interpret things individualistically calls for us to be on guard for imposing that on the text.

 Finally, the context of this verse in Galatians, both the immediate context and especially the letter as a whole, points to the broader interpretation.  Paul has just made a statement that includes a sense of change in him and his world (6:14), and in the first lines of the letter (1:4) he writes about the cross dealing with personal sins and changing lived reality (rescue from the present evil age). To speak of rescue from the present evil age points to the world-changing, or cosmic, impact of the cross and resurrection. This points to Paul’s already-but-not-yet view of the new age. He does not write of release from the present evil age as being a future-only liberation. It has happened in the present. This language at the beginning of the letter calls us to see “new creation” as a similar cosmic change which is unfolding now. Between those two points in the letter, there are numerous references to individual transformation and to a community of believers living in ways radically different than the world because of the work of Christ and the presence of the Spirit. The united table at Antioch is a concrete example of new creation that includes transformed individuals living according to new realities which are manifest in corporate actions. In Galatians, “new creation” is best interpreted as both individual and broader, not just one or the other.

The above is an excerpt from, Mark D. Baker, Freedom from Religiosity and Judgmentalism: Studies in Paul’s Letter to the Galatians (237-240), Kindred Productions, Winnipeg, Manitoba, 2023. Explore the riches of Galatians through reading the rest of the book. It includes reflection questions for group discussion. More information on the book here.

Lessening Inequality Through Business—A Honduran Story

If money was the key factor in wellbeing, then wealthier countries would have the highest levels of wellbeing. That is not the case. In this Ted Talk Richard Wilkinson displays that countries with the lowest levels of economic inequality have the highest levels of wellbeing. And, it is not just the poor that are worse off in countries with high inequality—those in the middle and the rich are affected to.

 Why does greater inequality lessen shalom? The Ted Talk does not answer address that question, but in their book, The Spirit Level, Wilkinson and Kate Picket do. “Greater inequality seems to heighten people’s social evaluation anxieties by increasing the importance of social status” (43). Shame and the stress related to status competition negatively impact health and interpersonal relationships.

 This information shifted the way I thought about helping the poor. I wrote a blog in 2017 exploring Wilkinson’s points in more detail and reflecting on how the church could lessen the inequality gap and lessen the negatives of the gap through honoring people and healing shame. The following month I wrote a blog focused on the key role Christian business people could play: “Inequality: Businesses Lessening the Gap, Healing the Wounds.”

 This month I am sharing with you, through a video, the story of a Honduran friend who made changes in his business that increased wages and, even more, increased the workers sense of dignity and overall wellbeing.

Listen to or watch the 13 minute video   (made originally for a class)

Compelled to Say it Again, Greed + Efficiency = Poison: What to Do About Greed?

Listen to this blog

Imagine that a company, through their technological and scientific prowess, creates a chemical compound with amazing properties. Through their efficient manufacturing process they mass produce it at low cost. Then, not surprisingly, they advertise its many applications and, appropriately, make a profit. Now, what if they discovered that, unfortunately, the chemical has negative, even deadly, effects on those who produce it and over time will hurt consumers as well. One would hope that they would immediately stop production. Recently I read an article (“How 3M Discovered, Then Concealed, the Dangers of Forever Chemicals”) and saw a movie (“Dark Waters”) that recount how two companies did the opposite. They actively worked to hide the truth about their forever chemicals and continued production for decades. Company executives’ blatant disregard for the wellbeing of others angered me. The article and movie led me to once again feel the imperative of addressing the damaging impact of greed in our lives and society. It left me wondering, do we talk about greed enough in churches? What can we do about greed?

I recalled that I wrote a blog on greed and efficiency seven years ago. Sadly, it is even more pertinent today than it was then. I have copied it here, with a few new comments at the end.

What is in the strawberry jam you bought at the grocery store? You might wonder if it is sweetened with sugar or high fructose corn syrup. Or perhaps you might look at the ingredients label to see if strawberries or sugar is the first ingredient. You would not, however, wonder if it had strawberries in it. You might be suspicious of whether something labeled strawberry flavored Jello actually has strawberries in it, but if the label says “strawberry jam” you assume it is made from strawberries, not apples. Safe assumption today, but not in the 19th century or early 20th century United States. There were no regulations on labeling food, no requirement to list ingredients. Greed and ingenuity led people to figure out how to make something that was sweet, looked like strawberry jam, was labeled as strawberry jam, sold at the price of strawberry jam, but had no strawberries in it. Instead of expensive strawberries they mashed up apple peelings, added grass seeds, sugar, and red dye and called it strawberry jam. Greed and ingenuity led others to combine sawdust, wheat, beans, beets, peas, and dandelion seeds, scorch the mixture black, grind it and sell it as coffee. Ground stone was added to flour; Milk was diluted with water and then those greedy actors would cover their deed by adding plaster of paris or chalk to the mix.

This sort of thing has probably gone on for centuries—whether through putting a finger on the scale or through deception, dishonest greedy food sellers have cheated their customers. At times the deception was dangerous—people got sick, some died—mostly they just got cheated. With greater technical capabilities, however, things changed. What happens when you combine not just greed and ingenuity, but add technique/efficiency?

Deborah Blum writes, “By the end of the nineteenth century, the sweeping industrial revolution—and the rise of industrial chemistry—had brought a host of new chemical additives and synthetic compounds into the food supply. Still unchecked by government regulation, basic safety testing, or even labeling requirements, food and drink manufacturers embraced the new materials with enthusiasm, mixing them into goods destined for the grocery store at sometimes lethal levels” (2). Chemists gave food producers new ways to deceive and profit. Formaldehyde offered new embalming practices to undertakers, not a problem, but in food?! Producers found it not only worked as a preservative—enabling unrefrigerated meat to last longer—it actually restored the appearance of decaying meat or spoiled milk. It and other chemical preservatives used at that time, such as salicylic acid, caused sickness and death.

New chemicals provided other shortcuts to profits. Producers found it more efficient to substitute chemical ingredients in place of actual food—for instance, saccharine, discovered in 1879, was much cheaper than sugar. Many of these chemical additives ended up causing significant health problems. The need for regulation and labeling was obvious, legislation was regularly introduced with broad popular support, yet it failed. Food producers and new chemical companies, like Monsanto and Dow, successfully blocked it for decades.

Blum, in her book The Poison Squad: One Chemist’s Single-Minded Crusade for Food Safety at the Turn of the Twentieth Century, chronicles many examples of intentional corruption of food, the dogged efforts to expose the dangers through testing, the denial and obfuscation by the producers, and the eventual success in passing legislation and in forming the Food and Drug Administration. Certainly there is too much government regulation in places, but this book makes it clear that we cannot rely on people or corporations to self-police. Where greed is present there will be problems. (I am summarizing a whole book in a few paragraphs. I want to be careful to make clear it was not all the food producers. Some, Heinz for instance, did not deceive nor use dangerous additives. Those producers who did not deceive were leading proponents of laws about honest labeling.)

Although these are stories from the past, the combination of greed and technique continues to poison life today. Just yesterday I read an article in TIME magazine, on how in many countries generic drugs do more harm than good. How is that? Generics, made in places like India and China, are cheaper than the originals made in North America or Europe. They are supposed to be, and are sold as, the chemical equivalent. But in reality the generic manufacturers often put different amounts of the active ingredient in pills with the same label. If it is going to a country with vigilant regulators they include the full amount, to countries with less regulation they put in less, and to countries with the least regulation or enforcement they include much less in each pill. Read the article to find out how that is dangerous not only for the patient, but for all of us.

The combination of greed and efficiency, and its destructive consequences are, of course, not limited to food and drugs. I could share many examples. Here is just one I heard a couple weeks ago. Michael Lewis, in his podcast, “Against the Rules,” tells stories of the importance of referees in our lives—both literal sports referees and people and agencies that play that role in other area of our lives.  In the middle of the second episode, dedicated to the lack of referees in the arena of consumer finance, he explains the seven minute rule practiced at Navient a student loan servicing company. Lewis recounts one school teacher’s repeated efforts, stretched over months, to get help from Navient on entering a public service loan forgiveness program. Why did she have so much trouble? A key factor is that Navient makes its money through servicing loans for the Department of Education. The less time they spend on each person, the more money they make. The goal was for employees to spend seven minutes or less with each caller. Their computer tracked their performance efficiency throughout the day with color coded bars displaying, in real time, how much over or under the seven minute average they were for the day. They got bonuses if they stayed under. So who were the most prized employees? The ones paying more attention to the clock than to what the caller actually needed. Navient did not care whether the school teacher got the help she needed to enter the loan forgiveness program—they would lose money if she did. She missed the deadline for the program because of the incomplete help she got from her many calls. Greed combined with efficiency is hurting people today as it was a century ago.

Deborah Blum and Michael Lewis share these stories to emphasize the importance of regulations and the enforcement of regulations. In essence they are saying, because of some people’s greed we need controls for our protection. We have all experienced the frustration of government regulations gone awry, but next time you read a label or look at the list of ingredients on a food product give thanks that we have those regulations.

Blum and Lewis make a good point about the need for regulations. I, however, was left wondering: How about the root problem, greed? What can the church do to lessen greed? In the middle of Blum’s book I found myself wondering how I could re-arrange my ethics course to spend an hour reviewing examples of the damaging consequences that flow from greed combined with efficiency/technique and then talk about how the church could confront greed more directly.

I continue to think lessening greed is of great importance, but just saying “Don’t be greedy” will not likely accomplish much. Jesus and the Bible do talk about greed, but not in a bounded-group, finger-pointing sort of way. Rather it is more of a warning—greed is not good for you or others. So yes, let’s talk more often about greed, but more in the sense of truth-telling, exposing—let people know it does not deliver. It is not the path to shalom. But more important than warning people to get off the greed path, let us ponder what we are doing to help them experience the alternative—the richness that flows from loving service to others and the security of rooting our status not in consumption fueled by greed but in our belovedness by God.

I am left thinking that rather than attacking greed it is much better to promote generosity. How can we increase our generosity and encourage others in generosity?

As people aware of the reality of sin and powers of evil let us affirm the need for appropriate and well managed regulations. As bearers of the gospel let us contribute to more shalom in the world through inviting others to join us in the way of Jesus and join us in practicing generosity.

Postscript:

God calls us to give not just out of love for others, but also out of love for us. A book by sociologists Christian Smith and Hillary Davidson called The Paradox of Generosity: Giving We Receive, Grasping We Lose reports results of a carefully constructed study based on both quantitative and qualitative research. In the nine different categories of life investigated, generous people had greater scores of well-being—sometimes markedly so. The conclusion of the book states: “In offering our time, money, and energy in service of others’ well-being, we enhance our own well-being as well” (224). Here is a short review I wrote of the book   

The main body of this blog was originally posted June 5, 2019 

Atonement: Sea Change Needed!

Listen to this blog

In writing and teaching I have passionately critiqued the idea that to be able to forgive us, God had to punish Jesus in order to assuage his wrath and satisfy justice. Therefore, you might imagine that I refrain from singing many songs and hymns based on that logic. There are lines I do not sing—like “the wrath of God was satisfied” in the song, “In Christ Alone”—but often I can reframe the words and sing even if the songwriter likely had penal satisfaction in mind.

 One Sunday last spring I saw these words on the screen, “the sin of man and wrath of God has been on Jesus laid.” No way to nuance that into acceptability. I stopped singing. I glanced down at the credits. The song was written in 2012 (“Man of Sorrows”). This is not an old song. These lines were written years after my books, and others, on the atonement came out. The books have not prompted as much change as I hoped. Seeing the people around me absorbing what the line portrays about God flooded me with sadness and frustration.

 Then, a couple songs later, I saw this line: “He lived and died to buy my pardon.” Again, no way to nuance that—I couldn’t think that Jesus bought our pardon from the Devil or death. I sadly marveled. How does one can square the notion of God demanding payment for pardon with the biblical statement, and examples, that God is merciful and pardons beyond human comprehension (Is 55:7&8)? How does one square it even with common everyday understanding--forgiveness and pardon are given not bought. Again, imagining the image of God this pardon-buying concept plants in people’s minds, I left church with the conviction that I must do more to promote change. Too many people, including these song writers, accept as a given that the cross was about appeasement of God.

 At the micro level I took the step of talking to the pastor and worship leader. The conversations went well. But, what about myriads of churches around the globe? I decided I would ask for your help via this blog and I have increased my prayers for change.

 A Brief Excursus for Some Readers

If you have not read or heard my thoughts on the cross you may be wondering: “Doesn’t he think salvation comes through the cross? Does he reject substitutionary atonement?” I could just state, “I affirm substitutionary atonement; I critique one form of it—penal substitution atonement (PSA).” But since PSA is defined in different ways, here is a brief overview of what I affirm and critique.

 I affirm that the substitutionary death of Jesus on the cross provides salvation. I affirm that God worked through Jesus’ life, death and resurrection to reconcile the world to Himself, forgiving, freeing from guilt, liberating from shame, empowering with the Holy Spirit, triumphing over death and the powers of evil.

 I affirm that God’s work through the cross is richer and deeper than any of our explanations of it. Therefore, I advocate following the New Testament in using a diversity of images and metaphors to proclaim the saving significance of the cross and resurrection.

 I critique presenting any theory or image as the one explanation of atonement—as most proponents of penal substitution theory do.

 Appeasement:  I do not believe that the Bible teaches that God needed to be appeased in order to forgive, nor that God had to punish Jesus in our place in order to be able to forgive and be in relationship with us. I critique presentations of the atonement that communicate this (and this is what I mean by penal substitution [PSA]).

 Recompense/Payback: I affirm that God is angered by sin and injustice and that God judges, but I understand God’s justice as fundamentally working to restore and rectify. I critique explanations of the cross that portray God being obligated to punish as payback or recompense.

 More Cross: Not Just Avoiding Toxicity

The logic that justice demanded that God punish Jesus in order to forgive has contributed to many people imaging God as an angry, accusing, and wrathful figure. That motivated me to critique penal substitution theory of atonement and promote alternatives. Yet these alternative images and explanations do so much more than just avoid toxic theology. They open the way to experience more of the depth and riches of the cross and resurrection. (To taste some of this richness I invite you to read this short article that gives five real-life examples of people experiencing other facets of the saving power of the cross and resurrection.)

 What to do?

Please join me in working for a shift away from PSA as the dominant understanding of the cross and a shift toward using multiple images. Here are some ideas on how to do so:

 Initiate Conversation

In your small group or with friends ask, “what do you think about the cross, what does it tell us about God, about Jesus?” Pray for openings to talk about the cross (and for awareness to see the openings).

 Share New Stories and Images

As attention turns to Jesus’ death and resurrection in this season of Lent and Easter, let us tell richer and more compelling stories than the PSA story.

 -          Who is someone who might benefit from you sharing with them an alternative cross story? You could tell them one or share with them a story/chapter from Proclaiming the Scandal of the Cross or from those at the bottom of my website’s “Atonement Resources” page.

-          Who is a pastor, youth pastor, small group leader, etc. who you could encourage to use non-PSA images and give/loan a copy of Proclaiming the Scandal of the Cross?

-          Who is a worship leader you could encourage to avoid explicitly PSA lyrics when choosing songs?

 Dislodging the Penal Substitution Story

Using alternative images and narratives of how the cross and resurrection provide salvation is of utmost importance. We must also dislodge the PSA logic and images that are in place. Not only because their toxicity will remain if we do not, but because people will often pull alternative images into the already-in-place PSA foundational narrative. Many people do the opposite of what I do when they sing songs about the cross. They see all lyrics through the lens of PSA and tend to interpret them as describing PSA even if they are not.

 I have found two things especially helpful in enabling people to let go of the assumption that PSA is clearly in the Bible and is the foundational explanation of the cross.

 PSA is Relatively New—Knowing that can open space to evaluate it and consider other options. For over 1,000 years the church proclaimed the gospel without portraying the cross as God punishing Jesus in our place to satisfy justice. Most commonly the cross and resurrection were proclaimed as a victory over death, sin, or the devil. Then Anselm introduced the concept of the cross as satisfaction in 1098. Later, during the Reformation, some stripped Anselm’s atonement theory of its medieval garb and dressed it in clothes borrowed from a modern Western courtroom. That gave birth to the penal substitution theory of atonement.

 Pull Atonement Out of a Western Courtroom and Put it Back in a Hebraic Setting – The logic of modern Western law shapes PSA. It leads people to read Romans 3:25 as stating that because God is just God had to punish Jesus. But Paul had a different concept of justice—one born from his immersion in Old Testament scriptures. From a Hebraic perspective, God is seen as just by keeping covenant commitments to save and making things right. For more on these contrasting concepts of justice and how they shape one’s thinking about the cross see this article or this video.

Pray

Finally, please join me in praying for a sea change of atonement thinking. May PSA become a minority position—its reign of 500 years is enough.

 As you share alternative proclamation of how Jesus’ life, death and resurrection provide holistic salvation, may you experience new facets of the gospel in ways you and your community are deeply nourished by.

Additional Resources

I wrote a blog six years ago describing what I mentioned in the previous sentence through re-reading two chapters in Proclaiming the Scandal of the Cross. : “The Cross: Atonement Analysis is One Thing. What does it Mean for Me?”

 The Atonement Resources page on my website has links for various articles, books, and videos

 The first chapter of Proclaiming the Scandal of the Cross provides a short overview of the benefit of using multiple images of atonement and a critique of PSA, including one example of seeing that a Bible text does not actually affirm PSA (Rom 6:23).

 For an in-depth biblical and historical exploration of PSA and alternatives see the second edition of the book I co-authored with Joel Green: Recovering the Scandal of the Cross

 Redemption - many people think of redemption as a payment made to satisfy God. In a series of podcasts, The Bible Project explores in depth how the word is used in various Bible texts and displays that the above understanding is not the biblical meaning of redemption and the cross. Go to the home page of the podcasts, and scroll down to June, July, and August , 2025. The last one in the series gives a summary and responds to listeners questions. It includes clear statements on why redemption does not mean God is demanding a payment.

 Joel Green recently did a four-part Substack series on Penal Substitution. Go to his index look for “Death of Jesus” and then posts 8-11. Here is the first one.

Our Concept of Sin Can Facilitate or Hinder a Centered Approach

Listen to this blog

His comment immediately seized my attention. It felt significant. It was. Forty years later I still remember the comment; I found it so important I tried to work it into as many courses as I could. Actually, before it grabbed my attention I had to first ask a question about a word our former professor had used. I asked John Linton what he meant by “ontological.” He had told us that it was more biblical to think of sin as a relational problem rather than ontological, he explained that “ontological” referred to our being. He invited Lynn and I to imagine that what we inherited from Adam and Eve was not something like a sin gene that corrupted our being, but rather a web of broken relationships we were born into.

 I have recently been in conversations on this topic because my wife Lynn is reading John E. Toews’ book, The Story of Original Sin, and because my daughter Julia shared her negative reaction to someone describing our state of sin as ontological. In both cases my passion for the topic immediately switched on. I, mentally, reached into the file of my class notes and shared observations with them. In the midst of those conversations I had a new insight about how our view of sin can facilitate or hinder a centered-set approach. In this blog I will first give a short summary of how I described the two concepts of sin in class. Then I will share my new insight.

Two comments before I begin. First, to critique the biological-like view of sin and advocate for the relational view is not to downplay the severity or universality of sin. The question is what is the root cause of sin. Second, to those who might think, “Oh, just like a theologian to come up with some new idea rather than sticking with the old traditional view.” Well, in this case, the relational view is actually the older one! For more on that, see the first “footnote” at the end of the blog.

Sin as a relational problem — this view focuses on broken relationships as the root problem that causes us to sin. As illustrated on the right side of the above diagram, a lack of trust distorts our relationship with God, ourselves, others, and creation. Those twisted relationships lead us to commit actions that hurt God, damage ourselves, others, and creation. Humans are born into a web of distorted relationships that lead them to react in fear and mistrust. They are alienated and therefore they sin.

 Sin as an ontological problem — this view focuses on a state of being as the root problem. In an almost biological sense it sees humans as tainted or corrupt. Humans are at the core of their being bad or evil and therefore do evil. Humans are ontological sinners and therefore they sin. Or, as illustrated in the left side of the above diagram, people think of sin like an ugly cancer within our being that causes us to commit actions that hurt God, damage ourselves, others, and creation.

 I have qualified my language with the word “like”—"like an ugly cancer,” “biological-like” and “like a sin gene.” The reality, however, is that many Christians do think of sin as passed on from generation to generation in a very physical way—as seen in this tract’s portrayal of sin. On the previous page, the doctor had said “Everybody’s born with a bad heart problem.”

Sins sliver out of the fleshly part of the heart

Later in the tract, the doctor says, “When Adam and Eve disobeyed God, everything changed, especially our hearts, and that got passed down to us.” Note, a relational view of sin would affirm almost everything in that sentence, but would say “relationships” instead of heart. It could use “passed down” language, but might more clearly say something like, “and we have all been born into that web of alienated relationships.” (The tract is, Heart Trouble?, Chick Publications, www.chick.com)

 Although thinking of sin as part of our being in a physical sense is very common today, and seen by many as the orthodox view, it is not explicitly in the Bible, it was not used for the first 300 years of church history, and it was never adopted by the Eastern Orthodox churches.

 Many of us have tended to read biblical passages on sin from an ontological perspective and think that they clearly state that our being is in some way evil or sinful, and therefore we sin. I maintain that those passages can be understood in line with the above paragraph on the relational paradigm of sin. So, for instance, when Paul talked about his old self, he could be referring to a human who is fundamentally alienated from God, others, and self. We can still talk of being born in sin, or born as sinners, but I would choose to interpret that in a relational sense (see the "web" language above).

 Do we receive some gene or cancer that makes us sin, or do we receive from our parents and ancestors relational alienation? I maintain that at the root of sin is lack of trust or unbelief which is manifested in distorted relationships and which causes the actions we call sins.

 Bounded, Centered, and Our Concept of Sin

In class, after presenting the two concepts of sin I would ask, “what difference does this make in life? How will each concept lead people to think of themselves? How will your view of sin influence how you approach pastoral care, counseling, discipleship?” The ontological concept leads many people to think of themselves as unrepairable. From this perspective, a life of faith in Christ offers forgiveness for sinful acts caused by the sin gene and gives the hope of a body without the sin gene in heaven. In the meantime, the sin gene is present. If an individual, or church community, accepts that as reality, pastoral care and discipleship will likely be seen as sin-control—seeking to lessen the damage from a physically sinful heart.

 In contrast, if the fundamental problem is viewed as broken relationships, then salvation through Jesus is not limited just to forgiveness and a future hope. Healing of alienation starts in the moment of salvation and can continue in this life on earth. Rather than just trying to build a containment wall around the root problem, the relational view understands that we can lessen the severity of the root problem. Pastoral care and discipleship will not bring full healing this side of heaven, but can significantly lessen alienation. In contrast to the ontological view, a relational approach will focus not only on the sin actions flowing from the root, but on the root as well.

 I heard myself say something like that in the conversation with my daughter, and at that moment I noticed the similarity to the image and language of a bounded-set church. In many ways the bounded approach is about containment—sin control. The boundary wall is the key tool for behavioral change. In a centered-set church the key is relationship—relationship with the center and relationship with those who walk with us in becoming more Christlike. Therefore, an ontological view of sin will contribute toward a bounded church mentality and a relational view of sin will facilitate a centered approach. I want to be careful to not overstate. A church that teaches an ontological view of sin can still work at being centered—and benefit from doing so. Teaching a relational view of sin does not alone protect a church from being bounded or fuzzy. Rather, they both feel like compost. Adding an ontological view of sin to the soil of a church will enhance the sprouting and flourishing of a bounded-set church. Adding a relational view of sin to the soil of a church will enhance the sprouting and flourishing of a centered-set church.

 Therefore, recognizing that many people who have never heard the term “ontological sin” nor read a theology book have an ontological view of sin, let us in our preaching, counseling, spiritual direction, and teaching explicitly challenge the sin-gene concept and replace it with the relational understanding of sin.

Footnote #1

The ontological understanding of sin traces back to Augustine, and sadly, to a poor translation of one verse. John E. Toews wrote that Augustine “consistently taught that sin originated in the transgression of Adam and was transmitted from generation to generation through human reproduction” (85). Augustine rooted his understanding of all humans inheriting sin from Adam in a seminal manner in Romans 5:12—a text he cites more than 150 times. Unfortunately, Augustine did not know Greek well and he relied on a Latin version that mistranslated the verse.

Instead of an accurate translation like:
“Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—”

 The version Augustine read said,
“Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, in whom all sinned—"

That “in whom all sinned” supported his idea that a piece of the soul was contaminated and passed through male semen.

Toews’s short book, The Story of Original Sin, provides not only a chapter detailing Augustine’s missteps, but more importantly displays how up until that time, both Jews and Christians, did not hold an ontological view of sin.

 Footnote #2

When I presented this material in class, some students would argue for a combination of the two views. I always argued against that—seeing it as an effort to hang on to something I thought better to let go of. But about five years ago a student, Susan Tovar, argued for a combined view that led me to acknowledge that reality is more complex than my two neat categories. There can be a physically inherited aspect to sin. She said that recent studies in epigenetics point to traumas of ancestors, their fears and anxieties, being passed on genetically. These researchers would respond to what I have written by saying we not only are born into webs of broken relationships, but we are born with inherited trauma. We might say some woundedness is passed on ontologically.

 After our Zoom class (during COVID) I sent Susan a note asking her to help me understand better what she had said and to think with me about the difference between this sort of genetical inheritance and the ontological view of sin seen in the tract. Our conclusion was that it was correct to still say that original sin, the root problem, is relational. We also discerned that whereas the ontological view sees the sin presence in the being as permanent and unchanging, people can experience healing from inherited trauma. Genetically inherited trauma can be changed.