An advantage of conceiving sin as the practice of exclusion is that it names as sin what often passes as virtue, especially in religious circles. In the Palestine of Jesus’ day, “sinners” were not simply “the wicked” who were therefore religiously bankrupt (so Sanders 1985), but also social outcasts, people who practiced despised trades, Gentiles and Samaritans, those who failed to keep the Law as interpreted by a particular sect (Dunn 1988, 276-80). A “righteous” person had to separate herself from the latter; their presence defiled because they were defiled. Jesus’ table fellowship with “tax collectors and sinners” (Mark 2:15-17), a fellowship that indisputably belonged to the central features of his ministry, offset this conception of sin. Since he who was innocent, sinless, and fully within God’s camp transgressed social boundaries that excluded the outcasts, these boundaries themselves were evil, sinful, and outside God’s will (Neyrey 1988, 79). By embracing the “outcast,” Jesus underscored the “sinfulness” of the persons and systems that cast them out.
It would be a mistake, however, to conclude from Jesus’ compassion toward those who transgressed social boundaries that his mission was merely to demask the mechanisms that created “sinners” by falsely ascribing sinfulness to those who were considered socially unacceptable (pace Borg 1994, 46-61). He was no prophet of “inclusion” (with Johnson 1996, 43f.), for whom the chief virtue was acceptance and the cardinal vice intolerance. Instead, he was the bringer of “grace,” who not only scandalously included “anyone” in the fellowship of “open commensality” (Crossan 1991, 261-64; Crossan 1994, 66-70), but made the “intolerant” demand of repentance and the “condescending” offer of forgiveness (Mark 1:15; 2:15-17). The mission of Jesus consisted not simply in re-naming the behavior that was falsely labeled “sinful” but also in re-making the people who have actually sinned or suffered misfortune. The double strategy of re-naming and re-making, rooted in the commitment to both the outcast and the sinner, to the victim and the perpetrator, is the proper background against which an adequate notion of sin as exclusion can emerge.
Volf, pp. 72-73
Rob,
ReplyDeleteCould you provide me a bit more context here? I notice the following in the exert:
the “condescending” offer of forgiveness (Mark 1:15; 2:15-17). The mission of Jesus consisted not simply in re-naming the behavior that was falsely labeled “sinful”
(I realize that I have taken two half-sentences, but I don't think that doing so compromises the message.) First, there is the comment that Jesus provides Forgiveness and then the comment that the behaviours were falsely labeled "sinful". I don't understand. There were times that Jesus offered/gave forgiveness and at those times the person was deemed to have done something wrong (eg. adultery). Other times he talked to those falsely labeled "sinful" (Gentiles, Samaritans). The quote above seems to say that Jesus forgave the person and then said that the behaviour was NOT sinful - adultery? theft? No, Jesus gave a higher standard for what is considered sin, but forgave those that fell short when they came to Him. But I can't remember a single time that he said that such behaviour was NOT sinful. Can you share any such situations.
The closest I can think of is Zacchias, but there Zacchias (deemed 'unclean' as a tax collector) was perhaps told that his work as a tax collector was not inherently sinful, but those times that he took more than he was supposed to was - and he agreed to pay back those people. So that still does not quite fit what Miroslav Volf is saying.
Any other thoughts?
I guess for me there IS a difference between the behaviours that are sinful, and those behaviours/traits that we think of as sinful. Miroslav's comment seems to lump them both together, but my understanding of Jesus and the gospel is that they were viewed very separately.
Alex
Hi Alex:
ReplyDeleteI think that Volf would agree with you that Biblically, there is a difference between "behaviours that are sinful, and those behaviours/traits that we think of as sinful." Here, however, his focus is on those who think of themselves as "not sinners," and who at the same time label others as sinners -- particularly those who were "outcasts, people who practiced despised trades, Gentiles and Samaritans, those who failed to keep the Law as interpreted by a particular sect." My guess is this was very overt in Jesus' day, but is more subtle today. So the issue is both the excluding others by labelling them as sinners (when the person doing the excluding is also a sinner), and using the label "sinners" to exclude groups of people who were at the margins.
Volf emphasizes Jesus is not just saying "oh, everyone is included and everything is okay", but that as well as crashing down these false boundaries, Jesus also goes ahead and identifies sin as sin, brings grace, demands repentance, and offers forgiveness.
Does that answer what you were asking?
rob
Thanks for the clarification. That helps.
ReplyDeleteAlex