David Brooks Laughs With The Sinners, Cries With The Saints
In Lutheranism, we say we are "Simul Iustus et Peccator." This means we are simultaneously sinners and justified. Sometimes we translate it as "simultaneously saint and sinner."
Through faith in Christ sinners are declared forgiven and perfectly right with God. This declaration has to do with God's goodness, not ours, though. Unfortunately, we continue to be sinners. We don't believe that once we become Christian, we stop sinning. And this relates to why Christianity is so focused on forgiveness. "Forgiveness is needed constantly," says Luther in his Large Catechism. "Because we are encumbered with our flesh, we are never without sin."
I mention all this to explain that Lutherans believe we sin and that we are sinners. This always seemed like an obvious point to me so I've been surprised to find it so controversial among some of my non-Lutheran friends. Usually that means people outside the Christian faith but it also means some who identify as Christian as well. They are shocked to hear how often we confess our sinfulness in our liturgy.
David Brooks looks at people's discomfort with identifying themselves as sinners in his New York Times column today. Even better, he identifies a problem without offering a big government solution! Win-win, in my book.
He begins with many examples of how people justify their sinful behavior in various creative ways. He goes on:
I was struck by what you might call the Good Person Construct and the moral calculus it implies. For the past several centuries, most Westerners would have identified themselves fundamentally as Depraved Sinners. In this construct, sin is something you fight like a recurring cancer — part of a daily battle against evil.
But these days, people are more likely to believe in their essential goodness. People who live by the Good Person Construct try to balance their virtuous self-image with their selfish desires. They try to manage the moral plusses and minuses and keep their overall record in positive territory. In this construct, moral life is more like dieting: I give myself permission to have a few cookies because I had salads for lunch and dinner. I give myself permission to cheat a little because, when I look at my overall life, I see that I’m still a good person.
Of course, dieting itself is usually considered to be really harmful or merely ineffective. I'm inclined to think the same about moral diets.
Brooks notes that unlike with more traditional dieting, there's no ability to measure one's results and if we could measure ourselves, we'd deceive ourselves. Either way, I'm curious how this (false) belief in our inherent goodness affects our politics and outlook on the culture.
- Comment (64)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
Comments:
Aug '10
Re: David Brooks Laughs With The Sinners, Cries With The Saints
Noesis Noeseos
What do they say when you point out how the people who hold the reins in the the central control are wont to [for example] collude with the greediest of privateers for their mutual benefit, all at the taxpayers' expense?
Oh, they have lots to say. Lots and lots. Much of which I can't follow.
One popular argument is that the reason that the government is so easily duped by greedy private interests is because it's too vulnerable, too weak.
A lot of them seem to idealize government as the social embodiment of the Christian virtue of self-control. (Except, you know, when it's not, like when governments decide to go to war.)
Some have an idyllic view of democracy -- that a government, no matter how big, is held in check as long as it's subject to the will of the people.
And some believe that, though human institutions are by themselves imperfectible, if government gets on God's side (the side of massive subsidies, crushing regulation, high minimum wages, and 100% inheritance tax), then God will perfect what we cannot. Which is more theocratic than anything I've ever heard from a conservative.
Aug '10
Re: David Brooks Laughs With The Sinners, Cries With The Saints
C. U. Douglas
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
C. U. Douglas:
Moreover, the idea that man is basically good opens the idea that some are inherently better. That a greater human can direct the lesser.
By the very same logic, the idea that man is basically evil opens the idea that some are inherently more evil, and that the less evil humans have a moral obligation to direct the more evil.
Actually, I find your statement is the same as mine, stated negatively.
Well, that was rather the point ;-)
Jan '12
Re: David Brooks Laughs With The Sinners, Cries With The Saints
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
Noesis Noeseos
What do they say when you point out how the people who hold the reins in the the central control are wont to [for example] collude with the greediest of privateers for their mutual benefit, all at the taxpayers' expense?
Oh, they have lots to say. Lots and lots. Much of which I can't follow.
One popular argument is that the reason that the government is so easily duped by greedy private interests is because it's too vulnerable, too weak.
A lot of them seem to idealize government as the social embodiment of the Christian virtue of self-control. (Except, you know, when it's not, like when governments decide to go to war.)
Some have an idyllic view of democracy -- that a government, no matter how big, is held in check as long as it's subject to the will of the people.
..more theocratic than anything I've ever heard from a conservative. · 4 minutes ago
Sounds a bit idolatrous, no? Boy, are they gonna catch it when John 3:8 spreads democracy Wisconsin-style come November, right?
Aug '10
Re: David Brooks Laughs With The Sinners, Cries With The Saints
C. U. Douglas
Man is a sinful being, that is, essentially "wrong". There is no measure of good or bad that changes this wrongness.
Thus, even if I do good every day, I am not less flawed than the man who wallows in depravity, however laudable my actions or condemnable his. He is no worse than I in regards to this essential flawed nature of our beings.
I was trying to point out that not everyone has the same interpretation you do of "man is a sinful being". Not everyone sees it consistently as all of us sharing the same flawed nature, and therefore being equal in this respect.
For a lot of people -- even some Christians -- "original sin" mostly boils down to "people suck". From this viewpoint, there's no reason why people can't be like vacuum cleaners, with some sucking worse than others.
Many people don't remember our equality in sharing the fatal flaw until it's convenient to do so, like when they say, "You can't judge [this or that behavior] because we're all sinners." And as soon as they remember, they forget again.
Many folks aren't as consistent as you are.
Edited on June 8, 2012 at 11:16pmAug '10
Re: David Brooks Laughs With The Sinners, Cries With The Saints
Noesis Noeseos:
Yes, serpentia, that is why the understanding of religion will be aided by the spirit of philosophy, lest devotion degenerate into fanaticism. If Christ be the Word made flesh, then true, rigorous philosophy elaborates the very grammar.
I wholly agree.
I will have to remember that line.
Aug '10
Re: David Brooks Laughs With The Sinners, Cries With The Saints
Noesis Noeseos
Sounds a bit idolatrous, no?
Yes, but pointing out another's idolatry is risky. If I did, they'd likely respond with something like, "But you idolize the free market" or suchlike. To which I would have... no real response. Because we don't always know what it is we idolize, and if I idolized things (which I probably do, since I'm a sinner), the free market probably would be near the top of my list of potential idols. If knowing our own idolatry isn't automatic, we have to be careful in what we tell others of their idolatry.
The lesson that all men are sinners is supposed to inspire humility, but it doesn't always. Humility is more than self-recrimination. You can be intensely self-recriminating and astoundingly arrogant at the same time. Many teenagers appear to go through exactly that phase. I think I did.
Edited on June 8, 2012 at 10:52pmJan '12
Re: David Brooks Laughs With The Sinners, Cries With The Saints
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
Yes, but pointing out another's idolatry is risky. If I did, they'd likely respond with something like, "But you idolize the free market" or suchlike. To which I would have... no real response. Because we don't always know what it is we idolize, and if I idolized things (which I probably do, since I'm a sinner), the free market probably would be near the top of my list of idols.
The lesson that all men are sinners is supposed to inspire humility, but it doesn't always. .... · 2 minutes ago
Edited 1 minute ago
I see your point, and certainly some Randians idolize the free market.
The problem with political arguments is that contesting in them does not inspire humility. Although liberty and good order are at stake and both you and I shall desire to defend freedom, the actual battling must expose the flaws in all human arrangements.
Unfortunately, in the political contests, refinements will perforce be ignored. Still, the battle must be joined, lest we fall under the oppressions of the tyrants.
May '10
Re: David Brooks Laughs With The Sinners, Cries With The Saints
I believe that God is like the father in the Prodigal Son. Both before the son left, and after the son left, the father looked upon his son as dearly loved. Even as the son insulted him by requesting his inheritance, the father loved him enough to grant the request. Even as he took the money and left, the father loved him enough to give him the freedom to make his choice. Even as he heard stories of his son using his money in ways he disapproved of, the father loved him enough not to meddle. Even as the son, the Jewish son, was slopping pigs for a Gentile, the father loved him enough to let him live out the consequences of his choices. But always, daily, the father was on the porch, eyes on the horizon for the sight of his son returning, ready to hike up his robes and, undignifiedly, run to greet him, to welcome his return, to dress him and throw a party for him. That's how God sees me.
Jan '12
Re: David Brooks Laughs With The Sinners, Cries With The Saints
Tom Lindholtz
I believe that God is like the father in the Prodigal Son. Both before the son left, and after the son left, the father looked upon his son as dearly loved. Even as the son insulted him by requesting his inheritance, the father loved him enough to grant the request. Even as he took the money and left, the father loved him enough to give him the freedom to make his choice. Even as he heard stories of his son using his money in ways he disapproved of, the father loved him enough not to meddle. ... But always, daily, the father was on the porch, eyes on the horizon for the sight of his son returning, ready to hike up his robes and, undignifiedly, run to greet him, to welcome his return, to dress him and throw a party for him. That's how God sees me. · 16 minutes ago
Such long-suffering patience is, well, exhausting to contemplate, even considering that for the Father, past and present and future are all one simultaneous moment in the boundlessness of eternity.
May '10
Re: David Brooks Laughs With The Sinners, Cries With The Saints
SMatthewStolte: Did Adam & Eve merit God’s love prior to the Fall?
My intuition says they didn’t.
I would agree with you for a very simple reason. A creation can never merit anything from a creator. A thought experiment: Suppose you, like I am, are a wood carver. You select a chunk of wood. (Of course, if you were God you'd just create the wood.) You decide to carve a figurine of a cowboy.
So, you whittle away everything that isn't cowboy, and there you are. And it came out just exactly like you wanted it. And you "love" it. What can it do to make you love it more? It has no capability to do anything that you didn't expressly design it to do. If it does, perfectly, what you designed it to do, it will not have done anything meritorious; it will only have carried out its designed function.
So it is with man. We were created in the image of God. The best we can conceive of doing is not meritorious, it is only meeting the basic design parameters. Anything less is falling short. Theologians call that "sin."
Jan '12
Re: David Brooks Laughs With The Sinners, Cries With The Saints
tabula rasa: ... (to fail to see the value of being part of de Toqueville's "little platoons").... · 8 hours ago
Edited 8 hours ago
Amigo, "little platoons" is a phrase from Edmund Burke, but Alexis de Tocqueville conveyed the same spirit when he spoke of voluntary community action among Americans. The "Saints" (Orson Scott Card) carry on the tradition perhaps more intensely than most we now meet on "the fruited plane" we cherish as America--although those Germanic (Pietist) Amish can also teach us a thing or two about subsidiarity.
Good quote from Chesterton, BTW. He is responsible for the one statement uttered by a (relatively) modern (historically) yet orthodox (doctrinally) Christian that has really got me thinking; it runs something like this: the one empirically verifiable doctrine of Christianity is the doctrine of Original Sin. I find that I must agree. None who honestly scans himself and his fellows can escape the observation that the actions of all humans, no matter what their ideology, fall short of their ideals. And make no mistake, every human cherishes an ideal, no matter how cynical he may pretend to appear.
Edited on June 9, 2012 at 1:11amJan '12
Re: David Brooks Laughs With The Sinners, Cries With The Saints
Tom Lindholtz
SMatthewStolte: Did Adam & Eve merit God’s love prior to the Fall?
My intuition says they didn’t.
I would agree with you for a very simple reason. A creation can never merit anything from a creator. A thought experiment: Suppose you, like I am, are a wood carver. ...
So, you whittle away ...and there you are. And it came out just exactly like you wanted it. And you "love" it. What can it do to make you love it more? It has no capability to do anything that you didn't expressly design it to do. If it does, perfectly, what you designed it to do, it will not have done anything meritorious. ...
... We were created in the image of God. The best we can conceive of doing is not meritorious,.. Theologians call that "sin." · 12 minutes ago
Ah, the image of God as an artisan. Very Egyptian (viz. Hegel's Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion), but not the image of God the Father who has revealed Himself.
The picture recalls Gepetto's (Jupiter's) Pinocchio, fashioned as a will-less automaton, not Yod-Heh-Vau-Heh breathing life into Adam.
Edited on June 9, 2012 at 12:43amApr '11
Re: David Brooks Laughs With The Sinners, Cries With The Saints
Side note: That cowboy is awesome.
Apr '11
Re: David Brooks Laughs With The Sinners, Cries With The Saints
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
I was trying to point out that not everyone has the same interpretation you do of "man is a sinful being". Not everyone sees it consistently as all of us sharing the same flawed nature, and therefore being equal in this respect.
For a lot of people -- even some Christians -- "original sin" mostly boils down to "people suck". From this viewpoint, there's no reason why people can't be like vacuum cleaners, with some sucking worse than others.
Many people don't remember our equality in sharing the fatal flaw until it's convenient to do so, like when they say, "You can't judge [this or that behavior] because we're all sinners." And as soon as they remember, they forget again.
Many folks aren't as consistent as you are. · 3 hours ago
Edited 1 hour ago
If I'm consistent at all, it's because I seek to confirm myself to One is is uniquely consistent.
As usual, we like to note, "Stereotypes come from somewhere" and the holier-than-thou Christian is perhaps one of these. I would reckon the Progressive Christians of the early-to-mid 20th Century fit the bill.
Aug '10
Re: David Brooks Laughs With The Sinners, Cries With The Saints
Tom Lindholtz
SMatthewStolte: Did Adam & Eve merit God’s love prior to the Fall?
My intuition says they didn’t.
I would agree with you for a very simple reason. A creation can never merit anything from a creator.
We were created in the image of God. The best we can conceive of doing is not meritorious, it is only meeting the basic design parameters. Anything less is falling short. Theologians call that "sin."
I know what you mean, and agree that our Creator's love is not merited, but is rather pure gift, prior to everything else, including merit.
Still, "design parameters" than include free will are hard to wrap your head around. Not that we have to, or even can. If anyone can create a perfect design that allows for free will, it is God.
Jan '12
Re: David Brooks Laughs With The Sinners, Cries With The Saints
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
I know what you mean, and agree that our Creator's love is not merited, but is rather pure gift, prior to everything else, including merit.
Still, "design parameters" than include free will are hard to wrap your head around. Not that we have to, or even can. If anyone can create a perfect design that allows for free will, it is God. · 5 minutes ago
You know, I am having a very hard time imagining how an admirable and pious lady can style herself as a snake, the very creature that so beguiled our first mother. I guess the serpent of Eden wasn't the kind that would rattle out a warning. It wasn't reputed to have been very small; almost as large as a dragon, some said. And it did not fade away, even after God hotly said something about bruises. ... Must have been something about still possessing legs.
But then, she might be more like the serpent in the wilderness that Moses raised up to heal the repentant (Numbers 21: 4-9).
Hmmph, it's all too confusing for this heretic!
Edited on June 9, 2012 at 2:02amMay '10
Re: David Brooks Laughs With The Sinners, Cries With The Saints
To NN: As a created creator, I am limited in what I can imbue in my creation. I can only create a will-less automaton, but my Creator was not so limited. Jesus, among other things, provides me the model of what God had in mind when He created me. I fall short. That's why I also need Him as a Savior. To MFR: A design parameter of free will is hard to imagine because it is utterly outside the scope of our creative abilities. But, for me, at least, the awareness I grasp of what seems to me to be my Father's satisfaction at my faltering baby steps toward Him help me to understand that that is, in fact, how He designed me to work. And, in addition, I have an intuitive sense that I am working as designed. Perhaps you've had the experience on occasion of getting into your car and, for reasons unknown, it just seems to be running more smoothly than usual. It's that kind of feeling.
May '10
Re: David Brooks Laughs With The Sinners, Cries With The Saints
One other thought for MFR: To imagine free will as a design parameter, imagine your child at age 45. Do you want them still tied to your apron strings, unable to fend for themselves or make decisions? I suspect you want them to be strong, independent, capable of sound decisions ..... and relating to you by choice as both mother and friend. Hope that helps.
Jan '12
Re: David Brooks Laughs With The Sinners, Cries With The Saints
I don't want to intrude upon your devotion. I just wanted to stress that God did not create you in the same or even in an analogous manner as that with which you worked with wood. I hesitate to call the operations of God "labors"; "begetting" or "emanating" would be more accurate descriptors; and although you focused much attention, perhaps even love, on your labors, they cannot be likened closely to the inspiring of not only life but also consciousness into inert matter.
Please forgive me if I failed to make my meaning clear or if I became clumsy in providing my own analogies. I have a habit of taking the meanings of words very seriously. Their etymologies, their very origins, God beheld even before the first day of physical creation.
Edited on June 9, 2012 at 4:25amAug '10
Re: David Brooks Laughs With The Sinners, Cries With The Saints
I had thought about the childbearing analogy myself, but then realized that there are a lot of design parameters parents don't get to choose about their children.
Our children's inborn characteristics are as much created by God (or, to an atheist, chance) as they are by us. Our choice is limited to procreating or not procreating. Which genes combine, the accidents of the womb... those are not things we choose. Not naturally, at least.
Once children are born, of course, parents decide how to raise them. But parents still don't have the kind of control over their children that God presumably has over reality.
Trying to imagine the omniscience and omnipotence of God along with His gift of free will to us is always a head trip.