Recently I began to think about ‘Sin.’ My mother was Polish Catholic, my father was English Presbyterian. As a child, I was taught a ‘lot’s worth’ about ‘Sin’ – perhaps it was ‘two lot’s worth’ I don’t quite remember. I was also blest with two different types of guilt. Among a number of powerful values, my father valued ‘truth’ – a good Presbyterian value. Among a number of powerful values, my mother valued ‘loyalty to the family’ – a good Polish Family/Clan value. As a child I could ‘sin’ by not telling the truth or by not being ‘loyal’ to the family – I can remember an event when I was eight years old where I had to choose: tell the truth or lie and be ‘loyal’ to the family. YIKES!!!! What I did was find a third way: I cried and cried and was not pushed to do either (I have been looking for the ‘third way’ ever since). My advice to eight year olds who become caught in a conflict of family values is to cry and perhaps your dilemma will be dissolved. I attended a Catholic University in the early 1960s and things began to radically change for me and my generation and for the generations to follow; one of these changes involved ‘sin.’
For many moderate to liberal faith-traditions absolute patriarchal authority and judgment were radically reframed. Blame and Guilt no longer had a place on center stage [they did – and continue to – stand off-stage waiting for their cue to return]. The reframe helped many of us begin to heal. The reframe was also necessary if we were to continue to grow in healthy ways. The reframe allowed us to begin to seek a balance between the ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine.’ It helped us begin to learn to accept being response-able and responsible from the ‘inside out’ – our inner teacher and inner authority began to be nurtured into life. Some ‘left’ their faith-traditions – or at minimum did not enter their traditional ‘houses of worship.’ Some of us found our way back to our faith-traditions or we spent time deeply exploring and then learning to honor many diverse faith and humanistic traditions. We had become disconnected, wounded and not welcomed by the ‘old guard.’ The reframe enabled us to ‘heal’ and reconnect and to be welcomed and to welcome. Included in the reframing was the reframing of sin (for many sin was simply reframed out of existence).
For my next one or two blog entries I am inviting us to ‘Think About: Sin.’ For many of us sin has traditionally been deeply connected to a patriarchal religion; in reframing the concept of religion we reframed the concept of sin. As I noted above, for some, the reframe was so complete that ‘sin’ was softened, if not ‘eliminated.’
A great deal has been written about ‘Sin.’ Here are three common definitions of ‘Sin’: (1) transgression of divine law; (2) any act regarded as such a transgression, especially a willful or deliberate violation of some religious or moral principle; (3) any reprehensible or regrettable action, behavior, lapse, etc.; (4) sin is any act I intentionally perform that hurts me or another. As imperfect human beings, then, we will sin; no doubt about it. We can also choose to attend to the sin we commit – this is called by many faith and humanistic traditions ‘atonement.’ We attend to the hurt that we caused. This ‘attending to’ involves forgiveness, healing and reconciliation.
Reinhold Niebuhr reminds us that: Forgiveness is the final form of love.
Searcher-Seeker 
Leave a Reply