I've been working my way through the Alcoholics Anonymous Big Book. Thankfully I don't drink much, but this book is of interest to me because of experiences with AA through friends and family, plus I have plenty of my own things that merit self-examination.
I am struck by the first step of AA: "We admitted we were powerless over alcohol--that our lives had become unmanageable." Suppose we substitute "sin" for "alcohol" and apply it to Christians? Is this accurate/ helpful?
Some of the readers of this blog are much better at theology than I, so I'm asking it as a question, but this substitution seems like a good idea to me. On one hand, we should work to sin less ("go and sin no more"), but on the other hand, we are born, live, and die sinners and our only hope is grace. It's probably a truism, but a prerequisite for receiving grace can be acknowledging a need for it; hence, the value of step 1.
Maybe I should spend less time committing to sin less and spend more time acknowleding my inability to do so.
Thoughts?
8 comments:
Interesting application Brad.
I would say YES and NO.
In one sense we powerless. In another we have power through the Holy Spirit.
Paul says in Romans that once we were SLAVES so sin (powerless) but we NOW ARE SLAVES TO RIGHTEOUSNESS.
Paul seems to think that THROUGH GRACE we have POWER OVER SIN...
So how does this work out in real life...
- We surrender to Jesus, not sin.
- Our power is in Jesus, mot ourselves.
- The goal is not "sin management" but righteousness (which is more than simple avoidance of sin... but also the commission of good)
- We live in the tension of the "already and the not yet". We are already forgiven, redeemed, restored, and empowered by the Holy Spirt... but this side of heaven will not fully realize this.
As a side note, people like James Dobson have some odd theologies of "perectionism" that I think are off...
Interesting stuff!
Well put Ben. I would say, though, that not many Christians feel *personally* unable to manage sin... we seem to view it almost like a diet that we're always on the verge of conquering.
In contrast, the first-step idea would be to throw up our hands, say can't do it, and start looking for help. This is clear in what you write (and preach), but sometimes I think some Christians view sin as a self-help issue rather than a perhaps a more appropriate model of it being a disease or inherent condition.
being in a church with a lot of people in "recovery" and knowing the church background of the big book authors, you have made an astute observation. Gordon Macdonald makes the connection also here...
http://blog.christianitytoday.com/outofur/archives/2007/04/jesus_and_the_a.html
Thanks for the reference to Gordon MacDonald... he puts the issue very well, and much more memorably, than I.
Wow, great stuff Jay! I particularly like the distinction between sin being who we are rather than things we do. If sins are actions, they can be controlled, like dieting or exercising more (though, not that I personally control those very well;-).
If a condition, we need to approach it differently. This is true to the 12-step approach which views alcoholism as a disease; i.e, an inherent property of the person--a property that will not change.
Thanks for posting.
"Is it ironic, or paradoxical, to say that we can be better people only by acknowledging that we can't be better people?"
I really like that, Jay. It put things into perspective, and it sheds a different light on the high self-esteem self-help--that the way to be a good person is to think that you're a good person.
Interesting...
There was a group in Texas that called itself, "Sinners Anonymous," many years ago. Keith Miller, author of many books including "Hunger for Healing" was involved with it. If I remember correctly, it disbanded and people were referred to Overcomers Outreach for any people addicted to whatever.
Sounds like a group that I could use. How about "Sinners Unanimous"?
Post a Comment