Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
BRYAN GARAGAN
OCTOBER 20, 2016
Garagan 1
EXPERIENCE OF SIN
four of Fr. Stanley Harakas’ book, Toward Transfigured Life, titled “Evil and Sin”.
The individual aspect of evil is very often depicted as sin. This truth is pervasively
evident in both the Old and New Testaments wherein the biblical authors are frequently
alienation from God, the sole source of our security and welfare. (77)i.
From an Orthodox ethical perspective, the effects of sin are numerous. Most significant is
the rupture of the relationship between the Creator and the creature, as well as the recalcitrant
transgression of God’s commandments. Culpability and guilt are also questions ethics must
consider, and in particular how they are connected to ancestral sin and committed sin. Linked to
guilt and responsibility are the ethical elements of shame that stem from the act of sinning which
The impression of sin in the life of the Christian has prompted a multiplicity of attempts
in proposing a working definition. In both Hebrew and Septuagint versions of the OT sin is
denoted as missing the mark. Other indications of sin are “straying from the right path,
distortion, as well as evil-doing.” The NT conceptualizes sin as a failure to fulfill the will of God.
The Johannine Gospel likens sin to darkness and death, which Harakas also views as
characteristic of “Eastern Christian liturgical piety.” Harakas then offers a sample of the Fathers,
regarding the meaning of sin. Clement of Alexandria views sin as a “perverse form of reality.”,
i
S.J. De Vries. “Sin Sinners.” P 361. As quoted by Harakas
Garagan 2
while Chrysostom perceives it as insult and ingratitude, a definition that was also adopted by
Anselm. (78)
While there remains a veritable plethora of adjectival illustrations, all definitions of sin,
Harakas insists, can be reduced to two fundamental approaches, that is, “in the mainstream of
Christian thinking.” There is the relational notion of sin, and the legal approach. The former
stresses the essence of sin as a break in the relationship between man and God and “also between
man and his fellow man.” Conversely, the latter viewpoint comprehends the inherent nature of
sin from a legal standpoint, or in the words of Harakas as “the disobedience of the law of God.”
The west favors the legal definition whereas the East has a tendency towards the relational. Our
author observes accordingly, that the Roman legal tradition embraced by the West that sees sin
as “a violation of the law of God as more appealing, does not surprise us.” However, the
“Eastern patristic tradition tended to see the character of sin in the fact that man was not sharing
in and responding to the action, activity, and energy of God on his behalf.” Iraneus in support of
the Eastern methodology writes “the glory of God is a living man and the life of man consists in
maintains, since it is overtly expressed in the common catechetical practices of both the Roman
and protestant traditions. What is important, Harakas observes, is that we avoid the “reciprocal
danger of allowing one to be swallowed up by the other.” While exorbitances developed in both
approaches, he cites Joseph Fletcher’s work as one that distorts the Eastern relational
ii
As quoted by Harakas. The latter part of the quote Harakas attributes to Irenaeus’ commentators.
Garagan 3
affirm in certain instances, “right and good, those acts which by a scriptural and patristic
Fr. Stanley’s solution is to juxtapose the two, thus precluding any collapsing of one
approach into the other. Any concept of evil presented by either extreme is in Harakas’ view
meonic,-it is inconsistent with reality. The course illuminated in the Orthodox tradition is in the
juxtaposition and affirmation of both approaches. Maximos the Confessor coveys this attitude
obedience to act virtuously” and accompanied by sin is the “separation from” (God), and on the
The very act of sinning infers responsibility on the part of the agent who commits the act.
This in turn affects the relationship of the sinner with God and his position as a member of the
Church. In the first scenario sin results in guilt and implicit in guilt is personal responsibility.
This model is clearly depicted in the penitential system of the early church which “is patterned
on the paradigmatic sin of apostasy” (and) “presupposes (the) objective nature of sin.” To put it
another way sin is not just a proclivity or a state of the psyche, it is a willful and informed
conscious act that “manifestly excludes (one) from the body of the faithful and identifies (one)
The legalistic interpretation as illustrated in the penitential practice of the early Church
was tempered by the monastic tradition, whose propensity was dispositional, that is, its emphasis
was on the inner forum. It should come as no great surprise, then, that St. Basil laments that his
antecedents were “so pre-occupied with grave sins that they neglected others which they deemed
less serious: wrath, avarice and the like…” In the monastic view, therefore, sin is indeed an inner
disposition, “an inclination, a psychological state.” Furthermore, the practice of confessing sins
Garagan 4
of a dispositional nature, predominated the Byzantine horizon, thus compelling the Council of
Trullo to depict repentance using a medical analogy. In its 102nd Canon, it decreed that the
spiritual father is to apply the “science of spiritual medicine” to the spiritual aspirant by
considering “the disposition of him who has sinned” and to ascertain if the penitent has an
inclination towards spiritual health or has a tendency to provoke “his disease by his own
behavior.”iii (80)
presupposed. He substantiates his affirmation by citing several Greek fathers, but for the sake of
brevity it should suffice to include, in part, the citation from Mark the hermit: “It is necessary to
understand that we are made to act by sin through our own cause. Therefore, it is up to us who
listen to…the spirit, to walk according to the flesh or according to the spirit…Consequently,
neither is it Satan, nor is it the sin of Adam, but we ourselves who are to blame.”iv (81)
The above notwithstanding, Harakas does affirm, employing the thinking of John
Karavidopoulous that the patristic stress on personal culpability remains unbiased. In his treatise
Sin According to Saint Paul, Karavidopoulos demonstrates that among the Greek Fathers there
exists equally referenced support for a theological position that views sin as condition of
“incomplete, inauthentic, and corrupt existence.” The immediate implication of this sickness, the
author persists, is an aberrant world typified by “corruption, sin, and death” (Ibid).
Paradoxically, then, implicit in free will is the idea of full human responsibility. Ancestral
(Original) sin, though, as conceived by the Greek fathers, in an ostensible conflicting fashion
iii
Canon 102 of the Council of Trullo which was convened In 692 to formulate canons that were omitted during the
5th/6th Ecumenical councils. Canon 1 affirmed the first six councils as having Ecumenical status.
iv
As quoted by Harakas
Garagan 5
sin.” Accordingly, such a condition would by all appearances necessitate a view which absolves
human culpability. Humanity from this perspective, is victimized by sin, and peradventure an
The conundrum, subsequently is that Eastern Orthodox Christians along with the Greek
Fathers avow both viewpoints concurrently. We are free and hence fully culpable; and we are
simultaneously subject to the dominion of the devil, sin, and death. Orthodoxy and the Greek
Fathers with them, ever fond of paradoxes, neither deny these, nor do they reduce one into the
other. Jaroslav Pelikan explicates the position in this way: “The Eastern Patristic tradition was
able to look seriously at the fact of human death and corruptibility without lapsing into the
How this is accomplished, is the question that necessarily follows. This requires, in the
victorious over the demonic powers, thereby emancipating man from their dominion. While the
destruction of death, sin, and evil has had an ultimate impact of cosmic proportion, the personal
appropriation of His salvific work persists in the Church by the power of the Holy spirit “to
which each person must consent and with which each person must willingly cooperate.” It is this
patristic doctrine of ‘synergy’ that provides us with a cogent solution to the apparent dilemma.
To put it another way, Christ has vanquished the determining power of evil but its persuasive
power remains. The devil is still the tempter and the flesh still tends towards that which is evil.
v
As quoted by Harakas
Garagan 6
to which the Eastern Fathers and Orthodoxy correctly attest, there exists a tension between the
influencing power of evil and human choice. Evil, in other words, is dependent on free will to
exert its power. Thus, when we sin we assume responsibility. The characteristic of responsibility,
unconstrained choice of “aligning ourselves to God”, following the exhortation of St. Paul to
become δούλοι κυρίου (slaves to the Lord) and whereby we grant the Holy Spirit access to our
lives. (82)
What Harakas is unrelentingly stressing in this section, perhaps due to the prevailing
secular ideology, is that the Greek Fathers and the Orthodox for that matter, confirm that evil
does exist: “It is real and significant and truly a power, pervasive and insidious which
undermines authentic human exisistence”.At the same time, however, this fact in no way
emphasizes the culpability of the sinner when sin is committed, it strenuously rejects the
connection of guilt to individual sin. Harakas, in this regard, enlightens that the Greek fathers
“almost never speak of guilt either on an individual basis” or from a cosmic standpoint, with
respect to Ancestral (Original) sin. Thus, in Patristic literature the word responsibility most
always refers to the accountability for one’s actions, “a violation of one’s status” as a member of
the ecclesia, the context for which it was most often applied. (Ibid)
something repressed within the psyche in favor of the Orthodox position that sees sin as an act
which places the sinner subject to public (ecclesial) judgement, and whereby the sinner
Garagan 7
experiences shame. Fr. Stanley cites Justin Matryrs avowal that Christ’s words “have in
themselves something of dreadful majesty, and are enough to put to shame those that” turn from
the right path. In furtherance the Johannine pericope encouraging believers to “abide in Him” so
that when “He appears” we may confidently not “shrink from Him in shame”, is also presented
Granted that the Patristic understanding of man’s purpose is Theosis or Deification, the
sole purpose of shame is not to convict the transgressor of guilt. The objective, rather is to
Harakas concludes this section of the chapter stressing once again, that the church while
acknowledging responsibility for sins committed, does not emphasize guilt. This does not mean
that sin is taken lightly but that culpability for sin, in the liturgical life of the Eastern Orthodox
Church, is ‘deliberately distinguished from guilt’. In some of our prayers and indeed the prayer
of absolution we (as does the priest) ask God to forgive us our sins both “voluntary and
involuntary.” Sins that are involuntary refer to our personal entanglement in circumstances that
are evil or have evil consequences, but in theses instances the evil is not a direct result from us
having exercised our volition. Strictly speaking, then, guilt cannot be imputed, yet as Harakas
CONCLUSION
Our author in this section, Experience of sin, pedagogically and in detail examines sin
from two mainstream Christian approaches. While the West collapses the relational into the legal
approach, an exorbitance Harakas cautions against, on the other hand, the Greek Fathers with
Garagan 8
Orthodoxy, avoid such extremes, and affirm both simultaneously. He defends this approach,
illustrating that it employs theoprepeis logoivi ,thus considering carefully the Biblical and
Patristic texts, especially as it concerns Ancestral (Original) sin. An unfortunate consequence for
the West, in denigrating the relational approach to sin, has been illustrated above by Jaroslav
Pelikan which bears repeating, and with which we will conclude our synopsis: “The Eastern
patristic tradition was able to seriously look at the fact of human death and corruptibility without
lapsing into the determinism that is always lurking in Augustinian anthropology.” (82)
vi
Theoprepeis logoi is the ancient authentic approach to theology which Orthodox scholar Schmemann explains
succinctly: “Orthodoxy rejects such reduction(s) of theology, whose first and eternal tasks is to search for Truth,
not for relevance, for words “adequate to God” (theoprepeis logoi), not to man.”