JS: I'm not a big movie-watcher, but there's one that came out last month that I'm almost tempted to see. It's called "The Downfall" and is the first German film to feature Hitler as a central dramatic figure.

LK: Sounds intriguing.

JS: I thought so too. Yet some claim that it draws out sympathy for the Fuhrer, and shun it for that reason. It's true that it's probably best not to "humanize" a monster, but in a way it's consistent with the times in which we live. There is a trend in the Western world toward seeing sin as a medical problem rather than a moral infraction.

LK: I agree with you that as Western culture has given itself over to a wholesale aversion to personal moral responsibility, it's tended to "medicalize" morality. Yet do you think this may, at least in part, be a backlash against centuries of ignorantly making moral what is inherently medical--like branding mentally ill people as demoniacs,2 or assuming that people who suffer from genetic or environmentally caused disease do so because of sin?3

JS: It's true that religious people have always tended to deny the reality of innocent suffering. It's a dark-ages mentality that forces a victim of misfortune to cast a furtive glance at a glowering heaven, wondering what sin they're being punished for. But the superstition of the Middle Ages has been replaced with the modernist assumption that everything can be explained scientifically. After all that guilt mongering the church did, it has come as a relief to think of sin in purely medical terms; i.e., people aren't bad, they're just sick. But there are problems with that, aren't there? We want to get innocent sufferers off the guilt hook, but do we want to tell evil people that they, too, are mere victims of an affliction that they couldn't help?

LK: I hear what you're saying. Linda Mercandante, in her chapter "Sin, Addiction, and Freedom" in Reconstructing Christian Theology, wonders the same thing when she asks, "Has the doctrine of sin been ... repudiated by turning addiction--and a multitude of other perennial human problems--from sin that can be repented and forgiven into sickness that can only be diagnosed and managed? Are we, rather than updating the doctrine of sin, instead in a transition from a religious to a secular description of the human condition?"4 I agree with her conclusion that the answer is not to secularize what is spiritual, or to spiritualize what is not. What the church needs is to develop a more comprehenisve definition of sin and healing that takes into account the moral and "medical" implications of both. What do you think?

JS: Thanks for asking. It strikes me that removing the moral/legal aspect of the sin problem hasn't really had the desired effect. It is out of a desire to escape guilt that we narrow sin down to a disease we can't avoid, rather than an action we can. Even Christianity has veered to the left of center on this one, with many popular churches constantly emphasizing God as Healer and almost disdaining Him as Judge. But has this really alleviated our guilt problem, and made us secure in His love? I agree with Jon Paulien, who points out that a lopsided gospel actually reinforces people in their insecurity: "We need to go deeper to provide people with spiritual security and stability. And that is to base our relationship with God on the legal characteristics of Scripture. . . His justice . . . provides stability."5

LK: Yes, I agree with Jon Paulien that God's legal/moral framework provides security and stability, as it gives us a clear, consistent sense of what we can expect from God and what He expects of us. Yet while justice provides stability, mercy provides ability--the ability to do, in Christ, that which is justly required of us, but which we can never perform on our own. Until we see that forgiving, empowering mercy, we'll flee from the demands of justice. So if we want to strengthen people to face the imperatives of justice, we have to fortify them with the empowerment of mercy. Only a biblically balanced, wholistic gospel can correct for antinomianism on the one hand and legalism on the other.

Again, I appreciate the balance Linda Mercadante brings to the discussion. She says, "[While] the doctrine of sin seeks to preserve an element of human responsibility and freedom," "the best reason to preach on sin is to highlight the power and joy of grace."6 So the practical purpose of the doctrine of sin is to inform us of our personal accountability on the one hand, and God's gracious willingness to both forgive and heal our failings on the other. Would you say that description does "justice" to the topic?

JS: Mercy, yes! She's as brainy and balanced as you. So should we see this flick, dixie chick, or should we nix it? Something about seeing Hitler come unglued has a certain appeal. . . but maybe that's my justice bias talking. Certainly before we see it, we should come up with a final analysis. Was he sick, evil, or both? I think we can agree it was both. Okay then, which came first, the sick chicken or the evil egg?

LK: Let's see ... How about, the sick egg hatched into a sick chick, which grew into an evil chicken, which degenerated into an even sicker, evil old rooster--a fowl formula, for sure. Jen, you didn't expect a sound-bite, did you? You know you couldn't wrench one of those out of me with a pair of hot pincers. My default is set on compulsive thoroughness. It's my "downfall." But now, in the interest of balance and thoroughness, maybe our readers would appreciate a brief review of your constitutional deficiencies.

JS: According to our conversation, I'm one sick, evil chick. There's a soundbite for ya.

LK: An admirable admission, but light on the gory details. We'll never make it onto Oprah if you keep that up.

JS: We're both far too nerdy and intellectual to be on Oprah. Can you imagine? "Today's guests will dialog with us about the nature of sin. Is it a moral or a medical dilemma?" Why do you want me to detail my personal flaws, anyway? Is it part of my healing, or a moral imperative?

LK: Neither. I just thought it would make me look good by contrast.

JS: You don't need the contrast to look good. Everyone knows I'm just your sidekick, Les. Really, you're the greatest.

LK: Oh Jen, now I feel totally flustered--which actually is a pretty common occurence in my hopelessly blonde life. Anyway, same to you--that you're the greatest, I mean. I'll take friendship over 15 minutes of fame on Oprah, any day. See you later, Jen-erator.

______________________________

1. German for "The Downfall."

2. This is not to say there is no such thing as demon possession--a fact the Bible amply supports--but that throughout the centuries many mental illnesses that stem from organic causes, such as schizophrenia or brain injury disorders, have been falsely attributed to demonic possession.

3. See, for instance, John 9 for the story of the man born blind, about whom the disciples asked Jesus, "'Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?'"

4. Linda A. Mercadante, "Sin, Addiction, and Freedom," in Reconstructing Christian Theology, eds. Rebecca S. Chopp and Mark Lewis Taylor (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994), p. 229.

5. Jon Paulien, Meet God Again for the First Time (Hagerstown, MD, Review and Herald Pub., 2003), p. 128.

6. "Sin, Addiction, and Freedom," pp. 230, 240.

1. C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain (New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1962), p. 46.
2. Ravi Zacharias, Can Man Live Without God (Nashville: W Publishing Group, 1994), p. 21.
3. And it has not yet found a publisher; for that we appreciate your prayers.
4. Henry Vaughan, Silex Scintillans, Part II [1655], The Night.

"It was very thought-provoking! Thank you." -Christen Adolfi

"Many mental illnesses are from the effect of evil that the ill person had no knowledge to stay away from. Mental illness can be cured or greatly relieved by a life of healthy work (as much as possible) good close friends, and regular prayer and reading the Bible, this makes for a secure and happy (again as much as possible) life. If one is not religious, happy, loving friends help alot." -Kitty Goodwin

"You GO girls! Another great dialogue from two brilliant writers..I must tell you that in the medical world you will LOSE a job faster than one can say 'faith healer' if you don't pay lip service to the 'alcoholism is an illness, not a moral choice' theory. Only thing is, most of my colleagues do not hold this as a THEORY but rather, they feel it's a medical fact, that addictions are not moral issues. I tread carefully." -Dr. Linda Carney

"Sounds like an interesting movie, perhaps a rite of passage for an entire people. When you spoke of "the downfall" at first, I thought it might hopefully include George W. Bush in two short weeks! Keep Pennsylvania blue! Unless I'm wrong for some reason, I am convinced a Kerry victory will mean the winds of strife will be held back just a little longer, so the people of God can get ready. If Bush, by contrast, is re-elected, the erosion of liberty and the power of the Religious Right will intensify. I especially appreciated Kerry's reference in the third debate to James 2:20, that "faith without works is dead"--a reference to those Christians who invoke their Lord's name but who forget the practical implications of the gospel." -Kevin Paulson

"Really liked this discussion. I wondered about that movie too - and being here in Germany you see a really different perspective from the German people - they are almost 100% against the movie because they don't WANT Hitler to come out looking human. They have lived for so long under the stigma of following the monster and they want to just keep him as far under wraps as possible. Most Germans won't talk about Hitler or anything slightly in the subject of Nazi's in public where anyone can hear them, lest someone think THEY were supporters. It's pretty touchy to be sure.
"As far as the sin as sickness theory - I believe that ANYONE who committs some of the atrocities that are commited today has to be sick...but not necessarily in a medical sense. Some people are just inherently twisted...evil. I remember when the homosexual world started pushing the theory that homosexuality was not a choice, it was something that you were born with, like a genetic "sickness". Of course that has since progressed into "normalcy". It's normal to be homosexual now... and so on. But I think ALL sin is a sickness. We were born with the sickness of sin that was "transmitted" to us through Adam and Eve. This isn't a medical condition - it's a heart condition to be sure but not one that a surgeon can fix (unless that surgeon is Christ). Habits, addictions, anything that we do that is contrary to the nature and will of Christ is a sin sickness. Only prayer for a change of our desires will remove those desires from us. Pedophiles have a sick desire to lust after children. That desire must be removed. Nymphomaniacs can't get the desire for sex out of their system. Murderers get their high from taking the lives of others. These are all sin sicknesses. Then sin-sicknesses that turn into medical conditions...Alcoholism is a desire for alcohol, just as drug addiction is a desire for the particular chemical that gives our body that "rush" that we now depend on... After feeding things to our body for so long our bodies become physically, not just mentally, dependent on them. And trying to pull these things away causes a literal physical illness. But if we were to refrain from such activities and engage in fervent prayer that the Lord would remove those desires I sincerely believe more people would be successful in leaving these "illnesses" behind. I remember talking to someone who was a heavy smoker once. They said the only way they were able to quit was after a friend had come over, sat down and prayed with them - not that they would quit smoking - but that the Lord would remove the desire to smoke from them. After that they were able to put down the cigarettes and not look back. God works miracles with our sin-sick bodies and minds.
"So can we compare a drug addict to a murderer? They only destroy their own bodies, right? Well God said our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit, and to Him, one sin is no greater than another. So for all those murderers on death row - how many of them are actually "mentally ill" and how many of them are just "sinfully ill"? Or both? When did one turn into the other? Is it possible for a sinfully ill person to actually sink so deep into their sin that they become mentally ill? I'm just not psychological thinking enough to be able to answer those questions. But I like they way you summed it up. There IS a true mental and physical sickness - and there is just plain evil. And sometimes the two cross into each other. But God is the answer for all, not society just placing new labels on everything to make people feel less guilty about what they do. Too bad society doesn't want God in the mixture anymore." -Amber Guzman

"Thanks! You girls took a deep & unpopular subject & made it practical & interesting & peeled away the skin of popular delusion. Paragraphs 6 & 8 said it all. This will go in my sermon files & I promise you it will be used sometime. Keep writing girls. Your influence goes way beyond what you imagine." -John Bridges

"Isn’t this fun? What a lot to think about. I happen to love Oswald Chambers and his thinking on this subject. Basically it is all about self. Who is running the show? Sin is having self run the show and the self-centeredness, self-pity, selfishness, etc. that comes with that. Sin is not the actual act of doing something wrong, the act is just the outcome of who’s running the show. To give up on sin is to give up on self. The route of all evil is self. As Pogo says “we have met the enemy and he is us.” -Laura Hatton