One subtle and little discussed difference that fueled the split within United Methodism was the definition of good old-fashioned sin. More importantly, the theological distinction between sin and sins defined the debate. On the progressive side, sin is a condition of estrangement from God (turning focus away from God’s will), through choice or ignorance, that requires a change of mind and heart (repentance – turning focus back to God). On the more traditional side, sins are acts of disobedience and the denial of doing anything outside of God’s will, as particularly evidenced in differences of race, gender, sexual identity (but not divorce, borrowing and lending at interest, gossip and foul language, etc.)

For progressives, there is a fundamental acknowledgement that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. This is why we need a Savior in the first place. Try as we might, we fail to live up to the standards set by God as creator, redeemer, and sustainer. It is why God’s unconditional love and the grant of unmerited grace is so valuable and important. In gratitude for what God has done for us through the Christ, we live according to the precepts of the community of faith, doing good and avoiding doing harm.

For traditionalists, the need for a Savior comes from the fact that everyone commits sins and cannot avoid human failings and frailties in this life. But to continue to do something known to be sinful is unacceptable. Faithful living demands we avoid sinful behavior at all costs. Human willfulness and violation of scriptural rules and laws equals disobedience which equals sin. These may be subtle differences, but they are significant at many levels.

Another key difference is that progressives see sin as contextual and conditional, while conservatives tend to see sin as universal and timeless. Both sides share a common perspective but with essentially different meanings. Progressives believe that the misunderstanding of scripture results in applying primitive, pre-modern, unenlightened knowledge to modern, complex, and scientifically understood realities. Conservative Christians believe that the misunderstanding of scripture results in a revision and reduction of God’s instructions to accommodate and assimilate secular standards. Each side sees the misreading of scripture in the other side.

The debate over human sexuality that has torn our faith communion asunder is just the latest case in point. The fact that we had “biblical” debate over “homosexuality” is a pretty simple illustration of how both sides abdicated any kind of honest theological conversation. The term and concept of “homosexuality” is a modern construct, and it is an inaccurate description of what the Bible is talking about. From a contextual perspective, “sins” were those actions that fostered “sin.” Disobedience to the two commandments estranged us from God in two ways. First, it placed human desires ahead of God’s desires. Selfishness is the central condition of sin defined by the Big 10 (commandments, not collegiate conference). Second, the sin caused by disobedience to God was harm to the common good, undermining the strength and vitality of the people of God. Harmful action against God’s people is/was harmful action against God. Morality, always and ever defined as the mores (mor-ays) of the community, were human interpretations of harm against the community. Ancient Hebrew culture did not have a sexual morality defined in any way by modern, post-enlightenment standards. The morality was the human Hebrew understanding of obedience to the basic will of God – “be fruitful and multiply and I will make of you a great people; and if you will be obedient to what I command, I will be your God.” Estrangement from God, from a liberal theological interpretation, was any activity or behavior that did not result in the creation of, the health and well-being of, and the widening development of the children of God. A man lying with a man, wanton prostitution, sex during menses, masturbation – these are all listed together not for any sense of sexual immorality, but because they are not “fruitful.” When these descriptive aspects are redefined as individual “sins”, it makes each act an incident for judgment, condemnation, and punishment. For progressives (and post-Vatican II Catholics), population expansion is no longer our driving value for obedience to God, therefore personal and private choices of dating and mating are no longer cause for concern.

Paul uses this brilliantly in Romans 1 & 2. Greek and Roman cultures had discovered a second use for physical intimacy beyond procreation and it drove traditional Jewish people crazy. This second use was pleasure. This was offensive to Hellenistic Jews for two reasons. One, it did not result in more human beings, and two, human pleasures were worldly rather than faithful (selfishness once again the primary problem). Paul focuses on this distaste and discomfort to lull hearers into a placid judgmentalism. Then he turns the tables. Paul essentially says, “you know how much you dislike the behaviors of those who pursue physicality for pleasure? Well, those who judge such people are no better than they are. Then he proceeds to deliver a most elegant and provocative theology of grace over Law. Romans 1 came up in our senseless battles over and over; Romans 2 not so much.

But, being fair to those who have a simpler reading of the Bible and a more basic theology, rules are rules. A man lying with a man is identified as sin in scripture. Whether a sexual sin or a corruption of the community rules defined as obedience to God is irrelevant. The Bible says it is wrong, as it says almost everything that doesn’t add to the common good is wrong. If the belief system you are raised in says that we must strive to honor and keep every word of scripture, then things are cut and dried, clearly separated as “either/or”. Breaking the Law is sin. Were speed limits in the Bible, a lot more Christians would obey them. If the Bible condemned guns, guns would be much less popular among conservatives. The Bible indicates a qualitative difference between peoples and ethnicities, so while we no longer have a biblical tolerance for slavery, we do have a deep well of traditional Christians who deny racial prejudice. Because God gave the Promised Land to the Hebrew people, support of Israel is not even questioned.

For me as a progressive, the opposing arguments break down at a point where people begin arguing for the hierarchy of sins. I believe sin in a condition of brokenness that afflicts all people, therefore a sinful act is a sinful act, an indicator of our separation from God’s will. One sin is not worse than another sin. This came clear at the 2019 special session of General Conference, when the right-leaning wing of the church wanted to focus only on homosexuality, and adamantly opposed any conversation about divorce, remarriage, infidelity, social justice and human rights violations, human trafficking, and political corruption. Time after time, conversation after conversation, I was told that these other “problems” were not as serious or as sinful as who people chose to love. This, for me, was the most egregious misdirection.

I say misdirection because even the issue of homosexuality, as defined by the right, was exploited to leverage a political shift for power, money, property, and autonomy. There was no desire for reconciliation, unity, or healing – on either side. It had all devolved to a power struggle that only allowed winners and losers. Our sin was arrogance illuminated by our judgmentalism and contempt.

When the human institution of the church gives its attention to ranking the sins in a hierarchy, we have sent a clear message to the world that we have no idea what we’re talking about. There are not grades, species, levels, pinnacles, platforms, posts, qualities, quantities, quarks, or ladder rungs of sin. There is just a human brokenness and selfishness that we cannot rise above without divine help. That help has been given to us in the person of Jesus, the presence of the Christ, and the power of the Holy Spirit, and that help has been offered to us all.