In 2010 a study was published related to the financial and societal costs of our bad habits. Some analysts call them the sin factors of daily life costing trillions of dollars. Sin designation is seen as important to shock the society that bad habits are negative, and should be corrected as a human concern. This may be somewhat helpful, but is a gentle perception of sin. Sin in this context means bad, but is not necessarily related to actual or alleged immorality before God. There is an underlying impression that though the practices are bad they do not have lasting spiritual meaning. Perhaps the majority of persons in the world believe that we gain whatever mortality and immortality benefits there may be with God, no matter what our life beliefs and conducts. Mortality and immortality are separated for them – unrelated. That’s bad.
So we will take, for the sake of discussion, that sin may be used as a term for only social failure. A strong case may be made for the assertions of social sin. What do our bad habits have to do with others? Naive persons argue that what they do in private has nothing to do with anyone else, and they argue the point in the light of freedom – that one can do anything he/she likes as long as it does no harm to others. But, what I do in private does, in fact, have something to do with others for good or ill. I contribute in the whole of my life to the body politic, economic, social and moral. Each of these factors (political, social, economic, and moral) deserves consideration here. Permit the economic context for this Page.
One study declared that the cost of every pack of cigarettes is about $150.00 to the social pocketbook in the cost of ministering to the health and other problems brought on by the drug. At the time of this writing, each murder costs somewhere around $17 million – or so statistics appear to reveal. That is fifty times more than an armed robbery. The highest cost in the list of social sins falls to alcohol as an enormous expense to the citizens in the society, perhaps greater than the other recreational drugs now so rampant among the younger members of the adult society, and growing in the elder groups. It is admitted that the studies on social costs may be flawed so that the costs vary depending upon what is included in the study. Loss of work, loss of health, loss of family life, and other results are hard to evaluate in monetary terms. It is universally agreed that losses are enormous. It may be so large that society may not be able to bear it, and will decline in its economics, social tolerances, quality and meaning for life and estate. Other civilizations have died for their excesses. Much of the problem begins in wholly private confines, but inevitably spills over to society. This is also true in the various practices of what was once seen as illicit private sex. It does touch society in various ways including diseases, unwanted children, and it undercuts family meaning, a core concept and reality in society’s health. It certainly violates God’s meaning for sex.
The common grace of God provides context for sensible life even without God. Naturalists who argue for private choice without incorporating social responsibility distort consequences. In violation of healthy order, even in a context that excludes God private atheists can sin grievously against their neighbors, and do not escape divine evaluation (judgment) by denial of responsibility to mankind or God. It may be a fresh discovery to some that mankind can sin against mankind even without God. We do not need to posit God to understand sin as an enemy of practical life. Proclamations of freedom do not permit exoneration when society is disregarded. Scripture is clear about the social/private context of mankind. Violations of that context become sin, to mankind and God. Individual persons of faith or no faith are called to responsibility for others – for family/neighbors, for church/school, for government/work, for any context that includes humankind. With correction a nation can flourish, pay its bills, care for its citizens, and honor the holistic pattern that God means for every person to achieve – a good life for an earthly sojourn. That this pattern will be accepted and practiced is highly doubtful except in limited groups, as a church body can be, in persons who aspire to the positive qualities, habits, benefits, habits of interpersonal responsibility. By a sense of spiritual responsibility to each other the best nurturing, protecting, lifting, and practical solutions to social problems may be found. This decency (ethic) applies for all persons. *Mark W. Lee, Sr. — 2016, 2020