Forgive Us Our Debts

A searchable, downloadable PDF of the original article appears below. Harold Cumming is a former Board member living in Thunder Bay, Ontario

During my visit to a Presbyterian Church, in the midst of-the Lord’s Prayer I had an irreverent thought, “What a funny word to use! They must be determined to be different when they use the word ‘debts’ instead of ‘trespasses,’ especially when singing requires use of the phrase twice! Debts indeed!” I could not help but chuckle.

Now, many years later, and a Presbyterian now myself, I have come to appreciate the phrase, “forgive us our debts.” It expresses more exactly than any other word what I have come to understand about sin.

At least, I hope I am safe in assuming that the word “debts” refers to sin. I must admit that during my more cynical years there were times when I wondered if “debts” just might relate to the general Scottish preoccupation with money! That was before I realized that the Presbyterian Church in Canada is no longer, if it ever was, merely a haven for displaced Scots. Presumably the traditions arose from the King James translation of the Bible. A quick look surprised me. Apparently, Presbyterians have just as much warrant for their word as the rest of the world has for “trespasses.” The question, I suppose, is whether “trespasses” or “debts” more adequately expresses what the Bible means by sin. Indeed I have recently heard “sin” used to replace both. That seems like a good solution, but it assumes that people understand the word “sin.” I am not sure that they do. I suspect that the idea of sin itself needs clarification.

A young friend, with a twinkle in his eye, gave a definition of sin that I think he half-believed, “Sins are the little things that add spice to life.” How many of us, even though we might not put it so baldly, actually think of sin that way? “Sin City” sounds like an exciting place. Surely a person is entitled to a little amusement now and then to brighten a dull life?

Yet how different is my friend’s reaction to sin from that of the Bible?  “The wages of sin is death.” I can imagine his shock. “Come on now,” he might say, “How can sin be as bad as that? God is love, isn’t he? Why would God worry over a few harmless kicks?” Surely such a modern person must be governed by an entirely different concept of sin from that of the Bible. I believe that many who would not subscribe to his rather extreme view of sin, still have lost sight of the gravity of sin. I remember a man who claimed that he was in good shape as far as God was concerned: he lived by the golden rule, and he had once given a donation to the Boy Scouts. With these unshakable credentials, he was certain that he would be acceptable to God! Even many devout Christians repeat the formula, “all have sinned” while in their hearts they find difficulty thinking of ways in which they personally are sinners. I used to think, “I suppose I must be a sinner since the Bible says so, but I really do not know exactly how I am. I do not murder, commit adultery, or steal, so how am I a sinner?”

Much of the problem, I believe arises from the view of sin expressed by the word “trespasses.” That word suggests stepping over a line. We are rather like children in a schoolyard where one boy draws a line in the dust and forbids his rival to step over it. God has drawn the line; as long as we stay on our side of the line we will be all right; but if we dare trespass over that line, we will be whomped. Such a view, I believe, does not really do justice to what the Bible means by the sin which can have such dreadful effects. For one thing, it implies that sins must be active. As long as we do nothing, we are safe. Yet the Bible clearly refers to sins of omission, as commission.

What does the Bible mean by “sin?” I had never given the question much thought until I wanted to explain it so some non-Christians. Nothing clears the mind like trying to explain beliefs to people who believe differently. One evening a friend and I were accompanying our minister, Rev. Merrill Reside, at that time at Willowdale Presbyterian Church in Toronto, on a call to a young couple in a high-rise apartment. They were somehow vaguely associated with our church, but the husband proclaimed himself an atheist and the wife, in a rather surprised voice, declared that she did not know what she was. We felt an obligation to share the Good News, but what could we say about this old, old story with its apparently outdated concepts to convince a modem yuppie couple that it was either “news” or “good?” I really liked these people, sincerely confused and seeking answers, but would the story even make sense? What would they think if we told them that God forgave their sins because of Jesus Christ? Would they have any idea of what we were talking about? Our conversation lagged. It was then that Rev. Reside stepped into the breech. He defined sin in a way that has altered my understanding of the whole Christian faith. He said, “Sin is basically the failure to love.”

I remember thinking at the time, “Wow, that sounds good, but is it true?” The idea seemed a little too simple to hold up under scrutiny. Did all references to sin in the Bible really come down to that? What about such formulations as, “sin is rebellion against God?” What were the implications for understanding the Christian message and living the Christian life?

In the succeeding months and years I undertook to find out. I must admit that I did not launch a systematic search of the literature like a good scholar. Rather, I kept that statement in mind during services and Bible studies, and, of course, I puzzled over the question on my own. One day I came across the passage where the lawyer asked Jesus which was the great commandment of the law. Jesus replied, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy souls, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets (Matt.22:36-40KJV). This looked promising. Jesus said the great commandment was to love. But what exactly was the connection with sin. During a Bible study we read 1 John 3:4, “Sin is the transgression of the law.” Nothing could be more simple and clear than that. So if sin is the transgression of the law and the law says to love, then sin must be the failure of love.

This is the thinking that has brought me to cherish, in the Lord’s Prayer, the word “debts.” When I think of sin as “trespasses,” I have to do some head-scratching to find where I am at fault. But when I think of sin as “debts of love,” and remember all the times I have failed to love my neighbours, friends, relatives, even the closest members of my family, when I think of all the times I failed to love God, then I know that I am indeed a sinner, guilty as charged. And when we come to that part of the Lord’s Prayer, I can only murmur with regret at my conduct and supplication to the Lord, “Forgive us our debts” – of love. I have come to prefer that Presbyterian word!

This is a serious topic, but I cannot resist finishing, as I started, on a lighter note. It was provided by a joint service I attended last summer. Two congregations had joined to create one gathering of reasonable size for the summer months. In this case, it was the Presbyterians and the people from the nearby United Church. At the end of the service a Presbyterian elder arose to make an announcement, as follows: “Friends, this will be our last week together. We have got along well this summer, except for the problem of ‘trespasses’ and ‘debts.’ But beginning next Sunday the congregations will return to their usual forms of worship – the United Church will be able to go back to their trespasses, and the Presbyterians can return to their debts!”

Think about it.