104 The Human Being in Black Theology definition of being in relation to nonbeing; it is a condition of estrangement from the source of meaning and purpose in the universe. 1. Sin as a Community Concept. In order to understand clearly the function of sin in the biblical tradition, it is necessary to point out that it is meaningful only in the context of the Israelite commu- nity. Sin is not an abstract idea that defines ethical behavior for all and sundry. Rather it is a religious concept that defines the human condition as separated from the essence of the community. To be in sin has nothing to do with disobeying laws that are alien to the community's existence. Quite the contrary, failure to destroy the powers that seek to enforce alien laws on the community is to be in a state of sin. It is incumbent on all members of the community to define their existence according to the community's essence and to defend the community against that which seeks to destroy it. To be in sin, then, is to deny the values that make the community what it is. It is living according to one's private interests and not according to the goals of the community. It is believing that one can live independently of the source that is responsible for the commu- nity's existence. For Israel sin meant alienation from the covenant of Yahweh as grounded in Yahweh's liberating activity at the exodus. If the meaning of Israel's existence is defined by the exodus and the covenant, then all other ways of living in the world must be termed a violation of its existence as the people of Yahweh. Sin in the community of Israel is nothing but a refusal to acknowledge the significance of the exodus and the covenant as God's liberating activity. It means grounding one's being on some loyalty other than Yahweh. It is counting Yahweh's activity as secondary by refusing to define the community in terms of divine liberation. It is human existence in community that defines the meaning of sin. To be in sin means to deny the community. Nor does this definition of sin ignore the biblical claim that the fall describes the condition of all human beings. Indeed that is the very point: Genesis 3 is Israel's analysis of universal sin and thus is comprehen- sible only from its perspective. It is not likely that other communi- ties, defining their being from other sources, will take too seriously Israel's condemnation of them as sinners. Genesis 3 is meaningful to those who participate in Israel's community and to no one else. The Human Being in Black Theology 105 It is important to point out that Genesis 3 was probably written during the reign of Solomon, more than three centuries after the exodus. Casting his eye back across that time span, the writer sees the history of Israel as the history of alienation from the source of its being, the exodus and Sinai events. This historical and existen- tial alienation is then projected onto a cosmic and universal screen in Genesis 3. Because Israel has not directed its existence exclusively according to divine liberation, it is separated from God and is in a condition of fallenness. At the exodus, Yahweh appears as the God of oppressed Israel in its liberation from the Egyptians. The covenant at Sinai is the agreement between Yahweh and this people that Yahweh would continue a liberative presence if Israel would define its existence as a community on the basis of divine liberation. Sin, then, is the failure of Israel to recognize the liberating work of God. It is believing that liberation is not the definition of being in the world. When Israel tries to define its existence according to the pattern of other nations and thus believes that its existence is dependent on some source other than Yahweh's liberating activity, it is in a state of sin. To revolt against the community's reason for being is to deny the reality of the community itself. The idea of sin is applicable to other people as they are related to the community of Israel. Because Israel believes that Yahweh is Lord of all history, those who fail to define their existence accord- ingly are separated from God. To fail to recognize God's activity as defined by the community of Israel is to exist in sin. The relationship between sin and community is further evident in the character of Israelite prophecy. A prophet is one who speaks for Yahweh by reminding the community of its reason for being in the world. Nathan rebukes David because he acted for self and not for the community. Elijah challenges Ahab because he fails to recog- nize the absolute sovereignty of Yahweh. Amos and Hosea also remind Israel of the meaning of its existence by pointing back to the exodus and covenant. The essence of their concern is to call the community back to the source of its life. They are saying that unless we become what we are, we will no longer be. Sin is living a lie― that is, trying to be what we are not. To be is to know that one's being is grounded in God's liberating activity. The same perspective is also found in the New Testament. Be- cause Jesus, the Oppressed One, reveals to us what we are as God created us to be, the oppressed Christian community knows that as we actually are, we are fallen creatures. We are not what we ought to be. When we look at Jesus, then, we know that instead of affirming our existence in him, we have denied him and taken a course completely alien to our being. Sin, then, is a condition of human existence in which we deny the essence of God's liberating activity as revealed in Jesus Christ. It is a way of life in which we cease to be fully human and we make choices according to our private interests, identifying the ultimate with an alien power. It is accepting slavery as a condition of human existence by denying the freedom grounded in God's activity. Sin is an alienation from the source of humanity in the world, resulting in human oppression and misery. 2. Sin and the Black and White Communities. What does sin mean for the black and white communities in contemporary America? Because sin is a concept that is meaningful only for an oppressed community as it reflects upon its liberation, it is not possible to make a universal analysis that is meaningful for both black and white persons. Black theology believes that the true nature of sin is perceived only in the moment of oppression and liberation. This means that blacks, like Israel of old, know what sin is because they have experienced the source of their being and are now able to analyze their own existence in relation to the world at large. They know what nonbeing (sin) is because they have experi- enced being (black power). We are now in a position to say what the world ought to be in relation to what it is. Because sin is inseparable from revelation, and because revela- tion is an event that takes place in the moment of liberation from oppression, there can be no knowledge of the sinful condition except in the movement of an oppressed community claiming its freedom. This means that whites, despite their self-proclaimed religiousness, are rendered incapable of making valid judgments on the character of sin. That is why American theology discusses sin in the abstract, debating it in relation to universal humankind. In white theology, sin is a theoretical idea, not a concrete reality. No white theologian has been able to relate sin to the black-white encounter in America. Generally, white fundamentalists have identified sin with moral purity. More sophisticated liberal and neo-orthodox thinkers have spoken in hushed solemnity about our broken relationship with God but that is all they say. We are still waiting for an interpreta- tion of sin in relation to the world at large. Invariably, white theologians analyze sin as if blacks and whites represent one com- munity. On the one hand, Billy Graham and his cohorts are saying that the trouble with the world is that humankind needs God; we need to turn from our wicked ways. The wicked ways, of course, refer to the failure to live according to the rules of white society. On the other hand, other whites are saying that the problem stems from his broken relation with God-a far more serious analysis than Graham's simplistic one. But we are still waiting for the meaning of this, as blacks get ready for revolution. We wait in vain because oppressors do not wish to know what is wrong with the world. Only the oppressed know what is wrong, because they are both the victims of evil and the recipients of God's liberating activity. What, then, does sin mean for whites from the black perspec- tive? The sin of whites is the definition of their existence in terms of whiteness. It is accepting the condition that is responsible for Amerindian reservations, black concentration camps, and the rape of Vietnam. It is believing in the American way of life as defined by its history. Most whites, some despite involvement in protests, do believe in "freedom in democracy," and they fight to make the ideals of the Constitution an empirical reality for all. It seems that they believe that, if we just work hard enough at it, this country can be what it ought to be. But it never dawns on these do-gooders that what is wrong with America is not its failure to make the Constitution a reality for all, but rather its belief that persons can affirm whiteness and humanity at the same time. This country was founded for whites and everything that has happened in it has emerged from the white perspective. The Constitution is white, the Emancipation Proclamation is white, the government is white, business is white, the unions are white. What we need is the destruction of whiteness, which is the source of human misery in the world. Whites, because they are white, fail to perceive this as the nature of sin. It is characteristic of sin that it permeates the whole of one's being, distorting one's humanity, leaving the sinner incapable of €