Lent Reflection #6: Are we BROKEN?

It has become popular to refer to ourselves as broken in evangelistic messaging. My pastor uses it a lot. To me, the jury is still out on whether this is a preferable or appropriate word to use. Like the expressions, "the image of God in humankind is marred due to the fall," the expression serves a person but also has limitations.

In fact, all metaphors have limitations. Metaphors usually only work in one or two ways. Jesus Christ was the lamb who was slain, but that metaphor only fits in a couple of ways (sacrifice without push-back; spotless in character). I sense the same with "broken."

Broken, in its use of the past participle, means something did this broken status to us. So are we victims in our brokennesss, or responsible for it? If we are the recipient of brokenness, whose fault is it?

Broken implies something needs to be fixed. What, then?

Broken implies, to me, that we are not meeting our purpose. If  a toaster is broken, it's not going to meet its intended purpose of browning the bread (or a multiple number of pieces of bread) in a specific time period and then popping out. I believe this is how we are broken: we are not meeting our purpose as a member of God's creation.

If "broken" is used as a euphemism for our real problem, sin and rebellion, it's better to use it less. If the term "broken" attracts attention as a witnessing tool, then so be it, as long as the concept gets cleared up soon enough.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Kallman's Syndrome: The Secret Best Kept

Do I Really Have to See the Barbie Movie?