Sabbath Sloth
by Elouise
When I was studying theology in the late 1970s, I got excited about Karl Barth’s descriptions of sin. Weird? Maybe. At any rate, I’ve been thinking about one sin in particular—sloth. It’s one of the seven deadly sins. Often understood as laziness, as aptly demonstrated in the photo above.
It all started with my post about the mouth of a labyrinth. I was trying to imagine what being chewed up by God might look like right now in my life. It didn’t take long to come up with my decision to begin keeping Sabbath.
In fact, this effort around Sabbath-keeping has thrown my life into some disorder. I still don’t know exactly where I am or where I’m going with it. I just know I’m working it out. One Sunday at a time.
Or perhaps God is working me over in the labyrinth. Reorienting my entire life by means of this one day a week. Chewing up what I’ve been doing with it and the rest of the week, digesting it and then spitting me out as a changed woman. Not a different person, but with a different sense about my relationships with God, other people, creation itself, and the limited time I’ve been given.
So what does sloth have to do with it? Karl Barth says a lot about the sins of pride and sloth. He says that most of the time we focus on pride as the big problem. We may even try to downplay sloth.
- What’s so horrible about sloth? Isn’t it just laziness? OK, it might have a dark side since it means things don’t get done that need to be done. But it isn’t that bad, is it?
- Pride is different. It’s active, aggressive, confrontational. It shakes its fist in our faces and demands more attention. It hurts people when it tries to put others down and get all the glory as if it were God.
- But sloth? I’ll admit it’s annoying. Especially when people don’t do their fair share on time the way I do! But it isn’t actively harmful. It’s more like the absence or failure of something. Isn’t it?
Yet Barth suggests that sloth may, in fact, be the root of pride. Yes, it may look harmless or annoying. But it really means someone wills not to know God, thus contradicting the good will of God.
Instead, sloth creates its own reality and lives within it. It doesn’t take positive action. Rather, it chooses to live in its own inaction in relation to God. Which, of course, affects relationships with other people, creation itself, and time.
Thus sloth goes about its own business as though God didn’t exist. Barth suggests that if pride is evil action (to displace God), sloth is evil inaction (to ignore God).
Actually, it can get a bit subtle. Here’s my imaginary conversation with God:
- I know You said You expect me to stop my regular routine and bask in the joy and delight of Sabbath and all creation. I agree that I need this. But can’t You see I’m busy with your work? I can’t afford to stop for one full day to bask in anything, because I’m busy taking care of it!
- What do you mean I’m being slothful? I’m exhausted from doing good and helping other people and cleaning the house. If I stop for 24 hours just to focus on Sabbath joy and delight for one full day, I’ll just get farther and farther behind on my agenda for You!
- Oh. Did I say my agenda for You? Sorry. I didn’t really mean to say that. I know. I’m not You. Just a slip of the tongue.
Fortunately and unfortunately, God knows me better than I know myself. God also longs for me to stop, look around and actively appreciate God’s handiwork. I’ve been given 6 other days in the week for other things.
Today I need nothing more or less than Sabbath rest. If it looks like I’m being slothful, so be it. If it feels to me as though I’m being slothful, so be it. I’m learning to live with it.
© Elouise Renich Fraser, 13 June 2015
Image from imgsoup.com
Telling the Truth 
Love the picture!
I would draw a distinction between “someone wills not to know God” and sloth. The later is more indifference to God, passive, lifeless, slothful. The former is the current strain of atheism and agnosticism, active, proud, ignoring the evidence in front of them. Barth’s version of sloth doesn’t strike me as very lazy. But I’m only going by this post, I’m too lazy to read Barth for myself! 😉
LikeLike
Thanks for your comment, David. Barth’s point is that to ignore God and go our own way is, in fact, a choice. It’s an expression of our will that is also–often without saying so–a rejection of God’s way. You could think of it as a negative will, but it’s not done without an intention–to create our own world (whether real or not) and then live as though it were reality. I think Barth’s emphasis is more on what we actually do, than on what we would like to believe we are doing.
It’s possible to be slothful by becoming a workaholic for God 24/7, hence ignoring, for example, God’s expectation that we will (as God did in the creation account) remember Sabbath and keep it holy (set apart from other days–specifically for rest, joy and delight, re-creation). For Barth, sloth is no better than active pride. We humans have a zillion ways of hiding our slothfulness (our flight from God’s will) behind what looks like productivity, but may actually be the slothful seed of pride–going our own way whether we think we’re doing it for God or not.
OK. Now it may be murkier than ever. Which means you may need to read Barth for yourself someday! 🙂
Elouise
LikeLike
Could not agree more that “Barth’s point is that to ignore God and go our own way is, in fact, a choice.” Along with the rest, until it is defined as sloth. I think it is more an issue of my perspective. I just don’t understand the word to mean such a high level of activity, i.e. actively ignoring God. Perhaps I need to be a bit less slothful and crack open the OED. But Barth? Not likely. 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hmm. I see what you’re getting at. I would just add that often our choices to avoid doing what we know is right is frequently hidden beneath frenetic activity. Just as self-centered pride is frequently hidden beneath a ‘cover’ of humility. Great comments, David. Thanks again!
LikeLiked by 1 person