I've been reading up on religion and cosmology, for a paper I'm writing for work. A 'cosmology' is a theory or conception of the nature of the universe and our place in it. For example, the idea that God is male, or that God is a loving God, or that humans were put on earth to subdue it - these could all be part of people's cosmologies. (These examples come from a Christian worldview, which I'm most familiar with - although probably some are shared with other faiths too.)
Cosmologies really impact on the way that individuals act and the way that a society is organised. They affect the way we interact with nature. Obviously if you think that God wants us to subdue and exploit the earth you're going to be more likely to do that. Likewise, if most people in your society think God is a man then men are likely to be held as more 'God-like' and thus superior.
I was thinking about of theology 'original sin', which I grew up with. It's a distinctly Christian idea, and it doesn't come up in Jewish thought, having developed in the minds of the 'church fathers' in the second and third centuries. Anyway, the idea is that humans are born into sin - i.e. we are born evil. This happened because Eve took that bite of the apple (of course - it's the woman!), and plunged all generations to come into rebellion and darkness. It is only through the salvation offered by Christ that we can be seen as 'good' by God.
I have just realised that this idea, which I have taken for granted for most of my life, has impacted negatively on the way I see myself. I have not seen myself as inherently good and I have not felt that God sees me as good. I have defined myself as a sinner, because that's what the church has taught. The 'goodness' that was bought for my by Christ I have always envisioned as a kind of whitewash, covering what is essentially bad. My badness was so bad, in fact, that Jesus needed to be nailed to a cross to make up for it.
What a crappy, negative, debilitating cosmology. I'm angry that it's what I've believed for most of my life. Even whilst I've questioned the idea that the whole point of Christ's life was his death, I've still somehow believed that I'm essentially bad, or at least, there's nothing much good.
I'm banging the keys hard now. I think I'm mad. But I'm glad I'm now realising that I don't have to let this shitty theology to rule my life. I think it has something to do with the low self-esteem I have often suffered with. But I'm now beginning to nurture a vision of myself that is essentially good. Will probably take some time, though.
Can anyone else relate to this?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
The traditional churches also hold the view that the only human being to have been born immaculate is the mother of Jesus - also a woman. i will leave it to you to elaborate on the implications and their finer details as you see fit and meaningful, except suggest that the narrative taken in its entirety is about how sin entered humanity through a woman (eve) and how salvation also came (literally) through a woman. But then again, Mary’s immaculate birth is explicitly and inextricably linked to her virginity.
All this however, is merely a narrative and has no need to be grounded in reality as any other fable. The biblical story and its gender connotations seem obnoxious in the way it portrays women - but only in the eyes of those of us who live in feminist (or is it post-feminist) societies and value systems. In many modern non-western societies, a woman’s dignity and worth is still linked to ideas of “chastity” and “modesty” as it was in Victorian England. Such values are instilled by women on other women, as much as - if not more than – men.
Even though such demands have never been placed equally on men and women, I think the driving force behind it has been the suppression of sexuality as a whole. The gender differentiation or gender victimisation that resulted has been due to the way a social policy of sexual suppression played out in practice through the ideological tools and the agents of its application.
Yes, the concept of "original sin" has always disturbed me. I prefer to think of people as basically good!
I've been thinking about this for few days.
While I'm sure we would come to different conclusions, shouldn't your decision on what cosmology to have be based on what is most likely to be true rather than what is most likely to make you feel good about yourself?
Of course having a true cosmology and one that makes you feel nice is probably best. But in the absence of that it seems to me better to search for truth rather than choosing happiness.
If original sin is false, that's a much better reason to reject it than it makes you feel crappy. If it's true then however it makes you feel, it's not worth ignoring. Cancer makes you feel bad too, but if you ignore that you end up dead.
Perhaps the fact that it makes you feel bad automatically renders it false. But in that case, poverty should be rendered false too.
But hey, I may have misunderstood your post.
Heya Tom
Yes, I imagine we are coming at this question from two different places. I perhaps didn't express this - but I don't think that the original sin doctrine is 'true', in the sense that I don't think that's how God views humanity.
Why do I think that? On one level, it simply does not feel right to me. Shaky foundations, maybe, but there are so many theological options out there, I think that's what we all fall back on in the end! A child is born and it is innately bad; it is born into a curse that is only broken if s/he accepts Jesus as his/her lord and savior. God views the person first and foremost as a sinner until that happens. That theory just doesn't ring true to me! Babies are not bad. They are beautiful and whole - as innocent as Adam and Eve in the garden. We become broken later on; we leave our paradise and enter a wilderness, which is hard but God is still always close at hand.
Religion and cosmology is invented by humans, who are trying to understand and connect with the divine. But often our ideas reflect more of ourselves and our societies than the God we seek to understand. The doctrine of original sin, that is tied in with the theology of substitutionary atonement, paints a picture of a spiteful God who requires human sacrifice to satisfy his violent nature. Perhaps this image of God is found in the Bible, but there are also many other images of God. I think the violent God picture reflects more of us than God.
So I've told you why I don't believe in the original sin doctrine - why do you believe it?
So I've taken a really long time to get back to this.
Probably the main reason why I believe in original sin is because I think it's biblical.
I know that how you see the Bible and how I see the Bible is different. But because I have a belief that all the Bible is given by God and true, if I find something in the Bible, I believe it.
Obviously that's open to interpretation, and needs to be understood in the context of the literature, but as far as original sin goes I think there is biblical evidence for it, particularly Romans 5:12-19. I am unclear as to what extent all people are guilty in Adam, I am sure that all of us have inherited our sinful nature, and are unable to live righteous lives without the direct intervention of God.
Perhaps the other lesser reason I am inclined to believe in original sin is that I see it in humanity. Kids aren’t taught to sin, they seem to have it built in. No one teaches a kid to snatch, punch, bite, kick, yet they all seem to figure it out for themselves. And if you watch kids interact, they are pretty horrid creatures. Sure they’re cute and precious, and funny, and fun. But they’re also mean, and selfish, and childish. If an adult behaved like a child we wouldn’t say “Oh how innocent they are” we’d say “Oh how horrible they are.” I think we learn civility because we learn that our deviant ways don’t get us what we want.
So I think I’m happy to see humanity as essentially sinful, both from what I read in the Bible and what I see in the world. I’m not saying that humanity is entirely sinful, or that babies, kids or adults are incapable of good, or love, just that I think that all people have a predisposition towards sin. I think sinfulness is built in since the fall, it’s not acquired.
I understand if a person accepts this it does not really help a someone feel good about themselves in and of themselves. However if they accept it, it should drive them to Christ. And if it drives them to Christ and they are willing to accept Christ’s work for them on the cross, then they no longer need to worry about their sinfulness, because in Christ they have been given all the righteousness of Christ. They are sinless before God. And they have the Holy Spirit living in them who enables them to live good, loving, godly lives, every day becoming more like Jesus.
The issue with original sin making people feel crappy is not that it goes too far, but that it doesn’t go far enough. The Gospel focused Christian should not let their friend wallow in their own guilt, but they should point them to the fact they are infact guiltless. Our sinfulness is not an end point for how we understand ourselves, it’s a starting point; Jesus is the end point.
What I’m saying is this, if you believe in original sin, you should also believe that through faith a person becomes a new creation in Jesus, and so all the effects of the fall are taken care of, either now, or at the resurrection. Anyone who teaches original sin without teaching redemption through Christ teaches an unbiblical message. And anyone who encourages guilt instead of encouraging people to turn to Jesus for forgiveness and new life, forgets that the gospel is not about the sin of humanity but the glory of God.
So that’s why I believe in original sin.
Now that I've written all that, I might go blog about it.
I don't have so much difficulty with the idea of humans being fundamentally sinful. Our sin saddens me far more than our guilt about our sin. However much guilt I've felt in my life, I think it is far outweighed by all the shit I've done to people.
There are issues I think with the assignment of sin/guilt by some groups on to others (men on to women, whites on to other cultural groups, rich on to poor etc). The doctrine (or cosmology) can be exploited to draw power to oneself. That tendency doesn't necessarily mean the cosmology is unhelpful.
I come at it from a generally non-Christian context. There isn't anyone I know who wants to hold me accountable or draw attention to my sin. So it's not a very threatening cosmology for me. But I still find it helpful for explaining my own behaviour and understanding the world.
I'm not quite sure what I think about salvation. I certainly need it, but I don't know if it's coming from Jesus.
Just a couple of initial thoughts:
1. Yes, Eve was the one to bite the apple. However, Adam was standing right next to Eve at the crucial moment and did nothing to stop her, so I don't accept that the fault is Eve's alone.
2. While the concept of "original sin" is an uncomfortable one, I tend to think about this more broadly in terms of my separation from God, instead of where I land on the 'scale of badness'. I just had a quick read of wikipedia, and quite like this approach: "An important exposition of the belief of Eastern Christians identifies original sin as physical and spiritual death, the spiritual death being the loss of "the grace of God, which quickened (the soul) with the higher and spiritual life". There is a paradox here though - Our sin separates us from God, however, He still loves us. I do accept that we live in a fallen world, that is how it is because of the results of sin through the generations. I also accept that this is not what God wants for us. I think that what Jesus offers is also about receiving Life with a capital L. Something larger and more wonderous than we suspect or dare imagine could be possible - communion with God; an easy, natural, 'one-ness' where we are not out of step with His ways, and would find it impossible to live any other way.
3. The Psalms, Isaiah, and other OT writings speak clearly of our tendency towards sin, so I don't accept that original sin is a "new" post-Jesus concept. Perhaps it is viewed differently in Judaism because their view and relationship with God is different to the Christian one, but the OT poetic writers and the prophets often described how sin separates people from God's presence.
I suspect I went on a few tangents there, but your post did make me think, so thanks!
Hello excellent friends-in-law - you are all wonderfully intense! I see that we are all going to have a wonderful time indeed!
I wonder if I need to reframe the way I've been thinking and talking about sin. I guess I've been conditioned by a individualistic culture to see sin in individualistic terms as well - lying, stealing, murdering, sleeping with people when you shouldn't, etc. I think it helps to think of sin in corporate terms as well - it is something that humanity as a whole as cursed with, which is manifested in terms of global lies, exploitation, war and cultures of sexual exploitation. We are born into these systems, and hence we sin as an individual level as well.
So in that sense, I guess we are born into sin, because we are born into a sinful world that is not, on many levels, at one with God. Maybe that's what Paul was talking about in Romans 5, which Tom pointed out: "...sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned..."
But I still don't think we are originally bad. I think we are born whole, at one with God - and I see Adam and Eve, pre-apple-eating, as a metaphor for that. A child inside its mother is in a most God-connected state. And I think, one we enter the world, that God, though s/he sees the sin, also sees through the sin, and sees us as beautiful.
And yey for Jesus! I will just quote Lesley because she sums it up well: "I think that what Jesus offers is also about receiving Life with a capital L. Something larger and more wonderous than we suspect or dare imagine could be possible - communion with God; an easy, natural, 'one-ness' where we are not out of step with His ways, and would find it impossible to live any other way."
Jesus showed us the way to wholeness - how to live as one with God and creation.
Salvation, to me, is about wholeness, and Jesus shows us a way to live that out. I think other traditions can also show us a way to be whole - so Ryan, I think it's ok if the Jesus thing doesn't really work for you. Christianity has so much bad, 'un-whole' stuff attached to its history and many of its present versions, so I think it's understandable not to want to buy into it.
Post a Comment