Original Sin

I’ve long believed that we Protestants in general, and evangelicals in particular (in which camp I lived for many years), have lost a great deal by denying, ignoring or simply being ignorant about the idea of Original Sin. It is this idea that talks about why every human being is in need of salvation, even babies; it is this idea that blocks any idea that we can achieve righteousness by ourselves, in our own strength; it is this idea that undergirds any attempt to understand the atonement. However, the old ways of framing the idea have led many to reject it as implausible, offensive or outright immoral. So, what is Original Sin, how has it been understood and how can we better understand it today?

Our ideas about Original Sin depend crucially on our ideas about what sin itself actually is. For example, a classic idea of sin is that it is about breaking the law. This understanding is what lies underneath much traditional thinking about Original Sin: because sin is concerned with lawbreaking, guilt and punishment, Original Sin must be similar. So, we have the idea that children inherit (genetically, as it were) guilt for the sin of Adam and Eve (hence Original Sin). All children are therefore born with guilt already ascribed to them on their heavenly score-cards; everyone is thus born separated from God and bound up in sin, and is thus in need of redemption. There was, however, one exception to this – Jesus, who was born without Original Sin and, as a result, was able to live a sinless life that pleased God. Had Jesus been subject to Original Sin then He could not have been “without sin” in this view.

The great problem with this is that there is no clear indication of why we should have this guilt ascribed to us. Originally, this concept was based on Aristotle’s philosophy, and the idea that Adam was the real Man (the model for all others) and all other human beings took their being through him; as a result, therefore, we also took on his sin. However, these days, no one really follows Aristotle. This leaves us in an uncomfortable position – for some reason unknown to us, God has deemed that every single human being should be punished for Adam and Eve’s sin, and (as a result) the whole human race is unable to live righteously, in communion with God. This can even lead us to think that God acts capriciously and maliciously, which not an idea that we want within Christianity! Even worse, it places Jesus in a different position to other human beings – He was able to live without sin because He was different to us. This harms our understanding of the Incarnation, in which Jesus is thought to have taken on the whole of human nature and redeemed it.

So, if we want (and, indeed, need) to retain some idea of Original Sin but without these unfortunate historical trappings and harmful theology, how might we go about it? First, I suggest, we need to rethink how we talk about sin. Not radically, not changing its nature, just changing the language and imagery we use. Doing so can give a much more useful set of tools for answering the problem. So, what is sin? I would take my approach from Jesus’ words – when asked what were the greatest commandments, Jesus replied that they were loving God and loving our neighbour, that everything else flowed from these two. So, loving God and neighbour are the greatest commandments – so sin, the opposite of obeying the commandments, is acting in an unloving way. More comprehensively, I think, a sinful act is any act that damages a relationship, whether between us and God, between us and our neighbour or between us and the created world.

If we then see sin primarily in terms of damaged relationships, and righteousness primarily in terms of right relationships, what is the result? Our world is full of sin precisely because it is full of broken relationships. Starting with humanity’s first breaking with God, we have built a web of broken, sick and twisted relationships around ourselves. This is why, even when we have been forgiven, we continue to sin; this is why, despite our best efforts, we end up doing what we do not want to do. As a result, every child is born into broken relationships with everyone around it. Through no fault of their own, each child is born subject to the results and harm of other people’s sin. They are damaged by sin before they ever commit any themselves, and this is what makes each of us actually commit sin – because of our damaged relationships with other people, we cause more harm ourselves in ignorance, carelessness and malice.

And this, I would say, is Original Sin – the web of broken relationships that enmeshes everyone who is born into this world. Original Sin is thus slightly different to personal sin; it’s not about committing sin but about suffering the consequences of sin. And this removes both of the huge problems with the traditional legal understanding of Original Sin. There is no need for God to mark up guilt to the slate of every child; Original Sin is not about guilt but about effects, and so no child is born with any guilt for sin but they are born suffering the effects of other people’s sin. Even more, everyone is born subject to the effects of sin not because God wants it but because we have done it to them.

Also, we can get a better picture of the Incarnation from this picture. Jesus was born just like us, into a broken world, enmeshed in broken relationships just as we are and so subject to Original Sin. The miracle is that, despite this, He lived a life of healing and mending, breaking no relationships, and finally dying because His life was too challenging, too radical, too sinless for the powerful to stand.

pax et bonum

Article posted at 11:07am on 27 April 2005
Category: Faith, Features, Musing

Good post.

Interestingly the Jews never derived a concept of ‘original sin’ from the Genesis story.

Sven (URL)
11:26am on 27 April 2005

Nice post.

graham () (URL)
7:48pm on 27 April 2005

Interesting approach. Seems to me, as a former Catholic and student of world religions, that Original sin cannot be divorced from Aristotle’s stance, which still holds sway in the Church. Further, Original Sin, and sin in general, is based in the idea of a law-and-order Universe in which God is both judge and executioner. Not a very benevolent viewpoint.

If one wishes to maintain the idea of Original Sin, and I am not sure why one would, it might be more productive to reframe it in the image of Karma. Of course, Karma is based in the idea of reincarnation, which Jesus did preach according many of the gospels the early Church fathers suppressed (who needs priests and who needs to obey the Church if we get another shot at getting it right, over and over, until we get it right?). Still, Karma at least attributes outcome based on action (cause and effect) rather than arbitrary assignment of sin based on the supposed sin (by 3500 year old standards) of a mythical original man.

Another option: see the idea as metaphor. We are all wounded in some way, though not by virtue of having been born. Rather, we are wounded by bad parenting, peer teasing, life events and traumas, personal mistakes and bad decisions, and so on. Most of the worst wounding occurs in childhood, but its effects are seldom seen until our teen years or early adulthood — when the ego is fully formed. Many people seek forgiveness from God for the acts they commit, unconsciously, as a result of their wounds. Others seek therapy. Others remain fully unconscious of how they create havoc in other people’s lives.

Our Original Sin is that we are human, not perfect. As a result, we inflict pain on each other. The cycle is endless. No need for a judgmental God, for 3500 year old moral codes, or for an original man who became sinful by becoming self-aware. Through God’s love (in whatever form one chooses to seek it) a person can find healing, compassion, and a community of fellow believers from which to gain support.

Bill () (URL)
02:24am on 01 May 2005

Bill,
Quite a long comment there with too much really to do justice to, but I do want to make a few points. First, my whole point in this article is to move away from this idea of law-and-order towards something more comprehensive and meaningful. [Aristotle’s philosophy is far from holding sway in the church (even in the Roman Catholic Church), although it does underlie much RC doctrine (such as Original Sin, which I am trying to reframe here).] As for Karma – as you say, it requires reincarnation, which isn’t part of orthodox Christian belief; the relational metaphor I’m suggesting here also relies on a simple relationship between action and effect, rather than a literal Adam in whose sin we all partake. However, the whole area of non-canonical writings is definitely something for another time :-)

Finally, Original Sin is a metaphor. All our thinking (especially our religious thinking) is metaphorical. What I was trying to do here was to find a better metaphor than the traditional legal one to think about why and how we are broken creatures.

pax et bonum

John ()
09:21am on 01 May 2005

I don’t stray over here often enough John :)

I’ve not got too much to say on the whole subject right now, but I’ll admit I was very involved with such things when I was slightly younger.

Well written and quite a nice take on it all, but do you believe in hell and eternal punishment, etc..? Just wondering how you’d fit in with that. I’m not taking a stance on this mate!

reverend () (URL)
09:55am on 13 May 2005

There’s a post on hell and stuff brewing but, in brief :-)

I do believe in hell – just not as punishment.

pax et bonum

John ()
10:41am on 13 May 2005

I’ll have to spend time gandering on through your works :)

I’ll be here more often now I reckon.

reverend () (URL)
09:45am on 15 May 2005

Well thought through. I agree with so much, but not with saying that Jesus suffered the consequence of original sin. All sin, including the consequences of original sin, diminish our human nature, so to say that Jesus was free from Original Sin doesn’t mean he experienced less of human nature than the rest of us, but rather the fullness of it. It was impossible for the human nature of Jesus to be diminished and yet still be united fully to his divine nature, because, as you say, sin and original Sin are about damaging our relationship with God, our unity with him, so Jesus’ human nature cannot both suffer a consequence of Original Sin – a brokenness of relationship with God – at the same time as being fully united to the divine nature of the Son. That Jesus’ human nature was complete, rather than broken, like the rest of us, isn’t actually a problem. As regards saving our human nature, he redeemed all of our nature, because he possessed all of our nature. As regards following his example despite ‘starting at a disadvantage’ – this is only a problem if Jesus is meant primarily to be an example rather than a Saviour, but as a Saviour, it is in union with him that we can live a moral life, not in emulation.

Stephen ()
2:55pm on 14 July 2005

the reason that the Hebrews never came up with “original sin” as we know it is two-fold: our understanding comes from a)Augustine and b)Luther, who understand the will as flawed, and thus incapable of belief and/or obedience. and second, what we term as “original sin” was known by the Old Testament – hence the need for sacrifices. they wouldn’t put in terms of genetic sin or ontological sin, but a continued habit for which we need continued cleansing.

so, yes, departure from the way of God is terrible and tragic and will kill us, but it’s not necessary to think of it in the way Augustine thougt of it. if we locate the inclination to sin in our own hearts, then what comes of faith is atomistic and individualist. if we see sin as only a corporate problem, then changing society would have been enough – Utopia, Brave New World, etc. as it is, sin is the breaker of relationships that are integral to who we are, selfish bones, inwardly turned eyes, which are things unlearned only by seeing ourselves as we are – in need of true relationship with God in Christ.

myles () (URL)
4:13pm on 13 August 2005

Seems a very weak argument. God is within ALL mankind – to be found of course. No possible room for original sin no matter how it is defined.

[jim] ()
9:53pm on 19 June 2007

Please consider this link in relation to this topic:
http://thekingdomcome.com/moral_culpabil..

Roderick (URL)
03:50am on 14 July 2007