Original Sin or Original Blessing?

click on image to enlarge

Recently  a national Catholic weekly published an article in which several ‘experts’ or academics again tried to explain how ‘Original Sin’ has been responsible for much of the pain and suffering in this world. The article read as follows: 

         

     

Mankind’s natural desires behind our sinfulness

BY EVAN BOUDREAU

The Catholic Register March 24, 2013  p.21

TORONTO

Mankind's capacity to sin comes from an unquenchable thirst to consume rather than a direct desire to act sinfully, according to Kathleen Roberts Skerrett.

The dean of arts at the Uni­versity of Richmond in Virginia was exploring the concept of original sin at a roundtable dis­cussion March 12 at Toronto's University of St. Michael's College. Roberts Skerrett was one of three academics who gave their views during the afternoon discussion The Evolution of Sin: Past, Present and Future.

"Human beings have inde­terminate desires," said Roberts Skerrett. "Our ordinary desires for food, sex and sociality do no have an object that satisfies them. There is always a kind of going beyond the job, not so much insatiability, but more uncertainty of end in human desire."

For Roberts Skerrett, the source of sinfulness is a derivative of our thirst for more rather than a willful desire to sin. In other words, human beings have an innate tendency to sin but do possess the free will to act contrary to these inclinations. Free will means that our sins, although influenced by an innately engrained and often subconscious inclination towards sinfulness, are an expression of freedom.

"There is something that drives us constantly beyond the goals that an animal desire would set for itself," said Roberts Skerrett, author of Original Sin in the 21st Century: The Wanton, the Addict, the Pervert and the Deviant. "We are constantly pressing past or transcending or going beyond the object of an animal or embodied desire."

Roberts Skerrett categorized the tendencies of humanity to push beyond the most basic satis­faction of our desires — the way in which an animal would act — into four characteristics.

The first is the wanton, a tendency towards continual stim­ulation and attention which sac­rifices quality of satisfaction for frequency.

"The wanton wants a little hit of stimulation and attention, a little bit of pleasure on a regular basis. Facebook was made for the wanton," she said.

Second, all human beings suffer from the tendency of the addict who strives for pleasure over pain.

"The addict finds something to fix it for however long," she said. "It keeps going to recalculate the pleasure-pain dynamic in one's soul by hitting that fix over and over again."

This tendency, which can find satisfaction in the practice of devotion through prayer, repre­sents our metabolization of utility — the maximization of pleasure in one's life.

Third, she noted that everyone has a tendency toward perversion, in that humans view all of creation as a means to satisfy our desires.

"There is no sense of these other beings as having a use or value other than the use or value of being bought and sold," she said.

Finally, humanity is plagued with deviant tendencies which have manifested a culture of dis­ciplinary institutions: prisons, militaries, even schools. Roberts Skerrett noted that these institu­tions, which range from punish­ment to employment, function as a means of using individuals for a rational purpose with the expecta­tion they will exemplify self-con­trol of their own desires. "The person who is identified as deviant is constantly and systemically extracted from purpose­ful life," she said. "The end of the deviant is to be extracted from all purpose. What the deviant most needs is mission and purpose in order to orient life in order to orient desire."

By casting the concept of original sin in this light, it becomes the theme of our political and ethical discourse in secular society. Doing so, she said, explains why we sin.

Ephraim Radner, a professor of historical theology at the Univer­sity of Toronto's Wycliffe College, said a more traditional Augustine view better explains our sinful actions — at least those of the past century or so.

Global conflicts, genocides and capitalism's quest for greater satis­faction through further industri­alization without regard for harm caused to creation are all signs that humanity is not just inclined to sin, but that sinful acts are in our nature. "We are all brutal people," said Radner, author of Cross-Cultural Encounters in the 17th and 20th Century Compared: The Miti­gation and Return of Original Sin. To ground this argument Radner focused heavily on the suffering of infants, citing their susceptibility to pain, hunger and disease as signs that we are innately damned and need salvation.

"Infants suffer because they are damned and they're damned because all of us and Adam are damned," he said. "There is no other possible reason to explain why children go through this."

Therefore infants are born with a universal damnation due to original sin's inherent condemna­tion which can only be distanced through the sacrament of Baptism, though he noted we are still at risk of sinning, and will, following this ritual.

Fr. Clement Majawa, a theology professor from the Catholic Uni­versity of Eastern Africa, agreed with Radner that sinning is un­avoidable by man because human beings are damned from the moment they are conceived.

"Like a shadow evil, or sin, is an inseparable reality which follows each person throughout life," said Majawa, author of Sin, Reconcilia­tion and Mission in African Chris­tianity and Global Transformation. Similar to Radner, Majawa ref­erenced the suffering of Africans as proof of the universal condem­nation of humanity which can only be momentarily lifted off our shoulders through religious sacra­ments.

How can we as Christians best respond to this intensely negative view which many  still hold?  Others such as Matthew Fox in his book ‘Original Blessing’ (2000) suggest that it will first be necessary to understand the question of Original Sin in its cultural and theological context.  For example Fox states:

1. Original blessing is far more ancient and more biblical a doctrine.
2. The Council of Trent never said what original sin means.
3. Augustine mixed his doctrine of original sin with his peculiar notions about sexuality.
4. Whatever is said of original sin, it is far less hallowed and original than are love and desire.
5. Doctrine is not the basis of faith or its starting point.
6. Since doctrine is for people, not people for doctrine it is important to consider this question:  How much pain and how much sin have come about because of an exaggerated emphasis on the doctrine of original sin?
7. The sooner churches embrace the more primitive doctrine of original blessing, the more compassionate our living will be.

You will have to purchase Matthew Fox’s book for a detailed explanation behind these points, however they should provide and offer the reader more food for thought.

In the meantime is it not time to re-examine our understanding of `Original Sin`?

The negative focus on mankind`s natural desires (see article above) completely contradicts and detracts from the Good News and Jesus` promise ʺI have come in order that you might have life-life in all its fullness``. (John 10:10)  Have we forgotten that we are ALL Holy Creations capable of untold Holy actions as well as unholy reactions? The Good News is that God is more interested in our potential than our sins.  When we miss the mark, meaning "sin" it can become the stepping stone toward God`s free gift of salvation and renew us in a new life in Christ.  For most of us this can take a life time, yet from the very beginning God promised   ″I will lead you and be with you.  ``I will not fail you or abandon you, so do not lose courage or be afraid.`` (Deuteronomy 31:6)   

Until we realize that God’s greatest gift to humankind is our freedom to choose, we will probably never understand what it means to be loved unconditionally. This universal gift, according to Jesus, is bestowed on ALL of humankind when he said ″for he makes his sun to shine on bad and good people alike, and gives rain to those who do good and to those who do evil″ (Matthew 5:45).  Nowhere in scripture does Jesus ever suggest that salvation is dependent on baptism. Rather when we choose to be baptized it means that like Jesus we ʺagree to do all that God requires″.  Furthermore, Jesus taught that children are already in the Kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 18:3). The battle against evil was won a long time ago – it is merely our refusal to accept its victory that prevents us from loving God, our neighbor and ourselves.

 Perhaps now we can begin to better understand and  experience Original Sin as God`s `Original Blessing`!   

 

SIN

One of the disconcerting-and delightful

-teachings of the Master was: ʺGod is

closer to sinners than to saints. ʺ

This is how he explained it: ʺGod heaven

holds each person by a string.  When you sin,

you cut the string.  The God ties is up again,

making a know-and thereby bringing you a

little closer to him.  Again and again your sins

cut the string-and with each further knot

God keeps drawing you closer and closer. ʺ

-  Anthony de Mello, One Minute Wisdom

Wearing religion on our sleeve.

At the time when Jesus started on his ministry and surrounded himself with twelve disciples (and some of their wifes)  it was unlikely they wore any kind of identifiable clothes or material that would have said ‘we belong to a very special kind of religious sect’.  Imagine no mitres, no chasuble, alb, stole, rings, croizier, just simple everyday clothes.  What made Jesus and his disciples truly distinguishable was what they did for the poor, the indigent , sick and infirm.  Only then did Jesus speak of the 'good news' often in the practised form of parables.  What most of us Christians and certainly the religious leaders of his time often missed or grasped is that these parables were usually expressed in upside down and contradictory terms against a  world of strict and accepted cultural, moral and religious values.  If anyone wanted to become his followers the ‘upside down’ kingdom values were the only way.  The narrow gate, eye of the needle represented the love and compassion necessary to bring kingdom values into practise. Jesus never wrote anything down, or dictated any rules or instructed anyone that what he did or spoke of should be formed into strict dogma or doctrine.   At the same time Jesus certainly never suggested that his listeners should become Jewish or insisted that they attend the synagogue at least once a week.  Instead, compassion and Love were to be practised everyday. Jesus associated as easily with despised tax collectors, as he did with prostitutes or women and men who did not even belong to his Jewish community. He was 100 percent inclusive and frequenly challenged the norms .  Jesus and his disciples healed the sick, cured the blind, forgave the sinner and promised listeners that they should pick up their cross and live a life to be lived to the full.

To live such a joy filled life all that was required is ‘repentance’ from the original Greek word metanoia meaning a 'change of mind and heart'.  And for most of us this can be a totally up-side down experience especially when dealing with difficult situations and people.  All you need we are told is a total trust in God  with his added proviso that his Holy Spirit will  then act as our guide, and teach us all we need to know to become true believers in this new way of life.  In so doing miracles will become an everyday event, even to the point of seeing people being raised from the dead. 

You would have thought that most of us would have jumped to the chance to give up our pain and suffering, but not so.  The ego quickly came to our rescue by immediately spreading  doubt that anything could be that easy.  And soon Jesus message seemed far too difficult and demanding for most of us   After listening to him talk about the laborers in the vineyard who all received the same amount of pay regardless of the number of hours they put in – we quickly figured this model was never going to become popular or fair.   What about giving up our hard earned and respected social position in life and sitting at the lowest end of the table?  No that wasn’t something most of us are ready to accept.  We worked to hard for that.  That guy Jesus and his disciples who looked like beggars were probably crazy and should be quickly chased out of town.

Today Jesus’ promise remains as true as ever,  yet few of us are willing to trust him so completely that we prefer to play it safe by putting our primary trust in worldly institutions instead.  Here the wages are scaled according to our performance while highly trained doctors and nurses will take care of our health.  As for concerns for the poor, sick and indigent, well various government organizations will take care of most of them. By the way political rules also help us to avoid any need for direct contact with the less fortunate. And, those who call themselves ‘street people’ probably prefer to live that way anyway. 

As for the worldly institutions even the religious ones have taken up the accepted social structure first introduced by the Roman Emperor Constantine.  Roman Catholic clergy today still follow a strict code or regimen with regard its political structure, dress and hierarchy,  which is based on Constantine’s military background. Up until the time of Constantine Christians were under constant threat of being persecuted in the most violent of ways by various Roman rulers.  After that the roles were reversed and the Christians became the persecutors.  History is filled with many dark periods of religious persecution. I  will spare readers the horrific details.  However while persecution may be less obvious today a lot of fervent and very militant Christians have trouble being compassionate with people living on the margins of life, particularly those with life styles other than prescribed by the their religious leaders. Calls for compassion are quickly dismissed in the most negative terms or un-Christian ways.  By denying any responsibility for such damaging teachings they  quickly deny them   by calling it ‘bashing  of the faith’! (their faith I guess)

"Religious symbols are contentious when displayed in the public sphere. They are seen as territorial marking, like a soldier planting a flag or a dog lifting its leg. So naturally the symbol of the Red Cross was rejected by Muslim countries, which adopted the Red Crescent, instead. But neither cross nor crescent was acceptable to Israel, which wanted a Red Star of David. However, that was rejected by the Muslims as symbolising Zionism. Finally they all settled on the Red Crystal, a secular symbol that includes everyone".  Source: Concordat Watch.

Today we hear that Christians are targets when they enter countries where they are considered a minority.  Is that because we walk around with crosses on chest, bibles under our arms and erect large crosses on mountain tops?   Christian or ‘followers of the way’ would have little to fear if we practised what Jesus told us to do with compassion for all strangers.         Most if not all the worlds religions accept the Golden Rule ‘do unto others as you would them have  unto you’.  So I’ll end with this crazy thought what if all religions stopped wearing their religion on their sleeves and practised indiscriminate compassion might it result in less violence (after all how would you recognize the competition?)  and how would we know who to reject?  

But now I will come to the real point of this brief essay and again ask the question ‘is it necessary to wear our religion on our sleeve?’ Or more pointedly does Christianity depend on what we wear, what denomination we attend, what version of the Bible we read, or who is in and who is out in our community, what prayers we need to recite and ritual we must perform, what we must believe, and most importantly for some 'who will go to heaven or hell'? Do we really need to fear or distrust other religions, athiest or agnostics, and gays? Do we trust the institution, ourselves or God, to save us in the end? Or is there something far more wonderfully positive beyond our limited understanding of God and his unconditional love, from what we have been taught thus far?

Readers may be interested to read noted author and religious historian Karen Armstrong's latest book 'Twelve Steps to a Compassionate Life', (2010).  What was especially significant for me was her chapter on "Compassion for Yourself'  highlighting the point that we really cannot love others until we learn to love ourself. 

The Wisdom of the CHRISTIAN MYSTICS

In his introduction to ‘The Wisdom of the Christian Mystics, author Timothy Freke describes Mysticism as follows:   

"Mysticism is the spiritual essence of Christianity. The great Christian mystics, however, have often found themselves horribly persecuted as heretics by the established Churches for their outrageous claims and idiosyncratic ways. The mystics are not content to have a relationship with God via priests and institutions, but look inside themselves to know God directly. When they do, God is revealed as an all-embracing love that unites the universe into one indivisible whole. In communion with God, the mystics no longer experience themselves as separate individuals but as expressions of the Oneness. God is the only reality. God is everything. God does everything. This mystical vision is not a psychological anomaly: it is the natural state; human beings fail to experience it only because they believe themselves to be separate from God, when in fact He is their very essence. All mystical practices are designed to dispel this pernicious illusion of separateness.

The teachings that the mystics have left for us are not their opinions about God for us to believe or disbelieve. The 16thThey are testimonies to the possibility of certain intuitive knowledge of the Truth, that may tempt us with their sublime intensity lo make the mystical journey for ourselves. 16-century Spanish mystic, St. John of the Cross, writes, "God does not reserve the high vocation of mystical contemplation for certain souls only. On the contrary he wants all to embrace it, but finds few who will permit Him to work such exalted things for them." The very purpose of human life is to come to knowledge of God, and if we simply turn toward God we will find that He has been waiting for us all along. The 17th-century French mystic, Brother Lawrence, assures us "Knock, persevere in knocking, and 1 guarantee that He will answer".

 In recent years more and more people have come to realize that God cannot be confined to the dogmatic teachings of any religious institution.  The God most people seek today is the God who meets us where we are – not where others would have us be.  At best a religious institution can point the way but it must never become confused with the destination. Knowing God is not about studying religious text, repetitive prayers, elaborate rituals, or withdrawing from family and friends to a desert island or cave. It is not about belonging to a religious institution. While the sound of bells, or the smell of wax candles and incense may cause us to recall a special moment in time, they are not necessary to experience the longing presence of God in the most sacred place in the world – i.e., our heart. Knowing God is the intuitive experience deep within the human DNA or psyche.  It is present in all human beings from the time of creation to eternity.  It is our indestructible soul that moves beyond space and time – ‘I was there when He laid the earth’s foundations’ Proverbs 8: 22-31.  Knowing God does not require anyone to recite or study passages of Holy Scripture, the life of Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed, or Moses.  How can we make these seemingly outrageous claims?  Just think of an infant, perhaps only days old, the young soldier killed in battle, the individual bound by an incapacitating disease or the native born in the remotest forest on the earth – do we really believe God forsakes the least of his people?  Do we believe that people who are incapable or have never read the Bible, the Koran etc., do not share in the mystery of God’s presence?

Knowledge of God has therefore nothing to do with any intellectual knowing.  It is not dependent on any religious status or degrees.  We do not achieve holiness. We simply are!  God created us in his image and we can never be any holier than we already are.  The further we move away from any idea that we are separate from God the closer we will find him in our heart and mind and recognize him in others.  God does not favour anyone or anything over another, nor does He make demands, punish or reward.   God simply is and His love (expression) is found throughout creation and in every human being. God’s love is unconditional.  God does not get upset by the events and happenings of the world.  God simply observes and brings all things to good.  God is the Oneness that brings us all together not just now but for an eternity.

“ The very purpose of human life is to come to knowledge of God, and if we simply turn toward God we will find that He has been waiting for us all along”.  T. Freke


Timothy Freke (born 1959) is a British author of books on religion and mysticism Freke is perhaps best known for his books, co-authored with Peter Gandy, which advocate a Gnostic understanding of early Christianity and the Christ myth theory , including The Jesus Mysteries: Was the "Original Jesus" a Pagan God? and The Laughing Jesus: Religious Lies and Gnostic Wisdom.
Freke also runs experiential seminars in the UK, USA and Europe.