Original Sin
A Lutheran friend of mine recently asked me what I think of the doctrine of original sin. This is what I emailed her:
OK, here's my shot at it. I think that the doctrine of OS is more than just a way of talking about humanity's need for JX. I think it was a way to protect a Platonic/Aristotelian metaphysical view of God. The Early Church, in its attempt to reconcile the divinity and death of Jesus and to gain a hearing in the Hellenistic world had to do something to guard this Greek metaphysic. The doctrine of OS was a handy solution: it could be justified from Genesis, and it kept intact God's impassibility. The problem of theodicy now lay completely in the tarnished souls of human beings.
Now I grew up as a loyal Calvinist, and I only began to question that when I fell under the sway of a couple Anabaptist professors at Fuller. Then I started to wonder if we don't need to set up philosophical shemes to protect God's sovereignty; maybe God shows true sovereignty by deigning to suffer with us. In fact, it seems that the fact of creation itself does away with God's impassibility; that is, why would a perfect and impassible God create anything to begin with?
Moltmann argues that because God is love, God really had no choice but to create a creation which he could love. Further, because love inevitably involves suffering, God inevitably suffers. If God did not suffer, then God would not be love.
Regarding metanarrative, the question is: Is there a Christian metanarrative, or are there many? Are the anabaptist, lutheran, reformed, catholic, and orthodox conceptions of Christianity reconcilable? Brian McLaren argues that they are in his latest book, A Generous Orthodoxy. I'd like to share his optimism, but I'm a little more skeptical.
Yes, I am convinced that the world needs the story that we're telling. But that story has changed over time. In other words, all theology is, in some way, contextual theology -- doctrines like OS and the Trinity were developed at certain times to deal with certain issues. We need to reappropriate some for our time, and we need to leave others on the rubbish heap of history. That's how you Lutherans are able to embrace Luther's theology of the cross but repudiate his anti-Semitism. So if there is a metanarrative, "there is no there there." It's always in flux, in negotiation between different theological schools, and, more importantly, between theologians and people who sit in pews every Sunday.
OK, here's my shot at it. I think that the doctrine of OS is more than just a way of talking about humanity's need for JX. I think it was a way to protect a Platonic/Aristotelian metaphysical view of God. The Early Church, in its attempt to reconcile the divinity and death of Jesus and to gain a hearing in the Hellenistic world had to do something to guard this Greek metaphysic. The doctrine of OS was a handy solution: it could be justified from Genesis, and it kept intact God's impassibility. The problem of theodicy now lay completely in the tarnished souls of human beings.
Now I grew up as a loyal Calvinist, and I only began to question that when I fell under the sway of a couple Anabaptist professors at Fuller. Then I started to wonder if we don't need to set up philosophical shemes to protect God's sovereignty; maybe God shows true sovereignty by deigning to suffer with us. In fact, it seems that the fact of creation itself does away with God's impassibility; that is, why would a perfect and impassible God create anything to begin with?
Moltmann argues that because God is love, God really had no choice but to create a creation which he could love. Further, because love inevitably involves suffering, God inevitably suffers. If God did not suffer, then God would not be love.
Regarding metanarrative, the question is: Is there a Christian metanarrative, or are there many? Are the anabaptist, lutheran, reformed, catholic, and orthodox conceptions of Christianity reconcilable? Brian McLaren argues that they are in his latest book, A Generous Orthodoxy. I'd like to share his optimism, but I'm a little more skeptical.
Yes, I am convinced that the world needs the story that we're telling. But that story has changed over time. In other words, all theology is, in some way, contextual theology -- doctrines like OS and the Trinity were developed at certain times to deal with certain issues. We need to reappropriate some for our time, and we need to leave others on the rubbish heap of history. That's how you Lutherans are able to embrace Luther's theology of the cross but repudiate his anti-Semitism. So if there is a metanarrative, "there is no there there." It's always in flux, in negotiation between different theological schools, and, more importantly, between theologians and people who sit in pews every Sunday.
posted by tony at 8:32 PM
15 Comments:
I'm interested in hearing how you propose to determine which doctrines to reappropriate and which to leave "on the rubish heap of history"?
(ptsblog.blogspot.com)
Tony this is all so good. There is no Story, just multiple tellings of stories. Stories don't exist in the abstract, only in the telling, and stories are told many ways by many different communities. There is no Christianity, just multiple christianities. To claim otherwise presupposes the view that Christianity is a collection of beliefs. Religion-as-collection-of-beliefs is the wrong way to look at it. Religions are lived practices in specific, concrete communities. We cannot talk about Christianity abstracted from communities, we can only talk about specific communities at specific times and places and what they said and did. If we do that, we find there is no one thing in common that all these have shared.
This implies neither wishy-washy relativism nor the claim that any version of christianity is as good as any other. Also, it is not the case that just because a belief or practice was developed at a specific time and place in a certain socio-intellectual context, it is erroneous. Contingency doesn't equal falsehood. It just makes the theologian's work a little more complex and a lot more historical.
All we can do is look at specific communities, what they are doing and what they are saying, and evaluate how adequately their beliefs and practices hold together and make sense. The theologian is a social critic, an ethnographer, who is responsible to the particular ethnos that is a community or group of communities who identify themselves as christian.
Steve
harbinger.blogs.com
It seems that there is a "story" that is more than the stories about the "story." Part of the "story" is the collection of stories about the "story," but it is not limited to it. (Changing metapors) There is still a picture without a frame, but no one has ever seen the picture without the frame (perhaps Moses saw part of it???). The frame is part of the art, but it is not the entirety of it.
Individuals, communities, cultures, geographies and the meaning generated from these and everything else is framing. It is part of the art. Depending on the frame, different pieces of the art will be exposed, highlighed; hidden or downplayed.
Some frames fit the art better than others...and some fit better at different times than others.
"There is no story (art)" perhaps is appropriate in that there is no one frame that is the only frame suitable for this piece of art (modern extreme). At the same time, not all frames are suitable (postmodern extreme) There are some frames not suitable for it, but then again, to what extent?
good post.
christianity does not exist outside of its expressions.
cheers.
God's Broken Image
Bishop J. C. Ryle's most famous book, Holiness states this, "The plain truth is that a right knowledge of sin lies at the root of all saving Christianity. Without it such doctrines as Just, Converstion, Sanc are words and names which convey no meaning to the mind. The first thing therefore, that God does when He (sorry about that but I am using J. C.'s words) makes anyone a new creation in Chirst, is to send light into his/her heart, and shows that he/she is a guilty sinner."
I am broken in God's image. I am glad Chris E is not God but our salvation lies on Grace and our Justificaiton is only found in Chirst ... Christ Alone. (There are some good Latin words that should be used here).
Dave
Please, please, please don't do as Jack says: "Go see Stone's movie." It's horrible! In fact, it has made it into my "Worst Movies Ever" category. Read a history book or listen in on historical lecture but for God's sake (literally) don't go see this movie.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/087614198X/qid=1102345548/sr=1-6/ref=sr_1_6/103-5465148-9030221?v=glance&s=books
Tony
Delete the blog above this blog. That link goes no where fast!
If you want us to read a book just give us a title.
In regards to the concept of original sin, might it be helpful to finally give a second hearing to Pelagianism? i.e. the idea that sin is socialized into us, rather than genetically inherited.
IIRC, the problem with this Pelagian view was that it created the possibility that a person could actually become sinless through their own effort, by simply choosing to act against their social programming.
But, what if we agree with the "socialization" theory of OS but hold that socialization is a much stronger force in our personal identities than perhaps Pelagius realized? What if we say that our sin nature, even if it is learned and not inherited, is still just as potent, and just as in need of a divine act of grace to overcome? Would that avoid some of the metaphysical problems of the Augustinian view of OS?
This socialization theory of sin has two other things going for it, I think. One is that it seems to fit with postmodern ideas about how our identities and very natures as individuals are shaped primarily through community, through the network of social relations we find ourselves embedded in. And second, it also fits (I believe) better with an Eastern Orthodox view of sin (thus giving it some greater credibility beyond merely the reported beliefs of a 4th century heretic.)
Just a thought...
-Mike
I see the comments of the story existing by the context it exists within as being parallel to seeing truth as demanding a context to exist within.
For me, Jesus' statement claiming to be the way, the truth and the life - is only true because God initiated a context to exist within, that being creation.
Without creation, I wonder how God/Jesus could be the truth?
I like Gandalf's comment quite a bit. I would only add that we should probably find a way to make a move toward saying that sin is NECESSARILY socialized into us. If we don't make this move then we will spawn all kinds of communities who are trying to socialize sin out of the community rather than dealing with it. In the above statement I reveal my unease with removing all of the innate nature of sin in the human person.
(ptsblog.blogspot.com)
I agree WTM, whatever view of sin we take, I think it's important to stress that it is unavoidable. One person (nor a whole community) cannot simply will not to sin.
I hear what you're saying Mitch, and I can sympathize somewhat... but then I wonder, where's the grace? I don't think Christianity is primarily about trying not to sin. I think it's about realizing our inability to not sin, and then joyously receiving God's unconditional grace in spite of our inabilities.
See Yac's Messy Spirituality for more on that...
Or as C.S. Lewis once said, "It's grace, and nothing else, that sets Christianity apart from any other religion."
Origianl Sin as inheritance or socialization would seem to be practicably impossible to determine other than as a logical extension of the plan as layed out before us. But then, in jumps the, perhaps newer, concept of accountability, so I will move to how OS seems to manifest itself as a reality in my life, maybe not yours. Adam having been given all that he needed and in a place sometimes called Paradise and apparently having daily face to face with the Creator was able to confuse his priorities enough to condemn himself and the rest of us to hard labor. So where did he learn that behaviour, or is it attitude, or some combination of the two? oh yeah, Eve. Eve forgot, she could "touch" and live-Adam was to dress the tree, but after she misstated 'If I even so much as touch it I will die' then the proof was misleading, so why not taste? The weakness seems to have manifested in misstatement. Malicious or forgetful? If malicious, where did she learn malicious? Malicious from perhaps overexuberance? An overexuberance from being startled by a talking snake? Overexuberance in response to an unexpected occurence? But where did she learn overexuberance. Ahh, forgetful, yes, so where did she learn forgetful? I forget. Cerebral cortex short circuitry. Original sin is Cerebral cortex short circuitry?
Did any one move closer to Jesus in this effort?
Forgetfulness is a gift of God?
I have been trying to get this posted for a couple of days so now it is nearly obsolete and short of response to the new inputs but while my isp is hot I will press the button
Robert Fn Revier, rrev@juno.com
That argument about faith and behaviour is a heady question that will continue to frustrate truthful desciples till the return. A former preacher used to try to ilumminate the paradox with this analogy about here is a dollar in my hand will you take it, normally he used a small child and then clamoped down hard on the dollar-not the God I know, but relevant to the point that if you don't accept (a behaviour) the gift then you do not receive the benefits as someone above related. On the other hand if as Paul said even our faith is a gift is it that 'the Faith' is the only faith and received at salvation or that the faith we receive as descendants of Adam must be replaced correctly?
RobFRe
Post a Comment
<< Home