i've been reading a new blog lately by a fellow grand rapidian named jeremy bouma. he has been blogging about many things emergent including doug pagitt's view of original sin. it has got me thinking about my own view, and while i would typically say that i do believe in it, something doug said in the comments really resonates with me. in fact it has caused me to do a lot of thinking today because doug's statement fits into my own worldview quite nicely.
here's a summation of my thoughts on this:
all of creation, or reality, is relational. everything that exists, including us, is made of things are that also parts of, and exist in relationship to, bigger things. humans (which are made of atoms, which form molecules, which form cells etc.) form social institutions, which make up society. the DNA or soul of society is culture.
here's a summation of my thoughts on this:
all of creation, or reality, is relational. everything that exists, including us, is made of things are that also parts of, and exist in relationship to, bigger things. humans (which are made of atoms, which form molecules, which form cells etc.) form social institutions, which make up society. the DNA or soul of society is culture.
culture is a manifestation of human relationship. human relationship engenders culture. it is the water in which we swim. culture affects us from the very beginning of our life. we are completely enveloped in it.
relationship and culture are part of who we are.
relationship and culture are part of who we are.
original sin then is the relational fracture between God and humans. this fracture spreads to human relationships and culture, which spreads to the human/creation relationship. this broken relationship with God affects our behavior and ethics since ethics are cultural and deal with relationship.
thus, because our fall comes by way of a relational fracture with God, our salvation comes by way of relational healing with God through Christ.
thus, because our fall comes by way of a relational fracture with God, our salvation comes by way of relational healing with God through Christ.
the statement i liked that doug posted was from his book, a christianity worth believing. here's the statement that resonated with me:
"Sin isn’t a legal problem with God; it’s a relationship problem with us. In the garden, Adam and Eve were perfectly integrated with God. But when they ate from the tree, they acted outside their partnership with God and began to experience the disintegration of their relationship with God. And that’s what sin is—disintegration. We were created for integration, partnering, connection with God. Sin irritates; it destabilizes. It causes us to come unraveled from the life we have with God."
i think doug is right. sin, from the beginning is a relationship problem, and not an imago dei problem. yet jeremy argues that ontologically we are still made in God's image, but ethically we are rebellious:
"We are not worms. We are the Image of God. That image is cracked and corrupted though, though, by sin which is why we act in ways that we were not intended to act, resulting in death that was never intended to be. Ethically we are morally rebellious. The ontological consequences of ethical autonomy that comes from that sin nature which Paul says we've inherited from Adam is Death (and I would also say Diseases, like cancer), but could also affect us at the DNA level."
jeremy really seems contradictory in this statement. we are the image of God, but not really...
why instead can't it be: we are the image of God, but our relationship with him is broken. that would make much more sense, and would explain why our ethics are so screwed up given that ethics are grounded in relationship and culture which affect who we are.
"Sin isn’t a legal problem with God; it’s a relationship problem with us. In the garden, Adam and Eve were perfectly integrated with God. But when they ate from the tree, they acted outside their partnership with God and began to experience the disintegration of their relationship with God. And that’s what sin is—disintegration. We were created for integration, partnering, connection with God. Sin irritates; it destabilizes. It causes us to come unraveled from the life we have with God."
i think doug is right. sin, from the beginning is a relationship problem, and not an imago dei problem. yet jeremy argues that ontologically we are still made in God's image, but ethically we are rebellious:
"We are not worms. We are the Image of God. That image is cracked and corrupted though, though, by sin which is why we act in ways that we were not intended to act, resulting in death that was never intended to be. Ethically we are morally rebellious. The ontological consequences of ethical autonomy that comes from that sin nature which Paul says we've inherited from Adam is Death (and I would also say Diseases, like cancer), but could also affect us at the DNA level."
jeremy really seems contradictory in this statement. we are the image of God, but not really...
why instead can't it be: we are the image of God, but our relationship with him is broken. that would make much more sense, and would explain why our ethics are so screwed up given that ethics are grounded in relationship and culture which affect who we are.
8 comments:
Hey Chris, nice to blog meet you.
hey doug, nice to blog meet you as well.
Thoughtful post here Chris. As one steeped in the reformed tradition, I've been trying to comprehend this original sin idea for a long time now. I appreciate your perspective; I'll chew on it a while.
Blessings.
Nice post, Chris! Have you read Elaine Pagels' "Adam, Eve, and the Serpent"? Augustine seems to be basing his theology, in part, on a disobedient "member":
"At times, the urge intrudes uninvited; at other times, it deserts the panting lover, and, although desire blazes in the mind, the body is frigid. In this strange way, desire refuses service, not only to the will to procreate, but also to the desire for wantonness; and though for the most part, it solidly opposes the mind's command, at other times it is divided against itself, and, having aroused the mind, it fails to arouse the body."
He is drawing the conclusion that man really doesn't have free will, and THIS is proof of it! It is a fascinating, enlightening book, to say the least!
Adam, Eve, and the Serpent
thanks all for commenting.
randy- i've been interested in attending an emergent west mi meeting for some time, but they are always planned on days i have to work. when is the next one?
jeff- i haven't read anything by pagels, or augustine for that matter. so that quote was from him?! i might have to pick that up.
Yes - it's from Augustine's "City of God". I have been fascinated by the history of the early church, learning that the "marriage" of the Roman Empire and Christianity (313) was a little more "problematic" than we were lead to believe. Pagels' books (I've read most of hers) really shed some light on this history. Check out this LINK for a little more detail on her.
Another interesting book on early church history is "When Jesus Became God:The Struggle to Define Christianity during the Last Days of Rome".
i'm familiar with pagels. i know she's written a lot on the gnostic gospels, which i think may be interesting to learn about, but are not writings that should inform our theology.
the early church is something i really want to learn more about. i'm interested in the influence the roman empire had as well as plato and aristotle. i also find it disturbing that our theology has been shaped by people who persecuted others in jesus name and who where antisemitic.
I understand your point on the gnostic gospels, though I find them well worth trying to understand them from at least a historical perspective as many were widely read in Christian communities before the Roman Church "removed" them. That said, the early church history part, too, is what intrigues me. Especially when you learn the coercive tactics used to get people "in line".
Post a Comment