In last Sunday’s Chicago Tribune, Ron Grossman pointed out that there are two fundamentally different philosophies that govern the United States. One can be found in the writings of Jonathan Edwards and believes that human nature has hopelessly been corrupted by sin and thus we should not expect progress. The other is embodied in Thomas Jefferson’s praise of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” and assumes an optimistic future. Grossman then argues that this accounts for the fundamental political divide in the United States. Although Jefferson and Edwards would certainly have disagreed over human nature and the influence of original sin, it may not have necessarily shown up in their politics in quite the way that Grossman suggests.
It might be useful to consider first what is meant by original sin in Christian theology. Most Christians accept the notion that humanity was corrupted by Adam’s sin and so every human being is born with a propensity to sin and to rebel against God and His rules. But there the agreement ends. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that God removes original sin through baptism. Although people may still have concupiscence (which may lead people to sin), original sin has been completed removed and moral perfection is not beyond human possibility and has indeed been attained by the saints. Similarly, the Holiness tradition in Protestantism rejects the notion that Christians are held back in any way by a sinful nature; instead they believe that they too can and must achieve moral perfection. In fact, ever since the Second Great Awakening, few Protestants (whether mainline or evangelical) have put much stock in this doctrine and have had a rather cheery view of human nature.
The real exceptions to the rule have been those Lutherans and Calvinists who have hewn more closely to their confessions rather than follow the mainline or evangelical route. Thus, a view of original sin more like that of Edwards will be found among Missouri Synod and Wisconsin Synod Lutherans, but not in the mainline Evangelical Lutheran Church in America; likewise, one will find it taught less in the mainline Presbyterian Church (USA) than in the confessional Orthodox Presbyterian Church. These Lutherans and Calvinists largely agree on original sin, though they disagree on other matters. They confess that all human beings are tainted by original sin from the moment they are conceived (cf. Psalm 51:5); even though the taint of this sin is forgiven, their sinful nature (often called “the flesh” in the Bible) continues to reside in Christians and has to be battled, even by Christians, as Romans 6-7 demonstrates. Of course, Christians also receive a new nature (Colossians 2:11-15; 3:3-4, 9-10), but that does not mean that they have to stop their struggle against their sinful nature (see Colossians 3:5-8, 12-15). In fact, as the discourse of Colossians 2-3 and Romans 6-8 teaches us, we must acknowledge that a real change occurs when a Christian is baptized, while not at the same time denying that the sinful self remains—and also the need to struggle valiantly against it.
Thus, traditional Lutherans and Calvinists teach that a human being’s actions remain tainted by selfishness, pride, rebellion, and arrogance, even after a person has come to faith in Christ. Moral perfection will take place only after we die. However, it does not follow that people are as wicked as they can be and that this is the worst of all possible worlds, morally speaking, as is often assumed by people like Grossman and other critics of the Edwardian view of original sin. It does mean, though, that there is often something selfish about even the best of our works. For example, we may help a little old lady across the street, fully expecting a merit badge or at least the acclaim of our fellow citizens (no matter how humbly we may protest).
But even as we Lutherans (and our Calvinist friends) take a rather grim view of human nature, we are also unique among Christians in separating civil righteousness from true godliness, and this is a positive advance in theology and political science. While we grant that God is offended by the pride and selfishness that often lie behind our most altruistic deeds, we recognize that other human beings rightly are not. It matters little to a community whether a neighbor is helping the little old lady across the street out of love for God or out of a desire for praise. Regardless of their motives, we want people to behave in a decent manner. Thus, we can appeal to people’s selfish instincts to avoid the pain of punishment or to garner other people’s praise and rewards, and thus we use their innate sin as a means to bring about civil concord. Thus, the fact that people are thoroughly tainted by original sin does not prevent them from doing civil righteousness at a fairly sophisticated level. What it does do is prevent them from being righteous in God’s eyes by their own efforts. That kind of godliness requires God’s grace and forgiveness.
The doctrine of original sin in our theology serves to underscore the role of God’s grace. Not only does He save those who have rejected Him all along, He also saves those who have been following Him for years, for they need His help no less than the “worst” of sinners. And so this doctrine, like most articles of faith, is formulated to help the faithful understand their relationship to God. But this article of faith could also have a beneficial influence on society if people would take it seriously, regardless of whether or not they accept the rest of our theology.
First, we would not be so quick to demonize opponents. The same original sin that exists in them exists in each of us. This is not to trivialize the distinction between right and wrong or to say that one cannot take a moral stance on a given issue. It does, however, remind us that even if we happen to be right on a moral or political issue debated by our peers, we are not thereby necessarily right with God.
At the same time, those in leadership would be better equipped to avoid falling into temptation. History is littered with leaders who thought that an ordination or election to high office or embracing a noble cause would be enough to suppress all their inner demons. As in rock climbing, those who think themselves invincible are the ones most likely to fall.
We would also avoid utopian dreaming, which invariably ends in nightmares. Because for much of American history liberals have tended to be optimistic about human nature and the possibility of constructing a perfect society while conservatives have been skeptical of such things, Grossman nearly equates belief in original sin with a conservative political view. Indeed, one can see that much of the traditional conservative agenda—the separation of powers, a preference for the local over the national, and a reluctance to change the evils we know for evils we don’t—reflects a rather negative view of human nature. But conservatives have shown themselves to be just as naïve at times in their utopianism, as if a completely unregulated market or the abolition of all taxes would solve all our problems. (Can anyone say, "Ayn Rand"?) Both conservatives and liberals would do well to stop speaking in millennialist terms.
Instead, we should adopt a more realistic agenda. We will confess that we cannot ignore today’s evils, for that would be wicked, and yet we will also recognize that today’s evils are often the unintended consequences of solutions to yesterday’s evils, and the good and necessary reforms of today will become the basis for tomorrow’s evils. Given the fixity of human nature, we will realize that we cannot banish greed, lust, sloth, arrogance, and the other evils that plague the human condition. At most, we can stop one or more expressions of those vices or keep them in check. However, we may also be able to use one vice to offset another. For example, we may encourage people to engage in the vice of pride as we urge them to make generous charitable contributions. We encourage one of their vices, their pride, in order to offset the effects of another vice, their greed. We haven’t rid them of original sin or its resultant vices, but we have encouraged them to behave in a manner more befitting society. And thus we can foster positive change in society, if only we don’t delude ourselves into thinking that civil righteousness is the kingdom of God and the absence of original sin.
© 2011 James A. Kellerman
No comments:
Post a Comment