Original Sin

Recently, The Rev. Dr. Caleb J. Lines, Senior Minister of University Christian Church in San Diego, posted a sermon snippet on original sin. If you’re not yet following Caleb and you like pastors who are dynamic, persuasive and progressive, then you should start following him on the socials. He made an interesting point that I hadn’t thought of in a while: Christianity is the only Abrahamic faith that predominantly upholds the idea of original sin. I say predominantly only because in the largely Protestant circles most of us socialize in, original sin seems to be a given. So why isn’t it a given in Judaism, Islam or even the Eastern Orthodox faith?

If you ask an average Christian on the street in Colorado Springs about original sin, they will say that all of humanity has inherited a state of fallenness, guilt and separation from God due to the first sins committed by Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Spoiler alert: I don’t believe the story of Eden, creation and the fall are literal history. So, it probably won’t surprise you that I don’t directly buy into a theological concept that posits we are all born with a sinful nature because of two mythological scamps.

Further, I cannot truly remember my first sin. I’m pretty sure it wasn’t in Sunrise Memorial in Las Vegas where I was born. It happened later. So how was I born into sin? I’m guessing I didn’t set out to sin. I was somehow lured, maybe by frustrations of human existence — scarcity, intolerance, bullying, addiction — and my response was one of sin. I’m imagining because I have no recollection. But these are the ways we are led to sin, through our communal human condition, not through heredity. Dolphins are born wet, are they in and of themselves wet?

Forgive me if my heretic’s take on this is free of much detail, but here is a sketch on what I think most people think of when they think original sin.

Adam and Eve disobeyed God by eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. This was the first sin and as a result, it introduced sin into a perfect world. We all inherit this sinful nature. This results in separation from God and for some Christians, results in some sort of requirement for God to punish us eternally in painful, odorous flames. None of us asked to be born, none of us had the choice to be born perfect, yet the God of this oft-told tale is threatening eternal conscious torment for failing to talk us into the right club. Again, if this makes no sense to you, it’s probably because it makes no sense at all.

You may wonder, if this started with the story of Adam and Eve, why isn’t original sin taught in Judaism and Islam? It didn’t actual exist in the early Christian church either. It developed over time. Paul dictated some lines relating Adam and Christ such as:

1 Corinthians 15:21-22

For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.

I take this less as a formal doctrine of original sin and more a way to show how Jesus connects to the story of all humanity. Adam is a great bookend to make this point. But the point seems to me to be about universal salvation and reconciliation and less about original sin. The punchline is that all shall be made alive, and all means all.

Like all theological things, you will find variations in the early church. Some emphasized free will and individual potential for spiritual redemption. Others emphasized that humanity is fallen. But none immediately articulated a formal doctrine of original sin. Most importantly, Jesus didn’t teach it. He focused on forgiveness, repentance and the Kingdom of God. Sin to Jesus was more relational and had nuance depending on the context of one’s action. We all need to turn back to God. But if our sin was somehow because of Adam and Eve, then it seems He might have mentioned it. Jesus was clear that we’re all sinners – let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Without giving away the ending of this post, that is where I tend to fall on this issue, too. You can agree that we’re all sinful and agree that this world is terribly broken without insisting on original sin.

As Christianity developed into the second and third centuries, many theological disputes become more pronounced. Augustine is usually credited with both formalizing and advocating for the doctrine of original sin, mostly because he had to hone his responses to Pelagius who believed the opposite. Several councils took Augustine’s view and declared Pelagianism to be a heresy. Luther and Calvin were both fans of Augustine so protestants inherited a very legal view of sin and redemption. And here we are.

Now, there is some beauty in Augustine’s reasoning. It attempts to provide – I think unconvincingly – a comprehensive view of why the world is broken. Again, if you approach this mythologically then the argument breaks down or otherwise you need to think about original sin in mythological ways. There wasn’t a specific Adam and Eve, we all evolved from earlier mammals, so to be consistent in a modern and comprehensive view I think you must believe that original sin simply speaks to our limited nature, the communal difficulties all around us that we have to respond to daily for better or ill, and our difficulty in connecting with our divinely given purposes. I love that Augustine emphasizes God’s grace in this story, even though I don’t agree with his soteriology. I have a very different idea of atonement than that of Augustine. I believe God’s grace leads us to love and beauty that is already there. God’s grace says, “I love you, you’re saved, you’re worthy, you’re good, just as I made you.”

I personally find myself straddling the issue a little bit, but overall would prefer to toss out the dusty notion of original sin because it simply holds too much heavy baggage. There was not an historical Adam and Eve to blame all this on. Further, we mostly blame it on Eve, so it seems misogynistic to me. Stop scoring points for patriarchy in God’s name. It denies the original blessing of God calling us good creation. It denies the dignity of our own choices and free will. I’m a universalist anyway, so the reason for our sin is ultimately unimportant in emphasizing God’s grace. God’s grace runs freely to all. Original sin often is used to support exclusivist ideas and I find inclusivism the only rational conclusion in a world designed by a loving God.

Given all of that, why do I straddle the issue of original sin? Mostly because, as Jesus pointed out while discussing stone casting, it’s really obvious to me that we are all sinners, stuck, separated and in need of repentance and God’s grace. I’m far from being a Pelagian because even if I don’t believe in original sin, I also don’t believe that it is possible for any of us to earn salvation on our own. I mean, reread the beginning of Job where Job is called blameless and then think about what happened to him anyway. We are somehow stuck in a very broken and sinful world regardless of the reasons.

If you’re using the concept of original sin to support a literal reading of Genesis, or argue against women, or insist that God’s justice requires eternal conscious torment, then I fully disagree with original sin. If what you mean by original sin is that we are somehow held captive to this broken human condition and original sin is a mythological metaphor that gets to that point as well as any other — because frankly Paul’s slavery motifs should rub you the wrong way, too — then I’m OK with original sin.

I have two important thinkers to thank (blame?) for a more nuanced view of original sin. Regular readers will not be surprised that those two thinkers are Pete Enns and Karl Barth.

I read a lot of things in a hurry and don’t take great notes. My sense about what I’ve learned about this from Pete Enns came largely from his book, The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn’t Say about Human Origins. But his excellent podcast might have been the source. Regardless, you should read that book anyway as well as anything else you can get your hands on from Pete. Pete’s argument is about the Old Testament and helps to explain why other Abrahamic faiths don’t teach original sin. In brief:

• The curse of the Garden of Eden was not about all generations inheriting sinfulness. The curse was death, painful childbirth, difficulty growing food… oh and the snake loses its legs.
• Throughout the Old Testament, God seems fine working with a people who are flawed yet trying their best.
• Adam really isn’t that important in the Bible after the early parts of Genesis. You’d think he’d play a much bigger role if original sin was the point of the story.
• If Cain is responsible for his own sin, then Cain had a choice. His sin wasn’t inherited from his dad. I mean, consider these New Testament verses as some evidence that early Christians really had no concept of original sin because they blame Cain, not Adam. 1 John 3:11-12: For this is the message you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another. We must not be like Cain, who was from the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own deeds were evil and his brother’s righteous. And Jude 1:11: Woe to them! For they go the way of Cain and abandon themselves to Balaam’s error for the sake of gain and perish in Korah’s rebellion.
• The flood story assumes that humanity just got worse and worse. It doesn’t say, “because Adam sinned God got fed up and tried to kill almost everyone.”

Barth’s thoughts on original sin are very influential to modern thinkers. Barth is also difficult to read. It is absolutely true that a lot of what I’ve learned from Barth, I’ve actually learned from people who write well about Barth’s ideas because I can read a paragraph of Barth 22 times and still be confused. But to bring this post full circle, I think Barth’s view of sin is — like Jesus’ view — focused on a relational understanding. There is both an individual and a communal component to sin and grace. In other words, it doesn’t take a scholar to see that sin if very real. It only takes a mirror and any of the latest news about Putin, the Trump family or the social media robber barons of the day. Barth wouldn’t say that we inherited guilt as much as we just so often reject God in our lives and in our culture. We’re trapped. For Barth, sin is communal as much as it is individual. Sin is the human condition in which we all participate.

Of course, everything in Barth centers on Jesus Christ. Grace and redemption are more important than original sin. Christ is the ultimate answer regardless of the cause. For Barth, the theology is more important than some sort of literal historical understanding of Genesis. The Fall describes our ongoing struggle with sin, our need for Christ and grace, even if it doesn’t present a literal historical explanation for sin. This is largely where I’ve landed and who I blame for where I’ve landed. I love Barth’s capability for frustrating conservatives through orthodoxy.

You may come to the end of this article and wonder, what’s the point? If sin is real and we need God’s grace to overcome our separation, aren’t those practical effects that same as if we believe in original sin? Maybe. That’s why I straddle it. I believe in original sin in the way I’ve described Barth’s beliefs above (and I’m hoping without simply disguising my own beliefs as Barth’s). We are all sinners, and it seems inescapable. But beyond that, I think original sin has too much baggage to carry around. It doesn’t seem right for us to be born into sin and guilt we didn’t cause. That creates cognitive dissonance around our thoughts of God’s love and justice. It has also created many atheists. Original sin ignores both our free will and agency alongside our original blessedness. Like Israel, God sees good in our lives regardless of sin. God wants us here regardless of sin. Original sin cannot take away God’s divine purposes for our lives, however weird they are. Sin is bad and we should confess frequently. I mean, Christians are one of the few people who get together to confess their sins each week and I happen to think that is important and lovely. But a focus on sin and a fear-based spirituality can only detract from our relationship with God. God only wants that relationship and has already overlooked your sins in favor of that relationship. Original sin can lead to an exclusivist faith where you have to do the right things to break the pattern of sin.

Sure, we all sin. But thanks to Christ, God doesn’t even count a single sin. Instead of focusing on sin, let’s focus on our work as ambassadors of God’s kingdom. Let’s share the news that we’re already saved so we can go about spreading love instead of fear.

2 Corinthians 5:18-21

All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. So we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

---

That was a long article, and now I have some more reading for you. David Morris recently published an excellent article on his Substack on how concepts of original sin and particular atonement theories create psychological conditions in evangelicals that make them susceptible to nationalism. Give it a read: Beyond the Surface: The Psychological Roots of Christian Nationalism