Modern Interpretations of the Doctrine of Original Sin - Essay Example

?Modern Interpretations of the Doctrine of Original Sin The doctrine of original sin as articulated by early Christianity advanced the idea that humanity inherits sins from Adam and Eve from which mankind must seek redemption. Modern Christians however, have challenged the concept that a man can be born bearing responsibility for the sins of another. Modern Christians have also questioned whether or not it was fair to expect that a new born infant can be perceived as a sinner based on the doctrine of original sin. Other Christians have questioned whether or not the doctrine of original sin can properly deny a baby who does not receive redemption via Baptism entry into Heaven (Wiley, 2002, p. 3). Modern interpretations of the doctrine of original sin typically come to the conclusion that given the involuntary nature of inherited sin, it is reasonable to conclude that sin is not necessarily an evil or moral wrong, but also an explanation for the correct path to follow (Couehoven, 2009, p. 567). Modern philosophers such as Emmanuel Kant set the stage for later expansions on the interpretations of the doctrine of original sin. Kant argued that sin is connected to an individual’s will. In this regard, an individual sins when the individual acts on impulse as opposed to rational reasoning. The freedom to choose between impulse and rational reasoning is the origins of sin (Hastings & Selbie, 2003, p. 563). Modern philosopher G.W.F. Hegel also argued that the doctrine of original sin merely recognizes that man can only be presumed to have the potential to be good and that man is not naturally good (Hastings & Selbie, 2003, p. 563). Modern interpretations of the doctrine of original sin have focused on attempts to understand and conceptualize sin. For example Gustafson, in his conceptualization of sin argues that sin is “an ancient religious symbol”, therefore suggesting that sin is an inherited phenomenon (Gustafson, 1977, p. 156). This conceptualization of sin essentially provides a new understanding and interpretation of original sin. Rather than a literal interpretation suggesting that mankind inherited the actual sins of Adam and Eve, Gustafson’s conceptualization of sin indicates that man is inherently sinful. Gustafson accomplishes this by arguing that man is by nature, culture and society driven by self-interest (Gustafson, 1977, p. 156). According to Gustafson (1977), man’s pursuit of self-interest alone is not a sin. It is the rationale and motivation for pursuing self-interests that is sinful. Man by nature and circumstances in a world with increasing political, natural, scientific and economic complexities grow particularly anxious. In the absence of “confidence in an ultimately reliable sovereign power” man copes with anxieties by “securing” “narrow self-interests” (Gustafson, 1977, p. 156). In this regard: Sin is a human condition which leads to actions that seek security in the protection of narrow self-interests, actions that thus deny God... (Gustafson, 1977, p. 156). Thus according to Gustafson (1977), the doctrine of original sin must be interpreted by reference to how sin and more especially original sin can be conceptualized. This conceptualization of sin does not focus on the actual sins of Adam and Eve, but rather refers to the activities of Adam and Eve in ways that symbolize human conditions, nature and experiences. Gustafson (1977) argues further that human activities are constrained by the what man has become. Man evolves out of natural capabilities and experiences together with specific conditions in which man is presented with options. Human beings are thus agents within the life course and are therefore able to react to specific situations in ways that either maintain those conditions or change them (Gustafson, 1983, p. 167). According to Gustafson (1983), the doctrine of original establishes the origins of human sin and dictates that man has choices in certain situations. The ability to feel guilt and to determine appropriate responses is borne out of human experiences and in particular, the “experience of obligation and remorse” (Gustafson, 1983, p. 293). Thus the experiences with respect to culpability for committing a moral wrong is common to everyone who acknowledges human agency and the fact that we are each “responsible to some extent for” the choices we make and the actions we take (Gustafson, 1983, p. 293). Gustafson’s (1983) interpretation of the doctrine of original sin can thus be explained as symbolic of the human condition and human nature. Just as Adam and Eve made choices pursuant to self-interests and therefore sinned, mankind has choices and can choose to make moral choices and avoid sinning. Giving the sparse resources and the unjust distribution of wealth, mankind must not only take account of the current conditions, but must also look ahead to how his or her use of resources impact future generations. Mankind are not only agents for distributing justice, but are also responsible for preserving and promoting the common good. Sin is committed when mankind cannot look beyond narrowly defined self-interest and ignores interdependence and the scarcity of resources. McFarland (2010) argues that the doctrine of original sin as constructed gives rise to a number of problems. The first and most significant problem is the idea that all of mankind are sinners merely because an ancestor sinned. This conceptualization of the doctrine of original sin, is not only “morally outrageous” but it is also “historically incredible” (McFarland, 2010, p. ix). Another problem with this interpretation of the doctrine of original sin is that it seeks to unify mankind and qualify mankind as equals on the basis of something entirely negative: sin (McFarland, 2010, p. x). Another problem with the doctrine of original sin is that it suggest that there are significant problems in the world for which mankind is solely responsible. To some extent, this is not altogether an outrageous claim since there is human agency in poverty, war, terrorism and a myriad of social, economic and political problems. However, the doctrine of original sin goes beyond this aspect of human complicity. According to the doctrine of original sin, human beings are by nature sinful and unable to resist sinning. It also contended that each human being, without exception are responsible for their sins. It is therefore hardly surprising that there are harsh criticisms of the doctrine of original sin. Nevertheless, McFarland (2010) defends and reconceptualises the doctrine of original sin (p. 3). McFarland (2007) informs that the “Fall” refers to the first sin committed by Adam and Eve on behalf of the human race (p. 140). In this regard, the Fall is a specific scenario and McFarland suggests that in interpreting the doctrine of original sin it is best to segregate the idea of sin from the Fall. Sin in this regard is a broad conceptualization of the notion that mankind can and has a tendency to resist or turn “away from God” (McFarland, 2007, p. 140). McFarland (2007) argues that when the Fall and sin are put together it creates confusion and misinforms Christians. Combing the Fall with sin not only emphasizes that mankind is prone to the weaknesses brought about by human nature and conditions, but also misinforms that mankind are born sinners (McFarland, 2007, p. 141). According to McFarland (2007), the doctrine of original sin must be interpreted to mean that the doctrine itself is a Christian message relative to the nature and parameters of sin itself. Although original sin refers to a specific historical sin, as a doctrine, it primarily refers to “the state of sinfulness in which all human beings find themselves by virtue of that sin” (McFarland, 2007, p. 148). Man is a sinner by virtue of human nature. This is the primary message inherent in the modern interpretation of the doctrine of original sin. The secondary message inherent in the modern interpretation of the doctrine of original sin is that of actual sin in relation to what man does as a result of his/her identity as a sinner. Man is naturally a sinner because man is “constitutionally turned away from God” (McFarland, 2007, p. 148). As acknowledged, McFarland’s (2007) interpretation of the doctrine of original sin as it was understood by early Christians demonstrates its flaws. As originally understood and taught, the doctrine of original sin by preordaining that all of mankind were sinners by nature, not only condemned babies, but also failed to distinguish between victims and their “perpetrators” (McFarland, 2007, p. 153). According to McFarland, in order to make sense of the doctrine of original sin and to accept the differences in terms of culpability of babies and adults and victims and perpetrators, the doctrine of original sin must be looked upon as a statement recognizing that all human beings need to be redeemed (McFarland, 2007, p. 153). Original sin must be distinguished from actual sin as the former cannot be observed. Actual sin is the activity in which man gives into his will to commit an act in resistance of God. It is the actual sin that distinguishes babies from adults in terms of sinners, and victims from perpetrators (McFarland, 2007, p. 154). According to McFarland (2007), actual sins are “symptoms of original sin” and: ...provide an important mechanism for ensuring that the formal confession of sin’s universality is not belied by practices that identify sin with the other to the benefit of oneself (p. 154). In other words, the doctrine of original sin must be distinguished from actual sins otherwise those who commit actual sins would be no less culpable than those who do not commit actual sins. Distinguishing original sin from actual sins allows for human agency to be taken into account and establishes degrees of fault and the extent to which atonement is necessitated (McFarland, 2007, p. 154). According to Wiley (2002), the doctrine of original sin was interpreted by early Christians as a means of separating divinity from evil in the world. Early Christians also used and interpreted the doctrine of original sin as a means of justifying the church’s existence as a mediator between man and divinity. However, modern Christians have a difficult time accepting the doctrine of original sin and have raised reasonable questions challenging its fairness and consistency with the reality of human nature and conditions. For instance, as previously stated, many Christians and non-Christians question the feasibility of infants as sinners (Wiley, 2002, p. 5). In response modern theologians have attempted to interpret and explain the doctrine of original sin in a way that is consistent with the experiences and conditions of modern man. What has emerged is a conceptualization of sin as a means of mediating the relationship between man and God. There is a marked departure from the original concept that all man are sinners and instead there is a more marked focus on the link between knowledge/maturity and the capacity to sin and how this makes man vulnerable to sin as opposed to making man a sinner by nature (Wiley, 2002, p. 2). Essentially modern interpretations of the doctrine of original sin seek to incorporate a universal conceptualization of sin and at the same time make allowances for individual human agency. In this regard, the narrative about Adam and Eve and their fall only serve as symbolic representations of human propensity to sin or to commit immoral acts. As demonstrated by modern theologians, it is difficult to reconcile the doctrine of original sin with the reality that an infant is innocent and incapable of identify and making moral decisions and making moral decisions. It is therefore unthinkable that an infant should be held accountable for the sins of his or her forefathers. Just as an infant lacks the ability to sin, the infant lacks the ability to seek redemption and therefore the doctrine of original sin has little credibility. Modern theologians have therefore reconceptualised the doctrine of original sin in a way that accounts for human culpability in a more realistic way. Modern theologians generally defend the doctrine of original sin and in doing so interpret it so as to make it compatible with human sensitivity to the notion that a man can sin without actually committing a moral wrong. In this regard, modern theologians speak to accountability in terms of action and inaction that is moral. Modern theologians look to human agency in the natural environment and how human beings’ choices interact with the environment. There is a tendency to abandon the historical view that mankind is naturally doomed as a result of sins committed by our forefathers at a remote time and at a remote place. This makes sense because, if mankind forms the view that regardless of how moral and well-meaning one chooses to live, he/she will be regarded as a sinner nonetheless, he/she may make the decision to actively sin. Modern theologians therefore tend to distinguish between actively sinning and the natural inclination to sin. By taking this approach, the conscience is engaged in making moral judgments and moral decisions. In other words, modern theologians interpret the doctrine of original sin so that while mankind is characterized as naturally predisposed to sin, this does not mean that sinning is automatic. Bibliography Couenhoven, J. (October 2009). “What Sin Is: A Differential Analysis.” Modern Theology, Vol. 25(4): 564-587. Gustafson, J. M. (April 1977). “Interdependence, Finitude, and Sin: Reflections on Scarcity.” The Journal of Religion, Vol. 57(2): 156-168. Gustafson, J. M. (1983). Ethnics from a Theocentric Perspective, Vol. 1. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Hastings, J. and Selbie, J. A. (2003). Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, Part 18. Kessinger Publishing. McFarland, I. (2007). “The Fall and Sin.” In Webster, J.; Tanner, K. and Torrance, I. (Eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Systematic Theology. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, Ch. 8. McFarland, I. (2010). In Adam’s Fall: A Meditation the Christian Doctrine of Original Sin. West Sussex: Blackwell Publishing. Wiley, T. (2002). Original Sin: Origins, Developments, Contemporary Meaning. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press. Read More