Western Christians (Catholics and Protestants) tend to describe the consequence of the Fall as our natural inclination to sin and rebel against God. Eastern Christians, on the other hand, tend to talk about the woundedness of human nature as a consequence of the Fall. Both concepts are important and are not mutually exclusive. The two concepts are like having two speakers so that we can hear stereo sound. The problem is that one of the speakers has been turned off in the Western world. And that is unfortunate with sometimes tragic consequences.
One difference is that being a sinner is active, while being wounded is passive. We do actively rebel against God, but that is not the whole story. We are also wounded in our capacity to do right and we are truly powerless to change that. In my previous post, I pointed out the obsession of hard core reformed christians to constantly qualify that grace is unmerited. That association is inevitable if we can only see ourselves as actively rebelling against God. I can't quite explain why that follows at this moment except to point out that to think of ourselves as being active sinners feels like being trapped in a prison cell of sin, opposed to being in a hospital bed having our wound treated by a loving physician.
A respected (protestant!) theologian once pointed out to me that while protestants critique catholics for believing they can earn their way to heaven, in actuality, it is the protestants who are obsessed about being saved. This seems like another consequence of seeing ourselves as active sinners. Despite the conscious proclamation that we are dead in our sins and we are powerless to change but for the (unmerited) grace of God, believing that we are active sinners unconsciously drive christians to want to get rid of our sins. And since this is an impossible task, what christians end up doing is hiding our own sins from ourselves and projecting our sins onto other people.
I think the goodness from seeing our wounded nature is it allows us to be more compassionate toward ourselves and others and allows for a compassionate God who is okay with our sickness. This also leads to a more realistic and grounded view of holiness. Yes, I can grow in holiness, but I can also hold my own sickness at the same time. Believing in God does not magically change me. I want to do good and I can do good. But I also want to do bad and I can hold that reality as well. And by not repressing and projecting my own badness to others, I actually have a better chance of letting the medicine do its work.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI like the image of woundedness, and it seems consistent with Reformed theology as I know it. It's passive inasmuch as we inherited that wounded (or fallen) nature, not through our own action. Our capacity to do right and to love God is disabled through our nature before we even take any action, good or bad. By the same token, Reformed theology teaches, God has reached down and changed our nature, regenerated our souls, also apart from any action of our own, and our life should now focus on living in response to that.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that the Bible is pretty clear about our being active sinners, so I don't see how we can get away from that, but our proper response is not to "want to get rid of our sins" but rather to look to God for forgiveness and for the ability to be holy. Depending on what you mean by the phrase, I'm not sure I can agree that God is "okay with our sickness," because sin is nothing other than rejection of God's good rule over our lives, but of course he "knows our frame and remembers that we are dust" (Psalm 103:14). We should remember that too, not to be preoccupied with seeming more holy than we are, but to freely confess our unholiness and to look to God for redemption.
I'm not sure how much all this agrees or disagrees with what you're saying, but I'd be glad to talk further.
Matt, thank you for sharing your thoughts! You made several points in your comment so I am not sure I will be able to address them all here, but will be glad to fleshed them out together further.
ReplyDeleteYou wrote "the Bible is pretty clear about our being active sinners". I would argue that this is a result of reading the Bible through a particular theological lens. I have no doubt that we can pull verses out of the Bible to support this view point, mostly from the Pauline Letters and probably a good many of them from Romans. I would partially agree with this viewpoint but note that this perspective gives us too much agency in our ability to do bad and little to no agency for us to do good.
The way I have heard this perspective presented also implicitly puts too much emphasize on the Fall and the Cross and the Final Judgement but unwillingly mutes the goodness of Creation and Redemption and the New Jerusalem.
With regard to God being "okay with our sickness", your response seem to implicitly equate sickness with sins. A main point I am making is our wounds and our sins are related but separate concepts. A related point is that the two concepts that can exist concurrently, not only sequentially. By that, I mean if we read our sickness as the cause (or effect) of our sins, then it does seem that we *need* to get well as a goal in itself, and try/hope/desire to get well ASAP. But I like to propose that sins and wounds can co-exist at the same time and to give ourselves the room and the space to be sick.
I agree that balance is needed. Some Christians do indeed put too much emphasis on sin and judgment, which in fact can only make a sensible story if they are the middle part within a broader context that begins with the goodness of Creation and ends with the Redemption of all things.
ReplyDeleteI agree! The overall biblical story is so grand and fascinating precisely because of the peaks and valleys and the dry parts. At times I wish non-christians would really give the bible a shot, if not as a religious text, than as an adventure book.
ReplyDelete