Original Sin or Blessing

Updated: Jul 7

Robert van Mourik

Introduction

The concept of original sin is well known and deeply engrained in our psyche. First proposed by Augustine in the fifth century, it has greatly influenced Church dogma including Atonement Theory, the idea that Jesus died on the cross for our sins. Yet this presents a negative view of human development, that even before we were born our character was stained by something we did not do.

In the thirteenth century, an alternative proposition was debated by the Dominicans – who supported the concept of original sin – and the Franciscans who proposed an alternative view based on Genesis 1 – the concept of original blessing. The Dominican view prevailed although the Franciscan view was accepted as a minority view, but rarely taught or publicised.

This discussion paper explores both these concepts and the potential outcome on Church dogma if the Franciscan view had prevailed.

Original Sin

Our understanding of person is essentially Aristotelian, taught by all educational systems all over the (Western) world and the basis of our economics. The anthropology at the time of Jesus was founded in views established by Greek Hellenistic culture promoted by Aristotle and other Greek philosophers. Aristotle’s key features that made a person human were autonomous, self-reliant, separate, rational & individual. Human nature was separate from nature itself, separate from the divine.[1] But this view is not consistent with the expression of humankind in Genesis, being made in God’s own image.

God does not make junk! Each of us and everything is made in the “image of God”. Rohr, a Franciscan, writes:

“It is not ours to decide who has it or does not have it (i.e. the image of God) …. It is pure and total gift, given equally to all. But this picture was complicated when the concept of original sin entered the Christian mind. In this idea – first put forth by Augustine in the fifth century, but never mentioned in the Bible – we emphasised that human beings were born into “sin” because Adam and Eve “offended God” by eating from the “tree of knowledge of good and evil”…..This strange concept of original sin does not match the way we usually think of sin, which is normally a matter of personal responsibility and culpability. Yet original sin wasn’t something we did at all; it was something done to us (passed down from Adam and Eve).”[2]

Aristotle and Augustine influenced Thomas Aquinas (1225-74), a Dominican, in the development of his ideas. For many years, the archbishop of Paris, Etienne Tempier, a contemporary of Aquinas, judged that Aquinas’s reconciliation of faith and reason was too favourable to the philosophy of Aristotle. However, the Dominican order “stoutly defended Aquinas’s orthodoxy”. He was canonised a saint in 1323 and declared a Doctor of the Church in 1567 by the Dominican pope Pius V. Subsequently, a succession of popes, beginning with Leo XIII, in cooperation with the Dominican Order, gave strong support to his teaching.[3]

In the thirteenth century, the Franciscans, led by Bonaventure and Duns Scotus, and the Dominicans, led by Aquinas, invariably took opposing positions in the great debates in the universities of Paris, Cologne, Bologna, and Oxford. Both opinions usually passed the tests of orthodoxy, although one was preferred. The Franciscans often ended up presenting the minority position.[4]

One result of these debates was that the Dominican view, based on Aristotle and Augustine - that the human and the divine were separate and that mankind had to atone for original sin - prevailed over the alternative view founded in original blessings proposed by the Franciscans.

Consequently, this negative underlying assumption about our worthiness has coloured our theology for the last millennium, determined what we learnt in our catechism and how we have lived our lives. We seek to be worthy so that we can enter “heaven” and avoid “hell” when we die. We embark on New Year resolutions seeking to become better people and worry about our faults; we might live our lives feeling inadequate, always failing to achieve an unattainable standard. Clergy who could be good pastoral shepherds, tending to their flocks, instead engage in sin management. Richard Rohr writes:

“Our carrot-and-stick approach to religion is revealed by the fact that one is never quite pure enough, holy enough, or loyal enough for the presiding group. Obedience is normally a higher virtue than love in religious circles. This process of “sin management” has kept us clergy in business. Hiding around the edges of this search for moral purity are evils that we have readily overlooked: slavery, sexism, racism, wholesale classism, greed, paedophilia, national conquest, LGBTQIA+ exclusion, and the destruction of Native cultures. Almost all wars were fought with the full blessing of Christians. We have, as a result, what some cynically call “churchianity” or “civil religion” rather than deep or transformative Christianity.”[5]

Or Original Blessing

How might our theology have developed over the subsequent centuries if the Franciscan view had prevailed?

Pelagius (354-418), one of the early Christian Celtic writers, opposed the doctrine of original sin coined by his contemporary Augustine. Pelagius saw that beginning with the negative - original sin - would damage rather than aid spiritual development. Beginning with the positive instead of a problem is the healthiest and most hopeful way to find wholeness. The Celts saw creation as good and as a theophany or revelation of God’s very being just as Genesis had taught.[6] Note that Aquinas was influenced by Augustine rather than Pelagius. However, if it is true that we are “made in God’s image”, how can we be born with original sin?

Rohr writes:

“Genesis began with six clear statements of original blessing or inherent goodness (Genesis 1:10-31), and the words “original sin” are not in the New Testament. Yet the Church became so preoccupied with the fly in the ointment, the flaw in the beauty that we forgot and even missed out on any original blessing. We saw Jesus primarily as a problem-solver rather than as a revealer [sic] of the very heart and image of God (Colossians 1:15f). We must now rebuild on a foundation of original goodness, and not on a foundation of original curse or sin. We dug a pit so deep that most people and most theologies could not get back out of it. You must begin with yes. You cannot begin with no, or it is not a beginning at all.[7]

“The concept of original sin…. First put forth by Augustine in the fifth century…emphasised that human beings were born into “sin” because Adam and Eve “offended God” by eating from the tree of knowledge…. This strange concept of original sin does not match the way we usually think of sin, which is normally a matter of personal responsibility and culpability. Yet original sin wasn’t something we did at all; it was something done to us.”

A little later he continues:

“But after Augustine, most Christian theologies shifted from the positive vision of Genesis 1 to the darker version of Genesis 3, the so-called fall, or what I am calling the “problem”. Instead of embracing God’s master plan for humanity and creation – what we Franciscans call the “Primacy of Christ” – Christians shrunk our image of Jesus and Christ, and our “Saviour” became a mere Johnny-come-lately “answer” to the problem of sin, a problem that we have largely created ourselves. That’s a very limited role for Jesus. His death instead of his life was defined as saving us!”

And describes the consequences of the focus on original sin:

“The theology of mistrust and suspicion has manifested itself in all kinds of misguided notions: a world always in competition with itself; a mechanical and misguided understanding of baptism; fiery notions of hell; systems of rewards and punishments, shaming and exclusion of all wounded individuals (variously defined in each century); beliefs in the superiority of skin colour, ethnicity, or nation.”

“When we start with a theology of sin management administered by a too-often elite clergy, we end up with schizophrenic religion…. I believe this is the key reason why people do not so much react against the Christian story line, like they used to; instead, they simply refuse to take it seriously.”[8]

Rohr often speaks or writes about a 150-year-old Rio Grande cottonwood tree growing in the backyard of the Center for Action and Contemplation in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Apparently, the tree might have a genetic mutation that causes the huge trunks to make circuitous turns and twists as it spreads its gnarled limbs over the lawn. Yet Rohr considers it the finest piece of art at the centre as it provides the perfect specimen for one of the CAC’s core messages: Divine perfection is precisely the ability to include what seems like imperfection.[9]

Why did Jesus Live?

In his book Jesus: An Historical Approximation, the Spanish theologian, José Pagola writes the principal reason Jesus lived on earth was to proclaim the existence of the reign of God, otherwise commonly known as the kingdom of God, or redefined by contemporary authors as a Field of Compassion by Judy Cannato [10] or Companionship of Empowerment by Diarmuid O’Murchu [11]. However linguistically described, these phrases connote a life of mercy, compassion and justice for all.[12] Not at some time in the future but here now.

By proclaiming and living these values Jesus antagonised both the Roman hierarchy and the religious hierarchy. An itinerant, Jesus travelled the countryside often at risk and in danger. Ultimately, these powers combined forces to kill him as a dangerous man.[13] Pagola writes:

“Underneath it all, Jesus is crucified because his activity and his message have shaken the roots of the system, which is organised to serve the interests of the most powerful people in the Roman empire and in the temple religion. It is Pilate who pronounces the verdict: You will go to the cross. But that death sentence is signed by all those who, for different reasons, have refused Jesus’ call to enter the kingdom of God.”[14]

Certainly, there were world altering consequences resulting from his death, but to say Jesus died to atone for our sins? A more credible explanation is necessary.

What can we learn from Jesus?

What might Church dogma have become if it was based on an alternative underlying assumption of original blessing rather than original sin? If we could learn to live more fully, to love more freely, to realise our fullest human potential? To be transformed.

At the Last Supper Jesus did not say to his disciples “here is a list of rules and dogma you must follow and believe”. Rather, he said “love your neighbour as yourself”. By proclaiming and living the values of mercy, compassion and justice for all, Jesus was a role model for us all. He was always inclusive, evidenced for example, by his acceptance of the foreign, female Samaritan at Jacob’s well, by his acceptance of women as equals, by his acceptance of tax collectors and prostitutes. Today, those marginalised peoples are the refugees and displaced, the LGBTQIA+ communities, divorced and remarried Catholics, those who have left the priesthood, those who are not allowed to receive the Eucharist at mass.

Jesus, a prophet, was critical of power and hypocrisy. He did not die to atone for our sins but as a consequence of living an authentic life. A 2016 Christmas reflection by John Shelby Spong [15] on Jesus illustrates these characteristics:

• “He possessed the courage to be who he was. He is described in terms that portray him as an incredibly free man.”

• “Jesus seems to have had no internal needs that drove him to prove himself – no anxieties that centered his attention on himself. He rather appears to have had an uncanny capacity to give his life away.”

• “Freedom is always scary. People seek security in rules that curb freedom. So, his enemies conspired to remove him and his threat to them ……. he found in himself the freedom to give his life away and to do so quite deliberately.”

• “Christmas stories year after year for one purpose only: to worship the Lord of life who still sets us free and who calls us to live, to love and to be all that we can be.” (Italics added).

Jesus exhibited these qualities; we could follow his example. Anthony de Mello’s definition of spirituality means waking up. “An awakened person no longer marches to the drums of society, a person who dances to the tune of the music that springs up from within. Awareness means to watch, to observe, to understand, to wake up.”[16] To be free. Jesus was an awakened person.

Just as Rohr’s cottonwood tree exhibits divine perfection, able to include what seems like imperfection, we can accept God’s unconditional love. The misnamed parable of the Prodigal Son demonstrates that love, no strings attached. The vineyard owner, who paid his workers whether they worked an hour or a day, demonstrated that love. They did not demand the son or the workers measure up, did not demand they qualify for that love, it was simply given, always there.

An alternative theology founded in original blessing confirms to us that we are accepted, loved and forgiven for our faults, and that we are free to achieve our full potential as human beings. To devote our energies to the task of building a world where everyone might have the opportunity to live more fully, love more wastefully and have the courage to be all we were created to be. That also means we cannot accept any prejudice that would hurt or reject another based on any external characteristic, be it race, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation. Wouldn’t this make for a better world?

Questions for discussion

1. What impact has the doctrine of original sin had on your spiritual journey?

2. Do you personally agree with the theme of this paper? Would that change your worldview?

3. If so, what might you do differently in future?

1 O’Murchu https://diarmuidomurchu.com/videos/4-incarnation-our-enlarged-christian-narrative

2 Rohr, The Universal Christ, 61

3 New Short History of the Catholic Church, Norman Tanner, 129

4 Rohr CAC meditations, e.g., https://cac.org/daily-meditations/a-nonviolent-atonement-2017-07-24/

5 Participatory Morality, Rohr Daily Meditation 9 Sept 2021 https://cac.org/daily-meditations/participatory-morality-2021-09-09/

6 Rohr, Daily Meditations, Original Blessing 8 July 2015 https://cac.org/daily-meditations/original-blessing-2015-07-08/ .

7 Ibid

8 Rohr, The Universal Christ, 61-63