I was recently talking to a friend about how various religions seek to explain or deal with the concept of original sin. I believe that virtually all the explanations (and exposition) attempt at explaining this mysterious aspect of the human experience will offer some wonderful insights. Here I would like to focus briefly on some insights that have helped me; both in my personal life and my social analysis work.
I very much believe that one way to understand sin is as a rupture in the foundational relationship to reality. It is a case of misapprehending that which is true or more accurately The Real. The Buddhist might speak of surrendering to Maya. If sin is understood as believing in The Lie then it makes sense that the Devil is called the Father of Lies. This also bring greater clarity to the understanding of living a righteous life as simply living in right-relationship with the Real. Because there are so many layers to this reality and so many relationships, we can only address a few in this entry. Understanding that any deviation from fully grasping The Real is a strong case for our finding ourselves in the arena of sinfulness. It may be more accurate to speak of allowing the Real to possess us, rather than our possession of the Real.
- I think it is important to understand that within the Creation myth offered in Genesis God creates all reality from nothing (ex nihilo). I think it is so easy to forget this in our highly individualistic (some might say hype-individualistic) world. It is cliche to speak of the ‘self-made’ man (or fill in the blank!) I constantly remind my students that to accomplish anything in life it is already a ‘team effort’ (this includes the next breath you take!) When one is allowed to engage in the silly, absurd and yes, sinful talk of having accomplished things by oneself one is already in the arena of idolatry. This may begin with a benign intention, but it does lead to greater and greater human sin, and misery. Not only for humanity but for all creation. For me it is helpful to realize that I frequently have more resources than I allow myself. I am reminded of how in my recovery from addictions I have had to rely on the ‘We” of the recovery community and not ‘my own unsteady willpower…we are all together now’. What a great blessing and movement forward in my healing. One way that this inaccurate and sinful perception is unhealthy to our political discourse is in how we deal with the resources of creation. When we speak of wealth and poverty we frequently talk about the arena of taxation. The danger can be that we begin with the supposition that anyone’s wealth is solely produced by themselves (or a small group). So, we inevitably get to the questions that is expressed in some variation of; “Who are we to tell Elon Musk what he should do with HIS MONEY” It is such a painful reality to accept that we have already ‘taken a bite of the fruit that the serpent has offered’ in speaking in these terms.
- One of the ways that the insight of the communal nature of all created reality has been in the Catholic Social Tradition concept of the “Universal Destination of Goods.” This understanding of original intent of creation seeks to create a balance between the right to private property and the right to use in speaking of economic reality. This is expressed in the Catholic Catechism in the following phrasing; “The right to private property, acquired by work or received from others by inheritance or gift, does not does not do away with the original gift of the earth to the whole of humankind” Note that for us the Real is that private property is not an ABSOLUTE RIGHT. It is always to be circumscribed by the larger commitment to the reality of how the universe is actually constructed. We are speaking here of a very foundational way of apprehending reality.
Given the way in which the Logic of Capitalism engages this highly consequential relationship between right to private ownership and right to use we can ask the very pointed question; can Capitalism accommodate the Real of the Universal Destination of Goods, and Original Intent of Creation. This question, for some people will instantaneously bring up alarms of ‘Marxist’ or “Communist” overtones. I think we have to be honest and forthright about accepting that there will be echoes and resonance from within that tradition. As many of you know, I have much deep affection and love for the Historical-Materialist tradition(s) in general and the Marxist tradition(s) in particular. My loyalty to various insights is guided by how much they adhere, guide us towards, or reflect the Real. In this sense, I am a fan of Marxist analysis. I am also aware of this loyalty towards the doctrine of the Universal Destination of Good. It is also one of the reasons that I don’t have that degree of loyalty to all of the insights expressed in Humanae Vitae.
When I have taught morality and ethics to students, I remind them that the word sin in Hebrew is chet which literally means to miss the mark. The obvious question becomes “What is The Mark?” and in our highly postmodern influenced world another key question is; “Who decides what is the Mark?” so we can begin with the latter question first. Using the wonderful insights of Emmanuel Levinas, we can speak of ethics coming before ontology. Before all being there is The Other. This would require an entire entry in itself, but the simple answer is that that which decides The Mark can never be the person taking ‘aim’ at the target. We (however we conceive ourselves) can ever be the ultimate arbiter of the Real. We have the capacity to apprehend elements of the Real but are, precisely because we are creatures, and products of the Real, incapable of fully grasping its totality. In terms of responding to the question What is the Mark, I suspect that is much more difficult a question to answer accurately. We are given a hint to this in the passage found in the Gospel of Matthew. Specifically, Matthew 25: 31-46. It is a well-known passage for many reasons. But an element of the pericope that is frequently overlooked is that Jesus is claiming to be in the exact location as the poor, the hungry, the naked etc. He is saying if you wish to see the world in its most accurate or Real manner you must be in this location. This is the only chance you will have of even seeing the Mark that you are trying to hit! What a powerful hint indeed. The corollary is that the further one is from this location the further one is from seeing the Mark, much less, hitting the target.
One way of measuring the authenticity of all religions is their ability to help us land in this location. In this way we can see that the Prophetic/Mystical/Wisdom elements of all the religions speak in a broad sense of sin in the same way. Whether it is the deep commitment that the Hindu tradition has to the Monistic vision, the dedication that Buddhism has to tear the power of Maya (Illusion) for its followers to the deep dedication that all of the Abrahamic traditions have to a life called to service of the Other they seek to locate oneself in the sacred place to encounter the Real, ,that is a love connection with the Other.
Prophetic Ruminations 