An advent calendar
John recapped an observation he makes regularly to students, to the effect that there is a story about what explains behavior, and it includes the theory that various systems, like those involved in evolutionary biology, heredity, the larger ecosystem, the social environment with its patterns of social organization and culture, and its longitudinal patterns of development over time, embodied in history, etc. etc., interact to produce human behavior, individual and collective. And then, there is the story that people do some of the things they do because they are “fallen,” “sinful,” “corrupt,” or whatever equivalent word one wants to use. Psychologists have some responsibility for choosing between these two different stories.
Heather questioned at some length why these would need to be two different, unrelated stories; it seems to her these are potentially related stories, or anyway stories that can be related to one another in a variety of ways. (For instance, fallen human nature produces social systems that lead to certain kinds of not-very-nice behavior.) She says the notion of original sin is in essence a way of saying that people cannot make certain changes in themselves out of their own resources, due to the very structure of existence or consciousness or language, a notion that recurs in contemporary philosophy, and that the notion that we can make changes and improvements requires a metaphysical commitment of some kind.
John points out that what’s at stake is how people go about working on change or life transformation. Saying “it’s sin” leads one way, maybe to praying a lot, or seeking to have more faith. He used an example of a family that withdrew insulin from a child with Type 1 diabetes, and tried to respond to the illness with prayer and faith, and the child died. Are the parents responsible for the child’s death? Accepting the more materialist/scientific story about the production of behavior outcomes leads to trying different approaches to change or intervention.
Linda added that she sees positive emphases in Christianity that counterbalance the negative proposition that people are sinful: that God made people, in God’s image, so that God has a vision of human good; and that God seeks relationship with people; and that God adopts human existence, participating in it. All of those things give some positive value to humanity, in the face of the negativity of “sin.” She also likes the idea that God has honored this life; there’s good to be found in it; it’s not something just to be endured, with all the good beyond life.
Jeannine likes the story that people, as “children of God,” are like children here and now: growing from one state to another, making mistakes, learning, and God loves these mistake-prone, learning and growing beings that we are. So we do not need to carry so much guilt around — guilt that would come from understanding ourselves as being defined by sin.
One thing John liked about the chapter was the distinction between being controlled by something, sin or whatever, and the transformation that leads to not being controlled by this. He pointed out the profound parallel between the acknowledgement that something is a problem and then undertaking the practice of removing it from being the controlling influence, to the 12-step programs familiar in alcohol or addictions counseling, in which the practices of the program follow an affirmation of reliance on the God of the understanding, or the Higher Power. In either case, it’s taking information and support from outside oneself, and this step is critical.
Heather asked what it was that people disliked about the idea of original sin in the first place, that seems to make members of the class want to tell a different story. Carolyn said it seems that just concentrating on some irreducible core of “original sin,” that she can’t do anything about, rather than on the influences she can trace, the gifts she can understand as having come from parents, family, church, community, etc., and can work with, seems meaningless and irrelevant. Randy says the story of original sin is mythic, one of the explanations that every culture comes up with to explain why things are not perfect, and this story has been used as a lever “to keep people in line”, in a very negative way. Linda thinks that once we acknowledge that we’re “less than gods” we’ve gotten everything out of the idea of original sin that is worthwhile.
This led to some conversation about the process of transformation, Jesus’ emphasis on being reborn, Jesus’ status as a role model or mirror for humanity, showing us the life — or new life — we could be living.
Next week, we’ll deal with Chapter 9 — the last chapter! Mixed feelings in the class about that. We also want to do some talking about what comes next, and maybe also about what ought to be going on the blog for the class. Maybe not so much! (or, maybe, just something different?)
Tags: Christianity, faith, James Bryan Smith, Jesus, new life, original sin, religion, The Good and Beautiful God, theology, transformation
