I’m presently reading C S Lewis’ The Problem of Pain. This may, perhaps, be the subject of a review in a later post.
The point of interest, however, is that Lewis takes the “doctrine of Fall” very seriously. This is the doctrine that describes original sin as humanity’s fall from grace through disobedience to God. For Christians, this is articulated in the Adam and Eve story.
Lewis admits that the Fall didn’t literally happen as described in Genesis. However, he constructs a “metaphorical history” (my term, not Lewis’) to depict a stage in human history when “Paradisal man” (Lewis’ term) lived in a state of grace with God by submitting the human will to God’s will. According to Lewis, the Fall occurred when humans allowed their reason to persuade them into pursuing their own ends and not God’s.
My own view? I also take the doctrine of Fall seriously. However, I don’t believe humanity is “fallen” in the sense that we once lived in a state of grace with God. I think it is perfectly obvious that humanity has never existed in such a condition. How, then, are we fallen? Well, this is where I agree with Lewis. He suggests that original sin was not disobedience to God, but that condition which caused the disobedience: Pride. In other words, original sin was and is the conceit that humanity can exist on its own terms, without God; and it is this conceit that is at the root of all sin. Unlike Lewis, I don’t believe original sin just “arrived” at some stage in human history; instead, I think it has always been with us, and will always be with us.
I would also like to add that I don’t think humanity’s “fallen” status means we’re in any sense perverted, tainted, or despicable. That way lies the path of neurotic self-hatred. Rather, I think being “fallen” is simply a reference to the brokenness of humanity, our inadequacy and incompleteness before and without God. As such, I think it is a necessary starting-point that, far from being an evil, is in fact the doorway into the divine.
Talk to you soon,
BB
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Dear BB,
What a beautifully expressed, errudite opinion. Put in that way, the doctrine of the fall makes perfect sense, and is indeed an excellent starting point for a relationship with the divine.
Great stuff! SB (herein known as "DB!)
BB I am amazed at your prolific production of prose in such a short time on this blog. I bow to your superior capacity to produce words (I am not worthy!).
On a more theological note, I would like to ask you, in the context of your stated understanding of the Fall... are you saying that when God created humankind it was NOT good, but already fallen? So is God's creation then flawed?
Caro,
Thanks for your comment. You are far too kind with your praise as your own blog is highly inspirational!
Now, to your great question.
Yes, God's creation of the cosmos (and the subsequent evolution of the human species) was and is inherently good. God is love; therefore, the creation of the cosmos was and is a work of love; therefore the creation is good; therefore, the evolution of humanity as a consequence of that creation is good.
But humanity's fallen nature is a separate issue altogether. God's goodness is reflected in the fact that God created humanity so that humanity could respond to God's love. Afterall, God wills that all life enters into communion with God; but that will is not a one-way street, it requires reciprocation. Thus, through the evolutionary process, human beings developed reason so that, as a species and individually,we could respond to God's love through the active application of human will.
But this involves a risk, and this risk is reflected in our fallenness. Humanity is fallen because our pride frequently leads us into assuming that we don't require God's love; that we can exist without reference to God. That does not mean God's creation is either flawed or not good; it means humanity is flawed because we choose not to respond to God.
As I see it, it's a bit like equating the goodness of God with the absence of suffering. Or, putting it another way, thinking that happiness is the absence of sorrow. The occurance of suffering does not diminish the goodness of God any more than the occassion of sorrow negates the capacity for happiness. In the same way, the fallness of humanity does not impinge upon the goodness of God's creation (humanity included). Our fallness is something of our own making, and being a human product, is necessarily flawed; but that flaw is ours, not God's.
I hope this is useful. Thanks again for your comment.
BB
Post a Comment