Innate Desire, Original Sin, and the Hope of New Creation

In the recent rumblings about marriage and attendant Facebook-picture campaigns for equality, it is intriguing to observe theFamilyTree lines of reasoning and rhetoric taken up. In the end, advocacy for the widening of the term ‘marriage’ seems to turn on the fact that certain individuals want to be able to do something or have access to something and therefore should have access to it. Perhaps the most forceful variation on this, though, is the insistence that some individuals simply do not, indeed cannot, prefer or choose or do otherwise than they do and ought then to be granted every opportunity of enjoying a happy (whatever that may mean) life in accord with their innate tendencies.

I’d like to make a comment on some of the pertinent doctrinal dynamics here, but in relation to the condition and conduct of the human person more than an official national position on the content of marriage. Interaction on the inner workings of doctrine and ethics at this nexus is welcome, though without the vitriol injected into so many blog threads that touch on this subject.

For those interested in maintaining a classical Christian sexual ethic, the contemporary discussions and debates are a forceful reminder that the perceived plausibility of such an ethic stands or falls with a willingness to make peace with the doctrines of Adamic headship and original sin. ‘Born-this-way’ Lady Gaga-ism wins the day unless one is able to assimilate the teaching that someone else (i.e., Adam) represented us and made a decision (i.e., rebelled against God in the Garden) whereby the rest of us incur guilt before our Maker, inherit a corrupted nature with all manner of spiritual, psychological, physiological, and moral maladies, and are still left responsible before God to resist certain innate tendencies (sexual or otherwise), repenting of sin, calling upon the name of the Lord to be saved, and seeking by the grace and power of the Spirit to grow in holiness.

The momentum of the born-this-way ethic is also inversely proportional to a laying hold of the Christian hope of new creation. If this life is in fact all there is to human existence, then it becomes more difficult to persuade anyone that in some cases it is unwise to do as one tends to want to do. On the other hand, if this life eventually culminates in giving an account before the holy judge of all the earth and then (for believers, anyway) gives way to the blessed hope of life in the new creation, then one has considerable theological and moral traction in contending that the disciplining of desire according to the will of God is the way forward in this fallen world.

To the extent that in the so-called ‘millennial’ generation modern individualism and idealization of autonomy have only been amplified, are there thoughts on ways in which the teaching of original sin and the ancestral solidarity it presupposes might be driven home once more? How might all of us, whatever our default sins may be, walk the fine line of 1) showing kindness to those with innate tendencies that lead to sinful acts and that were at the same time unsolicited tendencies and 2) maintaining that each person remains responsible before God for their sin?

About these ads

2 thoughts on “Innate Desire, Original Sin, and the Hope of New Creation

  1. Your entire comment is wrapped tightly in your final statement, “… each person remains responsible before God for their sin?” Any of the persons with whom I have counseled insist that they either were , “born that way” or that since they were created with “free moral agency” that God somehow intended that each could live as they wanted yet can be covered with the blood of Jesus thus being free from condemnation as long as they use the “magic” of just believing in Jesus and claiming his death and resurrection as a license to live in any which sin they choose. Thank you for your thought. I agree.

  2. One of the very best prophetic understandings of how the experience of a/the “new creation” is possible for every single human being in the now-time of every present moment was William Blake, summed up in these lines.
    I have added the three bracketed sections.
    “If the doors of perception were cleansed, everything would appear to man as it is, infinite.
    For man has closed himself up (with his mind-forged manacles) till he sees all things (only dimly) through narrow chinks of his (mind created) cavern”.
    Further elaborations were given in his Songs of Innocence & experience, and his work altogether.

    What Blake is/was saying is an elaboration on what I would argue is the most important sentence in the Bible, especially fo us left-brained moderns and by extension all of those who presume that they can either discover and/or elaborate on the always present/available Brightly Shining Infinite Truth by doing theology.
    Paul’s brief statement (summarized and extended) re how the spirit killing left-brained Letter always kills the Living Spirit, instantaneously and in every moment.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s