On your spiritual journey, search beyond the horizon

If you travel about 140 miles along Interstate 90 from the half-mile-wide valley where Mullan, Idaho, sits to the rolling farmland around Ritzville, your “sense of horizon” varies a great deal.

In Mullan, you look up to see a horizon. In Ritzville, you look out – way out.

But wherever you are, unless you are sitting still, your horizon is always moving out ahead of you.

This seems an apt analogy for our spiritual journeys. Unless we are standing still – or just walking in place – the horizon of our spiritual trek always encourages us to look beyond what we can see.

In this second of my 12-part series, I invite you along to seek beyond the horizon of what our Christian history labels the doctrine of “original sin.” This doctrine was attributed to St. Augustine in the fourth century, and was based on the Genesis story of Adam and Eve.

In his book “Genesis,” Walter Brueggemann asserts that the Old Testament never seeks to explain evil: “It is not concerned with origins but with faithful responses and effective coping.”

This suggests that “original sin,” then, is strictly a Christian doctrinal interpretation not intended by the storytellers of Genesis.

Time for full disclosure: I believe both Creation stories (Gen. 1-2:4a and Gen. 2:4b-3:24) contain profound truth about God’s desire to be in intimate and healthy relationship with her creation, and about how human beings twisted the gift of free will to suit their own purposes.

But I don’t believe these stories are factual history. In fact, the first story seems more like a Creation hymn, told and perhaps sung to thank God for such a gift. Truth lives beyond facts. (That’s a topic for another time.)

But even if you lean toward these stories being literal history – and that “original sin” came with Adam and Eve in the second story – let me remind you that the first story emphasizes “and God saw that it was good” after each phase of creation.

So wouldn’t it be appropriate to consider that “original blessing” came before “original sin”?

But original sin “sells” better in the history of our Christian Church. It has a strange kind of “market value.”

This is how Robin Meyers, in “Saving Jesus From the Church,” pointedly describes the doctrine of original sin: It “gives the church a permanent clientele in a salvation enterprise with no competition. You are born a hopeless sinner and sentenced to eternal damnation unless you ‘purchase’ the only ‘product’ that can save you. But there are no other choices.”

I admit that Meyers’ characterization of original sin tends toward the angry and cynical. But he also makes a valid point. When we don’t look beyond the surface (horizon) of what that doctrine means, we can buy an attitude toward life we may not have meant to embrace.

We too quickly consider sin to be an inescapable condition, not a choice. The doctrine says, “We are not sinners because we sin; rather we sin because we are sinners.” Any degree of personal or corporate responsibility is thrown out the window.

It’s one thing to say we sin because we can’t help ourselves. It’s quite another to admit that our sins are the result of the choices we make. This second admission is what lies beyond our usual horizon.

So be careful about what you choose. Push toward that horizon and you may raise many more questions than you bargained for. Like: Where is Jesus in this?

See you next month.