Original Sin and Oppression

I wrote what follows & posted it on my old blog a little over a year ago. It's a little more lengthy than most posts, so forgive the long-windedness but I think it would be difficult to break it up into multiple posts. What brought this post to mind is that I recently read John Wesley's sermon 'Original Sin,' which shares much in common, not surprisingly, with his treatise on the same topic, with which I interact below. There are a few more insights I gleaned from the sermon, but I will wait to post on that at a later time. Until then...

In 1756, John Wesley began writing what would be his largest treatise, The Doctrine of Original Sin according to Scripture, Reason, and Experience. This work was written in objection to John Taylor's work from 1740 on the same subject. Taylor's presentation amounted to a Unitarian doctrine of God, an Arian Christology, and a Socinian atonement model, in which Christ's death is really nothing more than a demonstration of the love of God that humans are called to imitate to align themselves in the favour of God. The preface of Wesley's work indicates that he (Wesley, that is) views sin in terms of a disease that needs the healing touch of the Great Physician.

The treatise is broken up into several sections but Part 1 is the brunt of Wesley's own response to Taylor, whereas the rest is heavily borrowed from other authors with whom Wesley shared sentiment. Part 1 is entitled "The Past and Present State of Mankind," and therein Wesley surveys the entire known world to assess the depth and breadth of human wickedness and sin. After reviewing sin's universal reach and effects in the past, Wesley turns his attention to the known world of his own day, noting the kinds and degrees of sinfulness among the heathen, Muslims, and Christians, which he breaks down into Greek/Eastern Christians, Roman Catholics, and Protestants. Even noting that 2/3 of the world population was 'heathen' according to their calculations, I find it peculiar that the majority of Wesley's treatment is on the heathen nations and Protestants. He gives very brief assessments (1 paragraph) of each Islam and the Eastern Church and a fairly short survey (2 pages) of the Roman Catholic Church of his time.

Furthermore, the nature of the activity indicating sin's pervasiveness is quite frequently along the lines of structural oppression and vanity of riches (he saw in Asian cultures of his day), ferocity in mass murderous actions (seen in many Native American tribes and in the Roman Church), and imperialism (seen in European Protestants). In surveying sinfulness in England, even, Wesley shows its extent in economic injustice through schemes of smuggling and harsh treatment of widows and orphans. The all-encompassing nature of sin is expressed poignantly in the final statement of this section of his treatise: 'Still, then, sin is the baleful source of affliction; and consequently, the flood of miseries which covers the face of the earth, - which overwhelms not only single persons, but whole families, towns, cities, kingdoms, - is a demonstrative proof of the overflowing of ungodliness in every nation under heaven.'

Not only is this summative statement, preceded by its examples, indicative of a view of original sin as 'disease,' but it shows its major 'symptoms' in societal and structural sins of murder, oppression, slavery, imperialism, and economic injustice. I find these emphases interesting. In speaking about the nature of sin, would you expect to hear these as the primary 'symptoms' in a sermon or treatise from a preacher today? My guess is that the majority, at least in American evangelical circles, would put their attention toward other sorts of behaviors. That's not to say Wesley's thoughts are normative or that we should address 18th century problems in the 21st century. But I do think that we often tend to ignore how these bigger sorts of issues may still be playing themselves out today, if for no other reason than to not take our own habits into consideration and how they may, unintentionally even, proliferate these structural schemes.

Now, up to this point, I applaud Wesley for his assessment. Even his own countrymen and brothers in the faith are not excused as he reserves his sharpest criticism toward those nearest to him. This section kind of reminds me of the lecture in a class I had in college on 8th Century Prophets with Dr. Dickens. In the opening chapters of Amos, we find several oracles, calling the nations out for their sins. There is a fascinating (and chilling) rhetoric Amos employs when he does this. He begins by pointing out the sins of Israel's worst enemies (Damascus - 1.3-5; and Gaza - 1.6-8) and gradually makes his way to addressing the sins of those neighbors toward whom Israel is more or less indifferent, and then onto their allies (Judah - 2.4-5), but reserves the longest oracle against the sins of his own nation, Israel (2.6-16, and one could say the rest of the book, which is 9 chapters long). When a prophet speaks out against the sins of your worst enemies it's easy to start chanting 'AMEN!' but when you do so, you're caught! Slowly, but ever so surely, Amos made his way to his own audience and they couldn't but hear the judgment of the Lord upon themselves.

Again, no nations, no religions, no people groups are exempt. But there's something interesting about all this: with all this assessing, Wesley never seems to directly address how these 'symptoms' may (or may not) be exhibited in those who are on the receiving end of all these sorts of injustices. His diagnoses/judgments of the 'symptoms' lie primarily upon the heads, hearts, and hands of those who are doing the oppressing; of those who are enslaving others; of those who are smuggling and robbing from the poor; of those who are murdering in mass numbers. We are left to perhaps ask Wesley how he would address the way sin plays itself out in those who are the 'recipients' of these sins.

Furthermore, and here I'm getting to the point regarding the topic I am researching, how does the gospel in general, and the atonement, specifically, speak to them? Of those who are clearly guilty of these atrocious actions, language of guilt and punishment may seem appropriate enough, so long as it calls for reformation of character and the structures that keep these things in motion. We must also recognize, however, that in such reformation, there is an added emphasis, if not a shift, that the linguistic domain of guilt and punishment doesn't really address. But how does Christ's death, the atonement (if we understand it to be the solution to whatever the problem/human predicament is) speak to these others: the oppressed, the enslaved, the imperialized, the widow, the orphan, the murdered?