Evidence of Original Sin?

In 1756, John Wesley began writing what would be his largest treatise, The Doctrine of Original Sin according to Scripture, Reason, and Experience. This project was written in objection to John Taylor, whose treatise from 1740 on the same subject amounted to arguing for 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 favor 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.

In Part 1 of Wesley's treatise, he surveys the 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 with very brief assessments of each Islam and the Eastern Church and a fairly short survey 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 (seen in Asia-China), 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 summary statement, preceded by its examples, indicative of a view of original sin as a '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 many 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 are problems still 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. 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 people, 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 it all. His diagnoses/judgments of the 'symptoms' lie primarily upon the heads 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 how (or whether?) sin may play itself out in those who are on the receiving end 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 in particular, 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 family 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, even the murdered?