In a recent post, John Meunier writes, “You cannot speak intelligently about Wesleyan theology if you discard the doctrine of Original Sin.” He shares a statement in the Book of Discipline which says, “We believe man is fallen from righteousness and, apart from the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, is destitute of holiness and inclined to evil.” I agree that we need to know we’re sinful in order to recognize our need for Christ. But is the Christian gospel really unintelligible unless we believe that every non-Christian around us is “destitute of holiness and inclined to evil”? I wanted to offer a different way to narrate this, with the help of 4th century saint John Cassian. I ultimately think a doctrine of total providence is more faithful to John Wesley’s vision than total depravity.
My response to John’s claim depends on the range of meaning you give to the term “original sin.” If you mean the historical doctrine of Augustine that God punishes every human being in history with an utterly wicked and depraved nature because a historical figure named Adam ate a piece of fruit in the Garden of Eden, then no, I don’t think you have to believe that for Christianity to be intelligible. If on the other hand, “original sin” means more broadly that all of of us are born into a world of sin which the grace of Jesus Christ uniquely liberates us from, then yes, I agree that this is a necessary foundational principle of Christianity.
Now I do find the quote from the Book of Discipline to be very troubling, because the assertion that apart from Christ, people are “destitute of holiness and inclined to evil” seems like it could easily be interpreted to justify what I have called the doctrine of the total depravity of everyone else. If I think that as a Christian who “has” the grace of Jesus Christ, I am categorically morally superior to the non-believers around me, then I don’t have to take their views seriously when we have a disagreement because they’re not supposed to make any sense.
Christianity should give us the opposite attitude. It’s not supposed to make us presume wickedness on the part of others, but to recognize our utter dependence on the grace of Jesus Christ and thus have a profound humility as our disposition in every conversation we have so that we are proactively sympathetic and eager to hear and understand others. The way that I would modify the Book of Discipline statement (if it’s even something that can be modified) would be to write something more along the lines of what fourth century saint John Cassian wrote:
The initiative not only of our actions but also of good thoughts comes from God, who inspires us with a good will to begin with, and supplies us with the opportunity of carrying out what we rightly desire: for “every good gift and every perfect gift cometh down from above, from the Father of lights,” who both begins what is good, and continues it and completes it in us, as the Apostle says: “But He who giveth seed to the sower will both provide bread to eat and will multiply your seed and make the fruits of your righteousness to increase.” But it is for us, humbly to follow day by day the grace of God which is drawing us. [The Conferences of John Cassian XIII.III]
The original sin of Eden is to eschew dependence on God’s goodness for a delusional insistence on our self-sufficiency. We all go through a mysteriously inherent “fall” into this delusion of self-sufficiency and thus gain the imprisoning burden of self-justification, the need to prove ourselves right in everything we think and do. This burden, which Augustine referred to as “humanity curved inward upon itself,” corrupts our perception of reality as well as our ethical standards, since we continually make allowances and excuses for all of our unjustifiable behavior. This is why the most fundamental need we have in order to live in freedom and gratitude is to be justified decisively by someone with the authority to do so in a decisive enough way to convince us that it’s safe to be wrong and to ask for forgiveness and healing.
The difference between me and a non-Christian is not that I’m more virtuous. I imagine that there are many non-Christians who are less gluttonous, greedy, lazy, easily angered, and arrogant than I am. The difference is that I consider all of my achievements to be God’s accomplishments, which means that they are not a reason why I should be honored or compensated, but a reason why I should be grateful that He was gracious enough to use even me.
I credit the accomplishments and virtues of others to God as well, independent of whether or not they recognize God’s prevenient grace moving through them. As Cassian writes, “When His goodness sees in us even the very smallest spark of good will shining forth, which He Himself has struck as it were out of the hard flints of our hearts, He fans and fosters it and nurses it with His breath” (XIII.VII).
I don’t need others to be utterly wicked for my Christianity not to fall apart. I don’t see myself surrounded by people who are “destitute of holiness and inclined to evil.” I see myself surrounded by people who are utterly dependent on God’s grace, some of whom understand this rationally and others of whom perhaps know it in their hearts even without all the correct doctrine. I see myself surrounded by icons of God who radiate His light in varying degrees according to the degree that they trust and give glory to God in everything. This is why I fully expect for God to speak and minister to me even through people who don’t know Him. I believe in His goodness more than our wickedness.