Sinfulness, fear, and the toxicity of faux-Christianity

Last updated on: August 21, 2013 at 7:57 am by John Shore

Sinfulness, fear, and the toxicity of faux-Christianity 2013-08-21T07:57:00-08:00 John Shore

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Dear John:

I was wondering how you deal with the concept of original sin. I believe it is a corrupting idea that has led to much misery.

Being gay, I have experienced being on the receiving end of this doctrine, but I have also seen it undermine the self-worth of my parents, sisters, and members of my extended family. I have also seen how it is used by preachers to maintain power over their congregations. Also, without it, there would be no need for a redeemer or a blood sacrifice (which is barbaric).

An argument can be made that this notion (and the fear it generates) appears to be the glue that holds Christianity together. And it appears to the argument that fundamentalists use against gay people all of the time: human nature is flawed, you are evil, you need God’s love to be redeemed, etc. So, I guess my question is: Why should I believe in a system that generates fear—and then says that it offers “love” to solve the problem of the fear it generated. Wouldn’t it be simpler to believe in a system that says, “God loves you, and here is how to live a kind and loving life”?

With this one, lemme try doing that thing where I rerun the letter, inserting my thoughts in bracketed blue as I go along.

I was wondering how you deal with the concept of original sin. [I don’t trip about it, because I understand what the concept of original sin is supposed to be about; what it’s meant to reference. And what the concept of original sin is pointing toward—what the story of Adam and Eve is a metaphor/allegory for*—*is a reality that has zero to do with Christianity, and everything to do with a simple fact about human nature. And that fact is that all people are born with the will to survive. And what that necessarily means is that all people—Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, atheist, insurance salesman, literally all people—come hardwired with a distinct and (let me stress) entirely natural predilection for a whole range of thoughts, emotions, and actions that are not exactly fueled by another thing that all humans are born with, which is a drive toward altruism. Every human will, time and time again, no matter how hard they strive not to, behave badly: they/we will be selfish, arrogant, greedy, rude, too quick to anger, overly defensive, obnoxiously intrusive, etc., etc. We all have an aspect of our core character that is less than stellar. What “born into sin” really means, or is supposed to mean, is *born—*period. If you’re human, you’re automatically born to sin—you have a sinful nature—insofar as “sin” means to do or even think something that hurts another person. In ways large and small, we all hurt someone every single day of our lives—which is to say we all, at one time or another, in one way or another, choose ourselves over someone else, even if (and usually especially) that someone is someone we love. We cannot help but do that. We cannot help that because we’re human.]

I believe it is a corrupting idea that has led to much misery. Being gay, I have experienced being on the receiving end of this doctrine, but I have also seen it undermine the self-worth of my parents, sisters, and members of my extended family. I have also seen how it is used by preachers to maintain power over their congregations. [Well, what’s actually corrupting isn’t the idea that all people are born to sin: all people are born to sin. What’s corrupting is the idea that there’s any way to stop sinning, to be and remain so pure and enlightened and in-tune with God, or whatever, that you rise above sinning. That is an abominably toxic idea, which leads to all manner of abuse. But the idea that one can elevate oneself above the state of sinfulness by doing, saying and/or thinking the right things is hardly unique to Christianity.]

Also, without it, there would be no need for a redeemer or a blood sacrifice (which is barbaric). [Well, there will always be a need for a “redeemer,” insofar as all people long to be rescued from that part of their nature that they wish wasn’t there. Again: a saving hero is hardly an exclusively Christian concept. And by “blood sacrifice,” of course you’re referring to the Christian doctrine of atonement. The atonement of Christ on the cross is indeed the cosmic phenomenon of which Christians avail themselves as a means of at least once more starting from scratch: of relieving the guilt that all humans feel for all the times they act rude and selfish and crazy towards others. That’s what “Christ died for our sins” means: that Christ took into himself—physically, into his body—all the bad karma that any human ever had, was, or will generate or caused to be generated, and then obliterated it all by allowing his body to be slaughtered. Christians believe that if they remember that God, as Christ, did that for them—that for them he sacrificed himself in that most dramatic and painful fashion—then they can … experience that truth, feel a whole lot better about things, and then get back out there and try to be worthy of that very intimate relationship with God. (And then, inevitably, fail at that, feel guilty about that failure, and return to the cross. That’s … the whole Christian life, right there.)]

An argument can be made that this notion (and the fear it generates) appears to be the glue that holds Christianity together. [It’s certainly true that the fact that humans are forever falling short of their own ideals is the glue that keeps any system of improvement in operation, be it a religion or … a gym. And the fear you mention is already there. All fear boils down to the fear of death—and, again, that’s not a Christian phenomenon. Fearing death is a timeless and universal human phenomenon. It’s terrible if that natural fear is in any way capitalized on or exploited, of course.]

And it appears to be the argument that fundamentalists use against gay people all of the time: human nature is flawed, you are evil, you need God’s love to be redeemed, etc. [That’s the fundamentalists’ message to everyone, not just gay people. They tell their families that. They tell everyone that—though I know what you mean: they’re especially fond—and especially these days, when they’re feeling so particularly threatened by “the homosexual agenda”—of using that message as a weapon against gay people. And, again, to the extent that they use they or anyone else add to anyone’s pain, they are morally failing.]

So, I guess my question is: Why should I believe in a system that generates fear—and then says that it offers “love” to solve the problem of the fear it generated? [Well, you’re already in a system that generates fear: you’re human, and that fact alone generates for you, me, and everyone else, a whole ton of fear that has nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity. That core, organic human fear is way, way pre-Christianity. To be alive is to live with fear. To willingly participate in a system that generates more fear—that exploits people’s natural and inborn fears for any nefarious or self-serving reason—is of course an awful mistake. Conversely, being a part of any system that combats human fear with love is terrific, and should be encouraged.]

Wouldn’t it be simpler to believe in a system that says, “God loves you, and here is how to live a kind and loving life”? [Well, A: That’s hardly a simple proposition for a simple way to live: feeling constantly loved, and living a kind and loving life, is the biggest challenge there is in life. And B: What you’ve described is the very essence of the Christian system. In a nutshell, Christianity is, “God loves you; here’s how to feel that and act accordingly.” Don’t confuse the rest—don’t confuse all the nasty, aberrant crap you’re talking about—with what Christianity really is, and is really supposed to be. Yes, lots and lots of Christians get it all wrong. But that’s only because lots and lots of people get it all wrong—and lots and lots of people are Christian. We’re all getting something wrong, all the time. And that’s why people have always, and will always, look to the heavens for help. I personally am extremely comfortable with the idea that in Christ God delivered that help. But of course every person has to deal for themselves with the, shall we say, downside of being human. Choose Christianity, and/or choose some other way. But you will choose some way. We all do. We all must.]

Dear John

Previous Post

August 19, 2013

Like playing God's symphony on one string of an out-of-tune violin

Next Post

August 23, 2013 Is she a Christian yet?

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Christian Issues Christian Spirituality Dear John En Espanol Everywhere She's Not Humor Look See Pastor Bob's Corner Personal Portuguese Relationships Russian Short-short story Smith Family Chronicles Uncategorized

Select a Month March 2024 August 2022 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 February 2020 December 2019 June 2019 December 2018 May 2018 May 2017 January 2017 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who was the only female judge of Israel?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Hannah Esther Deborah Ruth

Books by This Author Books by John Shore

See All Titles »