Original Sin

I wanted to acknowledge that some of these ideas came from Prof. Mark McIntosh, former Professor of Theology at Loyola University Chicago and current Professor of Theology at Durham University, some 10 years ago.  Funny how an idea can resonate and cling to a person.

I've wanted to discuss the second creation story in Genesis for a long time.  Personally, I've always preferred the first creation in Genesis.  I find comfort in its emphasis on the creative power of language and our inheritance of some divine power to shape and create our world through language.

In contrast, the Adam and Eve story always rubbed me the wrong way.  As long as I can remember, I've enjoyed learning. Acquiring new knowledge is one of my sources of joy.  So how can I reconcile that with the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge being the source of sin?  Even written out as the Knowledge of Good and Evil, wouldn't that knowledge be a good thing?  Otherwise, how would you know which actions were good and which evil? If Eve had already had this knowledge, she would have known disobeying God was evil and wouldn't have done it!  It seemed like an enormous Catch-22.

Prof. McIntosh provided a much more compelling interpretation.  As I recall it, he submitted that the real sin of Adam and Eve, and repeated by every human since the dawn of time, is not believing that there is enough on Earth to meet our needs.    I've been thinking about this a lot lately and think it could be narrowed to the knowledge of difference.

Without the knowledge of good and evil, humans would be unable to identify and give meaning to the differences between us. When Adam and Eve blissfully traipsed through Eden, stark naked, they felt no shame or concern because they were not aware of a difference between them, or at least one that mattered.  However, after eating the "fruit" of knowledge of good and evil, they are shamed by their nudity.  Instead of a natural, healthy curiosity, it's been replaced by anxiety and shame.  I don't think Original Sin is tied to sexuality in any way, I just think it was the image used to most immediately describe this awareness of difference.

And we see this play out in our everyday experiences.  All the classic sins, which I believe boil down to choosing self over others, regardless of the cost to others, stem from knowledge of difference.  Why would anyone feel greed, unless they were aware that someone had something different from them.  Why would anyone feel pride, unless they were aware they had something different from other people.  The entire litany of ways we fail to "love your neighbor as yourself" boil down to our ability to see the difference between ourself and our neighbor (and variously acquire the difference or keep our neighbor from changing that difference).

I also think the Knowledge of Difference had a secondary effect.  And I think Jesus was aware of it and tried to tell us.  In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus tells us not to worry about providing food or clothing to ourselves because God provides these to the lowliest of creatures, who don't work for food or clothing.  As we are the image of God on Earth and (arguably) substantially more important to God than sparrows and lillies, won't God also provide for our needs?  This is commonly understood as a condemnation of materialism, but I think it suggests a much more empowering and terrifying truth.

  In Eden, man did not toil to provide food or clothing for himself.  Jesus is telling us that nothing needs to have changed.  We weren't expelled from the Garden of Eden. WE ARE STILL THERE. We've just lost the ability to see it.  Once we are able to see the differences between people, we lose the ability to see that everything we need is already provided in such abundance that there is no reason for us to want.  Jesus is challenging us to bring the Kingdom to Earth and doing so means recognizing we're still in Eden.  That life can be ours and the only thing standing in the way of it is ourselves.