Learning from the Streets

This is the 3rd piece in my series on reflecting on the nature of Humanity, inspired by Rutger Bregmans latest book, Human kind (2020) which has helped to affirm for me what I had often experienced as a youth and c community worker, the reality that, basically when you get to know people, and meet people, they, in the main are usually pretty decent, and shock, horror, this goes for the young people who are met in groups on the street.

This has brought to my attention the messages permeated within the churches I have been in about the nature of humankind, and where these have come from. In my previous posts, Part 1 and 2, I shared the aspects of Bregmans work in which he alluded to theological concepts and his views on them, including Augustine on sin, and how an enlightenment influenced reformation brought about a negative view of humanity. In Part 2 I focussed on the way in which an organisational structure, the distance a leader has from human contact, and the power they hold, increases that negative view.

I wanted this piece to be different. Or at least I wanted to bring in a few different conversation pieces on this subject, exploring the same theme.

From an early age in an evangelical church I was an avid reader and studier of the New Testament, in particular of Pauls letters, the one that always struck me is in Romans 7, where he says the following:

We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. ¹⁵ I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. ¹⁶ And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. ¹⁷ As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. ¹⁸ For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature.^[c] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. ¹⁹ For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. ²⁰ Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

²¹ So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me.²² For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; ²³ but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. ²⁴ What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? ²⁵ Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!

So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature^[d] a slave to the law of sin.

And, as I read Rutger Bregmans book, this was the first passage that came to mind.

What I had always been told, and taught from this was that Pauls inner questioning here was a pronouncement on the entirety of humanity. Id heard things like – ‘if even Paul couldn’t do good, then neither can we’ or ‘even the good that we do, is to be attributed to God,  its not really part of our nature’ – These were messages I had heard, and still hear to this day.

But then, it crossed my mind, that these verses had always been interpreted to me as being universal pronouncements, about the state of humanity, and this is implied in the previous section (once sinned, all sinned), but what  if this section isnt as pronounced universalism as the default probably evangelical view is?  What if this is Paul speaking personally? – what if this is Paul speaking personally and reflectively about his own experience? The same Paul who has been healed and saved, but still is in positions of power, and may even have threads of that same power corrupted personality in him. Maybe, and I ask tentatively, Paul is seeing that other people do good, but he cant, maybe it takes him such an effort to do good, because he has too much power, and distance from people, that its his own struggle, and attributes any goodness to God (not his own). If Paul indeed does himself do evil as a default – what might this say about him?  might he be so corrupted by power, that evil is his default, a frustration, clearly. Now, it could be that Paul is striving for an unviable perfection, and that now and then he still does evil, but in the main he does good things, helpful and cooperative ones – but that’s not really the tone of his monologue is it.

As I think about this even further, maybe this is not about humanity in general, but how he as a leader is unable to do the good he sees. It may then be a warning about leadership not about humanity as a whole..

The thing about Paul, undoubtedly, is its influence.

The doctrine of Original Sin is not one I want to discuss here at length, what is interesting though, is that theologically a conversation about the nature of humanity in the a faith community and writing is rarely exclusive of a conversation about sin, i.e that man only has a sinful nature.

One clear example of this is in Wayne Grudems ‘Bible Doctrine’ , even though he refers to some early church fathers and philosophers about the nature of goodness, stating that even Isaiah affirms that ‘all our righteous deeds are a polluted garment’ (Is 64,6, Grudem p216). Theres lots to argue here in regard to taking Isaiah in context, but, for now, what I am describing is some of the threads within my own evangelical upbringing that gave rise to a negative view of humanity, and then also, by default a negative view of myself, and why. (Well, the why is obvious) .  So, far and this is Grudem main thesis, though, Man is not very much outside of being Sinful in nature, and this, has been inherited down (Grudem, p217) (For an alternative view of original Sin that is both redeeming and helpful see Danielle Shroyer, ‘Original Blessing, 2016)

This is undoubtedly a massive subject, and not one to tackle lightly. I guess for me, I wanted to share a bit about where Bregmans view took me, and what I then reflected on theologically, or started to, and the implications this has. I feel like I have had an epiphany in reading Bregmans book, and desire to see fellow humanity not in the divisive, negative views of the media and trust people more. But how often is the ‘world out there’ – outside of the church seen as ‘dark’ or ‘evil’ – when the reality is much much different, and is this just a powerful trick to frame groups and manipulate?  What might be at stake for the Christian faith if there’s more actual goodness in humanity that credit is given for, and sometimes done with better intentions than the churchgoers themselves are?

The other side of this is the one about dependancy. Or more specifically about a dependancy that’s based on pejorative feelings of guilt  (if you want a list of all the ways to feel guilty, then read Grudem yourself..) , and its then  guilt and shame that become motivators for belonging, and manipulating ways to instil allegiance and dependancy. The worst example of this I have seen recently is in Neil O Boyle book, though it also appears in addiction related ministries and other places. Neils view of young people is pretty low, but is nothing different to an evangelical one, from an ivory tower and with limited contact of young people except to be the saver of them. Its an easy view isnt it. People are all sinful, and only sinful, and here’s the view of a saviour will heal and redeem all of this, just believe and belong. It makes for a simple message, the four spiritual laws, clear christianity with a simple message, and easy for a youth ministry team to buy into, easy to write onto a tract, and I know, I used to door knock with them. But, like everything in life, nothing is that simple, and the gospels and the story of Gods redemption isnt.

That I guess is why theology, beyond proof texting is important in youth ministry. And maybe starting right is not just about thinking theologically, but also about humanity and what is to think of young people, and ourselves and humans.  This piece feels like it represents more of my past thinking, but in a way that’s what Bregman caused me to do, have another look back, and question. And think. And review what was the power in churches caused by feelings of sin and guilt, and in particular, where some of  Pauls writing on humanity created universalisms widely accepted, that affected both my own faith, my early ministries and my life.

What if churches could believe that humans are good?

And what might that mean about sin? – what needs to change?

Part 4 next week folks….

References

Bregman, Rutger, Humankind, 2020

Grudem Wayne, Bible Doctrine, 1999