Re-Thinking Original Sin

I think we need to move away from thinking about original sin and instead talk about universal sin. This post is a summary of that idea, and what it could look like. It builds on the work of Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906–1945) and Hyun Joo Kim, and on my own doctoral work. Kim argues that Bonhoeffer reconstructs the doctrine of original sin rather than abandoning it. Moving away from the language of original sin is my own step beyond them.

We can often think that the doctrine of original sin, that everyone is born already in a state of sin, is an essential Christian doctrine. But, like so much of our faith, it is something that has been developed over time and understood in different ways by different people. What happens if we let go of it? I do not think we should adopt any kind of optimistic theological anthropology, like original blessing. I think it is fairly self-evident that humans have a tendency towards selfishness, destruction, and evil. But I do not think we need to hold onto original sin in the way that it is popularly understood.

Keeping the Fall Without a Historical Adam and Eve – Understanding the Collective Personhood of Humanity

I do not think there was ever a time when there were only two humans in the world, one called Adam and the other called Eve. I do believe God caused humanity to exist, but I also believe that this happened through the process of evolution. At some point in the development of humanity, they became aware of the presence of God, and then rebelled against God’s intentions for humanity. This was what we call the Fall, which means we should not regard the Fall as a single historic event, but rather one that happens in each person. All of us fall, and so all of us create and perpetuate the Fall. We do not need a historical Adam and Eve to have an understanding of sin in the world.

But this is about more than personal sin. It is not the case that sin is just about me and my fall, and you and your fall separate from mine. When we think about Adam and Eve, we need to move past the idea of them as separate individuals, and instead see them as representatives of all of humanity.

Part of this means moving away from understanding humanity as a group of individual expressions of a species, to a mutually reciprocal collective-person. Humanity is both every single human being, and the collective personhood of those beings. We all share and participate in the life of the collective-person humanity. When someone suffers or is oppressed, even if I do not know about it, I am affected by it. In the same way, when one person sins, all of humanity is affected by it. This does not reduce our individual agency, or subsume our identity into an amorphous and abstract body. It recognises that I am only me in relation to you.

The language of the collective person comes from Bonhoeffer’s Sanctorum Communio, where humanity in Adam is a collective person.

This means that we need to understand sin not only from an individual perspective but also as a community.

Understanding Sin in Community

We do not sin on our own. My sins affect you, and your sins affect me.

There are my personal sins, the ones that I commit through my choice and agency. I bear the guilt and consequences of those sins. But I am not the only one who is affected by them. This is what we can call active sin, as well as personal sin.

There is the universal sin of humanity. This is the collective weight and guilt that all humans create and participate in. I am affected by your sins, and my sins affect you. We carry their weight. And we carry the weight and burden of the sins of those who have gone before us. This is what we can call passive sin, as well as universal sin.

Kim finds both the active and the passive dimensions of sin in Bonhoeffer’s thought, and I draw on that distinction here.

We need to hold onto sin as a communal issue. This is what Paul meant when he said that in Adam all die (1 Corinthians 15:22). We are all “in Adam” which means we are all affected by each other’s sins. We all contribute to this. Which is why we can call it universal sin.

Universal Sin, Not Original Sin

Why universal sin and not original sin?

Partially, because original sin has been used to oppress and hurt women for far too long. The idea that sin is something that can be biologically inherited not only led to women being persecuted, it also contributed towards the theology around the Virgin Mary. So by moving away from the language of original sin, we can move away from some problematic and harmful theology.

Kim shows that Bonhoeffer himself rejected the Augustinian idea that guilt is passed on biologically. He framed original sin instead as the relational bearing of the sins of others.

But also because it means we can stop thinking of the Fall as being an ancient event which makes all of us unfairly tainted by sin. It is, after all, unfair that the actions of two people thousands of years ago damned all the rest of us forever. Instead of one original, historical act of sin, we can look to all of our behaviour.

Each of us does the original sin. Each of us is Adam. Each of us, in our sin, adds sins to the collective and universal sin of humanity.

This follows Bonhoeffer, who wrote in Sanctorum Communio that none of us is distinct from Adam, so that each of us is the “first” sinner.

But what does that actually mean for us? It means that even when we are forgiven for our personal sin, we still carry the consequences of everybody else’s sin. You might think this is equally unfair. Except that it is not only the fault of others, but also of us. We are all responsible for each other, because we are all responsible for sin.

What that looks like in practice is how we see each other.

Sin and the Inward-Turned Heart

We were created to be in community with each other. Sin prevents us from recognising God, but it also prevents us from seeing and knowing each other. Sin separates us from each other. We look to ourselves, rather than each other, and so sin perpetuates itself, because the first sin is the objectification of the other.

We can describe this as our heart being turned inwards. Sin turns our heart back in upon itself. This is like standing in a hall of mirrors, so that whichever direction you turn, you can only see yourself. This is what Paul meant when he said that “I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate” (Romans 7:15, NRSVue).

Even when we know what we should do, we still end up doing the wrong thing. Because even if desiring to do good for someone else, we end up doing it for ourselves. We want to justify ourselves, prove ourselves, or earn our way into heaven.

We cannot rely on our conscience or our reason to tell us what the right thing is because our heart is turned in upon itself. This is the consequence of universal sin, and the cause of personal sin. Because of this, we cannot freely choose God, because we cannot choose what is good without God. But, thankfully, Christ gives us his grace even before we know him, so that we can respond in faith to the work that Christ has done for us. This is what we call prevenient grace.

We are in Adam, and so are spiritually dead. We need to be brought back to spiritual life, to awaken to reality. We are all dead in Adam, and we all need to be made alive in Christ.

We Are All Adam, We All Need Christ

In salvation and sanctification we are raised from the death of Adam, that is the universal sin of the collective human person, and into the life of Christ. This is because Christ was not just an individual human being. Christ was also, in himself, the collective human person. Bonhoeffer describes the church as Christ existing as a community, the new collective person set against the collective person of Adam. Saying that Christ is himself the collective human person is my own extension of that idea.

Jesus took on the nature of humanity as a whole as well as being an individual. This is what was going on when Christ took on our sin. He, in his personal sinlessness, was able to take on the guilt of humanity’s collective sin, because he did not cause it and is not responsible for it. But he chose to take responsibility for that sin, and in so doing, that sin is destroyed, and its consequences are removed.

So while we bear the guilt of that sin, we no longer bear the consequences of it.

Sin in Community, Salvation in Community

Which means my salvation is dependent on my neighbour’s salvation. And my neighbour’s salvation is dependent on me. In the same way, when we heal one part of the world, we contribute to the healing of the whole world.

It also means part of our sacred vocation is to intercede by taking responsibility for others. When we recognise that other people are labouring under the weight of my sin, because of universal sin, we also recognise our responsibility for others. Which means, through our participation in Christ, we can join with Christ in praying for others.

We cannot be Christ. But, through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, we can participate with Christ. And when we participate in Christ, and recognise that we are responsible for other people suffering with our sin, we can intercede for those sins. And when we are forgiven for those sins, that forgiveness is also extended to others.

Which is why sanctification matters. We are forgiven for the weight of universal sin, but we must still stop our personal sin, for our personal sin still contributes to the sins of others. But in sanctification, we are given the power and freedom to overcome sin. And so we may live free from sin, even if not free from guilt, for as long as we are in Christ. Through this sanctification, our heart is turned outwards, and our separation from each other is healed.

As such, we need to recapture our understanding of community, our focus on personal responsibility for others, and our commitment to intercession and forgiveness.

Reflection Space

Sources and Further Reading

• Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Sanctorum Communio (Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works, vol. 1).
• Hyun Joo Kim, Bearing Sin as Church Community: Bonhoeffer’s Hamartiology (T&T Clark, 2022).
• J. W. Wartick, a review of Kim’s book, which quotes Kim on Bonhoeffer’s rejection of biological transmission.
• Dallas M. Roark, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, chapter 2, “The Shape of the Church”, on Sanctorum Communio.
• Scripture references: Romans 7:15 (NRSVue) and 1 Corinthians 15:22.

Sign Up to the MyTheologyCorner Newsletter

You can sign up to the weekly newsletter here. You’ll get updates on the work of the Army from around the world, some teaching on Doctrine, a Bible reflection, and some book recommendations. You’ll get a newsletter straight to your inbox every Thursday for free.