Sin and Evil
April 27, 2018 § 11 Comments
Ever since Dick Cheney was our torturer-in-chief, I have been thinking about the place of sin and, especially, of evil in modern liberal Quakerism and I’ve had some trouble sorting my own thoughts out. But I recently returned to my research for my book on Quakers and Capitalism and focusing on the rise of liberal Quakerism at the turn of the century, I started reading Thomas C. Kennedy’s British Quakerism, 1860–1920: The Transformation of a Religious Community (a terrific and very thorough book). In it I ran across a bibliographical citation that I hunted down: “The Influence of Rufus Jones on the Quaker view of sin and evil,” by Wilmer A. Cooper (Quaker Religious Thought, Volume 66, Article 4; available here).
Cooper claims that no one has had more influence on modern faith and practice than Jones and I found his little article very compelling. It has inspired me to finally start a series on sin and evil, starting with this historical piece. So here are some excerpts and some thoughts about about Jones’s take on sin.
Origin of sin. Cooper claims that Jones believed the source of sin to be “inherited ‘relics’ of fears, of appetites, of impulses, of instincts, and of desires” that arise from our biological nature, not as ‘original sin’ but as “raw material which is to be reshaped and molded into character”. (quotes are from Jones) At some point in our evolution, instinct and moral insight “collided” to give us a conscience, knowledge of good and evil.
This evolutionary approach actually makes some sense to me, in contrast to the utterly impossible and historically catastrophic myth of a first couple who were tempted by Satan, gave in, and infected the whole human race with original sin.
Transformation, not forgiveness. Coming from this view, Jones did not see sin as a debt to be paid or a condition to be forgiven, but a condition that required a transformation of “personality”. (“Personality” is a term much used by Friends around the turn of the century and does not mean what we usually mean today—our style as a person; but rather it denotes our personhood, the full expression of who we are as persons.) So sin comes, not from some human breaking of our relationship with God, but rather from a surrender of our will to lower instinctive impulses.
To Jones’s evolutionary approach I would add psychology, impulses that come from the unconscious, from our woundedness and our conditioning, especially as children. And then there’s mental illness. I want to treat these things separately in subsequent posts.
Thus, according to Jones, “there is nothing fundamentally wrong or bad about persons as such. There is no essential perversity of will.” (Cooper) Therefore what we need in Jones’s view is “spiritual illumination and moral re-enforcement. Christ is the source of both of these.” (Jones) What we need is not repentance but enlightenment coupled with renewed effort in the spirit of Christ.
Sin and liberal Quakers. This seems to me an elegant modern refreshment of the original Quaker focus on “perfection”, overcoming sin over and again, day in and day out, temptation by temptation, by turning toward the light of Christ within us, rather than through a one-time conversion based on faith in the atonement of Christ on the cross.
And, except for the Christ part, it does jive with how many Friends of my acquaintance seem to view sin, not as some inherent corruption in human nature, but essentially as a mistake. I’ve heard many Friends, for instance, claim that the biblical word for sin actually means “to miss the mark”, as though a sin was someone trying to do the right thing and failing.
To me, that seems like a liberal, make-nice idea designed to back us away decisively from the old theology of blood atonement and cuddle up to the idea of that of God in everyone. Hogwash. I do “believe” in sin and it’s choosing to do the wrong thing, not missing some aim at the ideal.
Atonement. As for atonement, Jones “did not reject the need for Atonement but took the view that the atoning role of Christ was exemplary. . . . This view holds that Christ atones for our sin by providing an example, a model, which draws us toward God and excites us to emulate the life of Jesus and the way of the cross.” (Cooper)
I don’t think an “example” really qualifies as “atonement”; I would quibble with the semantics here. But I am clear that atonement through a propitiatory blood sacrifice required of his (sic) son by a judging deity is not only repellant to me as a moral person (talk of bad example!), but unthinkable in the the mind of Jesus himself, and thus a heretical, and dangerous, pagan belief. Such blood sacrifices were required by Baal, God’s arch-rival in Hebrew scripture (Baal was a sacrificed dying-and-rising god himself). Thus such human sacrifice was the ultimate abomination in the eyes of the Hebrew prophets. This rejection of filial sacrifice in the Jewish tradition goes all the way back to Abraham and Isaac. Or for that matter, in the negative example, to Cain and Abel, which was not a murder, but a human sacrifice on the model of Romulus and Remus and other brother sacrifices at the founding of a people.
What about evil? But this is all about sin, not evil. Cooper has really wrongly titled his article when he includes evil. So—next time, about the origins, and even the very existence, of evil.
Through the Flaming Sword 
Steve — Thanks so much for this entry.
Cooper’s analysis of Jones’ theology leads to questions about the larger influence of early 20th century Personalism, especially the east-coast academic variety, on Jones’ and others Friends (Jane Rushmore) as they attempted to develop and influenced the direction of liberal Quakerism.
Douglas Gwyn, in his book “Personality & Place: the Life & Times of Pendle Hill” writes about the influence of east-coast Personalism on the (liberal Quaker) idea of the transformation (& evolution) of the individual moral imagination and the role of community to facilitate and guide this process: the way God works in history. One might even describe this process as the founding ethos of PH and American liberal Quakerism as a 20th century system of religious thought.
Howard Thurman and Martin Luther King were also heavily influenced by (Boston) Personalism. And, I often wonder if MLK’s reception to liberal Quaker ideas as conveyed by Bayard Ruskin and others was made possible by this connection to the foundational premise that we further the moral imagination of those who oppose justice (oppressors) through actions which foster empathy: moral suasion (as Lucretia Mott would have said.) We don’t spend a lot of time arguing with them.
In this way the non-violent moral actions of individuals change the behavior of nations. Jesus, the Zealot, as described by Reza Alsan and others, would no doubt agree. And, of course, Personalism as a religious philosophy has profound biblical (prophetic) roots and can be traced to medieval scholasticism.
The NYT columnist David Brooks writes about Personalism in his recent book, “The Road to Character” (2015). He states: “Personalism holds that we each have a deep personal obligation to live simply, to look after the needs of our brothers and sisters, and to share in the happiness and misery they are suffering.” Brooks, the pundit, sees this philosophy as able to foster social cohesion in a factitious society. Aprove!
Sounds lot like liberal Quakerism to me. As we (liberal Quakers) move into the 21st century, this idea has become a foundational value of our religious life and one might even say, part of our character. Following this line of thought, evil is seen as a failure of the moral imagination to empathize (sympathize) with the other.
Evil denies the trace of the divine (that of God) and/or the humanity in the other, as E. Levinas and the mid-20 century existentialists would put it.
It equates all relationships as zero-sum: “the other is nothing like me!.” And, we know where this thinking leads us. It doesn’t bend Philo’s moral arch toward justice.
Thanks again, for initiating this thread.
George
Thanks for this thoughtful and informative comment, George. I didn’t know about a Personalism movement. I first noticed its use in the proceedings of London Yearly Meeting’s 1918 sessions considering the final report of its War and the Social Order Committee, in the Eight Principles of a Just World Order which that session endorsed, and then in documents from the 1920 World Conference of Friends. Now it turns up in quotes from Jones in this book on the emergence of liberal Quakerism I’m reading, Kennedy’s British Quakerism, 1860–1920.
I’ve written a book, “What Love Can Do, in which I discuss ‘sin’. It has a lot to do with the ‘Kingdom of God’, what I call ‘The Way’. Check it out. 🙂
To ponder in your heart the story of the Fall for the wisdom it conveys about oneself in particular and humanity in general is to make good use of it. The human soul needs to understand its rightful place, and a good faith effort entails considering the mystery of life through the clues we’ve been given by prophets, such as this story.
Here are some questions to ponder. Why is the temptation “ye shall be as gods” so powerful? Why is “knowing good and evil” the one phrase that describes what it means to be “as gods”? Why is the turning point in Adam and Eve’s awareness described as “the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked”? What do they do as a result? How is their covering themselves and in the next verse hiding themselves from the presence of the Lord God related? What is the significance of being “naked”? Why does this lead to fear? Why does God ask “Who told thee…” rather than assume the two had figured it out themselves? What is the significance of each of the two refusing responsibility for their act and placing blame elsewhere? What’s important about God cursing and punishing the serpent? And why a serpent rather than an aardvark? Why is the hierarchy set up the way it is between woman and the man? Why is the battle of the seeds between the woman and the serpent? Why is childbirth and eking out food the areas where the woman and the man suffer the consequences of their disobedience? Why does the Lord say “the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil”? Why is there a flaming sword to keep them from returning? Why does it turn every way? What is the problem with them getting to the tree of life and living for ever?
These are just a few of the questions one can ask about this story. Every phrase, every word, is in the story for a reason. A rich, deep meaning is conveyed that goes far beyond what’s provided by a literal interpretation. The rationalist’s approach to the mystery of life is an attempt to reduce it to that which reason can comprehend. There’s more at play in this human drama than Jones’s Greek-based attribution of sin and evil to the lower rung of man’s two-fold constitution, i.e., sense instinct as opposed to the higher element of “spirit,” which is no more spiritual than is reason. The Hebrew prophets, recipients of revelation, are beyond them, and Christ Jesus, the Word made flesh, is beyond the Hebrew prophets.
Thank you, Steve, for undertaking this monumental task, and for introducing us both to Rufus Jones’s enormously influential thinking on the subject, and to Wilmer Cooper’s helpful analysis, which I hope every reader of your blog will take the time to read.
For Friends who enter the silence of worship hoping to bask in the Inner Light like blissful sunbathers, but find themselves instead tormented by their own unstoppable inner chatter, or worse, by memories of sins that evoke self-loathing, it may be helpful to know that the earliest Friends knew the Inward Light as Christ, who functioned not only as Light (to reveal, and then to heal whatever corruption might have been revealed) but also as a Savior, that is, a Person, Christ Jesus, who knew how to use that Light like a surgical instrument, and, once given the sinner’s permission, went at His task with salvific intentionality and boundless wisdom. Such has been my own experience: I needed a Savior, I asked for a Savior, and I got a Savior, who is continuing His work in me.
Modern physics answers the question, “Does light consist of waves or particles?” with “It behaves as both.” I think that modern Quaker theology needs to recognize that its “Light” behaves as both principle and Divine Person, and that as Divine Person, there are no predefined channels for His operation (as “moral influence,” as “atoning sacrifice,” as “inward Teacher,” etc.) that He can’t at an instant overflow, making foolishness out of our best human wisdom about Him – as Paul warned us (1 Cor 2:14).
As for whether or not we humans are innately inclined to sin, before I listened to either Rufus Jones or John Calvin I’d want to ask them what they’d want to do with the answer, because grand theories are so easily used as weapons or opioids. But when I read in the Bhagavad-Gita that desire and anger were what made people sin, even against their own wills, I recognized the liberating truth of that. Likewise, when I read in Jakob Boehme that evil manifested itself in the four aggressively self-magnifying vices of pride, covetousness, envy, and anger, and then in the deceitfulness they cloak themselves in in order to look good to the world, I felt that I saw all humankind, all civilization displayed before me. I felt the same when I opened _A Course in Miracles_ and saw “belief in the efficacy of attack” named as the root of our spiritual blindness. We could use some more good theorizing about sin. It’s too good a word to throw away before Christ has washed the last sinner clean of it.
Thank you for this entry. This topic is of real interest to me. In my “The Early Quakers and the ‘Kingdom of God'” The Light, Inward light and the Christ, the Seed etc = the Kingdom which was the eQ’s central focus since it was also Jesus’s. And see my reply/comment above. 🙂
Sigh….
If I’ve got your ‘sigh . . . ‘right, I think I can understand a little about how you’re feeling. You may like to read my books mentioned in this stream. They will be of interest and I hope of help. I wrote them for Friends. 🙂
I’m reading a book called Christus Victor by Gustof Aulen. I think you may find it interesting. What you are describing as Jones’ theory is what Aulen calls the subjectivist (or moral persuasion) model and he traces it back to medieval theologian Peter Abelard.
It is indeed evident that Rufus Jones was unknowingly the architect of liberal Quaker spirituality that we enjoy in modern times. He introduced both Hicksite Quakers and the leftover remnant of Progressive Quakers to an influence of mysticism. In all mystical spiritual traditions, an exploration and acceptance of the real ‘you’ is essential in order to have the intimate divine relationship that mysticism is known for producing.
Liberal Quakers owe the wholesale introduction of mysticism in our spirituality to Rufus Jones. Below is an interesting article from the Midlothian Friends Meeting library that elaborates on this a bit more.
**************************************
Mysticism: The ‘Engine’ of liberal Quakerism
Rufus Jones (1863-1948) helped to shape the modern soul of liberal Quakerism that was first birthed unintentionally by Elias Hicks in 1827, to then be matured by the influence of the Progressive Quakers of the later 1800’s, and then ripened into a more universal mystical religious experience due to the influence of Rufus Jones in the first half of the twentieth century.
In 1917 Rufus Jones helped found the Nobel prize-winning American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) as a vehicle for Quakers to provide humanitarian relief around the world. In 1927, one hundred years after liberal Quakerism first began with the “Hicksite Quakers”, Jones visited India to meet with Mahatma Gandhi and tour the birthplace of the Buddha. Upon experiencing ‘that of God’ outside of Christian spiritual traditions, he formulated a new approach to Quaker missionary efforts – that of giving humanitarian aid to people while having no need to also convert people to Christianity. And thus an appreciation of spiritual universalism became widely accepted by liberal Quakers.
Rufus Jones became a well-known Christian mystic who experienced his Quakerism as a direct mystical experience with the Inner Light that guided his every action. This was much like the very earliest Quakers in the mid-1600’s before the Quaker movement under George Fox’s direction soon adopted a strict discipline and practice that was expected from all Quakers until the mid-1800’s.
While alive Jone’s mysticism and influence thrust the liberal Quaker tradition solidly into the family of mystical world religions; along with Taoism, Zen Buddhism, Sufi Islam, Kabbalah Judaism, among others. All of these religious traditions, including liberal Quakerism views ‘becoming one with God or the Absolute’ as possible in order to live an enhanced human experience.
While not every liberal Quaker would accept the “mystic” label for himself or herself, many would agree that Jesus was perhaps the first Christian mystic, and his oneness with the Universal Source was a model of how best to live. Modern liberal Quaker thought and practice clearly has mysticism as its ‘engine’, giving power to the movement.
Consider a selection of mystical thought from Rufus Jones which helped to shape the modern liberal Quaker experience:
“The essential characteristic of mysticism is the attainment of a personal conviction by an individual that the human spirit and the divine Spirit have met, have found each other, and are in mutual and reciprocal correspondence as spirit with Spirit.”
“We shall not rebuild our shattered world until we recover our faith in eternal realities; we shall not do that until we discover Spirit within ourselves.”
“It seems to me tremendously important that Jesus is as truly a revelation of man as he is a revelation of God. We see at last in him what man was meant to be. We have seen God revealed in Jesus. I wish now that we might learn to see the divine possibilities of man revealed in Jesus.”
Sigh, thx again!