Sinlessness or Incarnation?
Romans Catholics affirm the Immaculate Conception (IC), which is different from the Virgin Birth, in order to preserve the sinless nature of Jesus. The doctrine of IC says that Mary was supernaturally preserved from sin so that Jesus was conceived in sinless union and not subject to original sin. The doctrine, like many, is a theological construct to help make systematic sense of other more basic doctrines.
A more relational view of sin, however, presents us with a deeper problem. If sin is relational--impure love and motive spread among relationship from person to person--then how could Mary have been sinless? In order for Mary to be sinless, Mary would have had to have perfect relationships. Otherwise while she may have loved purely, she would not have been loved purely and would have suffered the consequences. Of course, if she is not affected by imperfect love from others, then her relationships are a farce. Moreover, if relationship is part of what constitutes us as human, then being in non-reciprocal relationships (which would be the case if the impure love of the other does not affect Mary) would mean Mary ceases to be human. And if this is followed through to Jesus, then serious questions face the Incarnation.
It seems to me that if we think of sin in terms of relationship, then either Jesus could not have been sinless (and was shaped by the imperfect love of imperfect people [taking the issue back one generation to Mary does not solve it]) or he is not really human (if relationship is part of the meaning of humanity). If you accept this conclusion, then how can we think of Jesus' sinlessness? Was he sinless? How do we think of the Incarnation? Was he human?
A more relational view of sin, however, presents us with a deeper problem. If sin is relational--impure love and motive spread among relationship from person to person--then how could Mary have been sinless? In order for Mary to be sinless, Mary would have had to have perfect relationships. Otherwise while she may have loved purely, she would not have been loved purely and would have suffered the consequences. Of course, if she is not affected by imperfect love from others, then her relationships are a farce. Moreover, if relationship is part of what constitutes us as human, then being in non-reciprocal relationships (which would be the case if the impure love of the other does not affect Mary) would mean Mary ceases to be human. And if this is followed through to Jesus, then serious questions face the Incarnation.
It seems to me that if we think of sin in terms of relationship, then either Jesus could not have been sinless (and was shaped by the imperfect love of imperfect people [taking the issue back one generation to Mary does not solve it]) or he is not really human (if relationship is part of the meaning of humanity). If you accept this conclusion, then how can we think of Jesus' sinlessness? Was he sinless? How do we think of the Incarnation? Was he human?
posted by Aaron Perry at
1:46 PM
22 Comments:
I don't see any problem with the notion that in a relational context Jesus always repaid evil with good. Suffering the effects of sin is not the same as carying the guilt of sin. Who suffered more at the hands of imperfect love that Jesus. Jesus was not unscared by sin but he was unstained.
I think the notion that Mary was born without sin so that Jesus could be born without sin is silly. Basically they are saying that God coulden't sheild Jesus from sin but He could sheild Mary. I think the ultimate answer to this is found in my theory of sin being hereditary on the fathers side as discussed on my blog sometime ago.
i can understand being scarred by sin, but not being stained. my problem hinges on the notion of relationship being integral to being human. if Jesus is not conditioned by any of his human relationships, as would be necessary for him to be sinless under a relational view of sin, then Jesus is lacking a serious element of what it means to be human.
the emphasis on the work of Mary in the bearing of God is the crux of the issue for the IC. if God used Mary as much as the patristic and medieval theologians thought God did, then IC became a necessary thought for the sinlessness of Jesus--and a handy one to think through Jesus' own sinlessness. of course, here i am out of my element of simple systematics and will defer to Crusty Guy as he is a bona fide expert on Mary.
ap, can you further define what you mean when you say "relational view of sin?" how would one know that one had sinned relationally if he/she did not break an explicit "known law of God?"
i take it this is a broader category than wesley's "a voluntary transgression of a known law of God?"
i am curious to see where you are going with this.
hey jo,
by relational view of sin, I mean something like all sin affects another. contrary to david, one does not sin only against God. sin ripples through all relationships and only against another person.
i am not going anywhere with it in that i don't have a conclusion in mind. it's a genuine question and maybe the wrong question. that's why i put it out here.
let me use an illustration i talked through with chuck gutenson once, after he had done so with jerry walls. chuck was talking about relational sin and how imperfect relationships propel original sin. one cannot love perfectly if one has been reared in perfect relationships. jerry challenged chuck on this saying, "if a baby was born and taken away and raised by angels, would they suffer original sin?" chuck's response: "No." my response to chuck: "But the baby would also not be totally human."
my dilemma, i suppose, boils down to this: human relationship is absolutely necessary for one to be human, but imperfect human relationship is the conduit for original sin. if Jesus was made up and developed in real senses by his relationships, then he learned to love imperfectly. if Jesus was not developed and formed by human relationships, then he ceases to be human as we are human.
So you are saying then basically that in order to be human you need to be sinful?
great question, aj. i don't want to say this because i think tim is correct that in acting sinfully we are acting less than human. and i think tim is correct to say that one must look at Jesus to see proper humanity.
however, i do want to say that all human relationships bear the effects of sin. of course, this is save one relationship according to the IC, which is why i raised it in the first place. but taking it back one generation does not solve it: if mary is unaffected by her human relations which are sinful via original sin, then she is not totally human by a relational anthropology.
i think you are exactly right, tim, that Jesus needs to be sinless to reveal authentic humanity. was he not formed by the imperfect love of his human relationships?
perhaps this calls for the use of "second Adam" resources. if Adam was human prior to his relations, which he was, then a second Adam could be human without human relations. perhaps it shows the intimacy God desires with humanity that in the trinitarian relationships there is humanity-conveying potential without another human. perhaps the Incarnation shows this in itself...
i think i just answered my own question! :) maybe not. keep pushing, please.
AP has articulated a a dreadful misunderstanding of the Immaculate Conception of Mary that cannot be substantiated by appeal to any Catholic theological authority.
The Immaculate Conception of Mary is a doctrine of "fittingness" not "necessity." In other words, there is no causal connection whatsoever between the Immaculate Conception of Mary and the sinlessness of Jesus.
It seems to me that this loose thread unravels the entire post.
CG
:)
my apparent misunderstanding of the IC still leaves me with the original problem that i hope to have answered with the second adam thought. apparently loose reading of (online) threads runs in the family.
but, i am most open to being corrected and is why i deferred. my original post, i think, remains correct: supernatural preservation of Mary from original sin so that she could bear God's Son. succinctly, please correct my misunderstanding.
Actually, it's not correct. Mary was not preserved from sin "so that"--your words--Jesus would be sinless. Rather than necessity (of the causal variety on your misunderstanding), the Immaculate COnception is a dogma based on fittingness. It is fitting (i.e., proper or, if you will, cool) for a sinless son to have a sinless mother, but it is not a necessary condition in order for the son to be sinless.
Jesus, as Thomas Aquinas points out, could have been conceived in the womb of a prostitute without violation of his purity.
It simply isn't about "taking the issue back one generation" and it doesn't solve the problem you raise because it isn't supposed to.
Sufficiently succinct?
CG
Yes. Quite helpful and succinct. Thanks.
I had thought it was developed in thinking about the sinlessness of Jesus, but clearly it was not. I stand corrected.
So, just so I'm clear, the bearer of God needed not benefit of the merits of her Son in order to conceive him, but only received the merits of her Son as pure gift?
Choo gad id mang.
CG
I think it's cool that the Catholics can make up a substantial doctrine just because it seem like it should be that way. I'm picturing the meeting:
Theologian 1 - "Is it found in Holy Scripture or Church Tradition?"
Theologian 2 - "Heck no but you have to admit it's a pretty freakin cool idea"
Theologian 1 - "It would be awesome - put it on the books boys"
Yeah. That's what Catholics do. Sit around and make stuff up. And us Bible Christians don't.
That's how they got to be the single largest corporate and religious organization in the world. Making things up.
Catholic-maker-uppers.
Geez.
CG
Hey, I'm no expert on Catholicism but I have spent more time studying them than any other denomination. Including the one I'm a part of (ironically) and one has to admit, occasionally they make stuff up. Evangelical denominations twist stuff and stretch it but we lack the creativity to just pull stuff out of the air. Actually much of their strength does come from the stuff they made up, good or bad (right about now a good catholic would say that one of the things they “made up” was the Bible we claim they shouldn’t add to in order to “make stuff up”) like the papacy, indulgences, purgatory, most Marian theology, and the “clergy”. For the record I’m not anti-catholic. I like them a lot.
To quote Sean Connery from The Rock: "Thank you for proving my point."
Crusty
hey, no problem.
Started The Chosen and I can't put it down.
I don't think they call it "making it up" I think they call it the sacramental imagination. What does that mean? It means they make things up. Which is, unfortunately, something evangelicals can't seem to do...instead we recycle old ideas -- takes less work and gets us home in time for football on sundays.
i'm tracking now. i was just reading it differently before.
I think they also talk about the concept of more deeplty understanding the "deposit" of knowlendge given tot he church. The idea being that they are not adding something new just finally understanding something old. At least that's what I understand Peter Kreeft to be saying.
the last paragraph, aj, is much different from "making things up"! :)
Yes, but way less inflammatory and one of my favorite things about the internet is that you can be relentlessly inflammatory. That is my understanding of how they describe the process but to my knowledge there is no official locus for this “deposit”. It’s not like they are working to interpret a given book or collection of books. Since there is no fixed cannon of the deposit it does allow lots and lots of room to make things up. I’m beginning to see that there is a whole different logic to Catholicism that once you accept it and a few basic tenants almost everything else makes perfect sense. I think most Catholics would not see the crux of this issue as whether or not the Catholic Church introduces new doctrines and practices that have yet to be articulated in even a vague way and that do not have roots in history (make stuff up) but whether the church has that power. For protestants, proving they made it up is the “finishing move” (think wrestling) for a catholic it’s irrelevant that it was “made up” because the church has the power, even the responsibility, to do so. (Again this is my understanding of the issue, I’m sure a good catholic would have some clarifications or corrections to add)
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home