Page 53 - EMCAPP-Journal No. 7
P. 53

Foundational Discussions in Christian Psychology



             understanding  of  original  goodness  lead  to  a   according to the biblical story was introduced
             curiosity about the worldview that these newly    in Genesis 3 when the first couple broke faith
             “discovered” people have? How might this cu-      with their Creator, and discovered shame.
             riosity lead to a more productive dialogue that
             would in fact pave the way for a reciprocal cu-   A better solution might be the one suggested
             riosity on the part of the other? And how might   by Dueck (2014) when he describes “historical”
             that reciprocal curiosity pave the way for a more   sin in place of original sin. Or, we might include
             productive sharing of the good news of God’s      Thompson’s observation. Speaking of findings
             love in Jesus?                                    in brain research, he states:

             Rupert Ross (2009), academic and a judge de-         “In fact, our right mode is often overcome by
             scribes these ideas in his paper, “Heartsong Fi-     our left mode’s systematic tendency, so that
             nal”. He writes,                                     when we’re asked how God views us, we au-
                                                                  tomatically respond with words  like sinful,

                Aboriginal people often stress that this em-      depraved, and wicked. And we can refer to
                phasis on relational ‘goals-to-be-sought’ con-    particular passages of Scripture to prove it.
                trasts with the illness-based focus that seems    We’re really good at that. But that is not al-
                to prevail in western psychology. The healer’s    ways good for us.”(2010, p. 140).
                duty is to emphasize what we can become
                in the future, because it is within us alrea-  What  I  am  opposed  to  is  how  this  sinfulness
                dy, rather than focus on how we have failed    has been called original, and total, and how that
                in the past and are still failing now. I have   has obscured a basic fundamental truth about
                wondered if the western world’s allegiance to   the human being, namely, that we were created
                the doctrine of original sin accounts for this   good!
                difference, and I found it interesting that a
                Buddhist monk and translator for the Dalai     I submit then, that the practices arising out of
                Lama wondered the same:
                                                               the primacy of the doctrine of “total depravity,”
                “Since the potential for actualizing Budd-     and  of  making  original  sin  the  starting  point
                hahood is present in every sentient being, the   of our working theology, leads to an unwhole-
                Buddhist approach is therefore closer to the   some,  counter-productive,  pathologizing  and
                idea of original goodness than that of original   harmful practice of evangelical church life. By
                sin.”                                          working theology, I mean the theology that gui-
                                                               des our practices as evangelicals. I don’t mean
                The emphasis on  relational goals-to-be-       the doctrinal statements that usually begin with
                sought means something else as well: it is the   a statement about God, or the Bible, or God’s
                ‘way-of-relating’ that is assessed and judged,
                not the person (emphasis his). Given the dri-  self-revelation  to  us.  I  mean  the  ideological
                ving presumption that everyone is capable of   starting point of our approach to people, to our
                learning new ways-of-relating, it is critical   world, to our culture. If we see the three sour-
                that people not become defined by a particu-   ces of sin, the world, the flesh and the devil, as
                lar act. As a result, the ‘perpetrator’ is care-  the beginning of our understanding, we will see
                fully called ‘the person who has harmed’, and   church life and ministry in a certain harmful
                the victim is always called ‘the person who    way.
                has been harmed’. (pp. 20f)
                                                               There is an interesting parallel between the ef-
             Again, this is not to deny the existence of sin,   fect of the doctrine of original sin on the life of
             and that I am not denying its harmful effects in   the church and the medical model of psycho-
             the lives of persons, couples, families, societies   therapy which begins with the “assessment”, in
             and our world. There is ample evidence for this   which the first task is to diagnose. Both lead to
             of course. All of the problems that show up in    subjugation of the human being with whom we
             the counselling offices of the nation’s therapists   have to do. Both require a correction, along the
             can be traced back to human sinfulness, which     lines suggested in this paper.


                                                           52
   48   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58