The popular idea that Christianity says “human nature” is inherently bad is actually the opposite of what the earliest Christian theologians believed. This book challenges the popularized negative view by proposing a prophetic alternative grounded in early Greek Christian sources. It draws on the wealth of early theological reflection, the wisdom of the desert mothers and fathers, and the heritage of Eastern Christianity to discover what God has made us to be.
Nonna Verna Harrison, God’s Many-Splendored Image: Theological Anthropology for Christian Formation
This book arrived several months ago. I have dipped into it, and have wanted to get down to a serious reading of it many times, but let’s just say that other things have intervened. I don’t intend blogging on it in detail, worthwhile though that would be, because such an intention would no doubt simply go the way of all my other good intentions! But I do hope to write more about it at some stage, for it strikes me as a very important book. Sister Nonna is an Orthodox monastic and patristics scholar who has taught in Protestant seminaries, and what she writes here would appear to present a very accessible and also practical introduction to Orthodox Christian anthropology.
The point of this post, however, is to highlight something that she says in the introduction, for this is also something that I keep coming up against and may even at times have said myself without thinking. All too often when we are confronted with the evil around us, and with the bad choices that people make, we hear people say rather resignedly that this is simply “human nature.” Scandals may occur because of greed, but greed is simply “human nature”. Moreover,
The difficulty is that folks today frequently see a Christian understanding of human identity as part of the problem. This is because an oversimplified negative vision of humanity is taken for granted in popular culture, and churches often reflect this negative vision. (3)
The idea that human nature is inherently sinful is of course the opposite of what Christians believe, for “Throughout the ages, Christians have believed that the image of God in which we are created (Gen. 1:26-27) is at the core of who we are and defines us as human.” (5) While sin has buried, wounded and distorted our true nature, it has not destroyed it, for “the image of God remains present in us as a foundation and a potential that awaits our discovery and can transform our lives.” (6)
Although Sister Nonna doesn’t address this in this chapter, I think it would also be worth pointing out that, were our human nature inherently evil, Christ could not have assumed it. Salvation, according to a Christian understanding, is dependent on His taking on our nature and transforming it from within; “What is unassumed is unhealed” in the oft-quoted words of Saint Gregory the Theologian. And we are constantly reminded of this in the words of a prayer by Saint Basil the Great that we pray in preparation for Holy Communion, “with your own blood you refashioned our nature which was corrupted by sin.”
So, when we see evil around us – and, which is more difficult, recognize its roots within us – let us not blame this on “human nature,” but let us rather look at how we may recover the true nobility of our nature which has been tarnished and covered over by sin.
August 18, 2013 at 4:14 pm
The book and your explanation of our “nature” as humans is very thought provoking and so true Macrina….I did want to let you know that the book arrived in great shape. What a wonderful job you have done! I will be in touch concerning a Bible for son’s wedding which will be in June—that is if it’s something you’d still consider 🙂
Hope all is well in your area of the world!
Many blessings—Julie
August 18, 2013 at 8:59 pm
Thanks for your comment, Julie, and for letting me know that the book arrived. I’m glad that you’re pleased with it!
August 19, 2013 at 4:59 am
were our human nature inherently evil, Christ could not have assumed it
And that is the problem with the RC dogma of the Immacualte Conception — it assumes the maculate conception of the rest of us.
August 19, 2013 at 7:31 am
In fairness, the Roman Catholic Church does not teach that human nature is inherently evil. But yes, some of St Augustine’s ideas have had unfortunate consequences and the dogma of the Immaculate Conception does need to be seen within such a framework…
August 20, 2013 at 6:11 am
There do, however, seem to be some significant differences between the Eastern and Western understandings of “original sin”, and some Western interpretations, such as the Calvinist, tend towards the “inherently evil” position.
August 20, 2013 at 8:19 am
Yes, there are certainly differences, but I fear that these are sometimes too simplistically stated. I’m no expert, but I’ve recently come across things that point to a much greater ambiguity within both East and West on some of these issues. So it seems that there are a range of positions that aren’t always entirely stable.
As for Calvinists, I have sometimes come across “statements of faith” which say that our nature is sinful and I have felt like asking whether they really believe this and, if so, what it says about their Christology?
August 21, 2013 at 10:03 am
There is this (Anglican) view:
IX. Of Original or Birth-sin
Original Sin standeth not in the following of Adam, (as the Pelagians do vainly talk;) but it is the fault and corruption of the Nature of every man, that naturally is ingendered of the offspring of Adam; whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the spirit; and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God’s wrath and damnation.
August 19, 2013 at 4:18 pm
Reblogged this on Quantum Est In Rebus Inane and commented:
A useful reminder.
August 19, 2013 at 10:37 pm
Thanks Kelly.
August 20, 2013 at 1:29 am
I hope to read the book soon.
August 20, 2013 at 8:20 am
Great!
August 19, 2013 at 9:49 pm
Sometimes the views on humanity almost seem masochistic where the evil nature takes a central position and most of the religious work is focused on penance. It’s nice to see this different view. And in fact, it makes more sense within the whole of Christianity. Like you said: “were our human nature inherently evil, Christ could not have assumed it”
August 20, 2013 at 8:30 am
I think that you raise an important point about masochism and penance, which also relates more broadly to the understanding of sin, which is an area where there are also differences between East and West (although, again, I don’t want to overstate them). One of the things that could do with further reflection is what we mean by penance, and its relationship to asceticism more broadly. I suspect that this is connected to the general loss of an ascetical consciousness in western Christianity in the last decades (centuries?) which I suspect is in part a reaction to an asceticism that had lost its earlier connection to transformation and had (at least to some extent) become something masochistic. In an Orthodox understanding repentance and sorrow for sin is fundamental, but it is not masochistic but orientated to life.
However, all this needs much further unpacking!