It is said that Christianity does not have a single, universally accepted account of sin, human nature, or salvation. Nor does belief in original sin necessarily require believing that human beings are devoid of goodness, dignity, or the capacity for moral development.
The first point means that the story that claims to point toward an objective universal unchanging truth actually embodies and operates in a mostly subjective ever changing way.
The second is that, while Christianity as a story does not require believing we are devoid of goodness, dignity, or the capacity for moral development, it does require us to believe our ability to properly exercise those things requires submitting to an education process in the same way that getting better at mathematics or grammar require training.
But here's the tension:
If human beings require education, correction, and transformation to develop their moral and spiritual capacities, does that necessarily mean they must first understand themselves as fundamentally broken?
Or could recognizing our limitations not as evidence we are broken, but evidence of our ability to grow and learn, be the beginning of education rather than an admission of an inherently deficient identity?
These are different starting points, and they can produce different relationships with learning, development, and what kinds of growth are possible.
One emphasizes the need to be rescued from an underlying condition, which requires us to depend on anyone or anything offering to save us.
The other emphasizes the opportunity to develop capacities that are not yet fully realized, and the freedom to chose how to cultivate them in ways that nourish our agency by feeling authentic to us.
They may overlap in some theological accounts, but they aren't identical.
One emphasizes the need to be rescued from an underlying condition, which requires us to depend on anyone or anything offering to save us.
The other emphasizes the opportunity to develop capacities that are not yet fully realized, and the freedom to chose how to cultivate them in ways that nourish our agency and our boundaries by feeling authentic to us.
They may overlap in some theological accounts, but they aren't identical.
In Dead Poet's Society, we see how this overlap can create internal conflict. We see this in a student who is torn between what feels the most authentic to himself, and empowers him to exercise more agency, and becoming what his father demands he become.
The father's apparent cruelty and seeming indifference to the son's desire to become an actor is born from financial hardship and social stigmatization that the father appears to have experienced through his own life. To not only try to protect his son from that experience, but also as a way of proving he is better than that to those he may feel looked down their noses at him, the father demands his son become a doctor.
He isn't necessarily acting from a conscious desire to destroy his son's individuality. He may genuinely believe he is protecting him. But his understanding of protection has been shaped by his own suffering, fears, and experiences of social judgment.
Consequently, he mistakes preventing his son from experiencing the feeling of pain he experienced for knowing what is best for his son, even though his son, by wanting to be an actor, is demonstrating to his father that he does not experience pain from such experiences in the same way. What the father feels as shameful in the eyes of others, the son feels as the price of freedom.
The father wants to force his son to let others put their lives in his hands, even if the son doesn't want to do it, rather than allowing the son to take his own life in his own hands, for fear he will ruin it, leading his father to feel even more shame in the eyes of those he wants to impress than before.
As a result, there are two different attempts at rescue happening:
The father wants to rescue his son from the uncertainty, financial insecurity, and social vulnerability he associates with pursuing acting. He may also be trying to redeem his own past through his son's success.
The son wants to rescue himself from inheriting a life determined by someone else's fears, expectations, and definition of success.
If the son is taught that his moral goodness, dignity, and capacity for moral development depend first and foremost on obedience to his father, he is also taught to distrust his own capacity to determine what is best for himself. By insisting that his son is inherently incapable of making sound judgments about his own life, the father positions himself as the authority upon whom his son must depend to determine not only how he should live, but also what it means to be a good person.
In doing so, the father makes his son responsible for living according to his fears, insecurities, and unresolved wounds. The son learns to subordinate his own judgment, desires, and developing sense of identity to his father's need for control and emotional security. He may eventually come to mistake the fear of disappointing his father for love, obedience for goodness, and self-denial for moral virtue.
Ultimately, the father teaches his son that becoming a good person requires surrendering his autonomy rather than developing the judgment and moral independence necessary to direct his own life. The son becomes a prisoner of his father's fears, mistaking submission to another person's will for the expression of his own moral character.
Compare King David to Vincent Vincent VanGogh.VanGogh died in poverty but freely chose his fate. David lives in luxury but his fate chose him. The difference is in who is steering.
Put simply, the son comes to believe that he was born with the soul of an ugly duckling: inherently flawed, deficient, and incapable of recognizing his own worth without his father's judgment. He equates accepting this belief with loyalty to his father and measures his worthiness of his father's love by how faithfully he continues to believe it.
Consequently, a son who might otherwise grow up to become Dr. Jekyll begins to behave like Mr. Hyde toward anyone who refuses to accept the same diminished view of themselves. Having internalized his father's treatment as an expression of love, he reproduces that treatment toward others, mistaking their submission to his judgment for a virtue and their refusal to submit for a personal or moral failing.
In this way, he becomes an extension of the very authority that wounded him, perpetuating the same cycle of shame, conditional acceptance, and control that shaped his own understanding of love.
The swan, taught by his father to believe he was born an ugly duckling, internalizes Mr. Hyde as the voice of his own conscience, mistaking self-rejection for moral discipline and submission for love. The central paradox is that he must continually reproduce the very cruelty that wounded him to preserve his belief that his father was right. Eventually, he becomes Mr. Hyde toward other swans who refuse to see themselves as ugly ducklings, mistaking his ability to make them reject themselves as evidence that he has finally become a beautiful swan. Thus, having learned to experience self-rejection as the price of love, he comes to experience the rejection of others for his beliefs as proof of his own moral worth.
In doing so, he mistakes his ability to inflict upon others the same wound he carries within himself for evidence that he has overcome it. The more successfully he makes others submit to the same self-rejection he has internalized, the more morally worthy and deserving of love he feels. In effect, he turns the perpetuation of his own father's cruelty into a measure of his worthiness of love.
This is how inter-generational religious trauma propagates through the sin of a father's certainty.
Comments
Post a Comment