Does Billy Graham get sin and salvation all wrong? Listen to this sermon present an alternative view of human nature and sin.
Scripture Reading—Genesis 3: 1-7
It has been argued that the reason Billy Graham became a towering religious figure in the post-war years of the United States is because of his “strong commitment to the doctrine of original sin.” One might wonder whether there are other competing factors, but I think one can quickly see why the notion of original sin has been foundational to Graham’s ministry. The best way to grasp this is to let Graham speak for himself. On Graham’s website, he has a question and answer section in which he responds to the question, “What does the Bible mean by ‘original sin’?” To Graham’s credit, he begins by noting that the phrase “original sin” is not found in the Bible. However, he does regard the phrase as one that captures a significant biblical truth. For him, this truth is “that we are all sinners, and we all have within us the tendency or inclination to do what is wrong.” Graham continues to define our inherently sinful state as being like that of a disease passed from one generation to the next. This disease began with Adam and Eve. They “were the first sinners.” Their sin was the original sin, and it was one of rebellion against God.
Graham’s exposition on original sin, however, doesn’t end there, and this is where one sees why the doctrine of original sin is foundational for Graham. After hammering home his point by declaring that “we all stand guilty before God, for we are sinners,” Graham signals that there is hope. “But this isn’t the end of the story!,” he announces. He explains, “God loves us in spite of our rebellion, and He sent His Son into the world to forgive us and give us new hearts. Sin has now been conquered by His death and resurrection! Has Christ forgiven your sins? Make sure by turning to Him and trusting Him alone for your salvation.”
Within Graham’s theological framework, Jesus would have no reason for coming, if it were not for the doctrine of original sin. Quite simply, Jesus came because we’re all sinners who need to be saved. Otherwise, we are each destined to go straight to hell. For me, the doctrine of original sin has long been a perplexing subject because it combines what sounds like a commonsense observation with a heavy inducement of guilt. The commonsense observation is that we are all sinners, and it seems like commonsense because all of us occasionally do the wrong thing. None of us are perfect, but what makes Graham’s view dangerous is that he presents it as being like an inescapable, biological disease that we are all doomed to possess and we are thereby all doomed to feel inescapably guilty as well. We are born guilty before we even do anything. It doesn’t really matter what sin you will commit or how often you will be committing it. The jury has already made the decision, “Guilty!”
Now, contrast this with a view that says, “Sure, we all do the wrong thing at times, but the essence of human nature is that we have the capacity to do both good and bad. Our biological tendency isn’t all in one direction. In fact, countless studies show us that a multitude of socioeconomic factors make it much more likely that we will act in a particular way.” It really serves no viable purpose to emphasize a general guilt for nothing in particular except the bad things we all have the potential to do. Most of us already load enough guilt onto our own plate. We are plenty hard on ourselves without someone telling us that we need to feel guilty just because we were born human. So why has this belief in original sin been so strong and pervasive? Why has it been such a deep part of Christian theology and culture?
The philosopher Walter Kauffman once wrote a book on guilt in which he said that “the easiest way to impose one’s will on others is to imbue them with fear and guilt: fear that they will be punished if they disobey, and guilt feelings even when no punishment materializes.” Kauffman goes on to say something that has some relevance to Billy Graham. He says, “Priests have not only inculcated guilt feelings but have also devised various rituals to remove them—rituals that, however diverse, have one feature in common: they deepen the dependency of the poor guilt-ridden flock upon the priest.” The ritual that Graham offered was the altar call. He would harp on the sinful state of humans to the point of utter self-contempt, and then he would pull out the tonic of relief as he in essence said, “Ah, but all is not lost if you will but give your life to Jesus by coming forward.” If your goal is to have as many converts as possible and by implication to build your ministry not only numerically but financially, then Graham’s approach is undoubtedly effective.
But for a lot Christians, that’s not our goal. Sure, we might want to grow our church and pay off our mortgage, but we know the fundamental reason we exist is because we are committed to a life of love and not just a moment of conversion. Salvation isn’t about getting one’s passport stamped for heaven. It’s about living a life that’s tuned into God’s frequency. It’s not simply about getting our sins wiped away. It’s about reaching our highest potential as doers of justice, makers of peace, vessels of compassion.
Now, does this mean we just ignore that story about the talking serpent chatting with Adam and Eve? I don’t think so, because I think there are some other interpretations one can bring to it. If one doesn’t interpret the story in a literal fashion as a historical event but instead interprets it as a metaphorical story that was told in a particular context, then I think the story has a lot of richness to it. For starters, let’s think about how the names Adam and Eve would not have been listed in the ancient book of Hebrew names for babies. Parents back then weren’t thinking of Adam and Eve as potential candidates in naming their newborns. In Hebrew, Adam was the noun for humankind. When Eunita and I were looking at names, we didn’t say, “Hey, if it’s a boy, let’s name him Humankind.” Likewise, Eve is not a proper Hebrew name either. It means “mother of all living.” Again, I am glad we chose Danalyn instead. The names Adam and Eve were clearly meant to be symbolic. The serpent also had a definite symbolic meaning. For Jews at the time, it represented the religion of the Canaanites. As Marcus Borg notes, the serpent fittingly plays the role of tempter because the Canaanite faith “was the primary temptation to infidelity to God that Israel faced.” This observation becomes of critical significance in understanding the verse that lies at the heart of the original sin doctrine. The core part of the temptation by the serpent is that Adam and Eve will become “like God.” In other words, Adam and Eve are being tempted by the very peak of idolatry: of raising their own stature to that of God’s. This view resonates with the notion of sin we heard earlier from Frederick Buechner. The sin occurs when we place ourselves at the center of the universe and push everything else to periphery.
This interpretation becomes all the more powerful when one regards the nakedness of Adam and Eve as being something other than an allusion to the supposed sexual depravity inherent to humans. In ancient times, nakedness didn’t have that connotation. That’s an idea imposed on the scripture by later interpreters. Back then, nakedness represented a state of weakness, vulnerability, and helplessness. Because the name Adam is also closely related to the Hebrew word for “dust,” one can read this scripture as having a playful comedic element. Adam and Eve naively want to be like God when really they are just ordinary creatures of the earth playing in the nude.
Now, one could say, “Hey, wait a second, Brooks, doesn’t this interpretation make us feel bad about ourselves if we are all just lowly creatures? Is it really any better than the interpretation that makes us all feel like guilty sinners?” I don’t think so, because this passage comes after we have already learned that humans are made in the image of God. Thus, the Bible is giving us a story that presents us with a subtle but important distinction between being made “in the image of God” and trying to be “like God.” Ultimately, the story balances and holds in creative tension both a celebration of our capacity for godliness and a warning against our capacity for sinfulness.
During this season of Lent, we don’t need to dwell on our potential sinfulness to the point of wallowing in guilt for no good reason. Instead, let’s focus on reaching our greatest potential. Let’s focus on where the path of Jesus will lead us. This path of love can only lead to good places. We don’t need to be motivated by guilt. We can be motivated by the excitement and promise of what lies before us. As we journey together through Lent, may our best selves emerge and may the glory be to God. Amen.