The original post already addressed the notion of sin, as well as some possibly religious approaches to wokeness. Here, I will expand on these.
First, I would like to preface this with a caveat. I am neither a theologian nor a religious official. I grew up Catholic, and have since widened my scope and have been widely reading from different religious traditions and philosophies like transcendentalism (see a more detailed exploration this in a previous post). Thus please take this as what it is, nothing more, but please also nothing less. In the end, our spiritual path through life may be our own, but all throughout human history, we have found ways to arrive at similar answers that differ just enough to create strife, but are yet — on closer inspection — all dedicated to help us position ourselves throughout questions of justice, morality, divinity, and our place in life.
First, as to the topic of race. Any theory of justifying racism by the “curse of Ham” or the “mark of Cain” — which then would be the basis for legitimizing slavery of non-white people in the 19th century — is not in line with the principles of Abrahamic religions (for a detailed analysis, see an article by Daniel Hays). Any racial assumptions about Cain and Abel, and Ham and Japhet are projections of white supremacist thinking – nothing in the Bible permits a racialized reading, and even if it did, it would be unclear who exactly is meant by these lineages. To take such parables literal is an act of religious malpractice. In the Christian context, all of this would have been resolved anyhow by Revelations 5:9 (“for you were slaughtered and by your blood you ransomed for God saints from every tribe and language and people and nation”) and Colossians 3:11 (“there is no longer Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, enslaved and free, but Christ is all and in all!”). In Judaism and Islam, race does not matter either. Of course, that does not mean that religious people from these religions do not or have never practiced racism — but they cannot seriously find justifications for that in their religion. Religion is complex, and people are fallible.
Now, let us return to the topic of sin. To summarize briefly, “sin” is not about good and evil, it is about fallibility. We are human, thus we are fallible. This insight allows us to see ourselves and each other with humility, grace, kindness and understanding — and ultimately, love. No human being is without fault (i.e. without sin) and no human being is beyond saving. In Judaism, this is illustrated by the way sin is defined as “missing the mark” — and the encouragement to try again. In Islam, this is made clear by the insistence that only God can mete out final judgement, and that God is the most gracious, the most merciful — which means that we should ourselves be inspired by God’s mercy.
In Christianity, God even incarnates into Jesus (i.e. “becomes flesh” – becomes human) and symbolically through his (Jesus’) death removes the stain of sin from us, thus freeing us from the stigma of sin. (The nature of Jesus is complicated, but in Christian Nicean dogma, he is fully human and fully God. He is not a son in the human sense, he is still God — thus is the perplexing nature of the concept of trinity). The point of the incarnation is that God — by experiencing human fallibility more closely (and in the end, he expresses this: “my god, my god, why have you forsaken me” is the ultimate fallibility of humans, their disconnection with the divine)— and though his death and resurrection (the opposite of incarnation) this act of becoming just like us enhances God’s mercy towards us by guiding us even closer towards unity with the divine.
Now, several aspects of what is nowadays called “wokeness” (in departure from the original definition that was tied to racism) are related to gender identity and traditional gender roles, which then by critics are tied to religious arguments. There have been others, such as Queer Theology, who have addressed such objections, but those following more traditional interpretations are typically not convinced. There is no use arguing about biblical passages when one side of the discussants believe in the symbolic nature of most Biblical stories, while others take them for literal truth. What is sin to some is not sin to others, but so be it.
Unsurprisingly, my own more boring centrist position hovers in between: Some of these stories may indeed have a historical core, but the stories then get overburdened with symbolism and politics so that, in effect, what we find in religious books certainly cannot be read as if it was a book of history. See scholars like Jan Assmann for an illustration of this problem (The Invention of Religion, which talks about the historicity of the book of Exodus, for example, and also From Akhenaten to Moses: Ancient Egypt and Religious Change).
I would instead point to what Pope Francis has recently said on the matter, in which he clarifies that while some sexual practices — including all outside of marriage! — can be considered sin, they are not crimes. And sins can be forgiven. You may not agree with this position either — especially seeing sex as sin (although, such allegations of sinfulness have certainly not detracted from the attractiveness of sex, but made it even more desirable as the “forbidden fruit” — but let’s not go there now…). What the Pope is doing here (distinguishing between sin and crime) means that he is standing up against calls by extremists to do harm to anyone who is not straight nor male.
Sin is forgivable; some sins may be worse than others. In Christianity, Jesus deliberately came to meet sinners, and he discouraged people from judging others:
10 And as he sat at table[a] in the house, behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and sat down with Jesus and his disciples. 11 And when the Pharisees saw this, they said to his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?” 12 But when he heard it, he said, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. 13 Go and learn what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.’ For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.” (Matthew 9:10-13)
Furthermore, judgement is reserved to God:
11 Do not speak evil against one another, brethren. He that speaks evil against a brother or judges his brother, speaks evil against the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. 12 There is one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you that you judge your neighbor? (James 4:11-12)
And, most famously:
“Do not judge, so that you may not be judged. 2 For with the judgment you make you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. 3 Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s[a] eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? (Matthew 7:1-3)
And even more famous:
“Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” (John 8:7)
This warning against hypocrisy and insistence that only God truly knows what is in one’s heart aligns with the Jewish commandment to “judge every person favorably” (Avot 1:6), and in Islam, that it is God who is Most Merciful, Most Gracious. Most religions insist that humans should be humble and hesitant in their judgement, and that the ultimate judgement lies in the domain of the divine.
What does this have to do with being “woke”? Nobody has to believe anything they don’t want to. They shouldn’t be forced to. The point made by adherents of a woke perspective is about safety of all human beings, whether you believe they are sinful or not, and accepting differences between human beings without judgement and discrimination but with a sense of humility.
Of course, humility goes both ways. Those claiming to be woke who have abandoned humility should maybe do some serious introspection. Wokeness is about being nice — you cannot bully niceness into people, you need to live it yourself:
If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 If I give away all I have, and if I deliver my body to be burned,[a] but have not love, I gain nothing.
4 Love is patient and kind; love is not jealous or boastful; 5 it is not arrogant or rude. Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; 6 it does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right. 7 Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. (1 Corinthians 13:1-7)
Again, this goes both ways. Too many times, some of those promoting social justice discourse and practice fall into the trap of urgency, of pride, of presentism, and they speak like “a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.” (Apparently, this is an old problem! Who knew! Revolutionaries can be impatient! Shocking!) Gently does it. And sometimes, in retrospect, we will all be wiser in time.
8 Love never ends; as for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For our knowledge is imperfect and our prophecy is imperfect; 10 but when the perfect comes, the imperfect will pass away. 11 When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became a man, I gave up childish ways. 12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully, even as I have been fully understood. 13 So faith, hope, love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love. (1 Corinthians 13:8-13)
Just as we have to encourage each other to be nice, to withhold judgement, and approach each other with humility, we have to realize that this holds true for all. None of us are in possession of the whole truth. We all can do better. If you are still young, full with revolutionary fervor and disdain for the old and the world they have built, just know that one day, should you live long enough, you will be old as well and the recipient of all kinds of accusations. We are all fallible, it is an ever-recurring cycle, and with enough humility, we should know that in the end, everything changes. What needs to continue is life, and what we need to uphold is the sanctity of life, and if we approach each other as fellow friends. Some of us we agree with, some we disagree with; some commit this sin, others that; but we should be kind and love all. (I have spent some time with Quakers recently).
So much for this, however erratic an attempt it may have been.
Next, I will be addressing Enlightenment Objections to “Wokeness.” Coming soon in the form an erratic blog post to you.
Part I: #248: The Resistance Against Wokeness, Part I
Erratic Attempts 