2,300 words
The Christian belief in the bodyless immortal soul has tended to confer ultimate ontological status and value on the solitary human individual; effectively, in all this vast universe of things, only the “spiritual” human individual has a full measure of being. Everything else is “just matter.” This has had a significant influence on the goals and ultimate values of the nations of Western Europe. It has produced a worldview called individualism.
Simply put, individualism completely demolishes any metaphysical basis for solidarity among humans and commonality with the wider material universe. Without the metaphysical grounds for communal identity and universal belonging, no amount of moral exhortation can overcome the core principle that only the human individual is fully real. The bodyless immortal soul, by establishing “spirit” as the highest category of being, and further defining the human male individual as the highest example of “spirit” in the universe, declares that all other forms of cosmic reality ― feminine, infantile, non-human, inanimate ― are seriously deficient in being (spirit) and cannot be allowed a full measure of autonomy in the management structures of universal society.
The corollary to the immortality of the bodyless individual soul is that the world to which the human spirit is destined to live is not this one. There is another world which is the real world; it is the only real world because it corresponds to human beings who are complete, i.e., who have left their body and gone to reside permanently in that other world as their home. In other words, they do not really belong here. This world is transitional, impermanent; it’s reality and everything in it is an illusion; only the “other” world filled with qualified individuals has a full measure of being, and is lasting, eternal, permanent, complete.
Two-world politics and original sin
There is a “this-worldly” political dimension implied in all this that I want to make explicit. The belief in two-worlds discourages commitment to justice in this world and excuses collaboration with exploitative economic and political systems. Please take note: justice is a communitarian virtue. The Platonic two world view based on the doctrine of original sin, is necessarily individualistic. Individualism is a transcendent feature of Western civilization. It’s important to see how this works in Augustine’s theological system which dominated Western Christian life in thought and practice from the 5th century right up to today and continues to function subconsciously in the culture whether westerners are Christian or not.
In Augustine’s scheme of things, no one’s destiny is tied to anyone else’s. You are living for your individual reward in another world, and what happens to others ― even members of your own family ― is secondary; and you have to distance yourself from them if they are damning themselves. Even when it does not explicitly encourage escapism, the attitude permits those who have no interest in redressing injustice (perhaps because they are profiting from it) to rationalize their inaction or complicity.
I believe it is the two-world system that helps explain how the non-violent resistance of the early Christian martyrs to Rome’s self-idolatry, could have been followed less than a decade after the last persecution[1] by the Christian readiness to cooperate with the Empire. You have to understand: what the martyrs opposed was idolatry, and they faced death fearlessly because they believed they were going immediately to the other world. If refusing to throw incense on the fire also included their opposition to the Empire’s dehumanizing exploitation and enslavement of those it conquered, there’s no evidence for it, and if they did, it was secondary; their bar of judgment was personal morality. The martyrs were “two-world” individuals. Personal reward after death motivated their courage, they were explicit about that. Please notice: that exclusively “religious” motivation meant that once Rome declared, under Constantine, that it would worship the “true God,” resistance to the empire evaporated. Belief in the “other world” permitted if not encouraged support for the Empire without requiring that it cease its exploitive modus operandi: conquests to augment the slave population. Justice — a communitarian imperative — did not have a sharp focus among Christians because a two-world system intensifies individualism. Institutionalized slavery was unquestioned. The result has been the justification, in Christ’s name, of the exploitation of defenseless isolated individuals by a class of elite predators throughout European history.
There is a spontaneous human outrage at injustice that parallels the spontaneous empathy that stirs our compassion. Both these are communitarian “this worldly” instincts that can be vitiated by the refined selfishness encouraged in a two-world belief system. And a non-violence, like that of the martyrs, driven by unconcern for this world can actually work in the service of this selfishness.
In our time some have erected “Christian non-violence” into a new moral imperative. But there is no guarantee that just being non-violent in the face of injustice always promotes the common good, and may not itself simply be an excuse for indifference, cowardice or even selfishness. Don’t get me wrong, there is even less guarantee that violence will secure justice. The point I am making here is that non-violence is not an end in itself. It is a tool of action and receives its value from the ends it is used to pursue. It must be directed against injustice.
western individualism
In a version of “individualism” that we are familiar with today, our culture teaches that happiness is an individual achievement and possession, and that society’s role is to protect the individual’s ability and opportunity to achieve happiness, here and hereafter. In more extreme versions it is considered perfectly acceptable that the competition that allows the “winners” to achieve, entails the actual physical extinction or economic destitution of the “losers.” Such attitudes assure the continued existence of a menial underclass, marginated and miserable, a phenomenon that has characterized our societies for so long that it has come to be considered “natural.” An off-hand remark by Jesus, “the poor you will always have with you,” by which he meant to turn his disciples attention to his own impending death, has been taken out of context and used to confirm that view of things.
How did this come about? I believe that such a conviction is the ultimate product of a cluster of ancient beliefs that were centered on the existence of a personal entity “spirit-God,” who judges, rewards and punishes each individual “spirit-person” separately in a “spirit-world” after death. It is a corollary of a “two-world” view of reality, and it is supported by the doctrine of Original Sin as projected by Augustine. In such a universe there is no group survival or “salvation.” Every one is on their own. An intense concern for oneself has been introjected deep into the western psyche. It has endured long after the Christian religion which promoted it stopped being the official state-sponsored object of belief.
“Original Sin“ is the foundational Christian doctrine making individual selfishness the very definition of adult behavior. It originated with Plato, but it is significant that this teaching was elaborated in its most toxic form by Augustine (a Roman) less than a century after Constantine’s “conversion.” But, early as this was in Christian doctrinal history, it was still a full 350 years after the birth of Christianity, and could hardly lay claim to original apostolic authenticity.[2]
Augustine’s “Doctrine of Original sin” advanced individualism on three levels simultaneously. (1) It declared that each person was born with “original sin” and thus was punished individually for Adam’s affront to “God.” (Even newborn babies, if they died without baptism, would be damned for all eternity as individuals.) (2) It claimed human nature had a proclivity to sin, which meant the individual was innately selfish — constitutionally predisposed not to consider anyone but him or herself. And (3) it meant individual damnation, unless sin were forgiven and remedied — individual by individual — with the ritual ablutions administered exclusively by the Empire’s Church. Augustine’s Roman imperial theology proclaimed that “outside the church there is no salvation.” It gave the empire all the justification it needed for external conquest and internal control.[3]
In tandem with belief in the individual immortal soul, “Original Sin” was perfect for Roman imperial purposes. Your fallen humanity guaranteed that your selfish body would always predispose you to sin, and you would always have to go to the authorities of the Empire’s Church for forgiveness. Terrified of dying and going to hell, you knew that there was no one except them who could help you avoid eternal damnation. Christian doctrine rendered irrelevant family and village — the primary human survival communities — and put the Empire’s Church, offering individual survival in another world, in its place. To effect that transition, you had to be convinced that you were a spirit from another world, that you really belonged to that other world not to this one made of matter … and the Church controlled the keys! Family, clan, village and language group were absorbed into the community of the theocratic State, once declared “dead” by the martyrs by reason of its idolatry and now brought back to life by the kiss of the Imperial-consort: Constinatine’s Church. And all of it was based on the central dogma of the spiritual individual, the existence of the “other world,” and the corrupt nature of everything in this one made of matter because of “Original Sin.”
“Original Sin” established the premise that unregenerate, non-Christian human nature is inherently corrupt and selfish. It would follow, then, that any attempt at forming “human community” outside of the salvific community of the Empire’s Church must be the product of some kind of selfish materialist dynamism … if it claimed to be altruism, it must be the work of Satan, for outside the true Church all is corrupt, all is the work of the devil.
Doctrinaire capitalism, as the ultimate violent self-projection of the individual who arrogates to himself as “owner” what belongs to all, is virtually inevitable in such a world. Since fallen humanity is intrinsically selfish and insatiably greedy, it is a condition that cannot be changed. Thomas Hobbes in 1651 said: “man is a wolf to man …. In the state of nature profit is the measure of right.” Note: Hobbes was Christian. By “the state of nature” he meant life in this world without the effects of “grace” mediated exclusively by baptism and the other sacraments of the Church. To be selfless in Hobbes’ terms is supernatural — that means it is not human. The best that could be done for unregenerate (unbaptized) humanity is to harness and direct its demonic selfish energy,[4] hence capitalism.
Besides, those who are convinced that they are utterly despicable before God, develop a need for a compensatory mechanism that will allow them to function psychologically. The accumulation of wealth as a sign of divine forgiveness was a solution that came to be institutionalized by the Calvinist version of Christianity in the 16th century. We still speak of the well-off as being “blessed by God.” This morphed into the popular belief that the wealthy were morally superior — elected by God to teach and to rule. The plutocracy today that rules the world receives a subconscious approval from there.
It should not be a surprise to observers that the dynamics of the achievement of “salvation” in the next world exactly parallel economic life in this one. In each case, one accumulates the coin of the realm, money or merit, respectively, through a lifetime of individual transactions, and the earned amount is tallied up in a “final judgment” providing the individual subject life or misery as a result.
The insuperable individualism that we have been brought up to believe is the norm, therefore, is the result of a very long, intense and continent-wide cultural programming in the lands we know as “Western.” For more than 1500 years, Europeans were subjected to this Imperial Christian indoctrination telling them who they should think they are and what they should think of this world we live in. The result was to breed a continent of isolated individuals, vulnerable, defenseless, terrified of “God,” mistrustful of themselves, their neighbors and this material world which produced their material bodies. Their only refuge for forgiveness and moral support was the state’s religion, viciously closing the circle.
The doctrines of the Empire’s Church formed the soul of Europe and its political structures. Western colonial conquest over the past four centuries, energized by this vision, has exported that mindset and insured its globalization. European capitalism and its associated pseudo-democratic plutocracy is the product of an ancient imperialist ideology; and in our times they have come to dominate the planet.
[1] The persecution of Diocletian ended in 303. Constantine endorsed Christianity in 312.
[2] The early source cited for “original sin” is the NT Epistle to the Romans. But what Paul expressed there did not in any way justify where Augustine went with it. Augustine’s version is thoroughly hellenic, individualistic, a reprise of the Platonic theory of the fall of spirit into flesh, denigrating matter and permanently grounding individual guilt. Paul’s was hebraic, communitarian, symbolic, using the story of Adam’s sin to evoke the re-creation of a collective humankind accomplished by Christ alone ― establishing a new communitarian relationship to “God” for all people, without law, guilt or sin. Similar to what he did to the Jewish book of Genesis, Augustine completely reversed the meaning of Paul’s imagery.
[3] 16th century Christian colonization of primitive peoples in the Americas entailing their exploitation and enslavement was universally justified as “Christianization.” Imperial Christian doctrine has always motivated and justfied conquest while rendering the conquered submissive ― a lethal combination.
[4] Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, 1651