It is understandable that the doctrine of original sin is not exactly popular. In this doctrine, the church has confessed that all people who live on earth are sinful from the very beginning of their existence. To give an example from our own theological background, the Heidelberg Catechism teaches us about this. In Lord’s Day 3, the question is asked regarding the origin of the depraved nature which everyone has. The answer is clear: from the fall and disobedience of our first parents, Adam and Eve in paradise, for there our nature became so corrupt that we are all conceived and born in sin. This is also mentioned as the background for infant baptism in our Form for the Baptism of Infants. It teaches us that we and our children are conceived and born in sin. There you have original sin. And the form continues by spelling out the result: we are by nature children of wrath, so that we cannot enter into God’s kingdom unless we are regenerated.

Over the centuries, this teaching has not had a lack of opponents. A new voice has recently spoken up against this from the perspective of feminism. A leading feminist theologian in Germany, Elisabeth Moltmann Wendel, has raised her voice against it.¹ The language of original sin is “legalistic German.” According to her, it is a reason why people would not go to church: “If we are always bombarded with these ideas, which are rejected by most people, then it is small wonder that many people would no longer go to church.” Her feminism shows in her remark that the idea of original sin is “discrimination of the body of mothers and women in general.”

It is not surprising that attacks are launched on the doctrine of original sin. Objections have been raised for a long time: in Augustine’s time, in the Reformation period of the sixteenth century, and it still continues today. It is a doctrine that is not easily accepted. It raises our hackles, and we feel very uncomfortable with it. It may very well be that all people feel an internal resistance to admit they and their children are basically sinful from the very beginning. But that very fact, that we have an inner resistance to this, should make us suspicious. Are we perhaps trying to cover something up? We are, in general, very good at ignoring what we do not want to hear. This doctrine cannot be removed on the basis of an allergic reaction to “legalese!”

Original Sin Discrimination of the Mother?⤒🔗

It is surprising to hear someone state that the doctrine of original sin is discrimination of the mother, and by implication, of all women. The general question whether children become tainted with original sin through their father or through their mother has not been determined, to the best of my knowledge. Actually, before that question can be answered, another issue needs to be resolved first: How do children get infected with this sin? Is original sin inherited at all?

This question has been discussed extensively through many centuries of theology. There are, in general, two theories about how original sin is transmitted. The one is that original sin is in some way inherited by the children. Just as children inherit physical characteristics from their parents, so they also inherit original sin from their parents. Note the fact that this is attributed to the parents. It is not limited to the mother, as if the mother would be the sole source of this stain or sin. Actually, the Bible gives more prominence to Adam. In 1 Corinthians 15:22, Paul wrote that in Adam all die. Here, the important position of Adam is emphasized as the reason for the fact that we must all undergo the punishment of death.

At the same time, the Bible does not whitewash Eve. It states clearly that Eve was the first to take from the forbidden fruit. She began to question whether God’s word was really true, and she was the first to commit a sin. Paul mentions that in 1 Timothy 2:14: Adam was not the first one deceived, it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. The Bible blames – if we want to use that word – both Adam and Eve in their unique place and responsibility, for the first sin and its consequences.

The contemporary movement of feminism is drawn into the discussion without any good reason. Original sin as such has nothing to do with depreciation of the female body. In my opinion, the real issue is a refusal to accept the fact that we are conceived and born in sin. It is the human theologian Elisabeth Moltmann who finds that fact hard to accept. Feminism is for her no more than a tool used in an attempt to remove the doctrine of original sin.

Original Sin a Reality←⤒🔗

The fact of original sin is confirmed by the Bible. A quick survey of some texts will confirm that. The beginning of sin is presented in Genesis 3. Eve sins by eating the forbidden fruit. But that leads directly to involving others in sin: she convinces Adam to eat as well. Right away their sins continue, for when God comes to question them, they do not answer in a straightforward way, but they use their words to deceive God.

The end of the first world, before the flood, comes when God looks at the earth, and finds that the inclination of the thoughts of the hearts of people were only evil all the time (Genesis 6:5). Noah was different, and God saved him and his family. But even after the flood, sin continued to exist (Genesis 9:20ff). This is only an example of what God had already observed (Genesis 8:21). David, in one of his psalms, recognized that we are born in sin: “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me” (Psalm 51:9).

This is continued in the New Testament. The apostle Paul wrote a very impressive passage about this in his letter to the Romans. The whole of Romans 5:12-19 is important, but only the most important sentence need to be mentioned: “Just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men because all sinned.” In the sin of Adam, we all became sinners. We can have a thorough discussion about what and how, but the fact cannot be disputed: We are all born sinners!

People who do not believe this will constantly be disappointed in their fellow humans. They trust them, but they are deceived time and again. People who think they live in an ideal world will certainly be in for a rude awakening. The Christian message is not exactly pleasing. We all hate this negative view, and we would like to reason it away, just as Dr. Elisabeth Moltmann does. Her rejection of original sin is one more variant of the age-old rejection of our sinfulness, only the feminist way in which she rejects it, is modern. But that does not change the reality. It is better to approach the world and its people with well founded realism. It teaches us to see the world as it is and to put our hope on God alone.

It may very well be that all people feel an internal resistance to admit they and their children are basically sinful from the very beginning.

Original sin as such has nothing to do with depreciation of the female body.

It is better to approach the world and its people with well founded realism. It teaches us to see the world as it is and to put our hope on God alone.