A Perplexing Conundrum

Humans have tended to vacillate on what exactly our condition is.

Are we, humans, good or bad? Beautiful or ugly? Whole or broken?

Alan Jacobs's Original Sin tracks thinking on these questions by looking at the acceptance and resistance to the notion of original sin, a doctrine with profound implications. A ways into the book Jacobs says,

Our story so far has inscribed a clear pattern. From time to time in Western history, a vision of the greatness of human moral potential emerges or arises, only to find an immediate counter in an equally potent and vivid picture of human bondage to the sin we all inherit from Adam. (127)

And later Jacobs writes, "A Pelagius rises up only to be met by an Augustine" (128).

That we so easily flounder between these different views of humanity is interesting. The intrinsic worth, value, and beauty of the human makes it hard to believe that we are hideous rebels, inciting the wrath of holy God. And yet, on the other hand, hideous rebels we are! All of our actions are tethered tightly to our own self-absorbed hearts; we crush the weak, schmooze the strong. Even our "good" deeds are often done with an eye to self-glory.

Given the plausibility of either view, does not the biblical account give us the most robust explanation for this conundrum? We are the climax of God's creative work as described in Genesis, beings created in the image of God. And yet we are severely marred, a tragedy described in the biblical account of the Fall.

Grizzly Man and Gay Marriage

With the passing of California's Proposition 8, I have found myself reflecting on the homosexuality discussion. It seems to me that the whole debate is in orbit around anthropology, that is, how one understands human nature, for both sides of the debate appeal to nature. Supporters of gay marriage appeal to nature ("I was born this way"), citing desire as the determining factor. It is believed that a gay person's sexual desire for members of the same-sex legitimates homosexual practice or lifestyle. Opponents of gay marriage also appeal to nature, citing, not desire, but anatomical design as the determining factor. Humans, it is believed, are bound sexually by their design because two male parts (or female) simply do not go together sexually. The former speak of nature more subjectively and the latter speak of nature more objectively.

The homosexuality debate, then, should grapple with the trustworthiness of desires and the limits put on us by our own physical design.

Enter Grizzly Man. This Werner Herzog documentary has something to say about this discussion. The film follows Grizzly Man, Timothy Treadwell, and, with his own video documentation, his life among the Grizzlies in Alaska. Yes, Treadwell lived with Grizzlies, swam with Grizzlies, and talked to Grizzlies, experiences that provide stunning footage.

Herzog's interviews several Alaskans on Treadwell's decision to live with these bears which provide insight. For many interviewees, Treadwell was crazy. Sure, he may have had a desire to live with bears but actually following those desires was foolish, they said. They appealed to the limits binding individuals; humans do not and should not live with wildlife because it is just that, wild. On the other hand, other interviewees respected Treadwell as a man who had a desire to live with bears and went out to fulfill that desire. After all, Treadwell disregarded his detractors and pursued his dream.

Treadwell's longing to live with the bears did not correspond to Treadwell's nature. Unfortunately, Treadwell was bound and limited; he was a human, not a bear, and humans do not live with bears. In the end--and this is a spoiler for anyone that hasn't seen the film--Treadwell's decision finally caught up with him as he was killed by a Grizzly (along with his girlfriend). (If you do plan to watch the film, beware, for it contains lots of strong language. The film also contains coarse sexual references which, incidentally, shed some light on the homosexuality debate)

The film's tagline captures the point nicely: "In nature, there are boundaries." I am not suggesting that homosexuality is akin to seeking life among the bears. I am suggesting that Grizzly Man underscores an important point to consider in the homosexual debate: one's desires do not always correspond to their design. In other words, Treadwell's humanity (i.e. design) hampered his desire to live among the bears. Both design and desire did not correspond with one another and were not going to end in individual fulfillment. And this is the major offense to what I am suggesting: our personal--and corporate--fulfillment does not necessarily correspond to our desires. Understanding one's "nature" by turning to what one desires is wildly unpredictable. Our desires mislead, conflict, and evolve. And this is particularly true for sexual desires. The more reliable gauge for understanding one's sexuality is design, not desire.