Julian's Understanding of Sin
Julian's Understanding of Sin
Julian's Understanding of Sin In summary, without doubt Julian inherited a thoroughly conventional medieval approach to human sinfulness. This was based on an understanding of human nature as fundamentally "fallen," flawed, and sinful.
However, the example or parable of a Lord and a Servant (chapter 51), once Julian had come to understand it, became the foundation of her revised and positive theology of the meaning of sin and the process of salvation. Indeed, her growing understanding of this parable as a result of further interior teaching some 20 years after her nearly mortal illness and visionary experiences basically forced Julian to reconsider her inherited interpretation of human sinfulness in relation to how God actually sees things.
In practice, Julian never defines or describes the conventional concept of "original sin." In this concept, the fundamental identity of human beings is defined as an inherently sinful nature based on the "Fall" of Adam and Eve, the first humans and parents of all subsequent humanity.
In contrast to this conventional understanding, for Julian human beings do not appear to be unavoidably contaminated as a result of an inherently, and inherited, depraved nature. For example in chapter 47 Julian is clear that human nature in this life is necessarily changeable but the result is that we fall into sin through naiveté and ignorance rather than because of evil or malice.
I understand in this way. Man is changeable in this life, and falls into sin through naivete and ignorance. He is weak and foolish in himself and also his will is overpowered in the time when he is assailed and in sorrow and woe. And the cause is blindness because he does not see God.
Importantly, our human weakness is caused by blindness because we do not consistently have a sight of God. Julian is even more explicit about this in chapter 63.
Here we may see that truly it belongs to our nature to hate sin and truly it belongs to us by grace to hate sin, for nature is all good and fair in itself and grace was sent out to save nature and destroy sin, and bring fair nature back again to the blessed place from which it came, which is God, with more nobility and honour by the powerful operation of grace. For it will be seen before God by all his saints in joy without end that nature has been tried in the fire of tribulation, and that no lack or defect is found in it.
Sin and Salvation
Julian is clear that our human nature is not to be defined as fundamentally flawed. It "is all good and fair in itself." Sin is unclean, "more vile and painful than hell" but this is because it is unnatural and "in opposition to our fair nature."
Because sin is unnatural and comes to us against our will (chapter 82) we must not allow ourselves to become too depressed or sorrowful.
But here our courteous Lord revealed the moaning and the mourning of our soul, with this meaning: I know well that you wish to live for my love, joyfully and gladly suffering all the penance which may come to you; but since you do not live without sin, you are depressed and sorrowful, and if you could live without sin, you would suffer for my love all the woe which might come to you, and it is true. But do not be too much aggrieved by the sin which comes to you against your will.
This is a very different spiritual dynamic from attempts in the popular preaching of Julian's time to provoke guilt and to suggest that our human sufferings, including the plague, are God's punishment for our inherent sinfulness, evil tendencies, and resulting sinful actions.
Julian confronts the paradox of sin early in her text. In chapter 11 her vision of God in a "pointe" leads her to understand that God is present in all things and that God does everything that is done. This awareness produced "a softe drede," that is, awe rather than fear.
Julian is therefore provoked to ask "what is sin?" For, if God does everything that exists, it is nevertheless obvious that God does not "do" sin. This leaves Julian with the conundrum of what exactly sin is.
Julian's immediate conclusion is to state that sin is "no deed." That is, sin is not a positive "something" but a negative absence or privation.
This understanding is reinforced by Julian's statement that "in all this sin was not shown to me."
I was compelled to admit that everything which is done is well done for our Lord God does everything. For at this time the work of creatures was not revealed, but the work of our Lord God in creatures; for he is at the centre of everything, and he does everything. And I was certain that he does no sin; and here I was certain that sin is no deed, for in all this sin was not shown to me.
However, this question continues to haunt the remainder of the Long Text, returning particularly sharply in chapter 27.