For the next several
blog posts, I’d like to explore a few important themes in Celtic Christian
theology. Most of these thoughts come from reading John Philip Newell’s book Christ
of the Celts, among others.
![]() |
| A Celtic Cross |
I grew up in a home with a very strict authoritarian father.
There was little I could do to receive his favor. I was constantly in fear of
misstepping and being punished for it. I grew up in a church with a very strict
authoritarian God. There was little that I could do to receive his (sic) favor.
I was constantly in fear of misstepping and being punished for it. “Spare the
rod and spoil the child,” a proverb based on Proverbs 13:24, was often quoted
in my home and church.
My father’s “rod” was usually made of leather and was
wrapped around his waist. My God’s “rod” was usually imagined as a bolt of lightning,
zapping me for stepping out of line. This view of an angry, retributive God,
was reinforced by innumerable evangelistic meetings that emphasized my
sinfulness and degraded nature and the need for repentance if I wanted to avoid
the eternal damnation of hell.
John Philip Newell, in his book Christ of the Celts, has written that the view of God which I portrayed,
and the way my father reared me, comes from the doctrine of original sin. “It
teaches that what is deepest in us is opposed to God rather than of God. It
means that we are essentially ignorant rather than bearers of light, that we
are essentially ugly rather than made in the image of love. . . It is a
doctrine that disempowers us. . . The consequences, both individually and collectively,
have been disastrous,” p. 19.
Individually, this doctrine has made me feel like a worm;
like a worthless creature incapable of ever measuring up to the standards of
either my earthly or heavenly father. It has made me nearly incapable of
receiving or giving love. If I wasn’t worthy of love, neither was anyone else. It
has taken me YEARS to mitigate this self-loathing and projection on to others,
and I am still a work in progress.
Collectively, Newell shows how the doctrine of original sin “was
a convenient ‘truth’ for the builders of empire. They could continue to conquer
the world and subdue peoples. And now they could do it with the authority of a
divine calling,” p. 19. In other words, the Roman empire now had the church to help
keep its conquered peoples in line. Augustine of Hippo (354-430), who developed
the idea of original sin, lived during the time when the Christianity became
the official religion of the Roman Empire (380). A highly influential
theologian, he became a leading apologist for the fusion of church and state.
In contrast to Augustine, Newell, citing many Celtic
thinkers and writers, emphasizes that instead of being “opposed to God,” we are
“essentially of God” (p. 58), because we were made in God’s image and likeness
(Gen. 1: 26-27). Furthermore, when God saw his creation, he pronounced it “good”
six times, and after creating humankind, he pronounced them “very good!” (Gen.
1: 31).
“The image of God is at the core of our being,” writes
Newell. “. . . it is at the beginning of
who we are,” p. 3. Some writers call being created in God’s image “original
blessing” as opposed to “original sin.” This is not to deny the presence of
evil and sin. It didn’t take long till Adam and Eve rebelled and tainted their
God-likeness with disobedience. However, this does not make their origin—their
beginning—evil. They were created good. It was their rebellion that caused evil
and sin.
Because of the doctrine of original sin, “We have tended to
define ourselves and one another in terms of the blight, in terms of sin or
evil, in terms of the failings or illnesses of our lives,” writes Newell. This is certainly how my upbringing, both
church and family, defined me. Rather, according to Newell, we should be “seeing
what is deeper still, the beauty of the image of God at the core of our being.”
How different would my childhood have been, had I been
affirmed as essentially good, rather than essentially bad? What if my church
had declared my original blessing instead of my original sin? I can only
imagine that I would have experienced a genuine love; a love that would not
have been based on intimidation and fear, but instead based on the beauty of our
mutual God-likeness. A love that would probably kept me from rebelling as much
as I did.
Affirming our original blessing instead of our original sin
does not mean that we do not need grace and repentance when we rebel. “Instead
of grace being viewed as opposed to our essential nature or as somehow saving
us from ourselves [our original sin], [. . .] grace [is] viewed as flowing […]
from God,” writes Newell. “Grace is given, not to lead us into another identity
but to reconnect us to the beauty of our deepest identity [image of God,
original blessing].”







