Okay, so let’s now come at the parable from another direction. Within Catholic or Calvinistic theology, there is the idea of original sin, or as it’s sometimes termed, ancestral sin. The idea being, as you all know, that since the event known as The Fall, all human beings born are tarnished with the brush of original sin, and thus all are guilty on account of Adam’s sin in Eden. And the liberal Christian, or the Unitarian Christian response has generally been to find that idea as somewhat reprehensible, because that doctrine would obviously suggest that newly born children, whom we tend to think of as intrinsically innocent, are condemned before they’ve done anything wrong. And so, liberals reject that doctrine, wanting to put a strong emphasis on individual agency. Rejecting the doctrine of original sin, however, this not wholly a move made by liberal Christians; the Eastern Orthodox Church rejects the doctrine of original sin, along with the Armenian branch of the reformation movement also rejecting the doctrine. The Eastern Orthodox position would be that since the fall, since Adam took a bite of that forbidden fruit, all of humanity has been intrinsically corrupted, but is not intrinsically guilty, which is a significant difference which I find far more palatable.

Obviously, all religious language is by nature metaphorical, as far as I’m concerned, so to say I find the Eastern Orthodox position more palatable, is not to say that it’s more true, because, as I’ve said many times before, there is not a truth beyond the veil that we’re trying to get at. All truth is located within the depths of the self. But speaking with the aid of that Christian cosmology, us having intrinsic human corruption makes much more sense to me (than the doctrine of original sin, the doctrine of intrinsic guilt). How does the story go? Adam and Eve were in Eden, and there they enjoyed a direct, unmediated relationship with the divine, and then that Edenic set of affairs was broken. And this can be linked with primitive humanity’s unadulterated relationship with nature. Once, mythologically, there was a perfect unity between humanity and God, between humanity and nature, but no more. It's been severed. Now we grow up in a world in which we are by default alienated, alone, and disconnected from our spiritual home and nature. Now, I don’t tend to use the language of sin much; it feels like an archaic way of framing things. Especially, as to talk about sin tends to rely upon the ‘I - thou’ orientation. Me and the ‘thou’ which I’m sinning against. And I don’t tend to think in those terms. But we can proceed hypothetically.

What is Sin? You could think of sin as breaking God’s commandments – thou shall not, whatever, steal, kill, etc., and if you do, that’s sin. That’s one way of looking at it. Another way to think of sin is in relational terms – when you’re not in relationship with God, not only do you break his precepts, you also don’t act in the world as he would ideally have you act, which is what is often termed ‘sins of omission’. Sins of omission have to do with relationship. If you’re not in tune, in harmony, in possession of a knowledge of the divine, then how could you possibly know what acting in the world in accord with God would look like? You wouldn’t be able to discern your divinely appointed destiny, calling or purpose. And so, in this sense, we are all in a state of sin. We are all sinners, the sinners which Jesus refers to in his parable, because we are all alienated from the divine. We have all lost that conscious awareness of our place in the universe. Given this then, it’s quite strange that Jesus frames the parable in the way that he does, making the 99, the vast majority, the ones who are seemingly in right relationship, comfortable, and found, and therefore (we presume) where they should be. Being looked over by the shepherd – the symbol of God.

Perhaps this would suggest our reading of the parable is completely wrong. Instead of suggesting that the 99, the vast majority, are where they should be, perhaps it would be better to say the 99, the vast majority, are where they think they should be. That seems much closer to the mark. The vast majority of us self-legitimise our place within the universe, through the stories we tell ourselves. Even if we have a role, or hold a position that society looks down on, or demonises in some way, we construct a narrative which makes us inhabiting it acceptable. We construct the narratives we hold out of necessity; we’re thrust into the world, we find ourselves playing a particular role, and we construct our narratives to legitimise what we do after the fact. The vast majority see ourselves as agents of good, and as such are a part of the 99. We are in the cosy part of the flock. If we are to go on a spiritual journey then, to get beyond the mere appearance of things, to seek after our true self, to seek after a truer purpose, a realised appreciation of our place within the universe, that necessitates leaving the flock and venturing out into the wilderness. Or to use Christological symbolism, it requires dying to the flock, to the old way, and being reborn, resurrected anew. And why is that? Because merely perceiving yourself as good, or doing what is right, is an illusion, it’s like what the Pharisees do. If you just enforce right action through close observance of the law, or strict adherence to social convention, then you can never really discover who you are. A true appreciation of the self requires integrating the good and the dark aspects of ourselves. And this is where I can draw upon some Jungian psychology.