Lead Paper: The Power of Passion and the Divine by Merissa Ward

In classical Christian theology, humans exist in a fallen state. Because of this fallen state, humans are predisposed to sin. It is human nature to choose the “wrong” thing. When humans sin, or break God’s law, we deserve our just punishment. Paul describes the dominant Christian theology of sin when he says, “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” and “the wages of sin is death” ( Romans 3:23 and Romans 6:23). Wendy Farley, in chapters four and five of The Wounding and Healing of Desire gives an alternative to the traditional Christian idea of sin. For Farley, sin is not the inevitable human condition. Rather, humans have paradoxical natures that exist within. Humans can either succumb to the destructive power of passions or realize their Divine Eros – both reside in the human nature. It is my contention that Farley’s alternative to sin, the realization of the Divine Eros within every human, is life giving, realistic, and an affirmation of the great potential of humanity.
All humans have desire. In chapter four Farley presents the idea that in all sentient or “feeling” human beings there exists a desire to “seek what it wants and avoid what is harmful” (55). Desire is not a depravation of humanity, but something that simply exist within our natural being. Human desire becomes a problem when it turns into egocentrism. Out of this intense focus of the self, passions emerge. She explains the passions of terror, rage, and addiction. They are not the only passions known to humankind, but ones that “help interpret distortions common to the human spirit” (55). Farley interestingly notes that these passions come from inflation, as well as deflation of the ego. Farley’s explanation of terror, rage, and addiction show the fragility of human nature. We can easily be seduced by the destructive powers of passions. The fact that this is true is not to say that humans are predisposed to the “bad” part of desire; rather, there should be an awareness of this fact and a struggle to realize the Divine Eros already present within us.
Humans walk a fine line between spiritual power, or Divine Eros, and the power of passion. Chapter five helps us understand this internal conflict “between a desire for good things and the attractiveness of harmful things” by examining temptation (72).Farley suggests that temptation is more complex than we might have originally thought. From the perspective of the classical idea of sin, temptation is a struggle against the “wrong” decision. But in the context of Farley’s view of the Divine Eros present in human nature, temptation is the “entanglement with anything that subdues, chokes, or distorts out holy desire” (72). Farley’s definition of temptation points to a reality that classical views of sin sometimes ignore: humans don’t usually consent to obvious evil, but we often consent to the “evil” concealed in the desire to accomplish good. Farley makes us aware that doing good just for the sake of doing good is not helpful in realizing our spiritual power. In fact, arbitrary goodness suppresses our better, spiritual self.
It is interesting that Farley points out the fact that we can be tempted by what we usually consider virtues: goodness, morality, self – sacrifice, and love. I think this is one of her most powerful points because it makes us aware of the complexity that is the human nature. We can neither say that humans are essentially bad nor good in this context. Farley says of goodness, “when we are self – consciously devoted to something good, we can fail to discern ways these good things themselves can become traps” (78). Sometimes I believe that my refusal to draw attention to myself is humility and my natural tendency to put others before myself is self – sacrifice. I believe that I am being good because I have chosen to be humble and self – sacrificing, but sometimes these good qualities hide the fear that I am not good enough. Farley brings out the intense contradictions that reside in human nature and how we often, subvert our better selves under what we believe to be good.
In my opinion, the alternative Farley gives to the orthodox conception of sin is an improvement. Farley does not suggest that sin is inevitable for us. She acknowledges the fact that we have a desire to want things and avoid things harmful to us: this desire is natural and not good or bad in and of itself. It just is. We struggle between the seducing powers of passion and the divine power that our desire elicits. Both exist simultaneously within us. Temptation helps us see that our nature is contradictory. We want what is good, but sometimes we don’t. “Desires to do good, deceptions, craving for relief, consent to the hardship of others, are all mixed up in us all the time” (93). Farley’s recognition of our contradictory nature, not depraved nature, is a more realistic view of the human experience – at least in my own experience. Farley’s realization of the divine in all of us gives us life instead of guilt. Most importantly, it gives us hope that we are not destined to a life of sin, but able to realize our full human potential.