Original Sin, Original Blessing—or Both?

I remember being struck as a young person by the idea of original sin. It carried so much weight: the thought that from the very beginning we were marked by something broken or fallen. Later, I discovered theologian Matthew Fox’s writings on original blessing, which of course sounded far more uplifting. Who wouldn’t rather start from blessing than from sin?

And yet, in my gut, I’ve always felt a resistance to simply discarding concepts that have stood the test of time. That doesn’t mean I accept them wholesale—far from it. In fact, the doctrine of original sin has arguably done more harm than good, especially when wielded as a weapon of guilt and shame. Still, I think it’s a mistake to throw it out entirely without looking deeper.

If you trace back the original meaning of the word sin, you find something closer to “error” or “missing the mark.” Not a permanent stain. Not a curse. Not eternal damnation. Just a mistake—a deviation that can be corrected.

And when I look at humanity, the “original error” seems obvious: the deep-seated belief that we are separate from God, separate from one another, and somehow our own creators. That illusion of separation is the root of so much suffering.

But here’s the paradox: even while we wander in that error, we have never lost our original blessing. Our true nature is oneness with God. That union is unbroken, no matter how lost we feel.

Seen together, these two ideas—original error and original blessing—form a beautiful whole. We can acknowledge the mistake without condemnation, and we can rest in the blessing that has been ours from the very beginning.