The liberal tends to hold that once we’re allowed to be free, our better natures will flourish; the conservative believes that only by the strict application of order and discipline can anything morally valuable be squeezed out of our selfish, indolent make-up. Christianity is both a great deal more pessimistic than the liberal and considerably more optimistic than the conservative. The doctrine of the Fall, which has nothing to do with a divinely prohibited apple, suggests that we’re in a sorry mess, as a quick glance around the globe might confirm; but the Christian Gospel also holds that we have a capacity for self-transformation, and that if only we can let go of the present there’s a glorious future in store for us. It isn’t, however, attainable without passing through loss, deprivation, suffering and death, if only in symbolic terms.
What Eagleton defines as Christianity is in fact the opposite of Christianity. If we have “a capacity for self-transformation,” then we have no need for a Christ, and are culpable before God for any failure to transform ourselves. What Eagleton calls the Gospel (good news) would if true be very bad news indeed. Also: Jesus didn’t pass through suffering and death “in symbolic terms,” nor did and do the martyrs.
This is not to say that the unremittingly bleak view of human nature seen in Lord of the Flies, which is the subject of Eagleton’s post, is correct. But that’s a subject for another post.