This was a sermon given some time ago at Church of the Morningstar, by Frater Babalon.

Today I want to speak of the sin of Cain, and the sin of Abel, which is not to say that our church supports the concept of sin but I am unsure of what else one might call these acts of moral wrong.  One normally considers this story through the lens of Christianity, of the appropriateness of Abel’s gift, of Cain’s jealousy, and his murder of his innocent younger brother, but that is not how it looks from our side.

In my view, the first sin was that of god, first in demanding offerings he did not need from those he had forced to toil, and then in favoring one brother over the other without reason.

The next was that of Abel, who accepted the judgement of god, accepted god’s favor and believed him correct in judging his brother.  One who accepts the favors of the powerful at the expense of their comrades is undoubtedly a traitor and worthy of censure.

And finally, there is the sin of Cain.  Which is not in his violent reaction to injustice but in turning that response not on the source of this injustice but on his brother, who despite his failure to show solidarity with Cain as he should have done, did not deserve to die for his betrayal.  God was the enemy, the source of injustice and Cain chose to blame not him, but his brother, the easier, weaker target. Neither brother showed the love and solidarity we owe our comrades, we must not accept the favor of the powerful in exchange for betraying our fellows.

It is not simply out of moral obligation that we show solidarity.  Solidarity is the only practical response to living in a world where “there but for the grace of god go I” is a coherent phrase.  God’s grace is fickle, untrustworthy and without justice or reason.  It could be removed at any moment for any reason or even no reason, even if we are Abel today, we may be Cain tomorrow and if we betray our equals for the fickle favor of those who have power over us we throw away our best hope for justice and security.

When we allow absolute power over us, no matter how benevolent that power may seem, no matter how “light its yoke” we grant it the right to tyrannize us.  When we agree to have no say in the arrangement of things, we offer our necks and the necks of all others for nothing.  When we trust in the “good king”, the “just god” we cast off moral responsibility in favor of obedience.

Would both brothers not have been better off if neither had had to give up a portion of the hard won fruits of their labors?  Without god to throw the apple of discord to disrupt brotherly love, Abel would not have been murdered, and Cain would not have committed murder.  Without god the fruits of the flock and the fruits of the field could have been shared between them with their legacy being a banquet rather than a crime.

We too are worse off even when we play Abel and are not subject to the murderous wrath of Cain.  We are granted crumbs that are denied our fellows to keep us divided when our strength combined would win us the whole pie.  When we accept those crumbs, or the pat on the head of those above us, thinking that in winning the approval of those in power we may climb towards a status akin to theirs, we are fools.  The powerful will use you to reinforce their power and give you as little as they can for the trouble.

When we are Cain we take out our justifiable anger on the petty tyrants who are within easier reach and leave those who have sanctioned their rule untouched to replace them.  The mechanism of domination still functions, we have changed nothing but the faces of the bureaucrats.

It is also interesting to me that god accepts the offering of Abel, and not that of Cain.  He chooses the offering that required the shedding of blood, and when after Cain has killed Abel God does not say that he has cursed Cain, but simply that he is cursed and the ground where the blood was spilled was cursed.  It is then Cain’s assumption that the curse is god’s doing, rather than a natural occurrence and when Cain bemoans his fate and fears he shall be killed, god offers him his protection.  It is almost as if, in killing his brother because he envied his brother’s favor in the eyes of god, Cain had pleased god.

Is it really so far fetched that a god who abhors suicide but relishes martyrdom for his sake would want to be loved more than life itself?

In contrast we see Adam’s love for Eve.  He had been told the consequences of eating from the tree directly from god himself, as opposed to Eve who had the story only second hand.  He knew unquestionably he would be punished, and knew that he was free to decline the apple, leave Eve to god’s punishment and receive a new bride, instead he chose Eve.  He chose the love of his partner over his love of god.  His love for her and his curiosity were greater than the comforts of the garden and the grace of god.

I hope we can be Eves and Adams, regardless of our genders, and not Cains or Abels.