The search for Adam and Eve

[David Troxler]

Just read the latest Christianity Today article cover story.

Here it is:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/...ricaladam.html

I welcome what Karl Giberson and others in the Church of the Nazarene are doing in the area of life science. When we examine this however, we are in somewhat new territory.

I am interested in helping people make the theological adjustments that will allow for science to be incorporated into one's life. We have all seen the detractors. I had one person in church bring me an article taken from a spurious website that castigates those Nazarenes who are thinking and researching and therefore changing the denomination. Without trying to resurrect the discussion about those naysayers, how do we aid the conversation for people who are truly seeking to make peace with scientific discovery.

Appreciate your thoughts.

[Ryan Scott]

I still think its important we focus people on what scripture intends to teach us with these stories (which has little, if anything, to do with historical details).

Archaeology tells us there's no evidence for anything in the biblical timeline before the Sinai wanderings. I don't have to take a position on that either way because my faith rests on the tradition from which those stories come and what the community uses those stories to say about God.

If they're real people, then they become real examples. If they're not real people, they become stories used to illustrate the timelessness of God who acts in the same ways for real people today.

[Roland Hearn]

I've just finished reading Karl Gibberson's "Saving Darwin." I've got to say I was disappointed. I have in the last five years completed the leap from old earth creationist to uncertain evolutionist. I read Gibberson's book hoping to find a thorough articulation of the issues, instead I found a history lesson on the battle of creation vs evolution. Some of which was interesting but the parts I found really helpful could be reduced to 20 pages. His comments on the fall and the reduction of the gap between humanity and primates was entirely unsatisfying and left me without good responses to the questions I know people can raise. For my part I don't need a literal Adam and Eve but I do need a "fall" to explain the distance between a God of love and a sinful humanity. Gibberson concedes the universality of sin but says it is simply the evolved mechanism of selfishness. That doesn't work for me because as he admits it exists alongside altruism and the desire to love and do good. The benefits of the later far outweigh the former and every time we act in love we experience a rush of self worth that is in direct contrast to the shame we experience when we act in selfishness. By Gibberson's theory give us another 100,000 years and we can evolve into glory and grace. The only reason that could not happen is an arbitrary divine fiat that we shall always be separated -this is not an act of love. Why can't God simply decree that we are not responsible for the state with which we are born, move into our lives at birth, and act proactively to aid our choices for the holy. Only then if we sin from that level playing field would it be just to judge. According to Gibberson's view we have evolved into a state of morality and choose selfishness over love for its benefits for natural selection and we will always act sinfully because of that condition. That doesn't seem fair or logical to me, particularly when there are species benefits to love that far outweigh the seeming benefits of selfishness. Why he rejects a moment of encounter between God and a newly evolved humanity seems beyond me. He mixes the figurative story with the literal one in order to reject that possibility -why? From reading the article it seems they would suggest that about 10,000 humans were the original humanity that were met by God and given a moral and spiritual nature. I just need to see more to work out how 10,000 people combine to create universal sinfulness. I've got to say, recognising the process I have been through I willingly concede that science and not literal biblical readings have the better chance of answering that question but I think it is a legitimate question. At the end of the day we need a reason to need a saviour today. I guess I can live without the story to back it up but I know there are lots of people that can't.

I think this is a worthy thread and good point to discuss -it directly affects the way we will be the church going forward. I hope it doesn't get hijacked by other concerns -ie scriptural inerrancy.

[Dennis M. Scott]

Well, the subject is widely being hijacked, so it's likely it will be here, too. When all you have in your hand is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. This will continue to be a rallying point for every theologian - and those who'd like to be - with some unrelated ax to grind. When theologian types move into areas of non-expertise, and insist that their perspective is the only correct one, the discussion goes nowhere. Unfortunately, the same thing can be said for scientists who bring to the table good work and then begin making theological pronouncements.

I was grateful for the link to this article, in part because former ENC professor Karl Giberson was early brought into the discussion. Giberson is a person of strong faith, and I am grateful for his involvement in the discussion. He is not "the enemy."

This discovery/theory seems to complicate things. If one's position on scripture requires you to still insist the world is flat, these developments won't make your defense any easier. It might, however, encourage us to revisit our perspective on Paul, sin and redemption, and even the nature and character of God. There are some for whom that is going to be frightening, and some who simply are not prepared for the experience. That doesn't mean they aren't still my brothers and sisters.

For some reason, I can envision similar conversations centuries ago when those heretics began to toy with the idea that the earth might not be the center of the universe. Are you kidding me? That will mess up your theology, and probably even your psychology.

[Roland Hearn]

Thanks Dennis, you are right - Karl Gibberson is not the enemy. I mentioned his name because I've just read his book, he is included in the article and I didn't find from him the held I needed just more questions. I personally don't think we have anything to fear in science. I think as the picture grows clearer it will be ever more apparent what a marvelous, gracious God we serve. I simply love the idea of God building into the very nature of, well, nature a mechanism, for want of much more accurate term, that pushes toward Him. I don't need Him hovering over every moment of creation making sure nothing goes wrong - although He may have hovered a little from time to time. I do know that when we needed Him he was there and while I was still a sinner He died for me. I'm not sure we need more than that but I think a theology that can grasp and grapple with science is a good thing and in Gibberson, Oord and others I see them at least trying.

[Shea Zellweger]

Archaeology tells us there's no evidence for anything in the biblical timeline before the Sinai wanderings.

Thread hijack in 3... 2...
Really? I thought we had some decent evidence for the mesopotamian flood. I also thought there was no conclusive evidence regarding the supposed Sinai wanderings...

I agree with the rest of Ryan's point though. Rather than talking about how to make the Bible fit with science, or make science fit with the Bible, I'd rather talk about the message of the Bible, which has nothing to do with science, when reading the Bible, and talk about the findings of science, which have nothing to do with the Bible, when studying science.

[Carolyn Franklin]

No, Shea, I really almost hijacked it! I had a very good post to share all about the DNA testing that I have been doing at Family Tree DNA with my brother's Y-DNA, my Mother's mtDNA and with the Family Finder DNA tests and the results that I have been getting back from those tests.

My faith has not dimished in the new awareness of my genetic history. In fact it is an awareness of the awesomeness of God and this wonderful universe that we live in. I don't know how He did it all but He has made a spiritual impact on His creation.

I think the last 20 something years of my reading the theology board here on NazNet has been a great learning experience for me about God and spiritual matters. I'm not a theologian and can not enter into conversation here on an intellectual level with the scholars, but, I can read and I can learn, and my faith is stronger today from the things that I have learned here. I might really have some conflicts between science and my spiritual life had it not been for a foundation that I have gained here.

Dr. Bratcher was one of those who taught me so much by his participation here.

Just one last tidbit of information about my dna testing and results. My paternal Y-dna test result, which my brother, took the test for me since my dad is no longer living, was a big surprise for us. The Dunlaps came from Scotland, but our Haplogroup which is J2a4b goes all the way back to the Northern Middle East. It originated in the Anatolia, the Levant and Northern Mesopotamia areas. We have matches with Sephardi Jews, Ashkenazi Jews, Hebrews and Samaritians.
Can you imagine my first thoughts when I read the results of the test? My first thoughts were, wow, maybe my genetic ancestors were there when Jesus was there or what if the woman at the well that Jesus offered the Living Water to was one of my genetic ancestors!! Oh, well, it was a neat thought to me. How exciting to me to have come from the area where Jesus walked on this earth.

I love science and I love my Lord! They are both enriching my life, however, if I had to take one and leave the other it would have to be my Lord. Can't do without this spiritual relationship and the Living Water that I am blessed to get to partake of.

gc

[Roland Hearn]

Thread hijack in 3... 2...
Really? I thought we had some decent evidence for the mesopotamian flood. I also thought there was no conclusive evidence regarding the supposed Sinai wanderings...

I agree with the rest of Ryan's point though. Rather than talking about how to make the Bible fit with science, or make science fit with the Bible, I'd rather talk about the message of the Bible, which has nothing to do with science, when reading the Bible, and talk about the findings of science, which have nothing to do with the Bible, when studying science.

That is true for the most part, and certainly true of the message, but ultimately there is no value in a faith that can't mesh with science. To the extent that what we believe can't reflect observed truth then what we believe must change. As long is faith is more than observed truth we are ok but once they are at odds there is work that needs to be done. Historically the church has been resistant to truth as revealed by science. That doesn't work well. I am still comfortable with the idea that God's word isn't resistant to truth.

[Benjamin Burch]

Thread hijack in 3... 2...
Really? I thought we had some decent evidence for the mesopotamian flood.

For a Mesopotamian flood? Yes.

For Noah's flood? Not sure we could say it's the same thing.

I also thought there was no conclusive evidence regarding the supposed Sinai wanderings...

Yea... as far as I know, all signs point to no Sinai wondering, no Exodus...

[Shea Zellweger]

That is true for the most part, and certainly true of the message, but ultimately there is no value in a faith that can't mesh with science. To the extent that what we believe can't reflect observed truth then what we believe must change. As long is faith is more than observed truth we are ok but once they are at odds there is work that needs to be done. Historically the church has been resistant to truth as revealed by science. That doesn't work well. I am still comfortable with the idea that God's word isn't resistant to truth.

Sure. What I'm saying is that the best thing we can do for people is to teach them that the Bible isn't science, and science is the Bible, and allow each of those to be themselves. That would include accepting scientific findings.

For a Mesopotamian flood? Yes.

For Noah's flood? Not sure we could say it's the same thing.

I think we can. The Noah narrative is most likely based on the same flood that the other flood epics were, so that flood by default becomes "Noah's flood."

[Dennis M. Scott]

I am at least a little bit weird, but somehow it would strengthen my faith in the creator were we to learn that when he made man in His Own image, He did it many places, times and cases, rather than what I have understood as a one time, one case, one pile of dust only. Such a "discovery" would certainly not lesson my appreciation for the word of God.

[Paul DeBaufer]

I am at least a little bit weird, but somehow it would strengthen my faith in the creator were we to learn that when he made man in His Own image, He did it many places, times and cases, rather than what I have understood as a one time, one case, one pile of dust only. Such a "discovery" would certainly not lesson my appreciation for the word of God.

Certainly would deal with some of the problems in the narrative, e.g., Cain's wife. I think that it is implied that there are other people in the world.

[Doug Kitchen]

Just read the latest Christianity Today article cover story.

Here it is:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/...ricaladam.html

I welcome what Karl Giberson and others in the Church of the Nazarene are doing in the area of life science. When we examine this however, we are in somewhat new territory.

I am interested in helping people make the theological adjustments that will allow for science to be incorporated into one's life. We have all seen the detractors. I had one person in church bring me an article taken from a spurious website that castigates those Nazarenes who are thinking and researching and therefore changing the denomination. Without trying to resurrect the discussion about those naysayers, how do we aid the conversation for people who are truly seeking to make peace with scientific discovery.

Appreciate your thoughts.

Dave,

I think your question has perhaps two answers - 1. What specific arguments for/against a one-man-adam are there? and 2. (sociologically speaking) how do we integrate scientists into the church?

1. I'm not a biblical languages scholar but from what I have read it is uncertain how to translate the hebrew word man that is used in Gen.

The interpretation of the word adam (and I think adamah) is pretty tricky. adamah means ground or dirt and adam can be translated a man or mankind. The point of the poetry in Gen. 1 is that "man" (probably mankind) was created from the dirt. The life came from stuff. This is also scientifically true (our carbon atoms are the same as those in the ground) but it took until the 1700 and 1800s to undo the thought that life was made from a different material than ordinary matter. The church (and philosophers) could not conceive of life not being a special and separate thing and therefore twisted scripture.

The other important issue is one of contemporaneous witnesses - when was the story of creation actually written down. How many times was it passed down orally before it was written? Did anyone have a scientific or historical recording of how many people existed at the various times in Gen.? Since I don't ever read in scripture that it was dictated by someone who was there with a complete definition of terms (like how long is a year?), I think the gist of the story of mankind is presented with a particular focus on the nation of Israel. Gen 1 is a particularly poetic view of origins that distinguishes itself from other recordings of creation and even today distinguishes itself from a purely rational and observation-based view of evolution. The trustworthiness of Gen stands in spite of its lack of scientific and historic detail.

Paul's statement that "since sin came through one man, it was necessary that sin be eliminated by one man" (lots of license with this paraphrase since I don't have time to look it up ) does not require a literal one-man-adam. I can easily understand that in a figurative, yet very real way. I have never met anyone who does not have "adam's" sin problem. In that sense, we are all united as one - we are all sinners.

2. We scientists are not trying to make peace with scientific discovery. For a scientist who is a christian, every aspect of our lives needs to be truthful. When we record an observation, we do not have the luxury to "disbelieve" it. When we read a paper from another scientist that records a discovery that seems hard to believe, we look for additional confirmation or solid evidence to the contrary.

Many of us are looking for peaceful coexistence with our church who often labels us as heretics or tools of the devil or any number of additional derogatory phrases. If you read the christianity today article you will notice how many professors are losing their jobs for helping students and the church to understand and integrate scientific facts and theories with the equally important task of worshiping God and living a holy life. I have been a Nazarene since birth, but have often heard the phrase "those scientists" and then some derogatory and inflammatory comment follows. I simply will not debate these statements with people who start out on the attack. Underlying these statements I have found that these individuals are expressing habitual anger. They say things like this about scientists, politicians, friends, family,... you name it. These folk need to be confronted with their sin.

There are others who are asking honest questions. So I would ask that if you find someone who is honestly struggling with science and faith to ask them to come to peace with scientists not with science - to become reconciled with their fellow believers. (This could also be said to the scientists as well). No one's mind needs to be changed. The right ideas do not make a person a part of the Kingdom, however, unrighteous behavior prevents a person from continuing as a part of the kingdom. The ways in which we argue and debate are more important than the outcome.

I went to ENC 30 years ago. The science departments were excellent training grounds for scientists. The professors were also excellent examples of holy, love-filled, Spirit-filled living. I am sure the same could be said about all of our colleges then and now. Large proportions of our science graduates stay in the church long after graduation. From what I can tell, each of our colleges is attempting to prepare students for the reality of the scientific endeavor and a faithful christian walk. The books and discussions from Giberson, Collins, et al are having a positive result for those of us in the scientific community. Students are better prepared to live in a world where they can have their science and their faith and not just one or the other.

Doug

[Ryan Scott]

His comments on the fall and the reduction of the gap between humanity and primates was entirely unsatisfying and left me without good responses to the questions I know people can raise. For my part I don't need a literal Adam and Eve but I do need a "fall" to explain the distance between a God of love and a sinful humanity.

I actually have a pretty solid confidence in this one.

I believe God created humanity to be in relationship to God and to find the fulfillment we seek only in God. Separation comes as a result of us trying to find fulfillment on our own (whether in selfishness or altruism). When we take on the individual task of self-fulfillment we discover we're more empty than we were before. When we (illogically) give up our selfish desires for self-less love, we find fulfillment in the God of self-less love and the relationship for which we were created.

Altruism is really an attempt at self-fulfillment - an added element of our selfish desire to feel good. So it's not a matter of selfishness vs altruism, but the tension between our desire for pleasure and our ability to give up that desire for God.

This actually makes sense through theistic evolution. Evolution works, essentially, on the idea of self-preservation - selfishness. When humanity evolved (or when God provided) a brain capable of independent thought, we logically chose selfishness (it had worked for millions of years and it makes logical sense). It is only as we're able to step outside of our evolved instincts and experience God that we can move beyond our instincts with the help of God's Spirit in our lives.

At least, it makes sense to me.

[Ryan Scott]

Thread hijack in 3... 2...
Really? I thought we had some decent evidence for the mesopotamian flood. I also thought there was no conclusive evidence regarding the supposed Sinai wanderings...

I agree with the rest of Ryan's point though. Rather than talking about how to make the Bible fit with science, or make science fit with the Bible, I'd rather talk about the message of the Bible, which has nothing to do with science, when reading the Bible, and talk about the findings of science, which have nothing to do with the Bible, when studying science.

Certainly there is some evidence of a flood, but its a stretch to make it anything like flood in scripture - certainly the Noah story arose from a real flood.

As for the wanderings - the specifics are not in evidence, but by the time the wanderings would have taken place, there is a sense of people migrating from Egypt. Israel existed archaeologically at that point.

Israel could have been around longer without evidence yet being uncovered - we just don't have the scientific evidence to make that claim yet.

[Shea Zellweger]

Dave,

I think your question has perhaps two answers - 1. What specific arguments for/against a one-man-adam are there? and 2. (sociologically speaking) how do we integrate scientists into the church?

1. I'm not a biblical languages scholar but from what I have read it is uncertain how to translate the hebrew word man that is used in Gen.

The interpretation of the word adam (and I think adamah) is pretty tricky. adamah means ground or dirt and adam can be translated a man or mankind. The point of the poetry in Gen. 1 is that "man" (probably mankind) was created from the dirt.

Yes and no... Genesis 1 leave both possibilities open, but when we're talking about Adam and Eve, we're into Genesis 2ff, in which I'm pretty sure the story is correctly understood to be talking about one man. Adam can be used in all of the ways that "man" has been historically used in English, including as a collective singular, but the narrative does not lend itself well to that understanding. It is clear from the outset of the garden narrative that a single man and his wife are being discussed- especially since "his wife" is never used as a collective singular to refer to womankind. Understanding source criticism allows us to recognize that the Gen 1 story could be referring to a broader group than the Gen 2 story, and the use of the singular noun "adam" with the plural pronoun "them" certainly bolsters that idea. But once you get into the Adam and Eve narrative, it's definitely about one man and his wife.

Gen 1 is a particularly poetic view of origins that distinguishes itself from other recordings of creation and even today distinguishes itself from a purely rational and observation-based view of evolution. The trustworthiness of Gen stands in spite of its lack of scientific and historic detail.

Well said.

[Benjamin Burch]

Sure. What I'm saying is that the best thing we can do for people is to teach them that the Bible isn't science, and science is the Bible, and allow each of those to be themselves. That would include accepting scientific findings.


I think we can. The Noah narrative is most likely based on the same flood that the other flood epics were, so that flood by default becomes "Noah's flood."

To me, that's a stretch.

[Hans Deventer]

To me, that's a stretch.

From "not sure" to "a stretch", something has happened. Can you share?

[David Troxler]

Dave,

I think your question has perhaps two answers - 1. What specific arguments for/against a one-man-adam are there? and 2. (sociologically speaking) how do we integrate scientists into the church?

1. I'm not a biblical languages scholar but from what I have read it is uncertain how to translate the hebrew word man that is used in Gen.

The interpretation of the word adam (and I think adamah) is pretty tricky. adamah means ground or dirt and adam can be translated a man or mankind. The point of the poetry in Gen. 1 is that "man" (probably mankind) was created from the dirt. The life came from stuff. This is also scientifically true (our carbon atoms are the same as those in the ground) but it took until the 1700 and 1800s to undo the thought that life was made from a different material than ordinary matter. The church (and philosophers) could not conceive of life not being a special and separate thing and therefore twisted scripture.

The other important issue is one of contemporaneous witnesses - when was the story of creation actually written down. How many times was it passed down orally before it was written? Did anyone have a scientific or historical recording of how many people existed at the various times in Gen.? Since I don't ever read in scripture that it was dictated by someone who was there with a complete definition of terms (like how long is a year?), I think the gist of the story of mankind is presented with a particular focus on the nation of Israel. Gen 1 is a particularly poetic view of origins that distinguishes itself from other recordings of creation and even today distinguishes itself from a purely rational and observation-based view of evolution. The trustworthiness of Gen stands in spite of its lack of scientific and historic detail.

Paul's statement that "since sin came through one man, it was necessary that sin be eliminated by one man" (lots of license with this paraphrase since I don't have time to look it up ) does not require a literal one-man-adam. I can easily understand that in a figurative, yet very real way. I have never met anyone who does not have "adam's" sin problem. In that sense, we are all united as one - we are all sinners.

2. We scientists are not trying to make peace with scientific discovery. For a scientist who is a christian, every aspect of our lives needs to be truthful. When we record an observation, we do not have the luxury to "disbelieve" it. When we read a paper from another scientist that records a discovery that seems hard to believe, we look for additional confirmation or solid evidence to the contrary.

Many of us are looking for peaceful coexistence with our church who often labels us as heretics or tools of the devil or any number of additional derogatory phrases. If you read the christianity today article you will notice how many professors are losing their jobs for helping students and the church to understand and integrate scientific facts and theories with the equally important task of worshiping God and living a holy life. I have been a Nazarene since birth, but have often heard the phrase "those scientists" and then some derogatory and inflammatory comment follows. I simply will not debate these statements with people who start out on the attack. Underlying these statements I have found that these individuals are expressing habitual anger. They say things like this about scientists, politicians, friends, family,... you name it. These folk need to be confronted with their sin.

There are others who are asking honest questions. So I would ask that if you find someone who is honestly struggling with science and faith to ask them to come to peace with scientists not with science - to become reconciled with their fellow believers. (This could also be said to the scientists as well). No one's mind needs to be changed. The right ideas do not make a person a part of the Kingdom, however, unrighteous behavior prevents a person from continuing as a part of the kingdom. The ways in which we argue and debate are more important than the outcome.

I went to ENC 30 years ago. The science departments were excellent training grounds for scientists. The professors were also excellent examples of holy, love-filled, Spirit-filled living. I am sure the same could be said about all of our colleges then and now. Large proportions of our science graduates stay in the church long after graduation. From what I can tell, each of our colleges is attempting to prepare students for the reality of the scientific endeavor and a faithful christian walk. The books and discussions from Giberson, Collins, et al are having a positive result for those of us in the scientific community. Students are better prepared to live in a world where they can have their science and their faith and not just one or the other.

Doug

Doug,
First, thank you for your very thorough and thoughtful response.

My undergrad degree was in Psychology and I heard the same sort of derogatory responses. There were a number of people who could not fathom Christians having anything to do with Freud's psychoanalysis or just about any other prominent psychologist/psychiatrist. I did find that my studies in that broad field served me well in preparation for pastoral ministry.

It has always amazed me when people reject insight to truth because of the packaging it comes in.

As I said in my initial post, my hope is to help individuals incorporate scientific discovery into their lives and not see it as a threat to faith. Bertha Munro's quip about there being no conflict between the best in education and the best in Christian faith needs to resurrected.

One of my concerns perhaps has a bit of pride attached to it. I am proud of our Nazarene scientists who are making a difference in the world. It distresses me when they are being shunned in the Christian realm (especially when it comes from within our own tribe).

As for 'Adam' being one man or representative of all humankind or even both, my hope is that people who desire to grow spiritually will leave room for these interpretations. To do so, means letting go of literalism. I think of Paul in Phil. 3 who had to let go of his faultless legalism in order to be used of Christ. I just hope I can let go of my preconceived ideas in order to engage with the world and at the same time be an example for Christ.

Peace,
dave t

[Benjamin Burch]

As for the wanderings - the specifics are not in evidence, but by the time the wanderings would have taken place, there is a sense of people migrating from Egypt. Israel existed archaeologically at that point.

Israel could have been around longer without evidence yet being uncovered - we just don't have the scientific evidence to make that claim yet.

I'm curious as to this. As far as I know, there is no evidence of any such migration at all. The Migration seems to have been from Canaan, not from Egypt.

[Roland Hearn]

I actually have a pretty solid confidence in this one.

I believe God created humanity to be in relationship to God and to find the fulfillment we seek only in God. Separation comes as a result of us trying to find fulfillment on our own (whether in selfishness or altruism). When we take on the individual task of self-fulfillment we discover we're more empty than we were before. When we (illogically) give up our selfish desires for self-less love, we find fulfillment in the God of self-less love and the relationship for which we were created.

Altruism is really an attempt at self-fulfillment - an added element of our selfish desire to feel good. So it's not a matter of selfishness vs altruism, but the tension between our desire for pleasure and our ability to give up that desire for God.

This actually makes sense through theistic evolution. Evolution works, essentially, on the idea of self-preservation - selfishness. When humanity evolved (or when God provided) a brain capable of independent thought, we logically chose selfishness (it had worked for millions of years and it makes logical sense). It is only as we're able to step outside of our evolved instincts and experience God that we can move beyond our instincts with the help of God's Spirit in our lives.

At least, it makes sense to me.

That's not bad Ryan and I can take most of it. The problem is altruism is not just a selfish selflessness and here we go back to the philosophical debate about can anything that feels good to me actually be selfless? Let's take the word altruism away for a moment because I don't think there is a more loaded word in the "love" debate. I think that love is a reflection of God. God is love. It is love in its broadest, most compelling, all embracing sense that drives creation forward. I can accept that humanity evolved into both selfishness as a survival instinct and love as a reflection of the eternal presence of God. I think that love responded to God. However without some first cause rejection of God how can we consider humanity lost. Of course we can talk about original sin in terms of everyone's individual original sin, and that is what I think we end up with in this debate, but surely given evolution's remarkable capacity for survival there could be one born who would realise the way of love prior to personal rejection. Perhaps we might say that of Jesus but that kind of denigrates the incarnation. I'm just not willing to abandon the observable universality of sin and the scope of redemptive grace that includes perfect love. For me the human heart completely surrendered to the grace of God reflects the lost first condition. It is possible that this all needs to be reworked and people like yourself may very well help me think through it to a more thorough understanding but I'm not there yet.

[Ryan Scott]

That's not bad Ryan and I can take most of it. The problem is altruism is not just a selfish selflessness and here we go back to the philosophical debate about can anything that feels good to me actually be selfless? Let's take the word altruism away for a moment because I don't think there is a more loaded word in the "love" debate. I think that love is a reflection of God. God is love. It is love in its broadest, most compelling, all embracing sense that drives creation forward. I can accept that humanity evolved into both selfishness as a survival instinct and love as a reflection of the eternal presence of God. I think that love responded to God. However without some first cause rejection of God how can we consider humanity lost. Of course we can talk about original sin in terms of everyone's individual original sin, and that is what I think we end up with in this debate, but surely given evolution's remarkable capacity for survival there could be one born who would realise the way of love prior to personal rejection. Perhaps we might say that of Jesus but that kind of denigrates the incarnation. I'm just not willing to abandon the observable universality of sin and the scope of redemptive grace that includes perfect love. For me the human heart completely surrendered to the grace of God reflects the lost first condition. It is possible that this all needs to be reworked and people like yourself may very well help me think through it to a more thorough understanding but I'm not there yet.

First of all, I dislike the word altruism as well - I only included it because it was there in the original post. As far as that goes, I am of the mind that we do no good on our own, but only God acting through us. The old idea that "I do not love my wife, but I love God and out of the overflow of that love, I love my wife." It's not perfect, but it roughly approximates my idea and the differentiation between altruism and love.

Beyond that, I agree about the split. I'm just not sure it wasn't planned. God gave us free will - that is important for relationship. We could not have real relationship with God unless there was a choice - and we could not experience real love without an understanding of its absence.

From the very first selfish act, the first sin, there have been effects. We believe our world is both physical and spiritual, yet when we consider evolution, we think only in terms of physical. I believe, and I think its backed up by theology and tradition that our spirituality has an effect on our physicality. Once the first individual broke relationship with God there were lasting effects - not quite Augustine's "sin in the sperm" idea, but a real brokenness that passed into creation (and not just humanity, but in the entire created order). Over time this sin, compounded with the sins of countless others have recked havoc on the world.

The coming of Jesus marks the beginning of healing and restoration, but just as Christ is redeeming the world, the effects of sin remain and continue to deteriorate. So we do indeed have two opposing forces working against each other. This is also why the social gospel ideal that we can usher in God's kingdom falters - we still need divine intervention to stop the ongoing destruction sin brings on creation. We can be growing in Christ and sowing righteousness in the world, but all our efforts will not, alone, stop the steamroller that sin brought into the world. We need God to act - that is what new creation is all about.

Obviously its a little more complicated than my brief summary here and I've been working on this in my head for quite a while and only recently begun to put in down in words. There's a long way to go.

In short, I began with the idea that the incarnation was planned from the beginning. It wasn't just a remedy for things going awry. I think that's been a confession of the Church, traditionally. If we take that seriously then Christ is the counterpoint to sin. Adam (or whoever first sinned) didn't understand what it meant to be truly human - how humanity was designed to work. That sin had real consequences that Adam could not undo. Christ had to come, living as humans were intended to live - to show how things can be made right.

This post is getting too long, but this is really exciting for me, so I'm glad we've stumbled upon this discussion.

[Roland Hearn]

From the very first selfish act, the first sin, there have been effects. We believe our world is both physical and spiritual, yet when we consider evolution, we think only in terms of physical. I believe, and I think its backed up by theology and tradition that our spirituality has an effect on our physicality. Once the first individual broke relationship with God there were lasting effects - not quite Augustine's "sin in the sperm" idea, but a real brokenness that passed into creation (and not just humanity, but in the entire created order). Over time this sin, compounded with the sins of countless others have recked havoc on the world.

Thanks Ryan, I too think this is really important thing to keep working on. If this is your starting point I don't have anything to question. I believe the first sin happened; Adam is the picture of something that happened deep in antiquity. Man rejected God and God's response was grace. If we evolved into sinful beings then God's grace is in response to what we are as a result of His activity. I just can't abide that. Condemnation for our being is not right. There is no real free will if there is no other option. God becomes almost monstrous if his response is separation for what we could not be otherwise. When God's response is remedying humanities choice, made by default by the first "Adam", then there is real choice and real remedy. Once we move away from an idea of a real choice and move to a group of beings who are struggling to survive and sin is a survival tool I really think we have begun to muddy the water. If the choice is sin or die or sin and die I'm not sure how we can see God as good.
I can live with Adam and Eve being idealised representations of something that really happened beyond the reach of human awareness but I struggle to incorporate a view of sin that is entirely the result of forces bound up in the state of being.

[Ryan Scott]

I think Adam had the choice not to sin the same way Christ had a choice to sin.

[Shea Zellweger]

I think Adam had the choice not to sin the same way Christ had a choice to sin.

I hope you don't mean this in the way I'm understanding it...
Christ had the option to sin, but it was not in his nature to do so. Are you saying that God created Adam with a sinful nature? I don't know that the story supports that idea.

[Roland Hearn]

I think Adam had the choice not to sin the same way Christ had a choice to sin.

I agree completely but I don't actually think that is what we are discussing here.

The problem that I think we are talking about is whether the story of Adam is a mythological representation of an actual choice or one to give reasonableness to the sinfulness of humanity; when in fact sin is an evolutionary process. The former I have no problem with and the reality it is reflecting on would look something like this: humanity comes into being after a long series of evolutionary accidents and arrives on the planet around 100,000 years ago, almost certainly somewhere in central Africa. God responds to what His creation would inevitably produce somewhere in the cosmos for this was the "teleos" of all of creation. He offers that creature a level of free will, consistent with the evolved brain, along with a capacity to love at a transcendent level - that equates to a new spiritual life. The edenic image of walking together in the cool of the evening is a metaphor reflecting on the quality of the relationship. At some point however, driven by evolved instincts to self preservation undoubtedly, this first being chooses self preservation over trust in this new relationship and the rest is history. I can live with that but it seems to me that what Gibberson and others are saying is that a group of people arrived somewhat simultaneously having evolved to a humanity that included sinfulness. Sinfulness was never a choice but a condition. When we talk about living in a condition of sin today we are directly referring to the result of a choice made. The result is clearly a non-relationship with God. The remedy is forgiveness of sins and for us, as Wesleyans, an embracing of complete relationship demonstrated by a quality of perfect love that is nothing more nor less than the outworking of the heart perfected by faith which we capture in the phrase “entire sanctification.” If my condition is not the result of human choice then it seems somewhat harsh of God to leave me judged for something I could do nothing about. The "Adam" story becomes more of a justification on God's part than the reflecting of anything true about how humanity came to the place of sinfulness. Entire sanctification quite simply is the establishment of a relationship as was intended from the beginning. If that relationship is not a part of the human story then our theology is in serious need of attention. That isn't to say that if the truth is in line with what Gibberson proposes then recovery is beyond us but there are serious implications to the whole salvation narrative of sin being a part of evolution rather than choice.

[Ryan Scott]

Then we do agree, Roland. I was merely arguing that, given scientific evidence, its possible it took a while for humanity to evolve the kind of brain capable of making a choice - Adam could represent that first person.

I fully believe there was a first sin - I just don't think we can believe the writers of Genesis knew exactly how it came about any more than we do. Maybe they did, I just haven't seen any evidence yet to support it.

[Roland Hearn]

Yes the more we have talked the more I have come to the conclusion that we agree, I think it is an important theological principle and I think it is one that could be lost amidst unclear thinking about what the scientific issues maybe. Still we do have to be able to respond if our theology does not meet what science has proven, to use a less than scientific term.

[Daniel Hamlin]

I finished "The Language of Science and Faith" over vacation a couple of weeks ago. I found one quote that was interesting and I posted it to my Facebook status when I read it. It seems relevant to the discussion at hand:

Any time an apologetic argument is framed and presented as an alternative to faith as a foundation for belief, there is a danger that further advances in knowledge will undermine this argument. Such advances will appear corrosive to faith, but only because a theologically suspect argument for the existence of God has been framed and promoted as legitimate." - The Language of Science and Faith, pg 142

[Dennis M. Scott]

I'm having difficulty remembering the importance of the "time" when God made man to be in His Own image. Man had been dust. Between one instant when he was dust and another point when he had been made in God's image, he was not yet in God's image: not quite. How long was that "time between"? We can superimpose a specific time, but the narrative isn't clear. Likely it wasn't intended to be clear.

As for the fall, our understanding for quite awhile has been that Adam represented us all. While it was not inevitable, it was representative. Original sin is not a biological, physical substantive thing, but a condition of the heart we "inherit" or have in common. Man chose to sin then, and so do we all. It is not the result of creation - for we were not created that way. We (represented by Adam - whether it was a single individual as commonly assumed, or the first, which could need to include more than one - on a broader scale that we have understood - Adam (mankind - the first Adam). That it might have happened to more than one then doesn't conflict with my own experience, because every person I have ever met has made the same choice. (Again, Adam represented us all - not well, but appropriately.) I would disagree with those who (might) maintain that the sin condition in man was a result of some sort of evolutionary process. Physical scientists who suggest that might benefit from a little broader theological understanding.

When Paul says "by one man sin entered into the world" even if his understanding was a single historic individual, his very premise would allow that to be a condition of mankind (resultant of the fall) solved in the second Adam.

Mind boggling to me is the idea that it might have happened simultaneously in various places - dna lines. It would be much easier to comprehend in the case of one individual in a single place. As it is, the case now being suggested requires a creative God who worked on a much broader scope. The more complicated, the more magnificent a creative God is revealed.

I really am open to corrective or alternative thoughts here.

[Shea Zellweger]

I agree completely but I don't actually think that is what we are discussing here.

The problem that I think we are talking about is whether the story of Adam is a mythological representation of an actual choice or one to give reasonableness to the sinfulness of humanity; when in fact sin is an evolutionary process. The former I have no problem with and the reality it is reflecting on would look something like this: humanity comes into being after a long series of evolutionary accidents and arrives on the planet around 100,000 years ago, almost certainly somewhere in central Africa. God responds to what His creation would inevitably produce somewhere in the cosmos for this was the "teleos" of all of creation. He offers that creature a level of free will, consistent with the evolved brain, along with a capacity to love at a transcendent level - that equates to a new spiritual life. The edenic image of walking together in the cool of the evening is a metaphor reflecting on the quality of the relationship. At some point however, driven by evolved instincts to self preservation undoubtedly, this first being chooses self preservation over trust in this new relationship and the rest is history. I can live with that but it seems to me that what Gibberson and others are saying is that a group of people arrived somewhat simultaneously having evolved to a humanity that included sinfulness. Sinfulness was never a choice but a condition. When we talk about living in a condition of sin today we are directly referring to the result of a choice made. The result is clearly a non-relationship with God. The remedy is forgiveness of sins and for us, as Wesleyans, an embracing of complete relationship demonstrated by a quality of perfect love that is nothing more nor less than the outworking of the heart perfected by faith which we capture in the phrase “entire sanctification.” If my condition is not the result of human choice then it seems somewhat harsh of God to leave me judged for something I could do nothing about. The "Adam" story becomes more of a justification on God's part than the reflecting of anything true about how humanity came to the place of sinfulness. Entire sanctification quite simply is the establishment of a relationship as was intended from the beginning. If that relationship is not a part of the human story then our theology is in serious need of attention. That isn't to say that if the truth is in line with what Gibberson proposes then recovery is beyond us but there are serious implications to the whole salvation narrative of sin being a part of evolution rather than choice.

I don't really like this approach. I'd prefer to let the story speak for itself, rather than try to recast the narrative in terms of science. While I'm willing to say that we evolved, I don't think we need to bring our understanding of evolution into the story of Adam and his wife- it's a story that comes with a point (And if you ask most Jewish interpreters, that point has nothing to do with "original sin"), and we can get the point of the story without recasting it to comply with our contemporary understanding of origins.

[Roland Hearn]

I don't really like this approach. I'd prefer to let the story speak for itself, rather than try to recast the narrative in terms of science. While I'm willing to say that we evolved, I don't think we need to bring our understanding of evolution into the story of Adam and his wife- it's a story that comes with a point (And if you ask most Jewish interpreters, that point has nothing to do with "original sin"), and we can get the point of the story without recasting it to comply with our contemporary understanding of origins.

Shea, I'm not a 100% clear on your point here. The fact that Jewish interpreters disagree about the point of the story is no surprise because they disagree on the solution. I appreciate your idea of not trying to recast the narrative in terms of science but as I said before if what we believe about the application of God's grace to our lives is at odds with science we probably need to do some work. I think there is just as much problem with trying to make science conform to a literal biblical interpretation as there is with having our faith and science saying two different things. Science is a pursuit of truth. Faith is a pursuit of truth. While the one is physical and the other metaphysical they should not be at odds. The beauty and simplicity of the story of grace is damaged to some degree if it is based on ideas and concepts that aren't true. To hold in tension ideas that seem beyond us is different to holding in tension ideas that our counter to each other.

"I'm just not sure" is a different response in kind and impact to "they don't need to agree because they are dealing with different issues." My being is both spiritual and physical and will be through eternity. I am the product of God's grace in both spheres. I want to at least hold out hope that those two spheres aren't incompatible.

BTW - "letting the story speak for itself," is precisely what I think we all want. What it is saying is important, however. Is it reflecting on a real truth or a story to rationalise the existence of sin? I think there is important implications to how that is addressed.

[Shea Zellweger]

Shea, I'm not a 100% clear on your point here.

My point is that these "scientific narratives," such as the one you offered, and the one at the end of Giberson's latest book, are not necessary.

BTW - "letting the story speak for itself," is precisely what I think we all want. What it is saying is important, however. Is it reflecting on a real truth or a story to rationalise the existence of sin? I think there is important implications to how that is addressed.

I don't think it's reflecting fact, or a story to rationalise the existence of sin. I think it's a story written for a purpose (or perhaps several purposes- it's kind of complex), and the purpose is best understood by telling the story as it is.

[Ryan Scott]

I hope you don't mean this in the way I'm understanding it...
Christ had the option to sin, but it was not in his nature to do so. Are you saying that God created Adam with a sinful nature? I don't know that the story supports that idea.

Yes, if you're looking at the story, and at sin, in the traditional way. Luckily, this is the post Traditional theology board, so we can move beyond it.

I look at it more as relationship. God created humanity in relationship to God, but with a desire for self-fulfillment - a self-fulfillment only possible in relationship to God. So in a sense, humanity was created sinless in that humanity was created with this relationship already intact. I do think that humanity was created with the curiosity/free will/selfish desire (whatever you want to term it) that inevitably leads to us exploring other options for self-fulfillment - that equals sin, the breaking of the relationships with God.

Each and every time we make the wrong choice, it has compounding consequences, which prevent our full return to right relationship, short of divine intervention. From here we move into the idea of atonement.

I guess I'm saying God created humanity knowing it was inevitable that we would sin.

I don't think this is contradicted by Genesis, albeit the specifics come from putting together other theological ideas from scripture - it certainly isn't explained this way in Genesis - I just don't think the narrative contradicts it.

[Benjamin Burch]

My point is that these "scientific narratives," such as the one you offered, and the one at the end of Giberson's latest book, are not necessary.



I don't think it's reflecting fact, or a story to rationalise the existence of sin. I think it's a story written for a purpose (or perhaps several purposes- it's kind of complex), and the purpose is best understood by telling the story as it is.

This might be the most important post yet on this thread. Until we can stop trying to figure out the story and science together, we'll never get anywhere. This whole "image of God" misunderstanding has really derailed the entire conversation. Until we can understand that the "image of God" is not a thing we have, and is not something given to us at a specific time, and is not a quality we must have obtained, we will never do well with scientific discovery.

The "image of God" in Scripture is what humans are. We are the image of the creator God, and that is part of what it means to be human. To be human, as we are human, is to be this, and have the capacity to be this. All our reconstructions simply miss the point.

Also, no historical reconstruction of human origins that tries to fit into Adam and Eve will ever make sense of the story's main referent - the Election, Land, Law, Sin, Exile, Covenant Faithfulness. Until we read Genesis 2:4ff that way, we will forever chase down silly scientific narratives that have nothing to do with what the story of Adam and Eve is really telling us.

[Roland Hearn]

My point is that these "scientific narratives," such as the one you offered, and the one at the end of Giberson's latest book, are not necessary.



I don't think it's reflecting fact, or a story to rationalise the existence of sin. I think it's a story written for a purpose (or perhaps several purposes- it's kind of complex), and the purpose is best understood by telling the story as it is.

I'm sorry Shea that still isn't clear to me, persevere with me. What I here you say is something of a tautology. It means what it means, it's purpose is its purpose?

[Doug Ward]

There is a point that has been made here, that seems at least unclear to me. The point is that Paul obviously thought there was a literal Adam. Just for fun, I was reading through Genesis Rabbah, a Palestinian Targum that is reflective of Paul's world. In it Adam is clearly treated literally, and allegorically, and symbolically. The Jews took this story in 18 different directions and found meaning in almost every conceivable way. Just an example from Genesis 1. The rabbis noted that on the opening day of creation, the word "light" was used 5 times. What was the point? It is obvious. With the creation of light, one can see that God always intended to communicate through the Pentateuch - the 5 books that match the 5 uses of "light." Imagine the fun the rabbis had with the serpent, or the type of fruit, or the role of sex in the fall.
The idea of literal vs. symbolical, etc. would not have been a dividing point for Paul. He would have simply used the Adam narrative. The whole idea of literal or figurative is our battle - not Pauls. Paul referenced people and stories in clearly non-historic ways. To do so was not Paul's main point, he used the story in creative ways to make his point. It seems to me the fact that Paul used Adam does not tell us anything about literal or non-literal. It simply sidetracks us.

[Benjamin Burch]

There is a point that has been made here, that seems at least unclear to me. The point is that Paul obviously thought there was a literal Adam. Just for fun, I was reading through Genesis Rabbah, a Palestinian Targum that is reflective of Paul's world. In it Adam is clearly treated literally, and allegorically, and symbolically. The Jews took this story in 18 different directions and found meaning in almost every conceivable way. Just an example from Genesis 1. The rabbis noted that on the opening day of creation, the word "light" was used 5 times. What was the point? It is obvious. With the creation of light, one can see that God always intended to communicate through the Pentateuch - the 5 books that match the 5 uses of "light." Imagine the fun the rabbis had with the serpent, or the type of fruit, or the role of sex in the fall.
The idea of literal vs. symbolical, etc. would not have been a dividing point for Paul. He would have simply used the Adam narrative. The whole idea of literal or figurative is our battle - not Pauls. Paul referenced people and stories in clearly non-historic ways. To do so was not Paul's main point, he used the story in creative ways to make his point. It seems to me the fact that Paul used Adam does not tell us anything about literal or non-literal. It simply sidetracks us.

I completely agree, here. I've often said that I think Paul viewed Adam literally, but the 1-to-1 between him and Christ is simply a textual narrative which Paul uses to say what Paul wants to say. I think Paul would look at Tim Keller with bewilderment, slap him in the side of the head and asked (as my Youth pastor lovingly asked me), "are you some kinda moron?"

Paul's point was not to speak of a literal Adam. I think he viewed Adam literally, but did not need it, and did not rely upon it. He simply used the Adam narrative.

[Shea Zellweger]

I'm sorry Shea that still isn't clear to me, persevere with me. What I here you say is something of a tautology. It means what it means, it's purpose is its purpose?

What I'm saying is that we should let the story speak for itself, rather than trying to re-present it according to our modern understanding of origins, etc. Nearly every other story we hear is allowed to speak for itself- true stories, fables, faery tales, hero epics, etc... There was a time when folks thought Hercules, Achilles, et al really existed and did the stuff the stories say about them. We don't believe that today, yet we don't try to come up with a more "scientific" version of the Nemean lion, or a "historical" understanding of what it means to be dipped in the River Styx.
I'm not 100% sure what we're supposed to learn from Genesis 3- I think the first theme to explore in it is God's grace (in letting them live), and there's obviously something about broken relationship in it as well, but I can read that without having to recast Adam and his wife as some kind of archetypal representation of our historical ancestors.

[Dennis M. Scott]

Except that we tend to consider the word of God as in a different category than fables, faery tales, hero epics, etc. Would you suggest we put them all in a similar bucket?