From The Shack (page 135-136) by Wm. Paul Young:
“You were talking earlier about humans declaring good and evil without knowledge?” Mack asked, shaking another root free from its dirt.
“Yes. I was specifically talking about the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.”
“The tree of the knowledge of good and evil?” asked Mack.
“Exactly!” she stated, seeming to almost expand and contract for emphasis while she worked. “And now, Mackenzie, you are beginning to see why eating the deadly fruit of that tree was so devastating to your race.”
“I’ve never given it much thought, really,” said Mack, intrigued by the direction their chat was taking. “So was there really an actual garden? I mean, Eden and all that?”
“Of course. I told you I have a thing for gardens.”
“That’s going to bother some people. There are lots of people who think it was only a myth.”
“Well, their mistake isn’t fatal. Rumors of glory are often hidden inside what many consider myths and tales.”
This is the first of several posts that I plan to write about sessions I attended at the ASA annual meeting last month at Baylor University in Waco, Texas. Don’t expect any deep analysis. I just want to “systematically” review my notes and session abstracts to recall some of what I learned and thought about at the meeting.
Adam in The Shack
Image from Amazon
I happened to be reading The Shack over that same weekend. So, besides the fact that I’m always thinking the nature and meaning of creation, I was particularly attentive to comparing Paul Young’s personal and allegorical perspective on the problem of evil and science’s implications on theodicy and origins issues.
The Shack is actually a very good book, and I have even greater respect for it after watching a DVD of Paul Young speaking at my parents’ church. Sure, if you took individual parts of it (even the quotation above) and attempted to to “literalize”, there would certainly be things to take issue with. But that is definitely not the author’s purpose. There are no easy answers to the problem of evil. All we can do is believe in the goodness and faithfulness of God, and that’s ultimately the point of the book.
I liked the quotation because the author effectively kicks away the crutches supporting the common misconception that the literal reality of the garden story is essential to maintaining a proper view of good and evil and the origin of sin. He comes down on the side of a literal garden, but he recognizes that it really doesn’t matter so long as the proper attitude and posture toward God is adopted by the believer.
Adam at the ASA meeting
So, what does this have to do with the ASA meeting? Well, one session on Sunday afternoon focused on the question of the theological necessity of the historicity of Adam and the garden events. Here are audio links and abstract-snippets for the three talks (menu page for all conference talks):
- C. John Collins, “Were Adam and Eve Historical Figures? Yes, Indeed!”
The best way to account for the biblical presentation of human life is to suppose that Adam and Eve were real persons, and the ancestors of all other human beings. The biblical presentation concerns, not simply the story in Genesis and the biblical passages that refer to it, but also the larger biblical storyline, which deals with God’s good creation invaded by sin, for which God has a redemptive plan; of Israel’s calling to be a light to the nations; and of the church’s prospect of successfully bringing God’s light to the whole world.
- Daniel Harlow, “Adam and Eve as Symbolic Figures in Biblical Literature”
This paper explains why most biblical scholars regard Adam and Eve as purely symbolic figures, and why they do not find the Christian doctrines of the fall and original sin in the text of Genesis 2–3 but in later interpretations of Genesis. The paper discusses the literary genre of Genesis 1–11, the adaptation of ancient Near Eastern myths in Genesis 2–3, the presence of two creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2, and specific narrative indicators in the text of Genesis 2–3 which support a symbolic reading of these chapters.
- John Schneider, “Genetic Science and Christianity’s Story of Human Origins: An Aesthetic ‘Supra-Lapsarianism’”
The most recent genetic science seems to discredit Christianity’s story of human origins at points that are essential to Christian teaching as a whole. Christian thinkers who have begun recasting the Christian story have done so mainly in the light of science. In this paper, the author proposes that Scripture can be used for very similar purposes. The main thesis is that the Book of Job corrects and deepens the simpler Deuteronomic understanding of Genesis 1–3.
Adam in my Thoughts
Honestly, I just can’t pretend to entertain in my own mind any possibility that Genesis 1-3 could be factual in any literal sense. As Dennis Venema explained in his talk, “Human Genomics: Vestiges of Eden or Skeletons in the Closet?” (Slides), the scientific data render it increasingly implausible to maintain that two individuals were the first humans and the biological ancestors of all other human beings.
And for some time now, it’s been clear to me that the creation and garden stories do not really explain the origin of evil and sin in the first place. Thus, there doesn’t seem to be any particular value in regarding them as factual just to preserve an orthodox view. This is not to say that the non-literal view really solves the theodicy problem any better. It doesn’t really. But at least there doesn’t have to be cognitive dissonance with what I know about the created order through science. And I don’t have to try to pretend that the highly stylized tale (paradise-garden, talking snake, etc.) is literally true. Genesis 1-11 has much greater depth and power of meaning (as well as no conflict with the record of evolutionary history) if it is read as ancient-near east (ANE) storytelling in the context of God’s covenant people.
When all’s said and done, though, I can concur with Paul Young. In my version of the book, I’d end the passage as follows:
“That’s going to bother some people. There are lots of people who think it had to be a real place.”
“Well, their mistake isn’t fatal. Good theology and true faith are often built on what many incorrectly assume to be factual.”
Recent Comments