I've noted before the semi-hysteria that is going on largely behind the scenes and outside the view of the mainstream media among the Christianists and far right Christians over the growing scientific evidence that Adam and Eve of the Bible did not exist. As Bob Felton notes in response to the latest lunacy of Albert Mohler of the Southern Baptist Convention, the stakes are extremely high:
Bob's right, the non-existence of Adam and Eve is VERY, VERY bad for business for institutional Christianity and those who make a living peddling the Christian story. Indeed, the whole story line collapses. And church finances with it. Frankly, I DO find amusement and entertainment it the matter. The anti-gay forces in the last resort only have the Bible as a justification for their anti-gay animus. Obviously, if Genesis is false, then what else in the Bible is false. Perhaps Leviticus, the principal font of anti-gay bigotry/justification? A piece in Christianity Today illustrates some of the varying efforts to dance around this potentially very fatal problem. Here are some highlights:
The reality is that the adherents of Biblical literalism are facing a crisis of enormous proportions. Their whole ball of wax may be about to melt absent some way to use smoke and mirrors to dodge facing the reality that a great deal of the Old Testament simply is either not true at all or has been grossly re-written to meet the needs of revisers over the centuries. I believe that those who believe in rationalism and logic keep up the pressure on far right Christians who may be about to be undone by their own decision to embrace ignorance and reject objective fact and scientific knowledge.
It’s bad for business, of course. No Adam and Eve means no Fall, which means no Original Sin, which means Jesus doesn’t save us from the horrible fact that we’re living human beings, i.e., cesspools of foulness, et cetera, et cetera; he merely gives ethical advice. Oh … and Holy Men like Albert Mohler don’t have special cosmic insights after all. You can see the problem.
Bob's right, the non-existence of Adam and Eve is VERY, VERY bad for business for institutional Christianity and those who make a living peddling the Christian story. Indeed, the whole story line collapses. And church finances with it. Frankly, I DO find amusement and entertainment it the matter. The anti-gay forces in the last resort only have the Bible as a justification for their anti-gay animus. Obviously, if Genesis is false, then what else in the Bible is false. Perhaps Leviticus, the principal font of anti-gay bigotry/justification? A piece in Christianity Today illustrates some of the varying efforts to dance around this potentially very fatal problem. Here are some highlights:
Now we come to another great moment of tension between Christian readings of Scripture and science. This issue's cover story, "The Search for the Historical Adam," reports the claims of recent genetic research that the human race did not emerge from pre-human animals as a single pair, as an "Adam" and an "Eve." The complexity of the human genome, we are told, requires an original population of around 10,000.
Christians have already drawn the line: there must be an original pair of humans endowed with souls—that is, the spiritual capacity to relate to God in the special way Genesis describes.
What is at stake? First, the entire story of what is wrong with the world hinges on the disobedient exercise of the will by the first humans. The problem with the human race is not its dearth of insight but its misshapen will.
Second, the entire story of salvation hinges on the obedience of the Second Adam. The apostle Paul, the earliest Christian writer to interpret Jesus' work, called Adam "a type of the one who was to come" (Rom. 5:14, ESV), and wrote that "[j]ust as we have borne the image of the man of dust [Adam], we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven [Jesus]" (1 Cor. 15:49, ESV). He elaborated an "Adam Christology" that described a fallen humanity, headed by Adam, and a new, redeemed humanity with Christ as its head.
This understanding, that Christ's obedience undoes Adam's disobedience, is not some late development, but is integrated with the earliest interpretations of what God did and is doing in Christ. This conceptual framework is almost impossible without a first human couple.
[S]ome have suggested—as does John Collins in Did Adam and Eve Really Exist? (Crossway, 2011)—that if both biblical and scientific clues suggest a larger population contemporary with Adam and Eve (Whom did Cain marry? Whom did God protect him from?), we can still conceive of Adam and Eve as leaders of that original population. That suggestion has the virtue of embracing both a prehistoric couple and a prehistoric population.
At this juncture, we counsel patience. We don't need another fundamentalist reaction against science. We need instead a positive interdisciplinary engagement that recognizes the good will of all involved and that creative thinking takes time. In the long run, it may be the humility of our scholars as much as their technical expertise that will bring us to deeper knowledge of the truth.
The reality is that the adherents of Biblical literalism are facing a crisis of enormous proportions. Their whole ball of wax may be about to melt absent some way to use smoke and mirrors to dodge facing the reality that a great deal of the Old Testament simply is either not true at all or has been grossly re-written to meet the needs of revisers over the centuries. I believe that those who believe in rationalism and logic keep up the pressure on far right Christians who may be about to be undone by their own decision to embrace ignorance and reject objective fact and scientific knowledge.
3 comments:
I've got to chime in on this, because if one point of a religious belief is shown to be false in your eyes in no way invaildates that point in their eyes. It doesn't matter if it's true or not, it's a belief, and if proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be false, it makes no difference.
Two religions come to mind quickly, scientology, and church of later day saints, both based on batshit crazy beliefs, and both bought hook line and sinker by the followers.
No amount of scientific proof will have a negative impact on a true believers beliefs. Heck, if Jesus himself appeared before these people, and told them they are wrong, they wouldn't believe him.
However, rational people will start to leave some of these religions and that will help with their decline. Mohler has always been interesting to read as he realizes that if part of his facade cracks and falls off, the whole thing will soon follow.
Scott
No Adam, No Eve may be bad for the business of the Right Wing Radical Christians. I can see that.
But as a 10 year old Christian boy, I had the gumption to tell my Sunday School Teacher Adam and Eve didn't really exist.
I also have my doubts about the virgin birth. I'm not sure in my own mind how the Grace of God can be squared with the cross as a redeeming act either.
That the world was created in 6 twenty-four hour days - bullshit. Heaven has streets paved with gold? I highly doubt it.
The resurrection of Christ's earthly body after three days? I'm willing to discuss it but I warn you up front that for me faith has more to do with the spirit than with a human body.
That the Bible is without err and the literal word of God? Again, just crap.
All these things are just dogma. They have nothing to do with faith and faith is not dependent upon them in any way.
I believe there is something or someone greater than me. I believe there is a creator. The Bible itself tells me He is beyond my understanding. Yet people who say every word of that Bible is true insist THEY understand God perfectly! Just zealots grasping for power.
No thinking rational person could ever be religious. To be religious one has to suspend thinking and rationality.
Any thinking rational person is capable of looking at the remarkable creation that surounds us and finding it inspires within him faith in something beyond himself.
And that's what is really good for God's business.
Jack Scott
Post a Comment