Conor Cunningham — my doctoral advisor at Nottingham if I end up pursuing that degree — offers an excerpt from his forthcoming book, Darwin’s Pious Idea: Why Ultra-Darwinists and Creationists Both Get it Wrong, on Christian Century. I love his discussion of the early Fathers and his approach to Christ as the hinge of all theology of creation:
Adam, the idea of a Fall and so on can be revealed only in Christ if we are to remain faithful to the church fathers. It is folly to interpret the Fall or the existence of Adam in either positivistic or strictly historical terms, since there is no Fall before Christ. That is to say, there was but a glimmer of its occurrence, and this glimmer was only about Christ and not about some historical event of the same genus as the Battle of Trafalgar. Moreover, before Christ there was neither death nor life nor even sin. For all such concepts find their truth only in the passion of the Christ, and for one very simple reason: creation is about Christ and nothing else. Jesus, as the Word of God, is the metaphysical or ontological beginning and end (telos) of all that exists. This is not some wishy-washy religious nonsense but is, on the contrary, perfectly logical.
We should therefore bear in mind that, for theology, protology leads to eschatology. So, for example, according to the church fathers, Adam was Christ and Eve was Mary, while paradise is the church, and the Fall signals humankind’s redemption in Christ. Indeed, without Christ there would be no need of redemption—so the Fall would not make any sense. Thus the Fall is never a stand-alone item and makes no sense on its own.
9 replies on “Cunningham: What Genesis Doesn't Say”
Intriguing quote– thanks!
I don’t know David, some of this just went over my head.
Indeed, without Christ there would be no need of redemption
How does that make sense? I thought it was the other way around, we are in need of redemption and are lost without Christ.
Jesus, as the Word of God, is the metaphysical or ontological beginning and end (telos) of all that exists.
While I believe that is true, I don’t see how that relates to Adam, Eve, and the Fall. Specifically, how does that relate to “What Genesis Doesn’t Say”? I’m missing something. Is he saying that historicity doesn’t matter because a theology of creation hinges on Christ? I just don’t see a clear connection.
I think what he’s saying is that the spiritual meaning of the genesis stories is only clear when we understand them through Christ. They don’t stand alone as simple works of history and aren’t properly subject to positivistic notions of historiography.
Ah, I don’t think I read It is folly to interpret the Fall or the existence of Adam in either positivistic or strictly historical terms careful enough.
Last question, I swear 🙂 ; when he says:
Moreover, before Christ there was neither death nor life nor even sin.
it seems like he saying it in the sense that source and purpose of Creation is centered on Christ. But is he really saying anything meaningful there? Is there neither death nor life just as there is neither water nor earth before Christ, or is he trying to say something specifically about death, life, and sin?
This requires much more exploration… I hope we’ll see it! 🙂
It seems to me that if you’re going to deny historicity to protology (public warning: type that word carefully!), and claim that protology pairs with eschatology, you’ve got to equally deny historicity to eschatology. In this case, it seems that if you’re going to deny some sense of the Fall, you’ve got to deny the Incarnation in the same sense (that is, if they’re tied together in that way).
I’m not saying this just to be a fundie :-); I’m truly confused. He claims it’s not merely religious babble, but I don’t see any sense to it at all, religious or otherwise.
-Wm
Yeah it is a bit of a dense quote. I think what he’s saying is that we don’t really know anything about protology through “historical” or “scientific” investigation. We know of it only because we understand what is revealed about protology through the life, death and resurrection of Christ, and through the promise of his return. Though there are glimmers (his word) elsewhere that there is something fundamentally wrong with the world as it is and that God is moving towards redeeming it, these are realized and exposed only in what Christ has accomplished. So, it’s a mistake to try to find “historical” or “scientific” evidence of the fall, as though the fall can be understood or verified (or falsified) as a discrete object based on empirical observation alone, like, say, the electrical properties of hydrogen atom. The fall is a reality but it is a different sort of reality than that which the scientific method can address one way or the other. It is a reality that is only clearly seen when we apprehend the significance of Christ’s construction of a new reality through his incarnation, death, resurrection, ascension and return.
At least, that’s how I understand what he’s getting at — I’ll have to see when I get the book! To me, this is very helpful. It’s a reminder that the sort of historical and scientific positivism the tends to dominate our thinking today — even our theological thinking — isn’t adequate to explain all of a reality that is constructed by the Divine Word.
I *think* I see… I can’t take it very seriously, though. If I’m going to reject scientific positivism (which I do), I think I’ll also reject what I’ll call scientific negativism (an arbitrary name for claiming that we can know NOTHING except through one specific means of revelation).
Yes, Christ is the ultimate revelation from God — but He’s not the only revelation.
I look forward to the no doubt more nuanced book.
BTW, one of the things that pulled me out of anti-evolutionism (I think I’m now solidly out of it) was the comparison between cosmology and embryology. We credit God for the cosmos and for our own bodies; but just as we don’t believe that God reached down with knitting needles to shape our bodies, so also we don’t need to believe that God reached down with physical hands to shape worlds and species.
The reason I bring this up is that embryology is a type of protology.
-Wm
I don’t think that’s the claim. The claim is that the concept of the fall is a metaphysical concept, not a scientific one.
I’ll wait patiently for understanding to dawn. It isn’t here yet.