Christianity Today ran an article and an editorial this month on the problems with the historical Adam. On the whole, I thought the article did a nice job of summarizing the issues. I’m very glad CT is introducing this for discussion by the evangelical community. I commend the article.
The editorial — not as much. Yes, I am glad they are putting a “representative” model out there for the broader evangelical public. That is good. But it is not good to tie this to “the gospel,” as the title of the editorial seems to do, and it is not good to draw lines in the sand, as the editorial does.
Obviously, there are ways of thinking about the Christian gospel in which Adam and Eve could be symbolic. It is unwise in the extreme for CT to stake “the gospel” to this hermeneutical question.
This statement by the CT editors is particularly troubling: “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.” Well — yes and no. The “entire story of what is wrong with the world” surely includes each of our individual and willful sins — right? And it also includes the evil that was present in creation prior to Adam’s sin — the serpent — right? So the primoridal human sin is an important part of the story of what is wrong with the world, but it is not by any means the whole story.
Equally troubling, the editors say “Christians have drawn a line” as though anyone who thinks otherwise is not a “Christian.” But most Christian theologians and Biblical scholars today take Adam and Eve to be symbolic. In this regard, the editors misconstrue Catholic theology for support for this idea that “Christians” have drawn a line in the sand. I’m really getting tired of conservative evangelicals citing Papal statements as if they understand how Catholic theologians think about these things. And they completely ignore Eastern Orthodox theology, which generally is unconcerned if Adam and Eve are symbolic (see, e.g., the Orthodox Church in America website).
At the end of the day I agree with the CT editors that Adam and Eve were “real people,” or at least are literary figures that represent real people and real events. This seems to me the best way to pull together the important theological and heremeneutical principles we need to integrate. But why this continual insistence that all real “Christians” think like editors of CT? It still strikes me as a kinder, gentler fundamentalism, despite the expressed desire to achieve distance from fundamentalism. There still is work to do on this front.
7 replies on “Christianity Today on Adam”
[…] […]
Thanks for this. I just listened to Genesis one and two (as opposed to “read” it) with the intention of trying to “hear” it as an oral tradition that explains to the early Israelites how they got where they were and who their God is. It was very helpful and healing for me.
Thanks for the insights. Having read with tension CT for years, your comment that in this editorial it was “kinder, gentler fundamentalism” is a helpful perspective on the whole, including it’s advertisers. Would you say that is by-and-large true?
I often feel the same tension reading CT. And often I feel a tension on the “other” side when reading Sojourn or Christian Century.
could you elaborate more on “editors misconstrue Catholic theology for support for this idea that “Christians” have drawn a line in the sand. I’m really getting tired of conservative evangelicals citing Papal statements as if they understand how Catholic theologians think about these things.” thanks
Phil — briefly, it involves the status and interpretation of various official documents within the Catholic teaching Magesterium. The CT editors made the mistake of just reading a few documents at face value and taking that as a sort of “literal” Catholic position. That isn’t how it works for Catholic theologians. Like scriptural texts, the documents of the Magesterium have to be understood in historical context.
There are numerous official documents from the Catholic Magesterium that refer to Adam as a literal person, including the current version of the Catechism. One of the most significant is the Encyclical Humani Generis. The key passage in Humani Generis for our purposes is this:
“When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.”
The phrase “it is in no way apparent” is taken by many (probably most) Catholic theologians to mean that it is possible that a theological proposal could be developed to reconcile the dogma of original sin with polygenism (i.e., with the idea that we are not all literally descended from an identifiable “Adam”). Therefore, it is not correct to suggest that Catholic theology draws a dogmatic line in the sand here. There is a line drawn, to be sure, but there is also an implied invitation to theological clarification and exploration within the boundaries of the dogma of original sin.
Now, to be fair, some conservative Catholics, including I think some of the U.S. Bishops, do not entirely agree with the above interpretation of Humani Generis. It can be a constested question for Catholics just as the proper intepretation of Gen. 1-4 can be among some Evangelical theologians. But AFAIK Catholic theologians, broadly speaking, are open to non-literal ways of thinking of “Adam,” and exploring such things is not banned by the Church.
thanks!!!!!!