J.R. Daniel Kirk: "Does Paul’s Christ Require a Historical Adam?"

http://cms.fuller.edu/TNN/Issues/Spring_2013/Does_Paul_s_Christ_Require_a_Historical_Adam/

by J.R. Daniel Kirk

Spring 2013

 

The Christian tradition has made much of Adam. We in the Western church speak regularly of the Fall of humanity that took place in Adam’s primal disobedience. Theologically, we speak of inherited sin and guilt—an original sin that renders us all complicit. We are guilty of humanity’s first great act of disobedience and enslaved to sin’s power.

 

Such theological claims derive more from our reading of Paul’s reflections on Adam than from the Genesis story itself. For many, the most significant theological reasons for affirming a historical Adam have to do not with what Genesis 1–3 may or may not teach about human origins, but with the theology of Adam that Paul articulates in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15. In short, if there is no historical Adam with whom we are enmeshed in the guilt and power of sin, how can we affirm that in Christ we participate in the justification and freedom of grace?

 

The levels of freedom (or lack thereof) that many of us experience with regard to the question of Adam as a historical person is inseparable from the theology that we see bound up with him. For some, to reject Adam as a historical person is to reject the authority of Scripture and trustworthiness of the very passages within which we learn of justification and resurrection.¹ Others are concerned that to deny a historical Adam is to deny the narrative of a good world gone wrong that serves as the very basis for the good news of Jesus Christ. In short, if there is no Fall, there can be no salvation from it and restoration to what was and/or might have been.² Even more expansively, Douglas Farrow concludes that “there is very little of importance in Christian theology, hence also in doxology and practice, that is not at stake in the question of whether or not we allow a historical dimension to the Fall.”³

 

High stakes, indeed. But I want to suggest that things might not be so dire. Specifically, I want to open up the conversation to the possibility that the gospel does not, in fact, depend on a historical Adam or historical Fall in large part because what Paul says about Adam stems from his prior conviction about the saving work of Christ. The theological points Paul wishes to make concern the saving work of the resurrected Christ and the means by which he makes them is the shared cultural and religious framework of his first-century Jewish context.

 

CHRIST AND ADAM

 

Paul has an important story to tell. It is the story of God’s new creation breaking into the world through the surprising mechanism of a crucified and resurrected Christ. This conviction about the new creation being brought about by Christ provides Paul with the ground to stand on as he draws Adam into the conversation in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15.

 

One crucial dynamic of Paul’s Adam Christology is representation. Christ does, is, and becomes what we need to participate in, be, and become in order to be God’s eternal family. For this reason, Paul takes hold of the “image of God” language with which we are so familiar from Genesis 1, and uses it to describe Jesus as he stands in relation to us: “he decided in advance that they would be conformed to the image of his Son.”⁴ Christ represents who we are, and who we are becoming, as members of God’s new-creation family.

 

This representation is focused on two particular aspects of Christ’s saving work: his death on the cross and his resurrection from the dead. Romans 5 develops Paul’s Adam Christology around Christ’s death. Throughout the latter half of Romans 5, Paul outlines how Christ’s act entails benefits for many: it brings about God’s gracious gift in a manner that more than undoes the work of Adam, even reclaiming humanity’s privilege of ruling the world for God (5:15–17; cf. Genesis 1:26).

 

Similar dynamics unfurl in 1 Corinthians 15, where Adam is viewed as the progenitor of death in contrast to Christ who, as God’s new representative human being, anticipates humanity’s coming resurrection life (15:21–22). A new humanity has been inaugurated by the resurrected Christ.

 

This theological framework positions us to step into Paul’s statements about Adam. Paul is working with the stories of Israel, as told in the Old Testament, but from the perspective of someone who knows, now, that God’s great act of salvation has come in Christ.

 

CHRIST, THE LAW, AND HISTORY

 

This brings us to our central question: To what extent do we need to affirm a historical Adam in order also to affirm the saving dynamics of Paul’s Adam Christology?

 

Romans 5 presents us with what are arguably the most pressing reasons to affirm a historical Adam. There we find these striking words from Paul: 

• Sin entered the world through one person (5:12).
• Many people died through what one person did wrong (5:15).
• The judgment that came through one person’s sin led to punishment (5:16).
• Death ruled because of one person’s failure (5:17).
• Judgment fell on everyone through the failure of one person (5:18).
• Many people were made sinners through the disobedience of one person (5:19).

 

Paul is clearly appealing to both the common experience of enslavement to sin and death and the normative narratives of Israel regarding Adam to explain the reality that Christ overcomes. Moreover, the consistent point of comparison is that one person, Adam, represents the rest of humanity in coming under the guilt, the power, or the condemnation of sin.

 

One of the first questions worth confronting is whether this passage allows for various understandings of how Adam might represent humanity. Thus, for example, might there be room here, not for a physical, natural progenitor of all subsequent human beings, but for a person who was chosen by God from a developing or, at any rate, numerically numerous, human race to play the role of representative in obedience and disobedience?

 

But the question that will clamor for the attention of many is whether such a moment in which sin’s guilt and power are unleashed as the lords of humanity is required at all. There seems to have been death in this world millions of years before human beings came on the scene. Is it possible to affirm the point Paul wishes to make—that God’s grace, righteousness, and life abound to the many because of Christ—without simultaneously affirming the assumptions with which he illustrated these things to be true?

 

Writing to the Romans, Paul wished to argue that God’s people are found in Christ, and thereby cut off other possible ways of construing idealized human identity and what salvation and the people of God might look like. In claiming that Christ is (un)like Adam, Paul was simultaneously taking other options off the table. What difference might it make to our discussions about a historical Adam that Paul was claiming, “Christ, is (un)like Adam, therefore God’s people are not demarcated by Torah”? This latter statement is, in fact, the point of Paul’s argument in Romans 5 (cf. 5:12–14, 20–21). Paul’s Adam theology is an avenue toward affirming that God has one worldwide people; therefore, the specially blessed people are not defined by the story of circumcision. But he does not ask the question of whether an evolutionary account of human origins might stand within the story of God’s new creation work in Christ, and his argument is not aimed at denying such an explanation of where we came from.

 

RETELLING THE STORY OF ORIGINS

 

When the ancients told stories of human origins, it was never simply to tell people “what happened.” Instead, such narratives indicate why their particular people and their particular god played the roles of sovereigns of the world. Genesis 1 is an introduction to the covenant story of Israel, in which God promises to make fruitful Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and also multiply them (17:6; 28:3; 35:11; 47:27; 48:4). The story of Adam in Genesis is written with the latter story of Israel in mind, so that the reader can see that Israel is destined to fulfill God’s primordial promise of not only filling the Earth but also ruling over it (cf. 17:6).

 

Similarly, Paul employs the story of Adam based on his new understanding that Christ is the man through whom God has chosen to rule the world and that the churches are the people who are the fulfillment of the promise of numerous descendants. For neither Paul nor the writer of Genesis does the story of Adam exist as a standalone narrative to which later history must correspond. Instead, the convictions about what God has done at a later point in history determine how the Adam story is read.

 

New Testament scholarship over the past half century has developed the insight that the first data point in Paul’s Christian theologizing was his understanding that the cross and resurrection formed the saving act of God. In the 1960s, Herman Ridderbos argued that this fundamental conviction becomes the great act of God by which all other acts and ideas are understood.⁵ The significance of this focus on Christ is that it ripples out in all directions: not only does Paul rethink the future in light of Jesus’ death and resurrection, but he also reinterprets what came before. Thus, Ridderbos concludes that “Paul’s whole doctrine of the world-and-man in sin . . . is only to be perceived in the light of his insight into the all-important redemptive event in Christ.”⁶ A decade later E. P. Sanders concurred, claiming that Paul reasons “from solution to plight.”⁷ Because Paul knows that God has provided the solution to the problem of human sin in the crucified and risen Christ, he therefore reassesses the place of the Law, in particular, in God’s saving story. Romans 5 is one particular outworking of this.

 

Both Ridderbos and Sanders have come to the same conclusion: what is a “given” for Paul is the saving event of Jesus’ death and resurrection. The other things he says, especially about sin, the Law, and eschatology, are reinterpretations that grow from the fundamental reality of the Christ event. Recognizing this relieves the pressure that sometimes builds up around a historical Adam. Contrary to the fears expressed by Douglas Farrow, we can now recognize that Adam is not the foundation on which the system of Christian faith and life is built, such that removing him means that the whole edifice comes crashing down. Instead, the Adam of the past is one spire in a large edifice whose foundation is Christ. The gospel need not be compromised if we find ourselves having to part ways with Paul’s [perceived] assumption that there is a historical Adam, because we share Paul’s fundamental conviction that the crucified Messiah is the resurrected Lord over all.

 

Where, then, are we left, if the pressures of scientific inquiry lead us to take down the spire of a literal, historical Adam? What might it look like for us to faithfully receive Paul’s testimony not merely by saying what he said, but by doing what he did? Might it be possible that we could retell the stories of both Adam and evolutionary sciences such that they continued to reflect our conviction that the endpoint of God’s great story is nothing else than new creation in the crucified and risen [historical] Christ? For many, the cognitive dissonance between the sciences and a historical Adam has already become too great to continue holding both.⁸ We therefore have to carefully determine whether the cause of Christ, and of truth, is better served by indicating that a choice must be made between the two, or by retelling the narrative about the origins of humanity as we now understand it in light of the death and resurrection of Christ.

 

The task of reimagining a Christian story of origins for our modern era has already begun.⁹ As it continues, faithful articulation of our story will have to attempt to hold together for our day what Paul’s articulation held together so beautifully for his own: humanity as a whole, not one particular race or ethnicity or nationality of people, is the purview of God’s saving work in Christ; humanity’s final destiny has been determined by the advent of the new creation in Christ’s resurrection; and this solution in Christ indicates that the problem to be solved entails not only personal estrangement from God, but a whole world that fails to live up to the harmony, peace, fruitfulness, life, and eternality of the God who created it. Perhaps most importantly, we must not allow biology or physics or chemistry to have the last word about the destiny of humanity. The reality of our lives as creatures limited by death and decay must stand in subordinate relationship to the eschatological reality of new creation that God has granted us in Christ.

 

To accompany Paul on the task of telling the story of the beginning in light of Christ, while parting ways with his first-century understanding of science and history, is not to abandon the Christian faith in favor of science. Instead, it demands a fresh act of faith in which we continue to hold fast to the truth that has always defined Christianity: the crucified Messiah is the resurrected Lord over all. Belief in Christ’s resurrection was a stumbling block for the ancients, and it is a stumbling block for us moderns as well—and increasingly so as we learn more about our human story and the biological processes entailed in life on this Earth. We do not give up on the central article of Christian faith when we use it to tell a renewed story of where we came from. On the contrary, we thereby give it the honor which is its due.

 

 

ENDNOTES

1. E.g., A. B. Caneday, “The Language of God and Adam’s Genesis and Historicity in Paul’s Gospel,” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 15 (2011): 26–59.
2. E.g., C. John Collins, Did Adam and Eve Really Exist? Who They Were and Why You Should Care (Wheaton: Crossway, 2011), 133–35; John W. Mahoney, “Why an Historical Adam Matters for the Doctrine of Original Sin,” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 15 (2011): 60–78; Stephen J. Wellum, “Editorial: Debating the Historicity of Adam: Does It Matter?” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 15 (2011): 2–3.
3. Douglas Farrow, “Fall,” in The Oxford Companion to Christian Thought (ed. A. Hastings, A. Mason, and H. S. Pyper; New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 233–34.
4. All scriptural citations are from the Common English Bible unless otherwise indicated.
5. Herman Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 44–90.
6. Ridderbos, Paul, 137.
7. E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1977), 474–508.
8. See, e.g., John R. Schneider, “Recent Genetic Science and Christian Theology on Human Origins: An ‘Aesthetic Superlapsarianism,’” Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 62 (2010): 196–213.
9. E.g., Daniel C. Harlow, “After Adam: Reading Adam in an Age of Evolutionary Science,” Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 62 (2010): 179–95.

 

How Postmodern Hermeneutics Helps in Reading The Bible

Today's article rehearses once again a subject we have spoken to in earlier discussions (please refer to the sidebars under "Science," "Creation," and "Genesis"). To rehearse, today's discoveries states that "ex nihilo creation" is probably untrue according to quantum physics. This means that matter had to be present in order for it to be "re-purposed, re-arranged, and re-ordered" (in the thermodynamic sense of energy conservation).

What it doesn't mean is that God cannot create matter from nothing (as most infer when jettisoning the idea of "ex nihilo creation) but is simply a testament that God re-created, re-formed, or re-fashioned, the matter present in the early universe into the universe we know today. Since this idea is usually misunderstood by the traditional Christian reading of Genesis we may leave the possibility open at both ends dependent upon our ideas of "God being God" (simplistically put: Is God "above/beyond the universe?" per classic doctrine. Or, is God "beside/alongside the universe?" per process theology and various perambulations of panentheism). Again, we have addressed both concepts in previous posts under the sidebars by the same name and shall defer to those ideas without rehearsing them here.

In earlier eras - and without the practical help of science - biblical theologians and church philosophers subjugated their answers within previously formed philosophical opinions (e.g., Greek Platonism or Greek Aristotelianism). As such, Justin Martyr argued for Platonism while Tertullian argued for Aristotelianism. Many years later, and with the advantage of many years of church discussion, thinking, and evaluation, we find ourselves with a few more options than just those of Plato and Aristotle. Especially so since the science of biblical hermeneutics has rapidly developed beyond these classic dualistic Greek approaches to the study of the universe and man, God and the bible.

 

----------------

 

Platonism - noun (philosophy)

 

The philosophy of Plato (428 - 348 BC) or his followers that taught the belief that physical objects are impermanent representations of unchanging Ideas. And that the Ideas alone give true knowledge as they are known by the mind.

 

Aristotelianism - noun (philosophy)

The philosophy of Aristotle (384-322 BC) speaks to logic, metaphysics, ethics, poetics, politics, and natural science; "Aristotelianism profoundly influenced Western thought." As a philosophy it placed emphasis upon deduction and logic upon the investigation of concrete and particular things and situations.   ----------------

Events like our singular universe's birth at the "Big Bang" - or the birth of Multi-verses in similar, simultaneous events - demonstrate the idea mathematically that "ex nihilo creation" is untrue contra ancient ideas. This means that it would be wrong to approach Gen 1-3 scientifically and to read our 21st Century ideas into the Hebraic text's ancient cosmological myths and observations (I like to refer to the bible's ancient accounts as historic(al) theological narratives rather than so crudely as myths).

... As an aside, I should note that the Genesis text was written in the 7th or 6th century BC from an Ancient Near-Eastern perspective that would fall into the category of comparative mythology to the other ancient societies around it (Mesopotamia, Sumeria, Egypt, etc).

What this means then is that the later Greek philosophers deduced their philosophies upon what they then knew (even as we do today). Which may have been considerably more material than what the early church theologians had to work with later after so many long years of devastating world war by the kingdoms of Persia, Greece/Mesopotamia, Rome in their lootings and burnings of the treasuries of the surrounding nations and one another. By inference the ancients - like the Greek philosophers and historians - probably had demonstrably more resources at hand than perhaps the latter day theologians of the early church like Justin Martyr and Tertullian who were working off the remaining Greek ideas of their day, along with what they could find of surviving ancient Near-Eastern documents lost within the ancient libraries of Alexandria, Athens, and Rome. Even now this is our problem today as we rely on surviving archaeological resources and archived documents over the many long eons of chaotic world history.

That said, Greek philosophy (Hellenism) was captured by the church and drawn into itself as its resident-cobbled-dogmas of the day. To this perceived knowledge was added regionally formed opinions that either survived, or did not, as the church's theology developed through early and late Medievalism until theologians like Thomas Aquinas came along to restore some order to Christian thinking and philosophy along the lines of Scholasticism. As a 12th Century Catholic monk and scholar Aquinas "was the foremost classical proponent of natural theology, and the father of Thomism. His influence on Western thought is considerable, and much of modern philosophy was conceived in development or refutation of his ideas, particularly in the areas of ethics, natural law, metaphysics, and political theory. The works for which he is best known are the Summa Theologica and the Summa contra Gentiles." Scholasticism is "not so much a philosophy or a theology as a method of learning. Scholasticism places a strong emphasis on dialectical reasoning to extend knowledge by inference, and to resolve contradictions."

... But I digress and only mention this abbreviated history of Christian Thought to show how the church's received tradition of classical Christianity is being re-applied under today's postmodernistic biblical studies that must de-construct and re-interpret past historical contexts within the evolving fluidity of contemporary language and its linguistic ambiguity from one era to the next, from one culture to the next. To so simply state with assurance that one believes in "ex nihilo creation" or not is to carry with these phrases many unqualified assumptions. Assumptions that don't get us anywhere except into ad naseum discussions round-and-round-and-round without accomplishing anything.

For me, I am interested in the logic, the deductions, and the context of these statements. Practically this means that a simplistic literal reading would weigh out each word without regard to cultural and historical development of this statement's background (including us today as modern interpretive redactionists). Whereas a non-literal reading would weigh out the content of what is being said, why its being said, who is saying it, and explore the reason for such observations. In my estimation, "ex nihilo" discussions then cannot be formed from a literal reading and should be politely put to bed as uninformative, unhelpful, and passé. They only serve to show our short-sightedness about God, His paradoxical Creatorship, and His Sovereign rule, as He moves heaven-and-earth towards redemption completion.

To debate the Creed, as one had said, is to debate its philosophical and theological orientations only. For Justin Martyr, he adopted Platonic ideas, while Tertullian on the other hand moved towards a straightforward deductionism about the one eternal God. To me, this is all well and good, but it seems more helpful to rely on today's postmodern sciences, philosophical ideas, and their gathering theological import for biblical studies, while resisting overtly reading our religious preferences backwards into the creation texts of Genesis as interpretive (classic) redactionists. This means that from today's scientific discoveries it seems very apparent that God created from the material than extant in our pre-existent universe. This doesn't mean that He didn't create that material, simply that He used that material, thus voiding the early church's arguments for one view over the other. Such arguments limited our expanding knowledge of God, the cosmos, ourselves, and globally responsible communities.

Under a postmodern frame of theological development we may do this, and not be so dependent upon ancient church observations for our contemporary derivations today. And this would include even that of the biblical writers viewpoints couched within their ancient cosmologies! What is more important is to try to determine why those biblical writers wrote their observations. And why God chose to utilize their observations and understanding towards a formed biblical revelation. This then frees the postmodern theolog to focus on the biblical content using all that we know (against what we have lost and have failed to recover through death, time, war and prejudicial bias) in the ancient world of biblical cultural and sentiment. And to not treat the bible so naively. Nor our heritage as so emphatic. Nor language as so propositional and definitive. Nor even time itself as without its dithering effects and affects upon God's Word and our accumulating understanding of it.

Consequently, a postmodernistic hermeneutic gives back to us God's Word in an amazing array of complexity and spiritual import more so than if we were to relax and fall back upon the church's classical doctrines, beliefs, and arguments. Arguments too often deemed more important than God's Word itself. For me and my house, I would chose the postmodern route of narrative and anthropologic hermeneutic (among others).

I leave you with these thoughts:

Genre (Genesis 1-2 as myth, history and science)
See also: Literary genre, Myth (disambiguation), and Narrative

The genre of a piece of writing is the literary "type" to which it belongs.^[79] The meaning to be derived from the Genesis creation narrative will depend on the reader's understanding of its genre: "it makes an enormous difference whether the first chapters of Genesis are read as scientific cosmology, creation myth, or historical saga".^[80] Misunderstanding of the genre of the text - meaning the intention of the author/s and the culture within which they wrote - will result in a misreading.^[81] Bruce Waltke cautions against one such misreading, the "woodenly literal" approach which leads to "creation science" and such "implausible interpretations" as the "gap theory", the presumption of a "young earth", and the denial of evolution.^[82] Another scholar, Conrad Hyers, sums up the same thought in these words: "A literalist interpretation of the Genesis accounts is inappropriate, misleading, and unworkable [because] it presupposes and insists upon a kind of literature and intention that is not there."^[83]

Genesis 1-2 can be seen as ancient science: in the words of E.A. Speiser, "on the subject of creation biblical tradition aligned itself with the traditional tenets of Babylonian science."^[84] It can also be regarded as ancient history, "part of a broader spectrum of originally anonymous, history-like ancient Near Eastern narratives."^[85] It is frequently called myth in scholarly writings, but there is no agreement on how "myth" is to be defined, and so while one scholar can say that Genesis 1-11 is free from myth, another can say it is entirely mythical.^[86] (Brevard Childs famously suggested that the author of Genesis 1-11 "demythologised" his narrative, meaning that he removed from his sources (the Babylonian myths) those elements which did not fit with his own faith.)^[87]

Whatever else it may be, Genesis 1 is "story" [or "narrative" - res], since it features character and characterisation, a narrator, and dramatic tension expressed through a series of incidents arranged in time.^[88] The Priestly author of Genesis 1 had to confront two major difficulties. First, there is the fact that since only God exists at this point, no-one was available to be the narrator; the storyteller solved this by introducing an unobtrusive "third person narrator".^[89] Second, there was the problem of conflict: conflict is necessary to arouse the reader's interest in the story, yet with nothing else existing, neither a chaos-monster nor another god, there cannot be any conflict. This was solved by creating a very minimal tension: God is opposed by nothingness itself, the blank of the world "without form and void."^[89] Telling the story in this way was a deliberate choice: there are a number of creation stories in the Bible, but they tend to be told in the first person, by Wisdom, the instrument by which God created the world; the choice of omniscient first-person narrator in the Genesis narrative allows the storyteller to create the impression that everything is being told and nothing held back.^[90]"

- Ibid, Wikipedia
 
R.E. Slater

July 22, 2013 

 

* * * * * * * * * *

 

 

Creation Debates Are Not New

 

by Scot McKnight

July 22, 2013

 

The first two centuries of the Christian church included serious debates between major theologians — like Justin Martyr and Tertullian — and they debated one essential idea: Did God create out of nothing or, did God create from pre-existing material? A problem actually arises from the translation of Genesis 1:1-2.

KJV: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.”

NRSV: In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

Notice how this works: in the KJV, after God created the heaven and the earth, there was “without form, and void” while in the NRSV God’s creation turned things from formlessness and voidness into created order. The KJV, in some sense, has a problem setting up the possibility of a two-stage creation: first matter, then order out of matter. The NRSV’s translation could well imply the same, but perhaps not. Both translations are legit.

We talk about creation and science often on this blog, mostly through the posts of RJS (who is a professional scientist), but creation is not just a debate. It is an affirmation about God, that God is Life and that God is responsible for creation. Do you see any prospects for a resolution among Christians of a traditional bent to see legitimacy in theistic evolution or evolutionary creation or creationary evolution? Or is this a make or break issue?

All of this is discussed in Ronald Heine, Classical Christian Doctrine, because the first lines of the Nicene Creed says:

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth, 
of all that is, seen and unseen.

At the time of Jesus and the apostle Paul, and a set of ideas still central by the end of 2d Century AD, there were two basic views: the Platonic view was that God “created” out of pre-existing materials while the Aristotelian view was that matter existed eternally.

Christians differed, too. Justin Martyr was like Plato in thinking God created out of existing materials while Tertullian argued — and his view captured the church — that God created out of nothing (ex nihilo). Tatian said God created matter and then out of matter created the order we see.

The fundamental issue comes down to the doctrine of God: if God alone is the origin of life, matter depends on and comes from God, and therefore the Aristotelian and pre-existing theories are defined off the map. If God alone is Life and if God is creator, then at some point in time matter did not exist and came to exist. Thus, creation is ex nihilo in orthodox thinking.

Of course, this says absolutely nothing about how God chose to create. A creationary evolution that affirms all comes from God coheres with orthodoxy as much as the creationist’s view.  
 

 

Evolving as a Postmodern Christian - Asking Questions of Evolution and Theology

 

"Looking beyond our own beliefs"

 

 

Last November I asked the question whether the Bible needed an historical Adam (Why Do We Need a Historical Adam? The Bible Doesn't). I then asked whether the Gospel of Jesus needed the same. At which point I also left a half dozen articles that I had previously worked up for interested readers to follow within that same article. Later, this past April, I then made the observation that Evolutionary Creationism would require rethinking our major Christian doctrines (How Evolutionary Creationism Will Require Rethinking Scriptural Doctrine) to which I have spent the past two years doing just that as I investigated our historic Christian faith and updated it into a postmodern, Emergent Christian frame of reference without losing sight of our historic, orthodox creeds as long as they could be biblically substantiated. It has been a large task (as you can tell from the many articles and topics along the right-hand sidebars), but a fruitful one. It required a change of boundary markers and a change of viewpoint from which I had familiarly grown up with, and become comfortable, within. A journey that has been spiritually satisfying as my faith matured, while allowing me to become reacquainted with the majesty and glory of the Lord God Almighty. At the center of all my searches as been Jesus, His glory, His love, and His atoning sacrifice - without which this effort would all have been meaningless.

 

Since the questions I have asked, and the explorations I have made, appear to make radical departures from most of today's more popularly-rooted evangelical beliefs, I did not think that these topics would make for popular reading material. However, as an evolving, emerging Christian, I did believe that there would be others like myself who would be interested in these same discoveries, and so, have pointedly laid out my observations and arguments as patiently, and insightfully, as I could. Meanwhile, I have been careful to give heed to past non-scientific, pre-postmodern orthodox doctrine and dogmas, while at the same time have actively sought to uplift this same Christian faith into a postmodern, emergent context - one that would be more flexible and more relevant with our current understanding, education, scientific knowledge, and cultural/social movements. It has been a large endeavor, but one that I have thankfully explored with the help of other Christian minds and souls whom I have liberally quoted, and have provided references to their likeminded observations, as they have lent additional insight to mine own.

 

Hence, I would encourage further examination of the articles here on this web journal. The questions I have been asking - and am still asking- are questions I believe every Christian should be asking, and should remain necessarily relevant for generations to come. Namely, how does one break out of one's own background and be able to see beyond the borders of one's own discontinuities, intolerances, and short-sightedness? That in itself is an impossible task but if undertaken by the power of the Holy Spirit is made significantly satisfying when finally discovering the distant shores of other lost worlds, tribes, and people thought long dead (metaphorically speaking). For in the end, the Gospel of Jesus is one of following and obeying His call to lose one's faith in order to find one's faith. I think prime examples of these kinds of believers are the biblical heroes we know by the names of Abraham, Moses, the prophets, Jesus, His disciples, and the apostle Paul. Each one had to doubt what they knew of God in order to be able to hear God's call in their lives again. Without that doubt, that lose of faith, they would never have been able to follow after God's call to move beyond the boundary markers of their lives framed in yesterday's religions and inflexible beliefs.

 

The Christian faith, at the last, is a faith that demands we submit and obey to God's revelation in our lives, against our own wills of disbelief and incredulity. To me, this is the clarion call of God's Spirit to our own... one that listens and obeys like the little shepherd boy David watching over his father's sheep far from the fields of battle. A lad of tremendous faith who packs 5 rocks into his slingshot bag and marches off to confront Goliath and his four brothers. Who refuses the heavy, protective armor of King Saul to stand in defiance to the armies of the Philistine arraigned in hatred to God's covenanted people of Israel. Who, at the last, by his actions and faith, removed the obstacle to Israel's own lack of faith through his courage and trust in God. And patiently endured the many hardships to come in order to be able to lead God's people by his own faith struggles and disbeliefs, into a deeper covenant commitment despite surrounded by a wilderness of doubt and dismay.

The Christian faith should never be static. Never dull and out-of-step with society. We need to hear God's clarion call of belief and follow hard after His leading without fear of never finding Him again. Creation attests to the Lord Almighty. It is everywhere about us. We simply need to hear and obey. And to hear we must leave behind those giants of illusion, fear, and mis-statement. We must trust and believe. Even within our own disciplines that would persuade us otherwise causing us to stand on the sidelines of battle and tremble. For many Christians we spend too much time "defending our faith" when we should be spending more of our time "embracing our faith." The issue is not in defending our view of religion but in discovering the God of faith Himself. Paul had to let go of his sentiments about Jesus in order to see the Savior of his faith. His religion stood in the way of his sight while his heart knew all along that he must bow before his Creator-Redeemer.... Now what say you?

 

R.E. Slater

May 6, 2013

 

 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

 

 

Does Paul’s Theology Require a Historical Adam? Thoughts from J. R. Daniel Kirk

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2013/05/does-pauls-theology-require-a-historical-adam-thoughts-from-j-r-daniel-kirk/

 

by Peter Enns

May 6, 2013

Comments

 

Recently, Daniel Kirk posted his thoughts on the historical Adam question in Fuller Theological Seminary’s Spring 2013 issue of “Theology, News, and Notes.” He followed up with a post on his own blog. Many know Kirk from his books Jesus Have I Loved, but Paul?: A Narrative Approach to the Problem of Pauline Christianity and Unlocking Romans: Resurrection and the Justification of God. Kirk is associate professor of New Testament at Fuller.

 

I saw this article several months ago in an earlier version, and, amid all the controversy and misinformation generated by others, I was excited to see Kirk weighing on this this issue. I hope the article gets the attention it deserves.

 

Kirk summarizes his entire article well at the end of his introduction:

 

I want to open up the conversation to the possibility that the gospel does not, in fact, depend on a historical Adam or historical Fall in large part because what Paul says about Adam stems from his prior conviction about the saving work of Christ. The theological points Paul wishes to make concern the saving work of the resurrected Christ and the means by which he makes them is the shared cultural and religious framework of his first-century Jewish context.

 

Note the two key issues Kirk mentions here:

 

1. What Paul says about Adam is set up by his prior conviction that in Christ the “new creation” has broken in to present time. Paul draws Adam into a conversation begun by the resurrection of Christ, not vice-versa, and in doing so recasts Adam’s significance beyond that which he has in Genesis.

 

2. To the extent that Paul sees Adam as the first man, Paul is not making a binding scientific or historical  declaration but reflecting his view on such things as a first-century Jew.

 

In my opinion, both of these observations are absolutely key in coming to a biblically literate and historically knowledgable understanding of the role Adam plays in Paul’s theology.

 

Later Kirk makes the following observation concering Adam’s function in Paul’s argument in Romans:

 

What difference might it make to our discussions about a historical Adam that Paul was claiming, “Christ, is (un)like Adam, therefore God’s people are not demarcated by Torah”? This latter statement is, in fact, the point of Paul’s argument in Romans 5 (cf. 5:12–14, 20–21). Paul’s Adam theology is an avenue toward affirming that God has one worldwide people; therefore, the specially blessed people are not defined by the story of circumcision. 

 

What if Paul’s Adam is not a lesson for us about where people came from, but part of Paul’s rhetoric to establish the oneness of God’s people–Jew and Gentile together–that so dominates his letter to the Romans?

 

Here is one more quote that captures Kirk’s point:

 

[W]hat is a “given” for Paul is the saving event of Jesus’ death and resurrection. The other things he says, especially about sin, the Law, and eschatology, are reinterpretations that grow from the fundamental reality of the Christ event. Recognizing this relieves the pressure that sometimes builds up around a historical Adam….Adam is not the foundation on which the system of Christian faith and life is built, such that removing him means that the whole edifice comes crashing down. Instead, the Adam of the past is one spire in a large edifice whose foundation is Christ. The gospel need not be compromised if we find ourselves having to part ways with Paul’s assumption that there is a historical Adam, because we share Paul’s fundamental conviction that the crucified Messiah is the resurrected Lord over all.

 

I hope you have a chance to wonder over to Fuller’s website and read the article for yourselves. At the very least, counterarguments would need to provide a more compelling account of Paul’s overall theology in Romans rather than simply lifting verses out of that carefully crafted work and using them for reasons Paul never intended–and never would have understood.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

 

 

Q&A: Our New BioLogos Book

http://biologos.org/news/apr-2013/new-book-qa
 

How does my walk with God relate to modern scientific discoveries? Can I maintain biblical Christian faith even if I change my mind on an issue like evolution? Many Evangelicals today are pondering these questions. Finding the answers will involve more than a mere synthesis of scientific facts. We need to hear stories from others who have wrestled with evolution and Christian faith. That’s the basis for Evolving: Evangelicals Reflect on Evolution, a collection of essays from Evangelicals sharing their personal journeys of science and faith being produced by BioLogos. Some essays will appear on the BioLogos blog in coming weeks and months, with the full collection published in a book by Russell Media by the end of 2013.
We sat down with BioLogos Program Director Kathryn Applegate and Tom Oord, two editors of the essay collection, to learn more.

1. Where did the idea for the book come from?

Kathryn: We were all talking about how much we personally have been impacted by stories, and how coming to our present-day understanding of origins is not simply a matter of learning new facts.  We thought it would be interesting to compile stories from people in many different disciplines to see what factors were most important for them as they wrestled with evolution and their faith.

Tom: A growing number of Christians -- including Evangelicals -- are rethinking their opposition to evolution. The idea for this book basically comes from trying to witness to this significant growth. We wanted Christians to speak about how they are working through the myriad of issues pertaining to evolution and faith.

2. Were most people eager to share their stories of wrestling with science and faith?

T: We were encouraged by the number of people willing to share. For some, this meant risking criticism. Forces are at play that discourage such honesty and openness to science. But Evangelicals know the testimonies of the saints are among the most powerful evidence to God's working in the world and in the midst of complex questions.

K: Almost all the scientists we asked were eager to write, and so were many scholars from the humanities.  The most hesitant group, perhaps not surprisingly, were the "professional Christians"--prolific Christian authors and parachurch leaders.  In some cases they were simply too busy, but in others they were concerned about damaging relationships with their constituencies.  Talking about evolution in the church is still a risky business!

3. What were some of the common themes you found throughout the testimonies?

K: Many of the contributors were raised in the church and took on young-earth creationist beliefs at an early age, but somewhere along the line began to discover that a) it wasn't the only position faithful Christians can hold, and b) it didn't make sense in light of what they were learning about science, history, and the Bible.  Many wrote about role models--parents, teachers, or pastors--who had an influence on their thinking.  Some mentioned a conviction that accepting evolution brought a sense of peace, even as legitimate questions remained.  They sensed that they were pursuing truth about God's creation, not taking the path of least resistance.

T: Christians care about the Bible. It has been and continues to be a well-spring of wisdom. So many essayists rightfully explore the scriptures as a guide for their coming to terms with the mounting evidence for evolution. The results affirm the central role of Scripture for finding truth, but it also reveals that Christians care about the truth of God found in creation.

4. Why do you think a book like this is important for the Church?

T: This book is important for many reasons, but let me just highlight two: (1) Sometimes putting in words what we are thinking can help us hone our own intuitions and partially-formulated thoughts on a subject. This book is helpful both to those who wrote the essays and should be so for those who read them. (2) For some time, a significant number of Evangelicals have accepted evolution as compatible with Christian faith. But many were unaware that others thought similarly. This book helps those who may think they are all alone see many others exist in their tribe who also believe evolution can be compatible with robust Christian faith.

K: Many people still believe that evolution is a creation story for atheists, when in fact there are many, many believers who are striving to follow Jesus even as they accept that God created through an evolutionary process.  When we hear someone's story and sense the Holy Spirit's working in their life, it becomes harder to dismiss them as not a "real" Christian.  Without needing an advanced degree in genetics or evolutionary biology, church leaders can learn ways to more effectively minister to those who are struggling over origins--and avoid creating stumbling blocks for seekers of God.

5. What has been the most rewarding part of working on this project?

K: It has been a real privilege to work with the authors on their essays.  They're a highly intelligent, faithful bunch—all leaders in their own fields.  And they still express an intellectual humility and a desire to keep learning and growing.

T: I especially enjoy hearing time and time again that a prominent leader wants to participate in this project because he or she has wanted to write on his or her affirmation of evolution. This provides further evidence for the growing sense that momentum is building on this crucial set of issues!

Continue to -

 

Index to past articles on "An Emerging Theology"