3. A recovery of a common account de-weaponizes evolutionary science, enabling a rapprochement between different traditions.
The recovery of a traditional narrative accommodates many traditions of the Church together, undoing the splintering of the evolutionary challenge. Differences are more easily explored as variants to a common narrative, rather than as mutually exclusive proposals. This common narrative was splintered by evolutionary science, and it might be recovered now.
INFALLIBILITY, TOLERANCE, MYSTERY
This book references a traditional de novo account, defined a particular way: a de novo created Adam and Eve, in the recent past, ancestors of us all. This is how most people have understood Genesis over the last several thousand years. This also is the account that has been thought disproven by science. When I discuss recovering a traditional account, however, I mean more than merely these three details of the Adam and Eve narrative. I also mean to recover infallibility, tolerance, and mystery.
My emphasis on tradition is rooted in the doctrine of infallibility: “Far from misleading us, [Scripture] is true and reliable in all the matters it addresses.”5 Large and diverse portions of the Church, over long periods of time, understood Genesis to teach the de novo creation of Adam and Eve, ancestors of us all, in the somewhat recent past. The important details of this account have been articulated in a multi-century exchange. I mean to read Scripture in conversation with the many-colored doctrine, discourse, and history of the Church. The concerns of this tradition are not to be dismissed, especially when nothing in science requires us to dismiss them. Continuing an ancient conversation, the transmillennium community of the Church is a corrective, guarding us from idiosyncratic error.6 The God who rose Jesus from the dead, I believe, guides us to correct understanding of Scripture, in part, through the long conversation of historical theology that continues on till today.
Necessarily, I do not mean the term traditional as pretense for exclusion. A lavish diversity of faithful views of Genesis are found in the history of the Church. Some are rejected as false, but many are faithful heterodox, not heresy. Christians that take heterodox or non-traditional readings of Genesis also affirm far more important doctrines, such as the Resurrection of Jesus. In full view of this diversity, the early creeds say nothing of Adam, focusing instead on Jesus. Heterodoxy on Adam is not heresy. At its best, tolerance of minority positions is part of the Church’s theological tradition. This tolerance is also to be recovered.
Far from wooden traditionalism, the traditional account of Adam and Eve is alive with mystery. Genesis does not present itself as airtight, nor does it speak with scientific precision. The flexibility intrinsic to mystery is part of the account’s durability and its allure. Genesis raises questions as much as it gives answers. For this reason, there have been several versions of the traditional account. As a young-earth creationist, I often speculated about people outside Garden, as have many other readers of Genesis. It is against tradition to foreclose the mystery outside the Garden.
A recovery does not demand agreement from everyone. We can, and will, still disagree about de novo creation, literalism, evolutionary science, and more. The difference is that we will no longer be pitted against each other by evolutionary science. Our disagreements might continue, but the challenge of evolutionary science might fade into the past.
SPLINTERING ON THREE DILEMMAS
Monogenesis, de novo creation, and a recent Adam and Eve are the nonnegotiables repeated over and over by those who resist evolutionary science. Why are these three claims repeated? They are touch points for different traditions of the Church. Evolutionary science splinters the traditional account of Adam and Eve by pressing three false dilemmas, pitting several traditions against one another, leaving us with mutually exclusive accounts.
1. Monogenesis or a recent Adam and Eve?
2. Common descent or de novo creation?
3. Historicity or mythology?
The first dilemma forces a choice between a recent Adam and Eve and monogenesis, between historical doctrine and the most common historical readings of Genesis. Some affirm Adam and Eve were recent but give up on monogenesis, redefining Adam and Eve into something other than our universal ancestors. Some affirm monogenesis but give up on a recent Adam and Eve, setting aside large portions of the Genesis narrative.
The second dilemma, between de novo creation and common descent, heightens the conflict, especially for Protestants, forcing a choice between mainstream science and the literalist tradition. Some have retrenched. Others are caught in limbo, waiting for a better way forward.7 Catholics often emphasized monogenesis. Protestants often emphasized recency and literalism. Traditionist Protestants care about many of these concerns together, caught between the dilemmas, boxed into resisting evolutionary science.
The third dilemma, between historicity and mythology, has become a divisive symbol of the evolutionary challenge. This dilemma, too, is resolved in the traditional account. In Church history, a mythological understanding of Genesis was often accommodated as a faithful heterodoxy. When couched in evolutionary science, however, a mythical understanding need not make space for a “historical” reading of Genesis. Emboldened by the opportunity, some mythicists enlisted evolutionary science as a wedge, hoping to force a “paradigm shift”8 or a “rethink”9 that would “dismiss”10 traditional theology of Adam and Eve. Wielding the wedge of evolutionary science, this telling of evolutionary science is theologically driven and leaves no space for faithful heterodoxy. Resistance grows to both evolutionary science and to the theology to which it is unnecessarily yoked.
Figure 12.1. Evolution splinters the traditional account on three false dilemmas. The genealogical Adam and Eve resolves these dilemmas within mainstream science by leaning heavily on mystery outside the garden and historical silence on evolution.
The traditional account splinters on evolutionary science, along these three dilemmas (fig. 12.1). However, these dilemmas are all false choices. In the past, most people in the Church, even the mythicists, began with something closely matching the traditional de novo account of Adam and Eve. With the pressure of evolutionary science, we each went separate ways, taking up highly personalized, mutually exclusive accounts. As our starting point was lost, the ecclesial conversation fractured.
RECOVERING A COMMON ACCOUNT
Before the challenge of evolutionary science, the traditional de novo account of Adam and Eve accommodated differences, and it did so without splintering into mutually contradictory statements of personal values.
We should all resist wooden traditionalism that insists everyone agrees. A recovery of tradition I seek, instead, is many-colored, fostering a living conversation about our differences. Differences are easier to explore as variations within a common narrative. The traditional account of Adam and Eve provided this common narrative in the past, before it was splintered by evolution. Recovering a traditional account could bring us back into a common starting point, within which our differences could be understood and appreciated.
Recovering a common narrative alongside evolutionary science de-weaponizes the ecclesial conversation on human origins.11 Bracketing off everything before Genesis 1:26, there could be wide agreement about what is possible, enabling the affirmation of many traditions together. For example, work by John Walton is rejected by traditionalists for reviving La Peyrère’s polygenesis.12 Walton’s reading does follow, in fact, a non-racist version La Peyrère’s proposal, affirming monophylogeny, but not universal descent from Adam and Eve. It need not be this way. Leaving his exegetical and theological work entirely intact, Walton could also affirm monogenesis, offering the de novo creation of Adam and Eve as an option consistent with science. The same is true of Denis Alexander’s work.13 Others are just as easily brought into alignment with traditions across the Church. Kemp, Loke, and Suarez can all be understood as variants of the same common starting point. Ross and Rana at Reasons to Believe also have opportunity to recover a literalistic
reading of Genesis, entirely consistent with the scientific evidence in mainstream science. They could go with a recent Adam and Eve in the Persian Gulf Oasis and flood, or they could go with Adam and Eve as ancient ancestors of all Homo sapiens. A common narrative is a meeting ground, giving us common touchpoints from which to securely speculate and disagree. Rather than feeling the pressure of false dilemmas, we could be exploring meaningful differences in a common narrative.
Those who affirm a mythical Adam and Eve are included too. They enter the narrative with everyone else, merely disagreeing about what is fact and fiction. Their accounts might enumerate ways “humans” are formed outside the Garden, enriching the conversation for everyone. In a de-weaponized conversation, without claiming scientific authority against others, a mythical Adam and Eve is much easier to defend as a faithful heterodoxy, unthreatening to the traditional understanding of Genesis.
All three dilemmas of evolutionary science are resolved with a recovery of the traditional account alongside evolutionary science: monogenesis with a recent Adam and Eve, common descent with de novo creation, mythology with historicity. Evolution falls into the mystery outside the Garden; Adam and Eve fall outside the streetlight. In this way, the traditional account is to be recovered, entirely intact and unmodified, contained within a larger narrative.
Figure 12.2. With a rebound the traditional account, a new ecclesial ordering is possible. No longer a threat, evolutionary science is reduced to merely another way of understanding the mystery outside the Garden. Different understandings of Adam and Eve are variations from a common starting point, and there is no longer need for anti-evolution creationism.
THE QUESTION OF HUMAN
The recovery of a common narrative would rebind large portions of the Church together, undoing a fracture in society. Differences are more easily explored and valued as variants of a common narrative rather than as mutually exclusive proposals. A common narrative was splintered by evolutionary science, and it might be recovered now.
The great return is to the grand questions of defining our place in the world, in the waking world of theology. Science does not tell us what “human” is in theology. We legitimate autonomy to define “human” with precision, without reference to scientific categories. In the dialogue with science, theologically valid definitions unsettle confident claims about human origins. Science cannot tell us when the “humans” of theology arise, nor can it tell us if they arise as a single couple or a population. It can tell us if there were people outside the Garden.
This recovery places gentle pressure on those that linked the theological definition of human to the scientific taxonomic categories, such as Homo sapiens.14 This could be a valid approach, and it is not ruled out by evidence. It is not valid, however, to tightly link the theological and scientific definitions together into a strawman for the purpose of ruling out an Adam and Eve.
There is much theological work to do, but not as a defense of a particular tradition. There is tension here, but the tension makes space for theological reflection and progress. Perhaps we might clarify together more clearly what it means to be human. This is, in fact, the deeper tradition of Genesis, in that it is about this question: Who are we and who is God?
CHAPTER THIRTEEN
RECOVERING MANY
TRADITIONS TOGETHER
IS THE RETURNED TERRITORY VALUABLE? Some will argue yes, and others will argue no. Perhaps most importantly, however, we might find a better ecclesial conversation, an understandable societal voice, where evolutionary science is de-weaponized, no longer a wedge nor a meaningful threat. Resolving the three dilemmas, evolutionary science would no longer pit different traditions in the Church against one another. The key point is that these traditions can be recovered together, in the same account. The disagreements that remain might be those intrinsic tensions of theology, not the external threat of evolutionary science. In this way, the splintering of many traditions might be undone. Alongside evolutionary science, then, several traditions can now be held together.
■ The literalist tradition. With questions of inerrancy and infallibility in mind, this is an important tradition for many in the Church.
■ De novo creation. Adam and Eve could have been created by a direct act of God, or not. Science does not tell us one way or another.
■ Recent Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve could have lived in the Middle East as recently as six thousand years ago, or any time more ancient.
■ Universal ancestry. If Adam and Eve were real people in a real past, they were likely ancestors of all of us, even if they were recent.
Along the way, there remain two concerns with which to grapple.
■ Manageable constraints remain. This opens up new ways forward, but there are still constraints, pressing on some traditions.
■ The mystery outside the Garden. Science gives us new information about an ancient mystery.
This final point is not just a concern; it is also an opportunity. Mystery is what keeps traditions alive, inviting deeper contemplation. It is here that science gives us more information. Without challenging the traditions of the Church, we are invited back into the mystery outside the Garden.
THE LITERALIST TRADITION
The literalist tradition is important in parts of the Church, and it is being followed through this book. This tradition is well expressed in the Chicago Statements on Inerrancy and Hermeneutics. Whether or not this is the correct way to read the Bible is beside the point, as other hermeneutics are easily accommodated.
■ The statements affirm a literalistic interpretation of Scripture that takes genre into account. “The literal sense is the grammatical-historical sense, that is, the meaning which the writer expressed. Interpretation according to the literal sense will take account of all figures of speech and literary forms found in the text.”1
■ The statements affirm a historical interpretation of Genesis that cannot be overthrown by science.2 A mythical interpretation of Genesis 1–11 is specifically denied.
■ The statements insist that science cannot “overthrow” Scripture, and that it does not speak in the precise language of science. “Scripture is inerrant, not in the sense of being absolutely precise by modern standards, but in the sense of making good its claims and achieving that measure of focused truth at which its authors aimed.”3
■ The statements are already reconciled with an ancient earth, death outside the Garden, and a regional flood.4
■ The statements do not exclude affirmation of evolutionary science outside the Garden.5 There are literalistic readings of Genesis that suggest providentially governed evolution, but I agree that evolution is not directly taught by Scripture.6
It is the literalist and inerrancy tradition from which Tim Keller and Wayne Grudem are speaking when they affirm the de novo creation of Adam and Eve. It is this same tradition that leaves Ross and Rana troubled with an Adam and Eve too far back in history.7 This is among the traditions recovered now.
THE DE NOVO CREATION OF ADAM AND EVE
There is no evidence for or against the de novo creation of Adam and Eve within a larger population. Some traditions find it critical to affirm the de novo creation of Adam and Eve. Others disagree. There may be debate about the importance of affirming de novo creation, but science does not tell us either way.
■ Historically, most readers of Genesis understood Adam and Eve to be created de novo, by a direct act of God. Several theological traditions confess that Adam and Eve were our “first parents” or “without parents.” Many organizational belief statements include affirmation of the de novo creation of Adam and Eve.
■ The de novo creation of Adam and Eve has become a litmus test for orthodoxy in some circles. If de novo creation is deemed “orthodox,” other views should still be embraced as faithful heterodoxy, not heresy.
■ Affirming the de novo creation of Adam and Eve specifically states that God acts in the world, and that science does not give a complete account of the physical world
. This specific statement is seen, by some, to be an important confession for Christians in a scientific world.
■ Some conceptions of “original righteousness” might entail the de novo creation of Adam and Eve. Perhaps they must have entered the world without sin in a sinless environment, and for this reason needed to enter the world in a different way. This might be similar, in some ways, to the Virgin Birth of Jesus.
■ A literalistic tradition of Genesis 2:7, 20-22 might require that Adam and Eve were de novo created from the dust and from Adam’s side or rib by a direct act of God.8 Most Christians for thousands of years have understood Scripture to teach de novo creation. If the traditions of the Church are important, this grants primacy to this understanding of Adam and Eve. We can deviate from traditions like this. Deviations, however, need to be justified without appealing to the scientific evidence, which is silent on this matter.
For all or any of these reasons, some will find value in affirming the de novo creation of Adam and Eve. Some object, “Why would God make biological humans outside the Garden by an evolutionary process and then create Adam and Eve de novo inside the Garden?” This is a good question to bring into theology. Before dismissing it, remember that God does not always do things the way we expect. Let the theological dust settle before rushing to judgment.
The Genealogical Adam and Eve Page 17