The Genealogical Adam and Eve
Page 23
Figure 17.1. The speculative narrative envisions people outside the Garden are created in the image of God (left). This reading works whether Genesis 1 and 2 are read sequentially or as recapitulated accounts. Some will, instead, understand the image of God as unique to Adam and Eve’s lineage (right). This is not necessarily a problem. It is possible that working out a grounding for freedom before Adam and Eve might ease concerns.
Perhaps aided by Nyssa, attention to questions of dignity, worth, and freedom will reduce anxiety about models that do not see people outside the Garden in the image of God. If Nyssa’s theology of freedom is not adopted, hopefully other proposals can be explored. For example, if Adam and Eve’s original purpose is to bless those outside the Garden, this affirms their worth and dignity too. Denying their worth and dignity is a corrupted consequence of the Fall, inconsistent with Adam and Eve’s original good purpose.
A CROSSROAD IN THEOLOGY
There are a large number of unanswered questions visible. The range and depth of these questions is a strength of this narrative, not a weakness. This narrative sits at the crossroads of a large number of interesting and important questions, surfacing dozens of questions at the intersection of science, theology, and society.
■ How do archaeology and anthropology fill in the details of this narrative? Does this data guide us to a particular date to place Adam? Does it shape our understanding of how civilization was corrupted?
■ How does ancient Near Eastern literature give additional insight? Does it support or detract from this narrative?
■ What is the nature of the “soul?” When and how did it arise among our ancestors?
■ How does atonement interact with the people outside the Garden? How does the incarnation of Jesus, his life, death, and resurrection, influence our understanding of their place in theology?
■ Recovering the deeper traditions of the Church, how do we understand the purpose of death? Does it function to limit evil?
■ What is the eternal destiny of the people outside the Garden? Scripture does not tell us. We know that God will be just and merciful, but what do we think happens to them? Were they under a different dispensation of grace?
■ How would the narrative change if Adam and Eve were much more ancient? What if they lived about when Homo sapiens arise?
■ How do we understand mercy and justice in a world governed with inheritance? In what ways might our understanding of societal justice be informed by the Fall?
■ How do we reckon the history of racism in origins? It arises in all camps, both in theology and in science. How should we receive the inheritance, good and bad, of this history?
■ How does this model adjust in different theological traditions? How would Reformed and Catholics take hold of this? How would Lutherans and Baptists make sense of it within their theological context?
In time, some of these questions might be answered in helpful ways, perhaps by engaging existing work. It is also likely that some of these questions are touching on great mysteries. They may not be possible to be answered with confidence. In time, we might still find a diversity of interesting proposals, extending into the unknown in meaningful speculation of what could have been.
AN ECCLESIAL STARTING POINT
This speculative narrative contains a traditional account of the creation of Adam and Eve. It does not solve all the problems or answer all the important questions. It is, however, a starting point for an exchange, a place where we might understand and embrace our differences. I look forward to seeing the conversation grow. As biblical scholar John Hilber explains the significance of this contribution, “It is significant not because it solves all the problems but because it leaves open more possibilities that were not really in the mix.”9
The theologian Andrew Loke is publishing a book, continuing his project to reconcile literalism with evolutionary science.10 He understands Adam and Eve as chosen from a larger population and spiritually refurbished. The image of God is unique to Adam and Eve’s lineage. Loke sits at a middle ground between the structuralists and vocationalists.
The theologian Jon Garvey, a retired physician, is also publishing a book, arguing that biblical theology grows more coherent with the people outside the Garden.11 He engages more with ancient Near Eastern literature than do I. Garvey’s recent book, God’s Good Creation, may be particularly helpful in recovering a more traditional understanding of death in a good creation. This recovery of the deeper traditions of the Church might help make sense of the death of biological humans outside the Garden.
The genealogical Adam and Eve creates space for biblical theology. Several other theologians tell me they will make their own contributions, making use of the space created here. The philosopher William Lane Craig is in the middle of a two-year project, studying the science and theology of Adam and Eve, intending to publish a book of his own. It is not clear yet if Craig will choose to adopt a variation of the genealogical Adam and Eve or not. Finding out what he does will be part of the fun. Perhaps, not too long from now, we might see books or articles from Richard Averbeck, Ken Keathley, and others.
The end result of this inquiry will not be total agreement or a final solution. Mystery will remain for a long time to come. Denis Alexander’s advice is wise:
We really don’t know the precise answer. There are simply too many unknowns in both the evolutionary account, and in our own interpretation of Scripture, to be dogmatic on this issue.12
The indeterminacy is what makes the exchange dynamic. Whether or when Adam and Eve lived is not the heart of the inquiry. We are all concerned with questions about who we are as human beings. What should we make of our relationship to nature, other animals, and the world we construct around us? We are wondering about what it means to be human.
CHAPTER EIGHTEEN
TOLERANCE, HUMILITY, PATIENCE
A PASTOR EXPLAINS HIS HONEST READING OF GENESIS. His scientist friends object, sometimes incorrectly. The conversation ends. A fracture.
I am a skeptic of the conflict. The question of Adam and Eve sits at a fracture in society, but the question itself is an exchange between worlds. In view of this fracture, my goal is to “make room for our differences, even as we maintain our own beliefs and practices.”1 In this way, the fracture might become a crossroads.
Entirely consistent with the evidence, Adam and Eve, ancestors of us all, could have been de novo created, in our recent past. The only way evolutionary science presses on a traditional reading of Genesis is by suggesting, alongside Scripture, that there were people outside the Garden. This account recovers important traditions in the Church, showing they could be true together, alongside the evolutionary account of our origins. Science does not tell us one way or another.
This advance in understanding arises out of ongoing “civic practices rooted in three aspirations: tolerance, humility and patience.”2 Working out these practices, my colleague John Inazu, at the Carver Project in St. Louis, a lawyer, attends to the role of legal authority in society. I am attending to scientific authority. As far as the law is concerned, we are free to believe whatever we want to about human origins, and disagreements will likely persist for a very long time. Public education, however, will always answer to mainstream scientists, and rightly so. Scientists carry immense authority over our account of origins. How should our authority be wielded?
1. The secular scientist has authority in the public square, and our civic practice might serve a common good.
2. The faithful nontraditionalist can make space for those with whom they disagree by making space for the traditional account of Adam and Eve.
3. The committed traditionalist has opportunity for a new confidence. Whether or not evolution is true, they can make space for differences, and for evolutionary science.
4. Common stories in a fractured society are valuable and rare. Larger questions are possible to pursue together in a common narrative of origins.
This book arose from an ongoing ci
vic practice. This practice continues on, as we seek a new sort of community, gathering around the grand questions together. If we can make space for one another, a common narrative could become a meeting ground, even if each of us takes different parts of the story as fact and fiction.
THE SECULAR SCIENTIST
Secular science is a community of scientists that gathers to understand nature in a particular sort of way. As whole, it is not guided by theological agendas. “Secular,” as I am using it here, means “fair,” not antireligious or atheistic. For this reason, science includes atheists and agnostics, but also Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists. Whatever our personal beliefs, we all follow a rigorous set of rules for adjudicating evidential claims, rules I followed here in this book. I am a Christian, but I am also a secular scientist.
Some public scientists are atheists. In 2018, I came into acquaintance with one such scientist, Jerry Coyne. He is an evolutionary biologist of renown, in part for his book Why Evolution Is True.3 In an exchange about my work with the American Association for the Advancement of Science, I was struck by his exquisite sensitivity to how atheists are discussed by Christians.4 It reminded me that the casual (and the vicious) vilification of atheists is far too common and comes with societal consequences. My personal experience with atheists in science, including Coyne, is that they are fair, tolerant, and intelligent, but fiercely committed to the integrity and honesty of science. They are not my enemy. Is the atheist my neighbor?5 Lest there be doubt, the secular scientist is our neighbor. Nothing changes if our neighbor is an atheist, even if of the antireligious sort. We must love our neighbor. If we are to follow Jesus, this is not optional. Scientists, even those we perceive as antireligious atheists, are not enemies. Most scientists seek a real exchange with the religious public where we could make progress with one another.6
This book, moreover, is written following the rules of secular science. It is not a challenge to my colleagues’ understanding of our origins. It is, rather, a better understanding of how human evolution interacts with beliefs outside science. In 2011, Coyne wrote a concise statement of the prevailing consensus on Adam and Eve:
These are the scientific facts. And, unlike the case of Jesus’ virgin birth and resurrection, we can dismiss a physical Adam and Eve with near scientific certainty.7
In context, Coyne is responding to a public controversy about evolutionary science and Adam and Eve. In important ways, Coyne is right. He envisions Adam and Eve as a recent couple without people outside the Garden. This scenario does appear to be ruled out by the evidence. A better response is available now.
If Adam and Eve lived in the recent past, they could be ancestors of everyone, but science demonstrates with near certainty that there were people outside the Garden. How might theologians make sense of this?
This response is entirely aligned with science, making no compromises with the evidence. This response is also tolerant and humble, acknowledging that we have different beliefs about Adam and Eve, and these beliefs might not be changed. It is a patient response too, seeking to listen to theologians. This practice encourages the sort of civic dialogue in which trust can grow.
In early 2019, I came into acquaintance with Richard Lenski, a leading scientist who studies evolution in bacteria. The two of us, along with Nathan Lents, authored a review of an Intelligent Design book.8 Displeased with our review, they called us “Darwinists,” which is code for “anti-religious.” Lenski pointed me to a quote he treasures from an old book called Telliamed. Says the Indian philosopher to the French missionary,
Things I intend to communicate to you; perhaps they will at first appear to you opposite to what is contained in your sacred books, yet I hope in the end to convince you that they are not really so.9
A conversation about origins begins. Science seems, at first, opposite of deeply held religious beliefs (fig. 18.1). Perhaps this is not so. Lenski admires the Indian philosopher’s tolerant, humble, and patient sentiment. I do too. Science is doing fine as it is; we need not change it. Scientists carry authority in the public square. We do good by exercising this authority with virtue.
THE NONTRADITIONALIST
Some Christians take ahold of evolutionary science by affirming a nontraditional account of Adam and Eve, rather than the traditional account as it was defined in this book. At the same time, they affirm many far more important traditional doctrines, such as the Resurrection of Jesus. They may also hold a faithful view of Scripture, perhaps consistent with other traditions in the Church.
Nontraditionalists often press the false dilemmas of evolution, offering their understanding of Adam and Eve as the solution to the challenge of evolutionary science. In a recent book, for example, scientist Dennis Venema argued science demonstrated that Adam and Eve did not exist; theologian Scot McKnight concorded with a mythical Adam and Eve in his reading of Genesis.10 Promoting this message, evolutionary creationists at BioLogos argued for a decade that the traditional account of Adam and Eve was ruled out by scientific evidence. Though evolutionary creationists still “dismiss” the traditional account, to their credit, they now admit it is not ruled out by evidence.11 Certainly, some versions of the traditional account are in conflict with evolutionary science. Some versions, though, are not in conflict. Evolutionary creationists may continue to dismiss the traditional account, or perhaps they will adapt. Whatever they choose to do, as long as there are people outside the Garden, nothing in evolutionary science itself unsettles the traditional account.
Humility, tolerance, and patience are important guides, guarding against abuse of scientific authority. Tim Keller confessed his belief in the de novo creation of Adam and Eve. Evolutionary creationists might be convinced Keller is wrong, but in humility they could accept they may not be able to change his mind. In tolerance, they could make space for Keller, even though they disagree with him. In place of confrontation, Haarsma could have invited Keller into science, explaining how de novo creation could be understood alongside evolution. In patience, then, she could have sought to understand why Keller affirms a traditional reading of Genesis.
A practice like this serves the Church, and it also serves science. Some reject the nontraditional theology of evolutionary creationists, but they might find other ways to approach mainstream science. More of society is welcomed into science as we make space for differences.
Figure 18.1. The traditional de novo account of Adam and Eve situates itself within a mystery. In science, Adam and Eve fall outside the genetic streetlight. Evolution plays out in the mystery outside the Garden, and science gives us information to fill in details of this mystery. Binding together several traditions in the churches, this account affirms the monogenetic de novo creation of Adam and Eve, and it accommodates literalism. Adam and Eve’s lineage began within a larger population and became everyone to the “ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8).
THE TRADITIONALIST
The shift in our understanding creates new space for traditionists. Traditionalists are often boxed in to defensively resisting evolution, forced to find comfort in an oppositional stand against mainstream science. There is a better way. A confident traditionalist could arise, unthreatened by evolution.
I closely read what traditionalists write, attentive to their concerns and objections. In November of 2017, a large edited volume was published.12 This tome of 1,007 pages included scientific, philosophical, and theological critiques of evolutionary creation. The most cogent critiques were in the theological section, edited by the theologian Wayne Grudem. He explains why traditionalists oppose evolution, focusing almost exclusively on Adam and Eve.13 But, as this book shows, evolutionary science should not unsettle the traditionalist. If there is a conflict, it is between traditional and nontraditional theology of Adam and Eve, not with evolutionary science itself. As I wrote in response to Grudem,
I see firsthand the strength of evolutionary science. What version of theistic evolution could be theologically sound? This question, I hope, can be
received with empathy by a new generation of theologians. Help us find a better way.14
A recovery of the traditional account is a better way. For decades now, over a century, the argument about evolution has continued. In place of endless argument, join a new narrative. Creationists from Reasons to Believe and Concordia Seminary in St. Louis participated in the workshops for this book, even though they do not affirm evolution. We found a recovery of traditional theology together.
A traditional view of Scripture, also, is served with a practice of humility, tolerance, and patience. If we are to recover the traditional account, however, let us reject wooden traditionalism that forces agreement everywhere. Scientific authority is easily abused, and so is religious authority. Let us foster a larger ecclesial conversation, where faithful heterodoxy is accepted, perhaps even valued, as we make space for differences. In this larger conversation, in place of conflict and division, the many-colored wisdom of God might become visible to us all.