No serpent, no apple

Today the Morning Edition program on NPR had a lengthy (almost 8 minute) segment on Adam and Eve (see Genesis, chapter 2). In particular they discussed how some conservative scholars (I'm sure this means Biblical scholars within or from the conservative Christian tradition) no longer believe that Adam and Eve are historically true.

One person saying this is Dennis Venema of the BioLogos Foundation, a Christian group working to reconcile faith and science. This group, and many others, is part of a group working to bring Christianity into the modern era.

The big reason against a historical A&E is the tremendous genetic diversity among humans. The initial population of humans was at least 10,000 or the genetic diversification -- mutation rate -- of early humans was astronomically high. Such a mutation rate would have quickly mutated us out of existence.

If Adam and Eve aren't historical it also means there was no serpent, no apple, no Fall of Man, no loss of Paradise.

And no reason for salvation through Jesus. Yes, conservative Christian leaders are calling such ideas heresy. That's why they've been fighting evolution for the last 150 years.

The Christian leaders expanded on the implications. The A&E story makes the claim that humans are created by God in the image of God and are thus special. We're not descendant from other common animals. The story also tells how evil came into the world -- A&E disobeyed God. That sin infected all humans and is the reason why we need a savior. The whole point of Jesus is to undo the sin of Adam.

Venema responds by saying all that is true only if you treat the Bible as literal, instead of poetry and allegory. If literalism is out of the way we can aim for a more accurate understanding of the world and of how God brought us into existence.

Back to that heresy charge. It has consequences. Stray too far from doctrine and your job may disappear. But this could be a Galileo moment. He was put under house arrest for claiming the earth revolved around the sun. Many think the stakes are higher in this tussle between science and religion than the tussle between Galileo and the Church. This time around the argument is over the nature of God, whether man is inherently sinful, and whether redemption is necessary -- quite core beliefs. Put another way, does Christianity change to keep the respect of those who understand the human genome? Or does a change in orthodoxy cause a loss of respect and a loss of faith?

My niece may be amused to know that current and former Calvin College professors are on both sides of this debate (well, current on one side, former on the other).

I have been thinking about the need for Christianity to modernize for some time now. It came about through my disgust with the way Fundies claim that since I won't renounce being gay I can't possibly get into heaven. That "we're better than you" attitude is so un-Christian. The first step out of that dilemma is from a book I used when I led an adult Sunday School class. The book is Short Meditations on the Bible and Peanuts (yup, Charlie Brown and Snoopy) by Robert Short (he wrote the earlier The Gospel According to Peanuts). The last couple chapters discuss God's ability to get us into Heaven even when we don't acknowledge him while alive. What is more powerful -- our unbelief or God's love? Yes, that means we are all going to Heaven.

So if Jesus didn't come to get us into Heaven, why did he come?

A couple more books that influenced me. 24 Hours That Changed the World by Adam Hamilton. He discusses theories of atonement. One that makes sense to me is that Jesus offers a clear alternative to change through violence -- he kept to it even when that violence was done to him.

Another is Saving Paradise by Brock and Parker about first millennium Christians who emphasized bringing paradise to earth rather than waiting to enter paradise on death. I've written about this book before.

All these and more have shifted my understanding of Jesus. I believe he came to show us we're not alone and to teach us that to create paradise on earth we must seek improved mental health and seek community.

Back to the Adam and Eve controversy. Requiring someone to believe in the literalness of a story so contradicted by science is not good for mental health. Condemning someone because they refuse an unsupportable belief breaks community.

If my brief description in the purpose of Jesus wasn't enough I'd be glad to discuss it in more detail.

According to the counter in this blog, this post is number 1500. That's a lot of writing in the last three years and nine months.