Adam and Eve: Historical Fact or Not?
NPR had a story last week about the fact that some Evangelicals (specially the folks over at BioLogos, and some others here and there) are now starting to question whether or not Adam and Eve actually existed. The biologist Dennis Venema argues that the human genome shows that humans as a species emerged as a large group from differing primate species. Therefore, to pin point two humans as the original would be completely impossible.
Now there are three objections that people NPR interviewed brought up. Fazale Rana has two. First, “ the Genesis account makes man unique, created in the image of God — not a descendant of lower primates.” But does not believing in an historical Adam and Eve hinder this? First, the Hebrew word adam’a means “human,” and Eve means of course “mother.” Now, if I was telling a story that started with, ‘one day, human walked into the store to buy some milk,’ everyone would believe that I’m telling a story that is describing something important about all humans, not merely one. And it seems to me that’s exactly what Genesis is doing. It’s not asking the question ‘how can we scientifically discuss the origins of human life,’ but ‘how is it that the world that we’re in (and this means the Hebrews to which it was address) looks like this?’ And a story that explains is probably much more powerful than scientific theory.
The second objection Rana raises is that “it tells a story of how evil came into the world, and it’s not a story in which God introduced evil through the process of evolution, but one in which Adam and Eve decided to disobey God and eat the forbidden fruit.” Or it doesn’t actually explain how evil came in at all, since the serpent was already there, presumably evil. It is an archetype of sin, as it were, one way sin works: through grasping at something that is not yours. But the story of Cain and Abel gives another view into the mechanism of sin, as does Babel, and other stories in that first 11 chapters of Genesis. To privilege Adam and Eve over those stories is not warranted – in fact, Jesus seems to have used the Cain and Abel story while never once mentioning Adam (who is only mentioned in Romans 5 and 1 Cor 15). In other words, evil is not explicable by blaming Adam.
And third, Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, says that “When Adam sinned, he sinned for us…And it’s that very sinfulness that sets up our understanding of our need for a savior.” Actually, no: it is Christ’s death and resurrection that sets up our understanding of sin and Adam. This is an important distinction. It is the difference between blaming someone for our sin, and realizing that we are all complicit in it. This is why it makes no difference whether Adam was an individual human or a group of 10,000 humans. We are all complicit in the situation we are in, and we only realize this once Jesus dies on a cross, and is raised from the grave.
It is interesting to ask why it is that Jews do not have a theory of original sin, and Adam is not seen as any worse or better than lots of other sinners, like Abraham, Jacob, or David. The answer is because, in their view, the resurrection did not happen in the middle of history, as Christians understand it. And when Paul speaks about Adam in both Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 (the latter all about resurrection) his point is that the reality of “death” came into being with him. Death, for Paul, as for the Old Testament, did not mean biological cessation, but referred to an anthropological reality that was destructive of what humans are. And resurrection through Christ (as the ‘first fruits’) shows that death is unnecessary.
In other words, the entire point of the doctrine of original sin is not to blame someone, but to show that death is unnecessary. Does that require one person?
What if God’s Administration were in Power?
Originally I was going to title this post “Why I cannot be a Republican.” After reading Drew’s latest post, I realized that perhaps we shouldn’t politicize solutions, but rather have political solutions. And that got me to thinking. I was going to argue that I couldn’t be a Republican because of all the grandstanding about the budget, and the fact that their budget priorities are horrendous, in my humble view.
But I suppose I then realized that I could probably make similar argues – albeit about different subjects – concerning Democrats, or really about any group in American politics. I decided then to step back and ask a different type of question: what if God ran the U.S.? What would our nation look like?
Before you turn me off, just think for a minute. I’ve heard this asked before, and normally Christians who do so come up with things about sexual purity, the abolition of abortion, and other social programs conservative Christians have favored since the 80′s.
But since I’ve been deep into the theology of the book of Revelation, I think we should ask a prior question if we really want to judge this from what we think might be God’s perspective. The question is this: given that God has already inaugurated his kingdom on earth in the form of Jesus and his ministry, what would be the priorities of God’s administration on the topic that are now heatedly in the balance, like the budget, the military, etc?
I think once you start asking this question, you start realizing that the spectrum of right and left as we’ve understood it in this country really have little to do with God’s administration.
As an initial thought, let me just say that it is important to remember that the climax of the gospel presentations (and indeed of Revelation) is “king of the Jews” nailed upon a cross. So as I begin thinking about this for myself, let me just point out that kingdom and cross are the place to begin.
So, what do you think God’s administration would look like?
New Series: Solution Politics, not Political Solutions [the way I see it]
I’ve decided after an extended absence for the Salon, to unveil a new series (with a currently undetermined number of installments). Instead of dwelling on current events with a myopic scope, I want to focus on big ideas that are relevent but not necessarily topical. I’ve entitled the series, Solution Politics, not Political Solutions to emphasize a theme of using politics to solve real problems, instead of the current modus operandi of tailoring solutions so as to make them politically advantageous. So bear with me and my inevitable arrogance, as this is simply the way I see it. Disagreement is always welcome (and probably preferred).
Issue 1: Partisan coalitions are destroying government effectiveness
Alright, so this isn’t a ground breaking thought. Countless pundits decry the profound voice of special interests in government. The problem is, as politically active units, each individual voter is rapidly becoming a special interest. We all hold a trump card, the particular issue that determines who we vote for. For some of us it is abortion rights or abortion opposition. Perhaps it is size of government or the military spending. Regardless of the issue, for most Americans, there is one particular political issue that is held so dearly that it determines voting patterns and thus has a profound influence on party platforms.
In Europe and other parliamentary systems, voters align with parties based on their favorite issue and parties then forge coalitions after voting has taken place in order to create a functioning majority rule. In this nation however, the two parties must form these coalitions prior to an election so as to gather their 50.1% of the vote on election day.
People seem to hold this belief that the Republican party equals conservatism and always has, just as the Democratic party has always been a bastion of liberalism. However, these party alignments are the result of coalition building in an attempt to piece together demographics in order to get achieve the magic majority. I am not judging this particular force, and there have been many times when it has proven an advantage. (The Democratic resurgence in response to the Great Depression, for example.) However, right now it has become a stumbling block in the path of real solutions to American problems of governance.
There are a number of financially unsustainable systems in place in the United States. However, because of the relative balance between the parties among the totality of the American electorate, neither party is willing to alienate any particular portion of their base coalition. In the issue of welfare reform, there is little space for the Clinton versus Moynihan style discussion of the mid-90s lest Democrats lose their invaluable support in the impoverished inner-cities. Thus welfare is once again stuck in its relative ineffectiveness. (I will discuss welfare further in a future issue.) Similarly, the bloated defense budget is untouchable, not because doing so might diminish America’s ability to defend herself, (many military leaders, including chairman of the JCS, Admiral Mike Mullen, have testified that there are plenty of ways to trim the budget) but simply because doing so would put into motion a shift in the coalition balance. The Defense budget thus serves as a form of mutually assured destruction in the stand-off between both parties. Thus, another needed repair to the American system is left undone by the political necessity of maintaining coalitions.
In future issues, I will expand on certain potential solutions for various issues in American society. Maybe it was a mistake however to open with such doom-saying however, since as I see it, current partisan methodology will likely prevent any real solution from becoming legislation anyways.
Response to Jon Stewart’s interview of Michael Steele
I have a number of reactions to what I consider to be one of Mr. Stewart’s better interviews in what has been an incredible career in journalism. That being said, I’ve decided to expound upon my reaction toward one particular assertion made by Mr. Steele.
After being lauded by Mr. Stewart for successfully “igniting the base” with the conjoined subtext that the Republican base is easily excitable, Mr. Steele seemed to equate Republican excitability to Democratic excitability, which is quite untrue. Let me explain with some visual assistance.
Here is a picture of a Republican being swept into office with the support of “the base.”
The Republican party’s base is typically in agreement over core issues. When they are not in agreement–such as the conservative members of my family, staunch Reaganites who aren’t terribly concerned with much of the social conservative agenda–they aren’t bothered by those who hold different views as primary concerns. Simply put, what diversity there is within the party in regards to core issues does not seem to work against party goals. Thus, a Republican who is able to ignite the base gets a free ride on a chair held up triumphantly by a jubilant crowd. (As a side note: as a child I always wished I could have a bar mitzvah just for the chair ride.)
Now I present a picture of a Democrat “igniting the base.”
What exactly is the base of the Democratic party? Is it staunch unionists, whose main objective is the plight of working class? Or is it NOW, advocating reproductive rights of women? Or those fighting for the civil rights of the LGBTQ community? The inner-city poor? Ivy league academics? Many of these core groups do not necessarily agree with others. Working class liberals are often social conservatives. Academics are fleeing the inner cities while many inner-city voters are avid attendees of churches that are simultaneously liberal and conservative on various issues. Moreover, the inner-city is a very tough place to be LGBTQ. The successful Democrat is not one who ignites the base but who includes the most bases in his or her campaign. Obama successfully garnered the support of the LGBTQ, inner-city, and academic communities, but tended to alienate the working-class “Blue Dog” Democrats. Both Bill and Hillary Clinton were able to get the support of the Blue Dogs however while maintaining support from inner-city voters. The mark of a great Democrat is that of a great juggler, someone who can balance in the air as many of the branches of the party as possible while alienating as few as possible.
Now, I am not positing that the job of a successful Dem is harder than if he or she was a member of the GOP, only that they are categorically different. When a Dem can’t keep enough balls in the air, ultimately they cannot succeed (think John Kerry.) On the other hand, a Republican who really only has one, maybe two, bases to ignite, cannot afford to leave them nonplussed (think John McCain.)
Women receive equal pay for equal work – but what work?
The New York Times ran an interesting Op-Ed last week called Women Don’t Need the Paycheck Fairness Act, written by Christina Hoff Sommers.
The basic premise of the article is difficult to digest at first – when you look at wages in comparable situations, the wage gap between men and women is often very narrow, or among some groups, experienced by men. Sommers’ is making the case that the Paycheck Fairness Act is going to unjustly overburden well-meaning employers who are trying to do the right thing.
I haven’t had the opportunity yet to read the report, so I won’t comment on the pay gap issue. But there’s an underlying issue that Sommers does not comment on, which is illustrated by Census data.
Census data on earnings shows us that half of all women make earnings below $35,000, and almost half of all men (44%) make incomes above $49,000 (about 20% of women and 20% of men in the workforce earn between those two).
This is the problem. I can accept that there is perhaps a 5% income gap. What I can’t accept is that for some reason women “choose” to earn far less and enter far less prestigious professions than men, even though they have equal access to the opportunities that would allow them to do so.
I would argue that the problem is that women (and people of color – there is a wage gap and opportunity gap) do not receive the same opportunities as white men receive. And since I’m accepting the lack of a gender gap in pay, against all my inner-feminist leanings, based upon statistics, I hope you’ll consider the presence of an opportunity gap based on statistics.
According to the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Statistics, in 2005 only 30% of lawyers and 32% of physicians were women. Only 37% of managers were women. Of all chief executive positions, only 25% are women. And of course there’s the age-old argument based on the Forbes 500 companies – only 15 of the 500 are headed by women (up from 12 in 2008!).
This is a small window into the opportunity gap.
If the pay gap really is small, and the only reason women are not in these more highly paid professions and positions is because they do not have the qualifications to be there, there are two possible reasons: 1) our training, education, and socialization of women is preventing them from access to the same opportunities as white men, or 2) women are genetically different than men, and their brains do not work in a way that allows them to do well in these types of professions (or women just want to help people and men just want to make money – what a low view of men!).
If you (like me) can’t accept the genetic argument, here’s something to consider. Since women make up 50% of the population, doesn’t it stand to reason that women (and men) should make up 50% of Fortune 500 CEO’s? Women comprised 46.8% of the workforce in 2009. Shouldn’t half of women women then also make over $49,000, just like men? I have worked in the service industry and as administrative staff – nobody dreams of getting all greasy cooking meat-like burgers at McDonald’s, or of making copies and opening mail for a living. It’s life-sucking. I believe that most people dream of working a job that uses their skills, that’s interesting and exciting, and for some people this includes lots of money. But it seems that white men are able to be in jobs that use their skills and are exciting, and are also paid lots of money. Why is that?
If women (and people of color) are not proportionately represented in higher-paying professions (or the meaningful professions they are in pay terrible wages), what is this saying about how we provide opportunities to different types of people in our society than about the individual “choices”?
leave a comment