Undeception

An article from Karl Giberson and Darrel Falk of the BioLogos Foundation appeared in U.S. Today on Sunday (August 9, 2009). Admittedly, its title (“We believe in evolution – and God”) and first line (“The ‘conflict’ between science and religion in America today is not only unfortunate, but unnecessary”) had me rolling my eyes: can you say, “well-trod territory”? But that’s only because I’ve been involved with this debate so long that I’ve become calloused to the fact that this is an effective opening salvo for Christian scientists to make to those not currently embroiled in it, both the anti-science believer and the unbeliever who thinks rejecting science is part and parcel of Christianity. The territory covered throughout the rest of this opinion article by the co-presidents of BioLogos, while not untrod,  is certainly not as well-trod, and fully capable of inviting the potentially interested to the site of the BioLogos Foundation, a fledgling project that in addition to being useful for beginners has shown a clear commitment to growth and high visibility (this article being an example of the latter).

A few excerpts:

Almost everyone in the scientific community, including its many religious believers, now accepts that life has evolved over the past 4 billion years. The concept unifies the entire science of biology. Evolution is as well-established within biology as heliocentricity is established within astronomy. So you would think that everyone would accept it. Alas, a 2008 Gallup Poll showed that 44% of Americans reject evolution, believing instead that “God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years.”

…

Evolution is not a chaotic and wasteful process, as the critics charge. Evolution occurs in an orderly universe, on a foundation of natural laws and faithful processes. The narrative of cosmic history preceding the origin of life is remarkable; the laws enabling life appear finely tuned for that possibility. The ability of organisms to evolve empowers them to adapt to changing environments. Our belief that God creates through evolution is a satisfying claim uniting our faith and our science. This is good news.

…

Many biblical scholars across the centuries have not seen [the Bible as a textbook of modern science], concluding instead that the biblical creation story is a rich and complex text with many interpretations. Putting modern scientific ideas into this ancient story distorts the meaning of the text, which is clearly about God’s faithful and caring relation to the world, not the details of how that world came to be.

I applaud the BioLogos Foundation’s vital efforts in campaigning for scientific literacy among believers, which, if successful, will have the serendipitous effect of restoring some of the once unquestioned scientific credibility of our faith among unbelievers.

Damian at Castle of Nutshells found an interesting article by Mike Heiser on the subject of “Adam’s Sin and Old Testament Theology.” Heiser brings home the fact that “there isn’t a single verse in the entire Hebrew Bible [the Old Testament] that produces the theology put forth by the traditional interpretation of Romans 5:12.” This verse, of course, is part of one of the famous Adam/Christ parallel passages: “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned…” Heiser argues that interpreting this passage as teaching that “humanity inherited guilt” through Adam’s sin is problematic because, unlike so much of the context’s other material, this teaching has no basis in OT theology.

As Damian points out, although Heiser does not reference the issue of evolution/creation, a rejection of “the traditional interpretation” of this passage (original sin) is a deviation from standard evangelical Christian teaching, a deviation required by acceptance of evolution and a non-historical reading of Genesis 1-2. In fact, it happens to be the lynchpin argument for theologians who deny the compatibility of evolutionary theory and the essentials of the Christian faith — namely the necessity of Christ’s work; for, so the argument goes, if we are not all guilty under Adam’s original sin, then we need no Savior.

Like Heiser, the Christian who does not believe in an historical Adam (Heiser does) must treat Paul’s parallel as an analogy rather than as a causal connection (the belief that we sin and are condemned because of Adam’s sin). Strikingly, the response I expect to his point about the lack of concord between the OT and the predominant interpretation for Romans 5.12 is that Paul’s insight is new revelation, so naturally, like much of his teaching, it wouldn’t be found in the OT. Oddly enough, absent a belief that the Apostle was actually functioning under new revelation, we really have no reason to believe that Paul thought of Adam as anything but a real person whose sin literally brought the whole world under condemnation, imputing “corporate responsibility” upon all of succeeding humanity.

It appears quite possible that Heiser has articulated Paul’s belief more accurately than the traditional doctrine of universal culpability in Adam. Heiser assumes an historical Adam and insists that he’s interested in finding out exactly how “what Adam did extended to the entire human race” rather than denying that it has; he believes that Adam’s first sin affected the human race, but not that it rendered humanity guilty before God. He believes we are not condemned for Adam’s sin, but rather are made susceptible to inevitable sin because of Adam’s sin and condemned by our own sin.

My own belief is that, despite what Paul may have believed, “Adam’s sin” never occurred as such, or rather it recurs in everyone. Naturally, logic dictates that there was a first sin by some ancestor or another, but each of us simply treads the same path as all the rest of humanity: being human, sin simply “goes with the territory”, and so do the consequences. The harmony between my view and Heiser’s is that the necessity of Christ’s work is not seen as dependent upon the sin of Adam.