This series wrestles with the questions of the compatibility of Biblical theology and biological evolution. To understand my view of Genesis 1, you may read here as that chapter will not be discussed in this series. Also, check out this series by RJS at Jesus Creed. The rest of this series, go here (in the first post, I present an option of Adam being historical) (in the second post I explore the idea of Adam being a parable).
Of the two options that we explored in this series, it is honestly difficult for me to choose a perspective. Could Adam be historical? Yes! Could Adam and Eve be more parabolic? Yes! I think that both of these options are indeed consistent with historical Christian orthodoxy.
The comfortable option for me is the first of the two. Believing that Adam is indeed historical and being able to dialogue with integrity about science is quite appealing. This is also a view that will not raise as many evangelical brows and cause me to be the object of wrath by committed traditionalists. And, to be quite honest, it is not that far fetched a view for someone who is committed to biblical authority.
On the other hand, the myth/parable view seems like an intellectually honest approach to these early chapters of Genesis. Could it be that the story of Adam is a story that represents the reality of the human condition and perhaps retells Israel’s history in a primeval way? I see plenty of credence in this latter option. Not only so, but the idea of God accommodating sounds a lot like incarnation, which is central to my understanding of Jesus.
So, what will I choose? I choose to be an agnostic on this issue. I choose to not choose. I choose to allow my lack of choice to persuade me to keep searching, to keep growing, and to live in the mysterious tension between two extremely helpful options. Both aid in reading Scripture with integrity while having an open posture towards evolution.
Which of the 2 options we explored do you feel is best? Why?