{"id":985,"date":"2012-08-23T10:07:08","date_gmt":"2012-08-23T14:07:08","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/cultivare\/?p=985"},"modified":"2012-08-23T13:57:14","modified_gmt":"2012-08-23T17:57:14","slug":"you-dont-need-adam-to-need-a-savior-you-just-need-sin","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/cultivare\/2012\/08\/you-dont-need-adam-to-need-a-savior-you-just-need-sin\/","title":{"rendered":"You Don’t Need Adam to Need a Savior: You Just Need Sin"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<\/head>

The issue of the \u201chistoricity of Adam\u201d (and Eve\u2013why do we always forget Eve?) is becoming a flashpoint in evangelical theology. Books are being published, conferences are being held, and major money is being doled out by grant funders like Templeton to deepen the conversation and pursue theological solutions to the vexing questions. It\u2019s no surprise that the issue is generating such interest. One one side, conservatives argue that if you lose a historical Adam and Eve, you lose\u2013all at once\u2013the weight of tradition, the authority of \"\"<\/a>Scripture,\u00a0and the gospel itself. Without Adam, no sin. No sin, no need for a savior. On the other side, theistic evolutionists (or \u201cevolutionary creationists\u201d) argue that the conservatives force a false choice: you can affirm both<\/em> science and Scripture (for all truth is God\u2019s truth); you can affirm Scripture\u2019s authority and interpret Genesis 1-3 in ways that do not require a historical Adam and Eve (or a literal six-day creation, for that matter). As N.T. Wright notes, the question is not \u201cIs\u00a0<\/em>the Bible authoritative? but\u00a0how\u00a0<\/em>is the Bible authoritative? Not is\u00a0<\/em>the Bible true? but how\u00a0<\/em>is it true? What is its truth about? This is an issue with no less force than that which\u00a0Galileo and his opponents\u00a0faced: Scripture or science? Here we are again (though Christianity has been \u201cthere\u201d since Darwin).<\/p>\n

For a great example of the state of the debate, read Peter Enns The Evolution of Adam\u00a0<\/em><\/a>and then read (or vice versa) Hans Madueme\u2019s meticulously crafted review of Enns\u2019 book<\/a>. (To round it out, then read Enns\u2019 response<\/a> to Hans review). Hans is a friend and a former colleague of mine at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. I admire his intellect and appreciate the care with which he engages this issue. He represents the \u201cconservative\u201d side outlined above. Hans is worried that the loss of a historical Adam will result in a major theology FAIL for the church and for the gospel. The Bible is either inerrant or it isn\u2019t. If there are errors somewhere, then there could be errors everywhere\u2013and how then would you know the difference? (The slippery slope is a common conservative evangelical anxiety and it\u2019s an understandable one, given the relation between psychology and belief). He also wonders how, if you jettison Adam, can you theologically account for the reality of sin? And he concludes that when faced with a choice between science and the \u201cdogmatic tradition,\u201d he\u2019ll choose dogma every time. (Enns astutely points out that, when that\u2019s the default position, there\u2019s not much point in discussing the issue further). He asks many more questions and raises some penetrating points, but this is a brief blog post so I\u2019ll just add a few thoughts to the conversation.<\/p>\n

At a recent conference on the question of origins, I heard a young earth (six-day) creationist, who is scientifically trained, proudly declare that what separates young earthers like him from the rest of the crowd is that, when science and Scripture come into conflict, \"\"<\/a>they go with Scripture every time. Of course, what he really means is that when science and their\u00a0interpretation\u00a0<\/em>of Scripture conflict, they go with their interpretation <\/em>of Scripture every time. So back to Madueme\u2019s review of Enns: Why would someone who argues in a slippery slope way about the authority of Scripture stop at the historicity of Adam and Eve? (and maybe he doesn\u2019t?) \u00a0Surely the six days of Genesis 1 could be taken at plain face value, as the young earth creationists urge. In other words, the slippery slope argument loses its force if you\u2019re not willing to go all the way. And if you are, you find yourself not only at odds with the scientific consensus (if you care about that), you\u2019re also at odds with Scripture itself. For example, Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are quite distinct creation accounts that cannot easily be reconciled with each other, at face value. Further, Genesis 1 contains within itself some elements that have to be explained in very strained (and strange) ways if you want a literalistic (scientific-historical) interpretation.<\/p>\n

Moving on to the gospel issue: I simply do not feel the domino-effect in the notion that if you lose a historical Adam and Eve, you lose sin, and thus the need for a savior. To need a savior, you just need sin. Sin is an empirical reality. To repeat a reference from last week\u2019s post, as Reinhold Niebuhr said, original sin is the only empirically verifiable Christian doctrine! Granted, \u201csin\u201d is a theological category that requires divine revelation to know what it is, but I would think that had Genesis 3 and Romans 5 (and all references to Adam and Eve)\u00a0been snipped from all our Bibles, we\u2019d still have a pretty good understanding of what sin is, that it disrupts our relationships with God and others, and that we\u2019re in dire need of redemption.<\/p>\n

I affirm that sin has a historical (even \u201cprimal\u201d basis). That is, I believe that there was a time when homo sapiens had emerged in their conscious lives\u2013their awareness of the world and of God\u2013and subsequently \u201cfell.\u201d Their reach exceeded their grasp and they perverted their proper place as creations of God. Kenneth Miller, in his persuasive book\u00a0Finding Darwin\u2019s God,\u00a0<\/em>suggests that a historical \u201cfall\u201d (quite apart from any \u201cprimal pair\u201d) might even be supported by archeological data. For example, findings reveal a marked increase in violent, human-on-human death about 10,000 years ag. That\u2019s an interesting suggestion\u2013though it\u2019s solely speculative\u2013and as Miller acknowledges, it doesn\u2019t alleviate challenges to the traditional view of the \u201cfall\u201d in light of scientific evidence. Science tells us death and suffering preceded human life (which raises the vexing \u201cproblem of evil\u201d for theistic evolutionists\u2013who is responsible for death?). In any case, theologically and biblically it is right to affirm that sin has a long history\u2013and it has affected how people have related to each other, to God, and to our environment for thousands of years. We are now experiencing the snowball effect of sin\u2019s influence: the \u201csins of the fathers (and mothers).\u201d So yes, what Hans declares is true: \u201cI am a son of Adam (and of Eve).\u201d But it\u2019s true in a figurative and theological way \u2014 \u201cAdam\u201d is humankind.<\/p>\n

Original, or \u201cinherited\u201d sin is a root the refusal to be what we were (and are) intended to be: bearing the imago Dei<\/em> in relationship with God and others. The story is the story of all of us. It is an \u2018archetypal\u2019 story. The theological message of the doctrine of original sin is more pressing (and I think more interesting) than discussions about its historicity and textual development. It\u2019s canonical, it\u2019s authoritative, and it\u2019s true. And we don\u2019t even need to know the mechanism that brought sin into being or the moment at which it emerged to appreciate its present reality.<\/p>\n

If Adam and Eve stands for humanity in a theological (and archetypal) way, and if that\u2019s what God as the ultimate author of Scripture intended to communicate to us, then we can feel the force of a need for a savior in Jesus Christ without recourse to a single, primal historical pair called Adam and Eve. We just need sin to need a savior.<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The issue of the \u201chistoricity of Adam\u201d (and Eve\u2013why do we always forget Eve?) is becoming a flashpoint in evangelical theology. Books are being published, conferences are being held, and major money is being doled out by grant funders like Templeton to deepen the conversation and pursue theological solutions to the vexing questions. It\u2019s no […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1002,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[171,173,172,165,174],"class_list":["post-985","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-kyle-roberts","tag-adam-and-eve","tag-hans-madueme","tag-pete-enns","tag-sin","tag-theistic-evolution"],"yoast_head":"\nYou Don't Need Adam to Need a Savior: You Just Need Sin<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"The issue of the "historicity of Adam" (and Eve--why do we always forget Eve?) is becoming a flashpoint in evangelical theology. Books are being\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/cultivare\/2012\/08\/you-dont-need-adam-to-need-a-savior-you-just-need-sin\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"You Don't Need Adam to Need a Savior: You Just Need Sin\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The issue of the "historicity of Adam" (and Eve--why do we always forget Eve?) is becoming a flashpoint in evangelical theology. Books are being\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/cultivare\/2012\/08\/you-dont-need-adam-to-need-a-savior-you-just-need-sin\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Cultivare\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:author\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/unsystematictheology\/?ref=aymt_homepage_panel\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2012-08-23T14:07:08+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2012-08-23T17:57:14+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"http:\/\/wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com\/blogs\/cultivare\/files\/2012\/08\/abreha-wa-atsbeha-church02-200x300.jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Kyle Roberts\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Kyle Roberts\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/cultivare\/2012\/08\/you-dont-need-adam-to-need-a-savior-you-just-need-sin\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/cultivare\/2012\/08\/you-dont-need-adam-to-need-a-savior-you-just-need-sin\/\",\"name\":\"You Don't Need Adam to Need a Savior: You Just Need Sin\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/cultivare\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2012-08-23T14:07:08+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2012-08-23T17:57:14+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/cultivare\/#\/schema\/person\/381598fc4c96625e5d1bc4e231480457\"},\"description\":\"The issue of the \\\"historicity of Adam\\\" (and Eve--why do we always forget Eve?) is becoming a flashpoint in evangelical theology. Books are being\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/cultivare\/2012\/08\/you-dont-need-adam-to-need-a-savior-you-just-need-sin\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/cultivare\/2012\/08\/you-dont-need-adam-to-need-a-savior-you-just-need-sin\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/cultivare\/2012\/08\/you-dont-need-adam-to-need-a-savior-you-just-need-sin\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/cultivare\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"You Don’t Need Adam to Need a Savior: You Just Need Sin\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/cultivare\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/cultivare\/\",\"name\":\"Cultivare\",\"description\":\"Reflections on the True, the Good and the Beautiful\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/cultivare\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/cultivare\/#\/schema\/person\/381598fc4c96625e5d1bc4e231480457\",\"name\":\"Kyle Roberts\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/cultivare\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/63e213f19e739b70f12a722abb63786d?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/63e213f19e739b70f12a722abb63786d?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Kyle Roberts\"},\"description\":\"(PhD) is Academic Dean and Schilling Professor of Public Theology and Church and Economic Life at United Theological Seminary of the Twin Cities. Roberts has published A Complicated Pregnancy: Whether Mary Was a Virgin and Why it Matters (Fortress Press, 2017); Emerging Prophet: Kierkegaard and the Postmodern People of God (Cascade, 2013); and co-authored Matthew: The Two Horizons Commentary (Eerdmans, 2018).\",\"sameAs\":[\"http:\/\/www.unitedseminary.edu\/\",\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/unsystematictheology\/?ref=aymt_homepage_panel\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/cultivare\/author\/kyleroberts\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"You Don't Need Adam to Need a Savior: You Just Need Sin","description":"The issue of the \"historicity of Adam\" (and Eve--why do we always forget Eve?) is becoming a flashpoint in evangelical theology. Books are being","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/cultivare\/2012\/08\/you-dont-need-adam-to-need-a-savior-you-just-need-sin\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"You Don't Need Adam to Need a Savior: You Just Need Sin","og_description":"The issue of the \"historicity of Adam\" (and Eve--why do we always forget Eve?) is becoming a flashpoint in evangelical theology. Books are being","og_url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/cultivare\/2012\/08\/you-dont-need-adam-to-need-a-savior-you-just-need-sin\/","og_site_name":"Cultivare","article_author":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/unsystematictheology\/?ref=aymt_homepage_panel","article_published_time":"2012-08-23T14:07:08+00:00","article_modified_time":"2012-08-23T17:57:14+00:00","og_image":[{"url":"http:\/\/wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com\/blogs\/cultivare\/files\/2012\/08\/abreha-wa-atsbeha-church02-200x300.jpeg"}],"author":"Kyle Roberts","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Kyle Roberts","Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/cultivare\/2012\/08\/you-dont-need-adam-to-need-a-savior-you-just-need-sin\/","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/cultivare\/2012\/08\/you-dont-need-adam-to-need-a-savior-you-just-need-sin\/","name":"You Don't Need Adam to Need a Savior: You Just Need Sin","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/cultivare\/#website"},"datePublished":"2012-08-23T14:07:08+00:00","dateModified":"2012-08-23T17:57:14+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/cultivare\/#\/schema\/person\/381598fc4c96625e5d1bc4e231480457"},"description":"The issue of the \"historicity of Adam\" (and Eve--why do we always forget Eve?) is becoming a flashpoint in evangelical theology. Books are being","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/cultivare\/2012\/08\/you-dont-need-adam-to-need-a-savior-you-just-need-sin\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/cultivare\/2012\/08\/you-dont-need-adam-to-need-a-savior-you-just-need-sin\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/cultivare\/2012\/08\/you-dont-need-adam-to-need-a-savior-you-just-need-sin\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/cultivare\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"You Don’t Need Adam to Need a Savior: You Just Need Sin"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/cultivare\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/cultivare\/","name":"Cultivare","description":"Reflections on the True, the Good and the Beautiful","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/cultivare\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/cultivare\/#\/schema\/person\/381598fc4c96625e5d1bc4e231480457","name":"Kyle Roberts","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/cultivare\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/63e213f19e739b70f12a722abb63786d?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/63e213f19e739b70f12a722abb63786d?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Kyle Roberts"},"description":"(PhD) is Academic Dean and Schilling Professor of Public Theology and Church and Economic Life at United Theological Seminary of the Twin Cities. Roberts has published A Complicated Pregnancy: Whether Mary Was a Virgin and Why it Matters (Fortress Press, 2017); Emerging Prophet: Kierkegaard and the Postmodern People of God (Cascade, 2013); and co-authored Matthew: The Two Horizons Commentary (Eerdmans, 2018).","sameAs":["http:\/\/www.unitedseminary.edu\/","https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/unsystematictheology\/?ref=aymt_homepage_panel"],"url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/cultivare\/author\/kyleroberts\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/cultivare\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/985","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/cultivare\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/cultivare\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/cultivare\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1002"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/cultivare\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=985"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/cultivare\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/985\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/cultivare\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=985"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/cultivare\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=985"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/cultivare\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=985"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}