Re: [asa] Who do Adam & Eve represent? (Was: Was Adam a real person?)

From: George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com>
Date: Fri Apr 11 2008 - 21:45:50 EDT

3) 1st. I believe, e.g., that God is ultimately the sole cause of everything that happens in the world - i.e., that God is "omnipotent" in the technical sense. That in itself is enough to indicate a definitive difference difference between myself and process theology. I could cite others but won't belabor the point.

As far as my view of divine action is concerned, I suggest that you read with some attention my article at http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2001/PSCF3-01Murphy.html or one in Zygon 33, 221,1998, "The Theology of the Cross and God's Work in the World." In order to understand this in context you may read The Cosmos in the Light of the Cross. You will then see that you have seriously misunderstood my position. In particular, your belief that I belief in a "front loaded" creation is as profound an error as could be committed - except perhaps for your suspicion that my theology is a "tack on" to evolutionary science.

In sum, stop trying to tell me what I think. You fail badly.

2) Genesis tells us something that is true about the relationships of the first human beings with God.

Apropos your following comment on my 4). The Genesis creation stories are not about a single individual but about human community - "Male and female created he them" and "It is not good that the man should be alone."

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Gregory Arago
  To: George Murphy ; asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008 7:08 PM
  Subject: Re: [asa] Who do Adam & Eve represent? (Was: Was Adam a real person?)

  Hello George,

  Points 1) and 4) can be taken as they are. However, 2) and 3) need clarification.

  On point 2) you seem to be saying that if something is 'the way scripture speaks' then that something is 'real' even if he, she or it is not a historical-physical reality. That is, they are 'real' in one context, but not in another. This is confusing. Could you please say in what context/sense you think Adam and Eve are/were 'real'? You seem to both agree and disagree that they are/were 'real' at the same time. I'll leave the question of 'who decides' 'the way scripture speaks' for another time.

  On point 3) I'm not convinced you know your A.N. Whitehead or your process philosophy in order to situate it appropriately with your theology. Process theologians may not admit you into their club, but you seem to invite them (or some version of what they profess) into your perspective quite readily and liberally. You describe the world as 'being in process,' but suggest that 'God is not in process with the world.' God 'interacts' with the world but does not 'intervene' (this inference I draw from previous conversations) with it, if I'm understanding your choice of grammar.

  To me this is a fundamental error in your TE position. If you cannot admit that origins are not simply processes, i.e. if you conflate them and cannot clearly distinguish between the two, then there is no basis on which to consider miracles, salvation, mercy, grace and many other fundamentdal ideas/events in Christian theology. You can just claim they are all simply workings-out of a front-loaded, physical evolution-process disguised and hidden (kenotic, unbalanced Trinity) within physical law, naturalistic causes and effects. Theology in such a position (which you will likely defend against) is merely a tack-on to the superiority of (evolutionary) science.

  On the other hand, if Adam and Eve were (actually) 'created' by God at a particular point/moment in time (leaving open precisely *when* it happened), i.e. if they were real historical beings, then we have a case on behalf of 'origins,' which provides a foundation for many other things in the sacred text that processes of transformation alone cannot account for. Let's leave this 'representation' stuff for cultural studies and theology, turning more 'scientific' attention to history, (Adamic) anthropology, psychology and sociology. Biology is peripheral to all but the physiological questions on this topic.

  G.A.

  George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com> wrote:
    Gregory -

    Thanks for your response. Briefly -

    1) I changed the title because I didn't at this time want to continue to debate the question of the historical reality of an individual Adam. I have certainly done so in the past & will do so in the future when appropriate, but there have already been numerous posts in the "Was Adam a Real Person?" thread in recent days. My contribution would largely repeat what has been said by Denis & others.

    2) To say that Adam was not a "real person" doesn't mean that the figure of Adam (& Eve) in scripture is a mere abstraction or "just" a symbol. There were real "first humans" in terrestrial history (in the sense I defined below), & Adam and Eve are the way scripture speaks of those first humans. (& that in spite of the fact that the human writers & editors of genesis had none of our knowledge about paleoanthropology.) In that sense Adam & Eve are "real" & even real historically.

    3) My beliefs about A & E are part of an understanding of the world as being in process. But I am not a "process theologian" since I do not think that God is in process with the world. In spite of my belief that God genuinely interacts with the world, I'm sure that process theologians would not admit me to their club!

    4) It's perhaps worth calling attention to the fact that I speak about Adam & Eve, not just Adam. The first humans weren't all male.

    Shalom
    George
    http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Gregory Arago
      To: George Murphy ; asa@calvin.edu
      Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008 4:14 AM
      Subject: Re: [asa] Who do Adam & Eve represent? (Was: Was Adam a real person?)

      To a TE/EC perspective, the answer may present an unambiguous 'No, Adam wasn't real.' This nevertheless stings the ears of many, many Christians around the world today. It clearly does not render Christ (2nd Adam) unreal also, but adds ammunition to those who identify disunity in the Church on earth. Let us not be so dismissive, but rather suggestive-only if such is one's (liberal hermeneutic) view of the non-real-existence of Adam, the first (covenant) human. (I'm glad the title of the thread was changed, since George obviously doesn't want to debate the original question - he presents an answer.)

      I would suggest that there is a 'process theology' element in George's position that actually disallows for an 'origin of Adam' in any concrete, historical way. In the same sense that the world 'needs an origin' or 'first cause' in the Aristotelian meaning, there is a need to encounter the 'first human' in order to understand ourselves. The history of 'Adam' is still present with us today and 'will not go away,' as George has been fond of saying to me in defense of TE.

      Talk of 'representations' is one thing. But to speak about the 'significance' of Adam and Eve without the historical dimension involved may just be to impoverish one's view of scripture. Sophisticated hermeneutics have their limits as well.

      So it seemeth to me...
      Gregory

      George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com> wrote:
        We can only spend so much time debating "Was Adam a real person?" To me the answer seems pretty clear - No, he wasn't. I.e., there was not an historical individual "Adam" who did the things described in early Genesis in the same sense that Jeremiah or Mary Magdalene or Henry VIII were historical (& historic) individuals. But my purpose here isn't to continue to debate that.

        The question now is, What is the theological significance of Adam & Eve? It's easy enough to say that they are theological symbols or something of the sort, but symbols of what? If the point of the biblical texts involving them is not to present them as historical figures but to say something of theological significance, what is that significance?

        It's often said that Adam & Eve represent every person - even that they are every person - & that's true as far as it goes. But I don't think it goes far enough. If they represent all humans then they represent also the first humans. & in fact they are presented to us in Genesis precisely as that - the first human beings. While the Genesis stories are more than just statements about origins, they certainly are theological statements about origins and, inter alia, the origins of the human race.

        & part of that import of those stories is the origin of human sin. One thing they say about that is that sin is not essential to who we are - i.e., human beings weren't created as sinners. Sin may indeed - to use again R. Niebuhr's distinction - have been "inevitable" but it was not "necessary." This of course does not mean that we have to accept the idea of an abrupt "fall" from perfection, a picture that Genesis does not give us. It does mean that the first humans - i.e., the first hominids who were somehow aware of God's will for them - could in principle have acted in accord with that will, but didn't.

        This is only a sketch of an answer to the question I posed in the subject line. More detail is at http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2006/PSCF6-06Murphy.pdf .

        Shalom
        George
        http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr!

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Apr 11 21:49:33 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Apr 11 2008 - 21:49:33 EDT