June 17, 2005

of sin and redemption

I am one of those people who often figures things out as I speak or write. The drawbacks to this system are obvious; it can have me looking as if I don't know what I'm talking about because my first answer is still in a larval stage. I need to be careful not to do it around my boss, because when I do he will often interrupt with, "No, that's not right," leaving me wanting to respond, "Wait, I wasn't finished with that idea yet!" The advantage to the process is that I sometimes end up figuring out things I didn't know I knew, especially when I'm responding to a provocative idea of someone else's. That's what happened in commentary following Rebecca's explanation of why she believes that the Adam ad Eve story in Genesis must be literally true. I felt free to ask questions and posit ideas because I've known her tangentially for years, through blogs and a few different book discussion groups, and knew I could trust her intellectual honesty - meaning, if she believes something she has a reason for doing so, and it's not just because someone told her to. Also, she's mature and secure in her faith; somehow I wouldn't want to risk shaking the belief of someone young and inexperienced even if I thought their beliefs were wrong, unless of course those beliefs were likely to lead them to hurt others. I don't know why; maybe it's a fear of responsibility, or just the realization that I myself may always be wrong.

At any rate, while responding to a comment on her post, I did figure out something for myself. I'm going to take the liberty of posting the snippet of the previous column I had been responding to.

Shawn said:


Just a note to Paula... the idea of theistic evolution has been around for quite a while. One argument against it is that some of the events in the 6 days of creation are different than the order which evolutionists say life evolved.

My response was:

Shawn: True, and obviously important to those who believe the Bible literally. On the other hand, if you take it as metaphor, I'm not sure the order matters. The beginning of Genesis (those words sound really silly if you think of the book as Bereshit rather than Genesis, because they would then be "The beginning of 'In the Beginning'". But anyway) would reduce more or less to "God created the world in all its glory and complexity. Humans were given free will, which they have sometimes used in ways that bring them further from the All-Good". Which is a reading I can believe. It's obviously not what Rachel and presumably you believe (or rather, not all of it; those words are not incompatible with a literal Adam and Eve) but I'd argue that it's far from unimportant or meaningless, nonetheless. A problem for you, I'm guessing (not trying to put words in your mouth) is that my reading would not create a need for redemption beynond the choices each individual can make and thus Jesus would not be required, as he is by a literal Fall. Come to think of it, I think I've just explained why Jews (I am a more or less secular one) don't feel a need for Jesus, in case you ever wondered.

I would really love to see a non-literalist Christan weigh into that discussion now; I'd be curious to read a discussion of sin and the consequent need for redemption therefrom for those who don't start from a literal Fall of Adam and Eve.

Posted by dichroic at June 17, 2005 12:04 PM
Comments

"God created the world in all its glory and complexity...." That means that He may have created the rocks with fossils already in them as well as other indications that scientists interpret as proof of evolution. But if He did, then He meant to have us find these things and interpret them accordingly. I'm not telling anyone what to think, but there are obviously different ways of looking at the same thing.

Posted by: l-empress at June 17, 2005 03:36 PM

Well, most Christians wouldn't consider me a Christian, and I don't even consider myself one anymore. But I'll weigh in anyway. I see Jesus not as some great key, the great sacrifice for our forgiveness, but instead as a man, a teacher, who had a much clearer window to God than most of us have. (I would also consider many other great moral leaders in a similar light). Does that make any sense? Obviously, I've never really taken the Bible as all that literal, even when I was part of the "flock" so to speak.

Posted by: Melissa at June 19, 2005 10:33 AM

(to add to that) but there was a time when I saw Jesus as essential to forgiveness. That strictness of belief just doesn't fit me anymore. A cloak I've grown out of.

Posted by: Melissa at June 19, 2005 10:34 AM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?