Adam, Eve, Fiction and Non-Christians
August 2nd, 2010 § 8 Comments
How do we preach to a thoughtful person who believes that Adam and Eve are no different than Sponge Bob Squarepants? How do we preach to this kind of person giving them the room to thoughtfully step toward the Bible and do this without the long-term Jesus follower thinking that we’ve “gone liberal” because we are not “hard enough” on this point in the sermon?
I don’t know exactly. But I’m trying. On Sunday, I preached the account of Adam and Eve from the early chapters of Genesis. For many among my regular listeners, the Bible is an unfamiliar place. Adam and Eve are strangers. To meet them requires an awkwardness little different from what it is like when two couples meet for the first time around our dinner table at home. Knowing each other will invite us into a few pauses in conversation that unsettle us. But also among my regular hearers are thoughtful non-followers of Jesus. My goal with these dear folks is not to convince them in one swoop of the Bible’s integrity. My goal is first to see if they can move from dismissing the bible wholesale and begin to admit that the Bible has something true to say about some things. For once a person admits that the Bible has something to say to them, then they have to wrestle with the question of what that means about the Bible. With that realization the next step toward greater value of the Bible is more likely. Without that realization, a person remains uninterested and we seem clueless about their concerns as we preach. I am saying that a person who believes there is no value to the Bible will generally require a multitude of conversations and sermons to walk toward it and they will need to know that I understand that, in order for them to set aside their opinions long enough to listen to me. So, this is what I prayerfully tried this past Sunday. I asked folks to consider that it is reasonable for them to believe that the Bible has something to say to them, in light of their own beliefs. My hope was that making this case would enable such folks to stay with me and hear the exposition of the Scripture. What do you think? Did I go too far? Or not far enough.
1) To enter Adam and Eve’s story, we have to first determine what kind of story we are reading.
Some say it is fiction, no different than Tom Sawyer, The Curious Life of Benjamin Button, or Sponge Bob Square Pants. Others say it is historical fiction. The names and places are sometimes rooted in the real landscape of the times, but the story itself is made-up out of somone’s imagination. Still others say, it is not fiction or historical fiction, but the story of adam and eve is history—an accurate account of what happened. It is like journalistic reporting—a narrative that states the way it was.
Maybe you are here today, and the only way you can conceive of Adam and Eve’s story is as a fictional tale. Then to you, I ask you to continue listening. For your time will not be wasted. Stephen King, said that fiction is the truth within the lie. Emerson said that fiction reveals the truth that reality obscures. The best fiction in other words, is counted as such because of what it reveals truly about the human condition and the way things are. There is truth to be found here. As for me, in the interest of authentic disclosure with you, I believe Adam and Eve’s story is properly shelved in the non-fiction section of Borders or Barnes and Noble. I take it to belong in the history section. Even more, I take it to be among the stories of history that God wants to tell us. I believe the truth and accuracy and credibility of the bible in general and of this story in particular.
But though we may differ, you and I, about whether this is a fictional story or an historical account, I trust we both have this one thing in common—we believe that there is truth to be found in both fiction and history, and this morning we can stand on this common ground in search of what is true. Therefore, for you to listen, assuming that the story contains the best elements of what you would consider fiction, seems reasonable and can have value for you. Can you agree?2) The second thing we have to determine then, whether we believe this story is fiction or history, is how we feel about the role of unexplainable or supernatural things in the stories we read. For, to read the story of Adam and Eve is immediately to read a story about God. Included in this story are animals that do not run from humans and humans that walk side by side with animals. And there are non-human beings called angels whose title reveal their work—they are messengers from God. And then there is a fallen non-human being with his own story out to dethrone God, including Adam and Eve. He is the devil, once an angel but now an active terrorist planting road-side bombs in Eden. He is more than a magician. His is no mere slight of hand. He is able to throw his voice, to speak through a snake to Adam and Eve. If you cannot believe that such supernatural beings and things exist in the real world, and you again only consider this a fictional tale, then at least you can recall that some of our best truth-revealing-stories assume what is supernatural and non-human in them, right? Consider the Lord of the Rings or for some of you, Harry Potter or Twighlight. You enter these stories, though they are fiction and though they contain fantastical elements, and yet you believe that you find there some true resonance with what you experience in the world. To read the story is no waste of time to you. As for me, I assume that God and what is natural to Him exists in the real world and in non-fiction. I believe in the supernatural as a follower of Jesus. But again, either way, we have common ground in this one thing don’t we? We both long for truth to be revealed regarding ourselves and the way things are. For both of us, such truth can be found in such a story. Can we agree on that? If you can come no farther with me, can you come this far?
3) Finally by way of introduction, many cannot read the story of Adam and Eve without thinking about evolution and our various questions, debates and quandaries about Darwin and his proponents. Some of you believe Darwin and disbelieve Adam and Eve. Others of you believe Darwin and believe Adam and Eve. Still others of us doubt Darwin and believe this story of Adam and Eve. Wherever you are on that score this morning, with your questions of was their a common ancestor as the Scientific American continues to discuss, and whether or not and when Adam and Eve had a soul as the Biologos forum continues to discuss, I ask you for a moment to set such things aside for another time and a different discussion. For the writer of Adam and Eve’s story, did not write in order to explore Darwin’s theories. The author wrote to tell us about God and people and the world quite apart from and long before Darwin. For the moment, let us take the story on its own and within its own purpose. Not because it has nothing to say about these other questions of our science and our faith, but because in the first place, answering these questions do not form is its primary purpose. At least for this morning, so that we do not miss the first intention of the story.
Here we are then, determining what kind of story you think this is, with how you intend to handle the fantastical elements within the story and content to discuss our questions of evolution at another time. What then does this text reveal to us about what is true? Let’s take a look . . .
Zach,
Thanks for posting this. I find it a refreshing and inviting approach. You have neither denigrated the authority and inspiration of Scripture nor elevated a non-Biblical perspective. This is a warm invitation to explore the depths of the Bible with people we (the Church) generally put at arms length with our assumptive jargon. I particularly like point three as it draws into God’s story rather than an anti-Darwinian polemic. Certainly this is an important discussion, but it is best accomplished at another time. Too often I have started there and it has ended up as a huge smoke screen that repels the seeker instead of drawing them. And it allows me to escape the uncomfortable task of dealing with hard questions.
thanks again for the post. I was thrilled to see that you were pastoring such a church in St. Louis.
Blessings,
Andy
Thank you Andy. I appreciate your feedback. I know what you mean about “assumptive jargon” and “smoke screens that repel.”
You are particularly insightful when you mention how these things allow us as preachers to escape the task of dealing with hard questions.
To deal with hard questions and honestly without mischaracterizing a thoughtful person’s fears, objections or questions is to entrust their soul and my rhetoric to Jesus in a way that unnerves me. I used to think that if I spoke more loudly or forcefully or drew the line more strongly then surely a thoughtful non-Christian person would get what is true from what is not. I have too often failed to realize that the means our God uses to draw us to himself more often resembles what is humble, candid and honest when looking to Him to hold us together and draw us through our resistance to Himself. I can state what truth says but I cannot convince someone of it. Therefore I need not be afraid to honestly acknowledge the objections or positions they have. Jesus surely already knows and is neither afraid nor surprised. So, we too as hearer and preacher can be honest and from there look to Jesus from our point of need as Jesus sees it. Thank you for your comments and common labors in the gospel.
As one of “those people” (I’m an atheist, and I think the Bible is fiction) I have to tell you, I’m not really sure what you are trying to say. You seem to be okay with me (and others) believing that the Bible is fiction. Christianity stands starkly in opposition to that belief. Why are you okay with it?
I can get behind the idea that there can be an element of truth in fiction. This is why I like to read novels. I think they often have something valuable to say about the human condition, how we relate to each other, and how we deal with the challenges we face. But that does not mean that I am going to run out and start a religion based on “The Wizard of Earthsea.” (And I think you’d agree with me, that that would not be an appropriate course of action.) Sometimes, authors of fiction make claims about the human condition that I don’t think are true, or they try to communicate morals that I don’t think are good ones. I use fiction as a starting point for thinking about such things — and I include the Bible when I say “fiction” here, I *have* read it and pondered its impact on human history, society, and moral philosophy — but I don’t use works of fiction as unquestionable dictates of “the gospel truth.”
I enjoyed reading “The Lord of the Rings.” I found it worth my time. But that does not mean that I believe in the supernatural — even though I and others are capable of imagining it. What I need you to explain to me is, why is there something *more* true about the Bible than there is about the Lord of the Rings trilogy? Why should we all get together on Sunday mornings to study the Bible, but not to study Tolkien?
When I read “The Lord of the Rings,” I might come away with an understanding that it’s good to stand by your friends when they need your help, and that tantalizing and seemingly “precious” things may have more costs to them than are readily apparent. But I don’t conclude that hobbits, elves, dwarves, and orcs are real. I don’t conclude that I must devote my real life to serving Gandalf and battling Sauron. Similarly, when I read the Bible, I might come away with the understanding that it’s important to love and care for others, even when it’s challenging. Or that being a good person is much more important than having wealth and material possessions. But I don’t conclude that God, Satan, angels, and demons are real, and I don’t conclude that Jesus was really the son of God who died so that I wouldn’t be punished for the confusing misunderstanding of a naive couple in a garden at the beginning of time. Why should I?
Thank you for writing. I’m often not as clear as I had hoped to be, so I particularly appreciate the gracious tone you have chosen to approach me. 1) You have asked me why I seem to be ok with the idea that the Bible is fiction when my beliefs are clearly contrary to this idea. I do not intend to communicate that I am ok with this idea in the sense of agreement. What I’m trying to say is that I accept the fact that this perspective exists. I also know that many who hold such a perspective do so out of a genuine wrestling with what they see in the bible and the world. So, my desire is to talk like thoughtful adults on these matters rather than try to silence by shouting my position all the more loudly.
2) Admittedly, I can see that I did not have you in mind when I spoke. After I read your thoughts, I can see that I was addressing those who both believe the Bible is a fiction and therefore want nothing to do with it. To such a person, I was trying to suggest that even fiction can reveal what is truth and that as such, it is plausible to believe that something true could be found in the Bible even if we start with their current frame of reference. I was trying to invite such a person into a dialogue with me reasonably and hoping that they would be willing to give my sermon a fair hearing in light of that. 3) As best as I can see, and there is alot that I have to learn in these things, before a person could credibly entertain the idea that the Bible is a word from God, they would first have to find some credible assurance that the Bible has something true to say about things. I’m assuming in other words that before a person would be willing to ask is the story true they would have to see that the story itself is worth telling. 4) I really appreciate your question about why the bible and not “The Lord of the Rings” as our foundation on Sunday morning. It gave me pause. Thank you. Here is what I’m thinking. The Bible and Tolkien claim very different things about their work. Tolkien does not belief that Gandalf is an historical person but a fiction of his imagination, whereas the bible presents itself as history–Jesus, David, Abraham etc . . . are historical figures. Therefore the way we approach each book differs. We look at Tolkien’s fiction and the test of veracity is its believability as a story and the resonance of it as a lens by which we can look at the world. In contrast, the bible’s veracity will require a stricter standard, as does all history. If Tolkien’s fiction is bad it has no impact upon us. We simply do not buy it. If history telling is bad, however, a generation can be decisively harmed as it shapes decisions and policies on the basis of falsehoods that passed for truths. 5) Furthermore, the Bible, unlike Tolkien’s works, claims to be from God in history and in fact. For this reason, it seems we would more compare the Bible to other books that make such claims of historical inspiration rather than with Tolkien’s work. 6) My purpose that Sunday was to walk through the story of Adam and Eve. I don’t have time in that moment to address all of the questions surrounding the Bible’s veracity. But I hope that Sunday after Sunday a full picture of why it is plausible to see the Bible as historical and from God emerges. I also hope that as I preach the Bible as if it is true within this context of invitation, an atheist and agnostic will at least feel that we can have an honest dialogue together about these things that matter. Finally, for me personally, the historical data of the Bible separates it from other God-books, and the historicity surrounding the person and claims of Jesus is the watershed on which everything rises or falls as it relates to the Bible, and these other books. On this point I agree with you. If we do conclude that Jesus is not what he claimed then there is no reason to conclude that the rest of the Bible or Christianity for that matter is anything more than a sincere human attempt to tell a story that can help us in the world.
Thanks very much for your thoughtful response!
I didn’t mean to imply that I thought you agreed with this perspective; sorry about that. In my post on my blog I quoted the passage where you explain that you believe the Bible belongs “in the non-fiction section.” I meant only that you seemed surprisingly nonchalant that people in your audience would believe the Bible to be fiction. Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t this supposed to be part of a sermon which you delivered at your church? I admit I don’t know much at all about your particular congregation, but I expect that most of the people there, attending your Sunday morning sermons, would identify as Christians. You seemed relatively unphased that a significant portion of them would believe the Bible to be equivalent to Sponge Bob Squarepants. You did say “non-Christians” in the title of this post, though. Perhaps your congregation is just usually full of non-Christians checking it out to see what all the hubbub’s about…?
I really do appreciate your respect for viewpoints different from your own, and your desire not to be just “shouting my position all the more loudly.” I do think there’s a middle ground, though, between total accommodation and shouting someone down — perhaps, explaining why you think the way you do. Trying to convince someone of your point of view is not an inherently mean thing to do. Sure, it can be done in a mean way. You do seem to have (and again, correct me if I’m wrong) the ultimate goal of bringing these people to Christ, by getting them to start looking at the Bible as though they could gain something from it. I guess what I was trying to get at was, it should be relatively easy to convince nonbelievers that there is some merit to reading the stories in the Bible and thinking about them (no different from Harry Potter, or what have you). But if you have not changed their minds about the truth value of the Bible’s fundamental factual claims, they’re not going to go any further with the Bible than they will with Harry Potter.
In your comment above you lay out a path that you think nonbelievers can follow. (1) The Bible is worth my time, then (2) The Bible has some true ideas expressed in it, then (3) The Bible is a word from God. The step from #2 to #3 crosses quite the chasm, especially since you yourself have used many examples of literature written by regular people that nevertheless has some true ideas we can glean from it. If this thought process works, we could equally well conclude that J.K. Rowling is God. I think we can both agree that this is very unlikely to be the case.
You say that the Bible presents itself as historically true, while J.R.R. Tolkien admits that his work is fantasy. But is this really analogous? The story in Genesis was handed down orally through generations, and eventually written down thousands of years ago. We can’t exactly go read an interview with the author and hear them talk about their creative process. Nor can we read in that interview that they saw it all happen personally, or that it was dictated to them directly by God. Remember that the sentences in The Lord of the Rings are themselves apparently factual. That’s how novels work. They don’t say, “…said Gandalf, although not really because he’s imaginary.” They just say, “…said Gandalf.” If we were to study each of the texts in total isolation, they would each appear to claim that they were factually true.
Then it comes down to, as you say, “its believability as a story and the resonance of it as a lens by which we can look at the world.” I don’t think the Bible meets this standard, or even (really just with the latter part) that such a standard is really useful here. Is the Bible more believable than The Lord of the Rings? Is it believable that a man lived inside the belly of a big fish for several days, that Noah fit all those animals on an ark of that size, that the entire universe as we know it was created in six days — much more believable than elves, hobbits and ringwraiths? Does the lens of the Bible really resonate with us, when God seems a-okay with ordering genocide in his name, provides rules for proper slavery rather than condemning it, and issues the death penalty for children who talk back to their parents? And even if the lens of The Lord of the Rings does resonate with us — I certainly find it jives reasonably well with my moral intuition, much more often than the Bible does — does that make *it* true?
I understand that all these questions cannot be answered in a single sermon. You’re of course right to say that this is something that could only be achieved “Sunday after Sunday” in many sermons, or, some would say, only after a lifetime of dedicated study. We have certainly opened a large can of worms.
But that is exactly how these things go … my basic point is that these worms won’t climb back into the can if we just realize that we can sometimes gain some insight from reading works of fiction.
Thank you for your helpful reply. My hearers are mostly those who would say that they follow Jesus. But there are regularly a handful of folks attending who would not consider themselves Christians and who have earnest questions about such things. I suppose I’m trying to learn how to do four things with a sermon. (1) Give a thoughtful welcome to those who do not believe in Jesus by acknowledging our common humanity and the legitimacy of questions and dialogue. I hope that by doing so I am relating in some small resemblance to Jesus and creating an environment in which non-Christians could deem it credible and worthwhile to come. (2) I hope by doing so, that the Christians listening will learn how to relate thoughtfully and lovingly to non-Christians as well as how to think about and address the earnest questions that people have as they come to the Bible (3) I hope that by doing this, I will in some small way distinguish the teachings of the Bible in Jesus from the inappropriate conservatism of the religious and the inappropriate liberalism of the irreligious. (4) In all of this, I hope that we are learning how to come honestly and truly to the text and yes, I do hope that by this approach Jesus will draws us to Himself in a reconciling way. I guess what I’m saying is that I do not want to assume anymore that people have grown up in Sunday School, or if they have, that it was necessarily good. I want to cultivate an honest conviction about Jesus while not requiring others to possess this conviction before we can meaningfully dialogue together. As best as I can see, Jesus related in this way and calls me to follow Him in this.
Thank you for your comments on the Bible’s historicity or if I understand you correctly, its lack thereof. You raise a question about some of the accounts in the Bible and you ask, “is it believable.” I am actually wanting to say “yes” to your question. That probably makes me sound like one of those duped folks that Bill Maher tore down in “Religulous.” “Yes” I believe the account of Noah and the account of Jonah, are more believable than Tolkien’s characters. I also believe the account about God creating us and that it is important to acknowledge that there is an in-house debate among Christians as to how “six days” is used in the Pentateuch. As you may know, bible believing scientists such as Francis Collins (one-time head of the human genome institute appointed by Bill Clinton) would uphold macro-evolution and the historicity of the bible at the same time. Whereas, the Answers in Genesis folks would require a six literal day interpretation. The common ground between them is that both believe the historicity of the account. (Btw, my most recent blog post offers a snippet of how I handled the violence of God in the account of Noah. The full sermon is on http://www.riversidestl.org) Have you read the Smisthonian Institute’s statement about the Bible and its historicity? This might offer a helpful starting point for both of us. Its statement about the early chapters of Genesis would resonate with your point of view and challenge my own. But its statement about the historicity of the Bible as a whole may push back on your viewpoint and resonate more with my own–at least as I understand the comparisons and questions you are making and asking regarding how Tolkien and the Bible are equal in believability.
I have two starting points for coming to terms with those very few passages which seem cruel or mythical to me. (1) Jesus. I start with the historicity of the crucifixion and resurrection. If these fall, so does the rest. If this stands, then I follow Jesus toward the rest. (2) The historical accuracy of the Bible. Being historically accurate does not make the Bible a word from God. But it certainly cannot be a word from God if it is historically false.
I agree with you that it does not make something true because our moral intuition resonates with the world. I also believe that what I perceive as moral can be mistaken. I want to know in the first place, why do we have a moral intuition? I am personally more satisfied with how Jesus answers this question than with how current darwinian scientists are answering this question.
I also agree with you that “these worms won’t climb back in.” My whole goal is to get them out of the can and week by week look at one worm at a time. I’m tired of pretending there are no worms and tired of movements whether they be religious or irreligious who want me to act as if we should leave those worms nice and tidy veiled from our view.
Finally, I agree with you that it is a big step from “this book is credible” to “this book is a word from God.” I cannot see how we can make such a step without answering the question about Jesus. I was sitting in a bar called “Hot Shots” with a dear friend who is a thoughtful disbeliever in the bible. He is however compelled by the person and teachings of Jesus. He told me that he believed the apostle paul was an ###hole, and that the stories of noah and babel are like children’s myths. He asked me what I made of that. I said that I do not believe he has to make up his mind about paul or babel in order to settle his questions about Jesus. As I see it, start with Jesus. If He turns out to be who He says He is, then you can begin to come at these other questions again. Some would disagree with me. They would say you have to check the stability of the whole frozen pond before you can take a step onto it. I disagree. I believe that you can find stability in one part of the pond and stand there while you search and determine to see what other aspects of the pond can or cannot hold weight.
So, for example, Jesus talks about Noah and the fish as if it was an historical event. I could find stories in history in which men have been swallowed by large fish. But what good is this to me if Jesus, his claims and his teachings are false? However, if Jesus is true and this truth teller says the fish story is an historical event, now I have to account for why this is. My starting point changes. Before, I assumed the story was false and needed convincing that it was true. Now, I assume the story is true and need convincing as to why it is false.
At this point, I’m writing too much! Thanks for writing to me and interacting with these weighty things.
[...] I came across this post by Pastor Zack Eswine, in which he discusses his approach to preaching “to a thoughtful person who believes that [...]
Zack and NFQ, I’ve enjoyed reading your exchange. Good talk. (NFQ, your “said Gandalf” comment made me laugh.) I don’t disagree with Zack’s progression on what one the steps one must take in order to believe the Bible. However, the element that has led me to conclude that Noah and Babel are myths is answering this question: When I look at the world, do I see a god? (BTW, I don’t remember calling Paul an ***hole, but if you say I did then I’ll accept it.) My answer is a resounding ‘no.’ If god is the god of the Bible who interacts with people in grand and obvious ways (throughout the entire Bible,) then where is he? When they stopped writing the stories down, he appears to have gone away. Or, I concluded, he was never there to begin with. Anyway, thank you to both of you for taking time to write your thoughts.