Three threats to the future of our
society seem more and more real to me.
1.
The proliferation of nuclear material around the world makes it more and more
likely that at some point someone will use that material to destroy a city such
as Washington, D.C., or some other essential nerve center of our society.
2.
The invention of “crispr,” a tool for genetically modifying almost anything,
makes it more and more likely that someone will meddle with genetics enough to
create an organism that will create a pandemic (an epidemic that would kill
millions of people similar to the way the Black Death devastated Europe in the
middle 1300s.). The most recent issue of Time magazine warns about the
danger of a naturally occurring pandemic.
3.
Global warming is likely to create political instability in places where
millions of people will lose their homes, so that more huge waves of refugees
will overwhelm countries. Our country will not be immune to the effects of such
disruptions.
When Adam and Eve ate of the fruit
of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, they were not committing a sin
of disobedience. The story is about how humans have a drive to try new things,
and that some new things can have bad consequences, such as driving people out
of paradise. God was not testing Adam and Eve, God was preparing us for God’s
entry into the human race as a human being, because God is a God of love, not a
God of capricious testing.
Evolution is a violent process,
with a timespan of billions of years. If we believe that a personal God is
behind creation of the universe, we Christians also believe that the God of
Creation is also a God of redemption, a God who brings life and love out of
violence and disruption. Love is passionate, respectful, vulnerable, faithful
involvement. God is involved with us passionately, respectfully, vulnerably,
and faithfully. Love is stronger than death.
The history of Christian theology
has been based too much on reading Scriptures as accounts of historical events.
But Scripture is first of all literature, artistic statements of the
experiences of its authors. I can accept that God inspired its authors without
assuming that what they wrote was intended as historical description. As I read
Augustine’s City of God, I am struck by how much he takes Scripture
passages as literal descriptions of historical events. I have the same reaction
when I read Thomas Aquinas or Duns Scotus, medieval theologians with the same
assumption.
Philosophy in our day has moved
toward analyzing language, the way human beings use that most amazing facility.
As I have reflected in earlier statements on this blog, when Jesus says that if
your eye causes you to sin, you should pluck it out, we take the statement as
metaphorical. Why do we take literally the statement that the King in Matthew
25 condemns the goats on his left to eternal fire prepared for the devil and
his angels? I cannot reconcile the belief that God is a God of love with the
belief that such a God would condemn a person to eternal punishment for a
non-eternal action. “Hell” is a metaphor for Jesus’ telling us that love is
serious business, and that the failure to love can have long-lasting
consequences. How long-lasting? Jesus uses the word “eternal,” but why is that
word not a metaphor?
The Christian (and Muslim) teaching
about hell is one of the most serious obstacles to a wider acceptance of faith
by people in our world.
The Christian teaching about
original sin is a similar obstacle. It makes God seem capricious and punitive.
We have a better God than that.
Terrible things may be in store for
the human race as a result of the three developments that I described at the
beginning of this essay. If such events occur, they will not be because Adam
and Eve disobeyed a command of God. They will occur because God created humans
to push limits, and knew that sometimes when they push limits, they get hurt,
and sometimes the hurt extends down to those humans’ descendants. The story
does not end there because God also became incarnate among us, and is with us
even in catastrophe and death, and is always bringing new life out of the
violence and destruction of creation.
I agree that disobedience was not the "original sin", and would assert that the only thing that the Eden story coveys is that humans needed to get out of the protective womb and become adults. Here the original sin of the churches is the notion that the church (in its leadership) has answers to questions that have not yet been raised... it too needs to move out of adolescence into adulthood.
ReplyDeleteI would differ with you on the notion that the god of creation/evolution can be somehow balanced with the notion of a god of love. Clearly Jesus taught that love was more important than regulation, but the story of evolution does not covey that.
Perhaps Jesus was pushing the boundary with god by calling him "father"? The Buddhists and Hindus make no such fatherhood claim and recognize that the source of the beautiful sunset is also the source of the life destroying volcano.