A few years ago, I read Loren Haarsma’s When Did Sin Begin. The book explored possibilities for understanding some key theological claims of orthodox Christian faith in light of the contemporary science of origins.
Madueme’s work, Defending Sin, questions the approach of books like Haarsma’s, holding that Christians have been too quick to reinterpret biblical texts and historic doctrines in the face of the deliverances of science. He offers an alternative model and an account of original sin (hamartiology) that is simultaneously consonant with historic orthodoxy and engaged, though not necessarily harmoniously, with contemporary scientific discourse.
In the culminating chapters (6 – 8), Madueme argues that a theologically orthodox, scripturally aligned view of sin requires a historic Adam and Eve and a real original righteousness of the pair (205). It requires that sin cannot be explained as biological or as inherited in a narrow genetic sense (249). Finally, it requires a dualistic view of the human person; human beings are not just physical substance but are embodied immortal souls (288). While he makes interesting connections to contemporary science in this section, Madueme’s main assertions are at odds with deliverances of science related to origins. Thus, to lay the groundwork for his hamartiology, Madueme will offer a protology.
In his protology (chapters 3 – 5) Madueme contends that “reestablishing Adam and Eve within the canonical timeframe is vital” (92). He asserts that monogenism and the unity of the human race is essential (126). He also argues that original goodness is required, disallowing millions of years of death and pain required by evolutionary models (154). Again, these assertions put Madueme at odds with current science. However, even more relevant is Madueme’s lack of satisfaction with current and historic attempts by theologians to resolve these doctrinal tensions.
This dissatisfaction leads Madeume to lay his own groundwork for a different way of handling tensions between science and faith. This he does in chapters 1 and 2.
The first chapter articulates the problem, tracing the history of how tensions between science and theology/Scripture were resolved and asserting that over time, this history progressively “sidelined Scripture as a reliable guide to primeval history and the natural world” (42). While not cited by Madueme, his discussion in this section echoes observations of Hans Frei’s classic study of 18th and 19th century biblical hermeneutics.
The second chapter articulates Madueme’s solution to the problem, a five-component approach he calls Biblical Realism. The first component of Biblical Realism is Supernaturalism: the natural sciences should be open to supernatural realities when seeking to understand God’s world. Madueme offers an interesting discussion of methodological naturalism in this section. The second component is Dogmatic Inerrancy. which anchors the epistemic weight of Scripture (though not necessarily specific interpretations) through a dogmatic a priori because “God cannot lie” (56). The third component is Scientific Fallibilism. This component does not assert that science is false, only that it is a human endeavor (unlike Scripture in component 2). Deliverances of science by default should be accepted at face value unless they contradict a “central tenet of Scripture or of Christian doctrine” which he defines (61). The fourth component is Doctrinal Confidence. When tensions related to central doctrines/tenets arise, Christians should act confidently about the epistemic warrant of those doctrines (because of Component 2) and not quickly abandon or revise them. He includes in this section a sophisticated discussion of the different weights of doctrine and the importance of ensuring that doctrines are aligned with what Scripture teaches. The fifth component is to adopt an Eclectic Method when resolving tensions. There is no single right way to engage every scientific deliverance, and Christians must be thoughtful and take time to fully understand the scientific claim before determining the best response.
Ten years of research and writing underlies the book, much of it funded by the Templeton Foundation and the Templeton Religion Trust; and there is no way to overstate the breadth of Madueme’s engagement with the literature. Yet even for those sympathetic to his primary concerns, Madueme’s pill is a large one to swallow. Christian academics who have remained theologically orthodox Christians have, in many cases, been able to do so because they have embraced the approaches to science, Scripture, or history that Madueme critiques. Yet Madueme is not wrong about the cumulative effects of these approaches on the scope of Scripture’s authority. Perhaps allowing for thoughtful tensions with science and history around “central doctrines and tenets” may in fact be productive for the Church.
