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.
6 Responses
Thank you for this good review of an important book discussing a very challenging issue for theologians and Christians in our current time.
Thanks for this review. I have not read the book, but I note (from Amazon’s excerpts) that Madueme refers to Joshua Swamidass (on pp 130-131) presumably commenting on his book: The Genealogical Adam and Eve: The Surprising Science of Universal Ancestry. Swamidass is an evolutionary biologist who defends the historicity of Adam and Eve. His book is cited with positive reviews by other atheist evolutionary biologists. Swamidass proposes that it is not necessary to make a choice between science and Scripture.
That phrase “reestablishing Adam and Eve within the canonical timeframe” –since he considers this “vital” as a first priority-could use at least two sentences of elucidation. First, does he take it as vital to hold that that first human pair emerged straight from the dust with no non-human ancestors, or does he allow, as C.S. Lewis did (in The Problem of Pain) , an evolutionary ancestry of at least their basic biological physical frame? (His disallowing” of those millions of years of death and suffering suggests he requires “straight-from-the-dust” (and perhaps this also for the sentient non-human animals?) but if so, why not say so?) It is worth noting that Lewis’s own speculative reconciliation, while allowing evolutionary ancestry of humans, certainly endorsed “original goodness” of the first human pair, courtesy of that special divine action that super-added those special characteristics conferring full ‘image of God’ humanness on them. ) Second, what does he take keeping A & E in the ‘canonical timeframe’ to actually require? Again, would appreciate a sentence on this.
This will sound a little harsh, but I wish, in addition to the many other things we derived from Augustine, we would followed this advice:
Often, a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances, … and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, which people see as ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn.
The shame is not so much that an ignorant person is laughed at, but rather that people outside the faith believe that we hold such opinions, and thus our teachings are rejected as ignorant and unlearned. If they find a Christian mistaken in a subject that they know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions as based on our teachings, how are they going to believe these teachings in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think these teachings are filled with fallacies about facts which they have learnt from experience and reason.
Reckless and presumptuous expounders of Scripture bring about much harm when they are
caught in their mischievous false opinions by those not bound by our sacred texts. And even
more so when they then try to defend their rash and obviously untrue statements by quoting a shower of words from Scripture and even recite from memory passages which they think will support their case ‘without understanding either what they are saying or what they assert with such assurance.’ (1 Timothy 1:7)
Augustine, On the Literal Meaning of Genesis (I.19.39)
If the forbidden fruit is not really an apple from an apple tree, then is the following threatening and controversial exegesis (at least to Westerners) presented in poem form worthy of discussion, debate, criticism, and evaluation of the validity of this exegesis in an attempt to determine Eve’s reluctance to procreate in the Garden as per the Genesis 1:28 commandment/blessing to be fruitful and multiply, thus increasing her culpability in the story, along with Adam’s failure to provide leadership at the end of Genesis 3:6?
____________________________________________________________
Bad day in the Garden
They eat the fruit, but what do they eat?
We lift the veil for a wary peek.
Through a forest of mystery
We see a body, naked and weak.
The BODY is the Garden in whose center grow
The two famous trees, but nowhere a weevil.
Here is the tree of life and the one
of knowledge of good and knowledge of evil.
Because the two trees are right next to each other,
Care must be taken to avoid the one bad.
For the fruit of both trees is pleasure,
so the pleasure is there to be had.
To be fruitful and multiply eat from the first.
But eat from the second and no one conceives.
So here we go now–one, two, three–
Pleasure, shame, fig tree leaves.
If a story containing a garden with rivers that supply the known world with its water supply, a garden with magic trees, a walking and talking serpent, a naked couple that don’t know they are naked, and a god that walks through the garden were in any book but the Bible we would have no trouble identifying it for what it is: a myth. Not a myth as in a lie or a deception. A myth as in a culture’s attempt to make sense of their world. When a myth is treated as history or science the meaning of the story is misinterpreted or lost. When a myth is interpreted as representing history or science absurd contortions are required to reconcile the story with what we know of history and science.
It appears to me that Hans Madeume’s Defending Sin is another misguided attempt to reconcile the Bible’s origen myth with history and science. Not surprisingly he gets lost in the weeds.