One concern I have heard from those who defend the historicity of Adam and Eve is that if we do not have a historical Adam from whom all people emerge then the Christian critique of racism is nullified. Essentially, Christians find our common ancestor to be proof that we all share the same essence. No one is inherently inferior to another because we all share the image of God. But if there was no Adam then this is not true.
It seems that this “common ancestor” motif was important enough for early Christians that it made it into the genealogy of the Gospel of Luke (3.38); the Epistle to the Romans by Paul (5.12-21); and the Lukan retelling of Paul’s sermon in Athens (Acts 17.26). I don’t know that I would say that any of these passages address racism directly, but they have been used by Christians to do so in the past. Of course, I would add that the traditional interpretation of Genesis 1-2 is another important text.
If Adam is metaphorical or mythological what does the Christian tradition has to say about racism? Can we continue to use the argument of the image of God? Thoughts?
the archives near Emmaus 
‘Enlightened’ critiques of racism have not existed consistently through the history of Christianity. Many of these critiques have arisen in a response to World War 2, just as there was a similar zeal to deal with racism in response to the American civil war.
Accordingly, we can’t attribute a critique of racism solely to our faith (even if our faith has been a catalyst for discussion), as much as that would be nice.
Comments I made previously about Adam being the progenitor of us all was more geared to the idea that no man is without excuse (Adam’s fall is all man’s problem). Christian critique of racism (or defence of it) is influenced more by society, and history, than Adam’s historicity.
Andrew T.: Actually, I would think a Christian critique of racism is more influenced by the whole witness of Scripture than by any given societal norm. (If you say you love God and hate your brother/sister…, etc.) It doesn’t take much reading of Scripture to see that racism is wrong, sinful, and deserving of critique.
I don’t think the lack of a historical Adam makes a difference… wouldn’t even those who deny his historicity have to say that at some point God made *some* human in God’s own image? And even lacking a historical Adam, why think God would make some humans in his image and others not? So therefore, *all* creatures are still created in the image of the Creator, Adam or not… right?
abramkj, You misunderstand me.
I didn’t say such a critique couldn’t be made from scripture. You don’t need to sell me on that. I said we couldn’t attribute such a critique ONLY to scripture. Christianity is not the (sole) source of a critique of racism (and I would argue, it’s doubtful it’s even a major influence).
Many of the church fathers could be called racists because of their treatment of Jews. Likewise Christianity was used as much to vocally defend American slavery as oppose it. The civil rights movements of the US had as many non-Christian’s adhering to anti-racist ideals as Christian’s which shows the critique to be something beyond our faith. (In fact, many of these civil rights movements had pretty healthy representations of Jewish atheists … does that mean atheism provides an influence in anti-racist critiques?). Critique of racism surpasses our faith.
The whole witness of scripture itself is subject to interpretation. If there was agreement about this ‘whole witness’, the same critique we see popping up through Christian history often in response to historical movements, would plainly be seen to be orthodoxy. Because it isn’t, we have to look beyond our faith towards social influences to explain it.
Hi, Andrew–thanks for the clarification.
I still do take issue with your saying, “Christianity is not the (sole) source of a critique of racism (and I would argue, it’s doubtful it’s even a major influence).” I’ve read too many books by Christian authors to name (and heard too many sermons) where Christianity/the Bible *is* the grounding for a person’s critique of racism… so I can’t accept that it’s “doubtful” that that’s a major influence. For many (myself included), it is.
I agree with your paragraph about church fathers and other Christians throughout history who have been racist. (Not to mention some of Luther’s writings on the Jews.) I mourn about that and think that is something of which the Church needs to repent (assuming a sort of corporate conception of repentance). May God continue to have mercy on us for the hatred we harbor in our hearts, and for the various forms that takes.
Also agreed that “the whole witness of Scripture itself is subject to interpretation.” But did your last two sentences suggest that Christian anti-racism is not orthodox?
abramkj:
Fair enough. I agree Christianity has opposed ‘racism’ my (our?) entire lifetime, but would also argue that I’m living an an age where ‘racism’ has become “out of vogue”. Christianity appears (at least in our lifetime) to be one of these influences, but if I let that chronocentric myopic view influenced my perspective, I’m not seeing the whole picture.
WRT your question about whether anti-racism is orthodox, I should have clarified – it is not ecclesiastic orthodoxy (as opposed to unqualified (biblical) orthodoxy; the relationship between the two being a matter of hermeneutics).
I’m unsure if I’m understanding this blog correctly. If Adam did not exist historically then the Christian critique of racism is nullified? If Adam did exist historically then the Christian critique of racism is justifiable? I think the issue of racism is an after effect of whether or not Adam existed, actually existed, historically existed, not as a literary device, right? It seems to me that the cart is before the horse, almost implying Adam has to exist historically otherwise racism becomes valid, that some are better than others. I find it disturbing that Christians have a critique on racism, as if racism should have a legitimacy.
I see the story of Simon Peter in Acts 10, I see Jn 3:16, I see a dilemma with the conception of ‘faith’, as being the possible lever to the idea of racism. For myself, i do not see a dilemma, either/or. To me, i see a line, whether through science’s evolution or the historicity of Adam that extends from the dawn of man to Jesus, and from there to his second coming. I think that by his Godhood Jesus took on the inequalities that may or may not have resided in mankind and conquered them in his death. I think when he resurrected he repositioned man equally in relation from ourselves to ourselves by refocusing man towards faith instead of race. The issue of race inequality is nullified and the issue of faith inequality becomes more justifiable. I don’ know…. i feel like giving room to racism legitamizes it’s claim, which i feel is grounded more on earth and less in heaven.
…. well, perhaps not completely out of vogue, but certainly out of vogue in the dominant culture that pervades the ‘West’.
juven, “critique” implies critical comment on some problem, in this case racism. It is not necessarily dispassionate or sympathetic.
Christian’s, as humans, err. Christian’s are as capable of error as non-Christian’s. That does not mean their faith is not sincere. Christian’s who join the Klu Klux Klan, or who affirm Humanism are equally capable of being sincere in their faith, whether or not they err in their judgment or perspective.
Juven
Let me clarify that one of the arguments against the proposal that some people groups are superior to others would be that all humans are part of the same “family.” So race is secondary to shared humanity. Adam is often depicted as the root from which we all spring making us brothers and sisters despite differences of color, culture, geography, and language. So the question asks what alternative critique is uniquely Christian if Adam proves to be merely mythopoetic.
I am not sure what you mean by the sentence: “I find it disturbing that Christians have a critique on racism, as if racism should have a legitimacy.” A critique assumes that something should be shown to be wrong, not legitimate.
We agree that racism is evil and I think the doctrine of the incarnation is a wonderful place to start.
Brian’ here’s another critique on racism not involving Adam.
Because all fall short of the glory of God, and all are in need of redemption, that no man can stand unmade before the creator by his own righteousness, this is what defines our common humanity and makes us equal.
One could try to deny this by denying original sin (without Adam there is no original sin) but this is question begging since the biblical position ‘all fall short of the glory of God’ is a doctrine that stands on its own merits, since the bible presents it frequently as separate as its own doctrine; notwithstanding our tendency to read Adam into it.
I’m not sure what Adam has to do with this. Christians have a long history of justifying racism and slavery (as well as a long history of opposing the same things based on scripture). Wasn’t the story of the patriarchs used by pro-racists, something about Ham being cursed and his line being where dark-skinned people were derived?
Really, one can use the bible for just about any position.
John
Well, I explained why Adam factors into the conversation. You may not find it meaningful, but that is part of my question–does Adam matter when Christian think about race theologically. Also, let’s be honest, humans have a long history of justifying many evils, not just Christians. Christians do it because they are humans. It is true that Christian often use the Bible wrongly, but again, I think this is because humans tend to use appeals to authority wrongly at times.
Brian’s question is asking of we ‘remove Adam as a historical fact’ does that weaken the case against racism.
I think a more interesting question might be ‘If we remove Genesis, does that weaken the case against racism’ since it not only removes Adam but also the creature/creator relationship.
I’d be hard pressed to use the bible to oppose racism without Genesis!
i guess im misunderstanding the intention… and what Andrew T. said above ^, i concur.
Andrew
True, Adam is part of the larger narrative of the Book of Genesis which gives us the imagery of the Tower of Babel. The Book of Genesis sees humanity as splitting into groups not because it is a good thing, but because it was a necessary judgement.
(Before someone presents me with new covenant quotes that can be used … ask yourself what is the foundation of that thinking? Was it a new thought or was it building off extant old covenant doctrine?)
Javen, don’t be fooled by my apparently dispassionate treatment of this hot-button word. Racism means many things to many people.
In this dialogue, I’m treating it in the broadest possible way, which is fairly meaningless. That’s why my indignation towards it, is likely difficult to detect.
Speaking of Adam, Michael Heiser wrote this interesting piece today: http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/2012/06/adam-adam/
Andrew T, I think your statement that “many of the church fathers could be called racists because of their treatment of Jews”, demonstrates a problem of discussing racism. The church fathers can not be accused of racism because they did not have the concept of race that we do today. They were opposed to the Jewish religion but the Jews as a race that pass on traits with DNA was not in their minds at all.
Andrew’s point covers the historical issue. Anyone who knows how and why the Southern Baptist Convention formed will know that there was a time when conservative Christian exegesis was thought to be antithetical to the abolition of slavery. Times change – thank goodness!
But to turn to the original post’s point, note the irony that Ken Ham pointed to the Human Genome Project as providing confirming evidence that all humanity shares a common ancestor and racism is wrong. This is the same Ken Ham who uses obscene amounts of money undermining the scientific implications of the Human Genome Project.
In short, it seems to me that whatever the science or the Bible says, it is up to us to choose to value others as we would wish to be valued, or to use the Bible or science to justify our penchant to discriminate and denigrate, which we alas do whether the Bible or science supports it or not, and even try to coopt such authorities to support our attitudes and dispositions.
James
Ken Ham’s use of the Human Genome Project is quite ironic. I try to avoid listening to him. When I was a teenager in a private ACSI school we watched his videos for some of our “science” classes and on rainy days. Ugh.
Your point is similar to Abram’s above: Christians are still to love others even if there is no Adam. I think those that would seek to make another race seem inferior to their own will probably do this even if they believe in a historical Adam.
Thomas, I completely agree. See my additional statements about ‘racism means many things to many people’. ‘Racism’ (as with most -isms) need to clearly defined.
Brian, interesting link. Bold claim though “Biblical theology, stripped bare of denominational confessions and theological systems”.
I’m not sure I agree that’s possible.
Andrew
I think it is impossible, but I get what he is trying to do. It seems that the words “Biblical theology” assume a canon of sorts which is a confession and a theological system. That said, he does write thoughtful posts!
His argument is well reasoned.
i would argue its a straw-man argument. For isn’t one of the great mysteries of the Gospel that the Jews / Gentiles are now one in Christ, whom is the 2nd Adam.
Craig
I think some might say it doesn’t make any sense for Christ to restore something lost in Adam if there was no Adam in the first place. Thoughts?
Brian, even those who hold a ‘mythical’ stance of Adam and not a Historical, state that Adam is representative of all being made in God’s image. And therefore in Christ all have been reconciled to God through him, though not all will accept him.
The question to ask about Adam is what was the intention behind Moses writing about him. And I believe within the Pentetuechal framework that the context of 1 2 3 Genesis is addressing idolatrous practices. The creation accounts bear significant witness against the Egyptian idolatry and practice of worshipping creation gods, even to the point of making Pharaoh god.
Craig, some would not agree that ‘the great mysteries of the Gospel that the Jews / Gentiles are now one in Christ, whom is the 2nd Adam’. Such a position is LOADED with presuppostion. (Brian would likely encourage you to not to get me going on that issue).
Even so, Brian’s point about what need is there for Christ if there was not Adam is what needs to be explained.
Andrew T. I would have thought my first paragraph of my last comment made it clear that even for those who hold a mythical stance of Adam,they still believe that God created all of humanity in his image.
This is one of the great doctrine of the EO church. That because all are made in the image of God, all are to be treated with the dignity and respect that deserves….within this context, there is no room for racism.
Brian, the point of Genesis is that humanity did lose their relationship with God, the point of Genesis and the exodus is that God is restoring relationship back to him.
Craig
Would you say your hermeneutical approach worries less about the details and more about the overarching message and major motifs of Scripture?
Brian. Great question. We were asking this same thing at last weeks home group. I think that my approach takes more seriously the details, for it takes more seriously the overarching message of the Pentateuch. It tries to get into Moses head.
It’s like one can picture him standing on a hill, staff in hand, and telling the Israelites their story. In many ways you could say its like a ripple effect of a stone being thrown into a pond, and we are working inwards from the outer ripples. In many ways, I will say that though Genesis 1 & 2 are the beginning of the Bible, we do ourselves a disservice if we don’t start with Moses and ask why is he writing this.
There are several bible motifs that militate against racism:
all of us are in God’s image and likeness
Love God and man
Christ paid for all sins, so His day on the cross gave us all equal value, all of us
Adam being the father of all
I think Adam is the least significant by far, but, I wouldn’t say that idea is totally w/o merit either in helping some people see all of humanity as equal and valued equally by God and that all the various racist theories of humanity are nonsense.
I agree with Craig when he says,” we do ourselves a disservice if we don’t start with Moses and ask why is he writing this”. The only difference is I don’t think Moses wrote Genesis.
I also like Craig’s point about the Jews and Gentiles being one in Christ. I think that it is the theme of Paul’s letter to the Romans and may be very helpful in understanding Rom5:12-21.
Thomas, can you share more about why you don’t think Moses wrote Genesis? I think he did, though not in an inventive way, rather he did so to tell the Israelites their story. I believe the story would have been well known by the Hebrew people within an oral format and Moses being the educated man that he was, would have been well equipped to write it down.
Craig, Brian has already written a post on “Enns on the Evolution of the Pentateuch” and this post is about racism, so I won’t go into great detail. The short answer is that I think the argument against Moses authorship is better than the one for it. Have you read Enn’s book? In the first two chapters he gives a review of the issue. He does not go far into it because that would require a whole other book. There are many books and articles in study bibles etc. that deal with the subject. To me the ones that propose multiple authors make sense of the data than those that say Moses wrote it.
thomas, isn’t the DNA of the ancient jews the basis for which they were the people of God? wasn’t that then a very restrictive racism? or ethnocentrism, if racism is the wrong word.
Sonia, ‘Jew’ means citizen of Judea only, not Israelite. It includes non-Israelites, such as the Jewish king Herod (who was an Edomite) and indeed many Edomites. Basic biblical understanding requires we read it carefully. Equivocating between ‘Jews’ and Israelites is often a sign we don’t do that.
Even so, the DNA of ancient Israelite was the basis for which they inherited a covenant of God. That does not mean that they were automatically the people of God. The covenant carried with it both blessings and curses [Deut 28:15].
The people of God were those who by faith honoured the covenant they had inherited. Paul himself points out that of Abraham’s two children the covenant was established in one (Isaac) and not in the other (Ishmael). Likewise of Isaac’s children, the covenant (and the blessings of the promise) were established in one (Jacob/Israel) and not in the other (Esau).
In both cases offspring inherited the inheritance of the promise through DNA but established it in a blessing because of faith, or established it in a curse because of lack of faith. Don’t mistake ‘inheritance’ and covenant with the blessing and curses and contents of the covenant.
If you doubt this, God promised the land to Israel forever, yet what happened when Israel rejected God? (He booted them out of the land)
‘Jacob have I loved, Esau have I hated ..’
Not sure DNA really has anything to do with it… God calls whom he will call, and has mercy on whom he will have mercy (the verse after what Andrew T. quoted). That same chapter (Romans 9) also says, “…it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children….”
This book (http://abramkj.wordpress.com/2012/06/25/magnificent-monograph-monday-review-of-the-post-racial-church/) has some great sections about how DNA/ethnicity itself has nothing to do with either God’s election of the nation of Israel or with God’s call to Israel not to marry other ethnicities, etc. Not to plug the book, but it does do a good job, if you’re interested, in unpacking how DNA really has nothing to do with it…