Does Christianity require Christ?

The Christian tradition has made much of Adam…The levels of freedom (or lack thereof) that many of us experience with regard to the question of Adam as a historical person is inseparable from the theology that we see bound up with him. For some, to reject Adam as a historical person is to reject the authority of Scripture and trustworthiness of the very passages within which we learn of justification and resurrection.1 Others are concerned that to deny a historical Adam is to deny the narrative of a good world gone wrong that serves as the very basis for the good news of Jesus Christ. In short, if there is no Fall, there can be no salvation from it and restoration to what was and/or might have been.2 Even more expansively, Douglas Farrow concludes that “there is very little of importance in Christian theology, hence also in doxology and practice, that is not at stake in the question of whether or not we allow a historical dimension to the Fall.”3 High stakes, indeed. But I want to suggest that things might not be so dire. Specifically, I want to open up the conversation to the possibility that the gospel does not, in fact, depend on a historical Adam or historical Fall…

Paul has an important story to tell. It is the story of God’s new creation breaking into the world through the surprising mechanism of a crucified and resurrected Christ…

Recognizing this relieves the pressure that sometimes builds up around a historical Adam. Contrary to the fears expressed by Douglas Farrow, we can now recognize that Adam is not the foundation on which the system of Christian faith and life is built, such that removing him means that the whole edifice comes crashing down. Instead, the Adam of the past is one spire in a large edifice whose foundation is Christ. The gospel need not be compromised if we find ourselves having to part ways with Paul’s assumption that there is a historical Adam, because we share Paul’s fundamental conviction that the crucified Messiah is the resurrected Lord over all.

Might it be possible that we could retell the stories of both Adam and evolutionary sciences such that they continued to reflect our conviction that the endpoint of God’s great story is nothing else than new creation in the crucified and risen Christ? For many, the cognitive dissonance between the sciences and a historical Adam has already become too great to continue holding both.8 We therefore have to carefully determine whether the cause of Christ, and of truth, is better served by indicating that a choice must be made between the two, or by retelling the narrative about the origins of humanity as we now understand it in light of the death and resurrection of Christ.

The task of reimagining a Christian story of origins for our modern era has already begun…To accompany Paul on the task of telling the story of the beginning in light of Christ, while parting ways with his first-century understanding of science and history, is not to abandon the Christian faith in favor of science. Instead, it demands a fresh act of faith in which we continue to hold fast to the truth that has always defined Christianity: the crucified Messiah is the resurrected Lord over all. Belief in Christ’s resurrection was a stumbling block for the ancients, and it is a stumbling block for us moderns as well—and increasingly so as we learn more about our human story and the biological processes entailed in life on this Earth. We do not give up on the central article of Christian faith when we use it to tell a renewed story of where we came from. On the contrary, we thereby give it the honor which is its due.

http://cms.fuller.edu/TNN/Issues/Spring_2013/Does_Paul_s_Christ_Require_a_Historical_Adam/

Isn’t that inspiring? I could just feel the tears streaming down my cheeks as I read it. My only reservation is that I think brother Kirk stopped a wee bit short. To take his logic to the next step:

The Christian tradition has made much of Christ. The levels of freedom (or lack thereof) that many of us experience with regard to the question of Christ as a real person is inseparable from the theology that we see bound up with him. For some, to reject Christ as a real person is to reject the authority of Scripture. Others are concerned that to deny a real Jesus is to deny the narrative of salvation. In short, if there is no Christ, there can be no salvation. Even more expansively, one alarmist concludes that “there is very little of importance in Christian theology, hence also in doxology and practice, that is not at stake in the question of whether or not we allow a historical dimension to Jesus.” High stakes, indeed. But I want to suggest that things might not be so dire. Specifically, I want to open up the conversation to the possibility that the gospel does not, in fact, depend on a real spacetime Incarnation, crucifixion, Resurrection, or Parousia.

The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John have an important story to tell. It is the story of God breaking into a fallen world through the surprising mechanism of the Incarnate, crucified, and resurrected Son of God.

Might it be possible that we could retell the Christ story such that it continues to reflect our conviction that we inhabit a closed system? For many, the cognitive dissonance between a closed system and a real Jesus has already become too great to continue holding both. We therefore have to carefully determine whether the cause of Christianity, and of truth, is better served by indicating that a choice must be made between the two, or by retelling the narrative about the Christ-nonevent.

Recognizing this relieves the pressure that sometimes builds up around a real Jesus. Contrary to the fears expressed by alarmists, we can now recognize that Christ is not the foundation on which the system of Christian faith and life is built, such that removing him means that the whole edifice comes crashing down. Instead, the Christ of the past, present, and future is one spire in a large edifice whose foundation is unyielding despair. The gospel need not be compromised if we find ourselves having to part ways with New Testament’s assumption that Jesus really exists, because we still have stained glass, pretty music, and pageantry.

The task of reimagining a redemptive narrative for our modern era has already begun. To accompany the New Testament on the task of telling the story of Christ, while parting ways with its understanding of God, history, and eternity, is not to abandon the Christian faith in favor of secularism. Instead, it demands a fresh act of faith in which we continue to hold fast to the truth that has always defined liberal Christianity: the closed casual continuum. We do not give up on the central article of liberal Christian faith when we use it to tell a renewed story of coming from nothing and returning to nothing. On the contrary, we thereby give it the honor which is its due.