Provocations

By pbobby

In the Old Testament book of Genesis, Two different accounts of Creation are presented. It seems reasonable to pbobby, that each had different authors. The first account describes the creation as having six generations, called days by the author. The sixth Generation reads: "Then God said let us make humankind in our own image, according to our likeness; . . . and let them have dominion over all the Earth."

So God created humankind in His image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." Note: In the (In Hebrew, the word for humankind, is also translated Adam, as is the pronoun, them.)

And God rested the seventh generation.

I believe the author of the first account (Genesis 1:26-31) had no axe to grind - just made an attempt to describe how we, and our universe came to be. I believe that the author of the Eden version (Genesis, Chapters 2 through 4) needed to set down how we all became sinful creatures via the disobedience of Adam and Eve.

I have no way to judge the accuracy of either account, since they both were stories of the Hebrew people passed down, generation after generation until a written language was developed and the stories were penned possibly on papyri. I lean toward the first account simply because it is more like an orderly account from one or more writers of how everything and everybody came to be, It gives equal status to both sexes who receive the blessing of God, and instructions on how to live.

Contrast this format with the story of Eden's format, and you feel that someone is telling you an interesting story, a story that can be received by you with various options of interpretation: a story that attacks pbobby's credibility capacity down deep in his heart. The most irreverent way to describe the story of Eden is that to believe it literally, one must believe in talking snakes, smart apples and a vengeful God.

Many say, "It's in the Bible, so I believe it though I can't really explain it all." Others can use all the parts of the story as symbols of how Women became subservient, how sin entered Adam and Eve's life together, and how prophets, priests, and other religious figures have used this story to brand us all as having been born in sin. To Organized Religions this doctrine has been this pillar of guilt that religion thrives on, and convinces us we all need someone to fix us and redeem us from our sinful nature that we received vicariously from the sinners of Eden.

It makes sense to believe imperfect parents will rear imperfect children. But, conversely, it cannot by any stretch of the imagination, mean that the children they bear are born in sin. Each newborn is an innocent child of God, created by God's miracle of human birth. God has said Himself that all that which He has created is Good. I have no reason to doubt His word.

Other supporting evidence of newborns being born without sin has been the epiphanies that came to bless me when holding six of my seven children just moments after their birth. Those were awesome moments of breathless transcendence. I have never felt so close to holiness in my life as I looked at each of my perfectly formed children with their eyes wide open for me to peer into, looking for their souls, only to feel their spirits of purity enveloping my being. These holy moments were in stark contrast to the imperfect father who held them next to his heart. Then two and one half years ago I was to learn that the same thing happens when you get to give a grandson his first bottle in the recovery room.

Well, if you are still with me on this winding trail, I am warning you that I have just seen a rabbit I want to chase for a while.

That rabbit's name is Sin. Until about 20 years ago, I perceived sin as a harmful act of disobedience against God's will. Harmful, that was why it was against God's will. I was to be grasped by the essence of Paul Tillich's sermon, "You are Accepted". Three new perspectives were to be emblazoned on my heart and soul while I was reading.

1. Sin is not an act but rather a state of being separated from the Ground of our Being.

2. And in that state of being, we perform sinful acts.

3. Then Paul Tillich gave me my first real ahah! in the realm of relativity. His basic text was from Romans 5:20. "Where Sin did abound, Grace did much more abound." And that Grace re-unites us with our Creator.

That's when it hit me, without Sin, Grace would have no meaning, and vice versa. And without this dichotomy in life, how could we experience anything of substance? Why would anything we do matter?

For me, a proponent of the position that we are all born with a clean slate, in total innocence and goodness, I find my self with a smattering of "egg on my face." Even if those of the opposing view hold to the Born in Sin are correct, all this talk is of no significance, because Grace does much more abound!

Ah! But it really does matter. Without taking the first account as ours, we leave the litter in our minds that women came from man, and are thus subservient.