We want a Synthesis, not a Dichotomy - How books, movies and video games fit into a Christian's life

Word of the day: "Shibboleth":

Judges 12:5-6

"And the Gileadites captured the fords of the Jordan against the Ephraimites. And when any of the fugitives of Ephraim said, “Let me go over,” the men of Gilead said to him, “Are you an Ephraimite?” When he said, “No,” they said to him, “Then say Shibboleth,” and he said, “Sibboleth,” for he could not pronounce it right. Then they seized him and slaughtered him at the fords of the Jordan. At that time 42,000 of the Ephraimites fell."
                                                                                                                                                                         


The Christian community is full of people who promote dichotomies these days. Within the theoretical arena, we have Christians forcing people to choose Bible over "secular" stuff such as science, history and other academic pursuits. This sort of view also infected practical things in every day life, such as works, family and hobbies. And if you don't agree with their dualistic view, they will put you on the outside. This means sadly, some Christians actually use this dualistic view as Shibboleth, separating Christians into 2 groups: the ins and the outs. They place burdens and guilt trapping you with their dualistic view (Shibboleth), and if you don't take their view, then they put you on the "outside".

I can see there is a growing trend of Christians condemning video games (or reading fictions and watching movies) as waste of time. These people say it is not a sin to pursue these hobbies, but what they will tell you is, these activities carry "less values" than "sacred/churchy" things. These people say, it is better to spend time doing "sacred" stuff (such churchy stuff) instead of spending it on pursuing your hobbies.

Tell you what, I've got a big problem with this kind of view! The reason is, this is a dualistic worldview creating a dichotomy between the sacred and the secular. It is not a Christian worldview but a pagan worldview, and such a worldview should have no place in churches.

Novels, movies and video games are fictions
So I feel the need to say something about it. Let me start by asking you, what are the similarities between video games, fiction books, and a movie? The answer is simple, while these 3 medium are different in format, but at the core, they are all telling a "story". This means, a fiction book tells you a story through words and your own imaginations, a movie tell you a story through moving visuals, and video games let you be part of the story. In our 21th century definition, all 3 "fictions". Having established this fact, let me move on to the points I want to make:

1) Fictions and stories are NOT a waste of time!

Our 21th century Western intellectual standard tells us, that facts (such as empirical evidence) are more credible and valuable than other types of information. The result is, words such as "fiction" or "myth" often carry some sort of negative connotation. We are brainwashed into thinking fictions are somehow less valuable than facts. But are you aware that this is the view of scientism? Scientism, is a philosophical view that science, is the only way of knowing and understanding because empirical evidence is more credible and valuable. Have you heard of this before? I bet it's from neo-atheists.

As Christians, we need to be aware this is a false view. There are many ways to knowing and understanding which are not science. And reading, listening, watching, or interacting with a fictional story is one of them.

I mean, Jesus often taught with parables.  In our 21th century definition, we can even say parables are essentially fictions. But does that mean those parables in the New Testament carry less theological value than historical facts from 1 Kings? No, I don't think so, and I am sure you will agree with me as well. Fictions and myths (so to speak), reach places in humanity where facts and science cannot. Since the dawn of time, humankind have always been using stories to teach their children about the way of life: Fables of Aesop, 1001 Nights, The Romance of Three Kingdoms etc.. and even parts of Old Testament can be put into this category.

The truth is, all "stories" old and new, are trying to convey some sort of message about humanity. This means we can understand the current culture of the world by looking at these materials. A lot of times, stories can tell us profound truth and wisdom that facts cannot teach us. If we downplay the value of these things, how are we suppose to be salts and lights in this world, and witnessing to the people around you? If we downplay the value these things, how can we be a part of the world without belonging to it? If downplay the value these things, how can we learn to understand the world and ourselves with a broad, complete perspective?

In human history, stories have always played an important role in humanity. It is a way of knowing and understanding that is not science/fact. It tells us about our world and human experiences, an essential part of building human relationships and a way of life. To place more values on facts than fiction, is to embrace scientism which is an arrogant view of approaching life.

2) Fictions are good, but it can be abused!

In Genesis, the recurring theme in creation is, God created "things" and proclaim them to be good. This is profound truth. All material things are actually "good". God also said to Adam and Eve they are meant to subdue and rule over the world. This implies using the stuff God created for good and to bring glory to God.

Think about it: A rock is good, you can use it to crack a coconut for your friend to drink. A flower is good, not only does its appearance carry reproductive values but also has aesthetic values for us, as Christians, we can look at the beautiful flowers and praise the awesome God who made it so. Alcohol is good, research has shown that drinking wine is actually good for your health. Sex is good, not only does it create children, but it also improves the intimacy between a husband and a wife. Similarly, books, movies and video games (fictions) are good, because they convey human experience and cultures in ways that facts cannot do.

In addition, God did not intend to separate the material and the spirit. There is a reason human beings are spiritual and made of materials, God never intended to separate material and spirit (secular and sacred). No, material and spirit were one in God's creation, and can be seen when Jesus was resurrected, the combination of material and spirit is still true today. And this means we should not create a dichotomy between the sacred and the secular.

Dualistic spirituality - This is not Christianity

But does this mean we should use and interact with material things with reckless abandon? No, of course not. Remember, all things are made for the glory of God (Colossians 1:16, and Romans 11:36). While creation is good, and if used properly, it can glorify God and bring good. However, if we place creation above God, then we can pervert creation, producing negative outcomes. Augustine said, evil is in the will of man. This is quite true, for example, if we pervert alcohol and abuse it, it creates human induced tragedies and evil, creating suffering to all around us including ourselves. The name of God is good, but we can pervert it for our own glory and create suffering and tragedies, it is called religious hypocrisy. Similarly, with books, video games, and movies, we can abuse it irresponsibly, creating human induced tragedies and evils.

Admittedly, it helps to understand the root of the problem, it is sin. The problem is the tendency of the human heart to worship anything but God, and the tendency of the human heart to choose anything but God. The problem is the human heart, not the material stuff. But that does not mean we should rate material things as having lower values than things in the spiritual realm.

3) A Synthesis, not dichotomy!

So I have discussed why fictions has a place in the Christian life, and explained why we should not subscribe to the philosophy of spiritual dualism which often infests our churches. The question remains, so how should a Christian treat books, movies and video games?

The answer is simple, we need a synthesis!

What kind of synthesis? The answer is in the Bible.

Jesus said, in Mark 12:29-31:

 "Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”

This is the essence of living a Christian life. Jesus said we should live our lives according to the principle of "putting God first, loving God with everything we have, and loving others as we love ourselves". I think this means in our lives, we should put God first in everything we do. I like to visualize this in the form of a planetary system; with God (the sun) at the centre of our lives (the solar system), where different spheres of our lives (planets) surround God. Each has its own place and on track, because God holds them together as the centre of everything. This way, church, family, missions, hobbies, witnessing, career/work, Bible reading, friends, quiet time etc.. are all held in place because we put God at the centre, and we can banish the pagan concept of sacred vs. secular dichotomy, bringing our Christian lives back to one that is engaging, encouraging, and glorifying to God.

So here we go, these are some of my thoughts on the topic. Next time, before you say to your brothers and sisters they are better off doing mission works than playing video games and reading a fantasy novel, beware that you are not asking them to say "Shibboleth". Remember unity is in Christ.

All passions and talents are gifts from God. The church is not a performance based institution where people are judged by how well they perform. The church is the body of Christ, it is the combination of these different people that make the church whole. Please do not subscribe to spiritual dualism, and do not place burdens on your brothers and sisters for the passion and talents they were gifted with. Instead, think about how you can encourage them to use their gifts to glorify God.

Shalom

Book Review: A Song of Ice and Fire book 2: A Clash of Kings

"People often claim to hunger for truth, but seldom like the taste when it's served up".



 A Clash of Kings, is the second book to George R.R. Martin's masterpiece fantasy series, A Song of Ice and Fire. This tome is even bigger than the first book (A Game of Thrones), counting in excess of 850 pages. In this book, new characters are introduced, while some characters met their demise. The story development is just as unpredictable as the first book.

Synopsis:

Lord Eddard Stark was made the Hand of the King, the second most powerful men in the kingdom of Westeros. He discovered, the king's son, Joffery Baratheon, was in fact a product of incest between the Queen, Cersei Lannister and her brother Jaime Lannister. Following the death of the King, Lord Eddard Stark was betrayed and killed for trying to pass the throne to the king's brother, Stannis Baratheon, the rightful heir to the throne.


Following Eddard Stark's death, his son, Rob Stark gathered his men and marched South, seeking to

avenge his father's death. In the meantime, both of Robert's brothers, Stannis and Renly, gathered their forces and seek to take the throne with armed forces, while proclaiming themselves Kings of Westero. Rob Stark proves to be a cunning and fearsome leader, at the age of 16, he won every battle he fought against the army of the house Lannister. Eventually, Rob's banner men proclaimed him King of the North. From that moment onward, the kingdom of Westeros is torn apart by wars and conflicts. Meanwhile, winter is coming. Outside The Wall, old legends are coming back to life, threatening to engulf the seven kingdoms with icing death. On the other hand, Daenery Targaryen, the last survivor of the house Targaryen, ventures into the city of Quarth with her new born dragons, seeking a way to return to Westeros and reclaim her father's throne.


What I think about the book:

In A Clash of Kings, new characters are introduced, including some of my favorite characters in the series such as Brienne of Tarth. Existing characters are also explored in depth. For example, readers will get to understand Sandor Clegane (the hound) a bit more as he shows his emotions in chapters where he made appearances. The other character I grew very fond of, is Tyrion Lannister, a dwarf born in a powerful house, the brother to the queen, yet despised by his own father and sister due to his physical disability, and is forced to survive in this gigantic whirlpool of conflict, by matching strength with his wits.



This book is longer than A Game of Thrones, but just as gripping as its predecessor. As usual, George R.R. Martin continued to spin tales for this epic saga through POV characters, with a great sense of realism blended with elements from fantasy. There are lots of characters developments, and the story progressed with many twists and turns totally unexpected. In this installment, your favorite characters will meet dangers, but you will never know if they should prevail or perish in the next chapter.

 The story reflects the best and the worst of human nature, and humans' internal struggle of choosing between good and evil. In these great conflicts and power struggles, a brother fought against a brother, a friend betrays a friend, people die, lives are destroyed, and relationships are broken. At the end of the book, our favorite characters are still in danger with only glimpses of hope for the future.

So what do I think about A Clash of Kings? Brilliant! Truly this is one of the best fantasy series I've read. The vividness of the characters and the world, is supported by a great sense of realism, with flavors of magic from fantasy. Not only did Martin forge the story with inspirations from historical events, but at the core, these stories explore the human nature and struggle between good and evil, in a world that doesn't always make sense.

I had an interesting conversation with my friend at church last Sunday. Our conversation revolved around A Song of Ice and Fire. I told him, this series can be seen as "dystopian literature". After I explained to him that dystopian, is the opposite of utopian. My friend made a very interesting comment. He asked me, if the world in A Song of Ice and Fire is moving from dystopia to utopia? I was taken aback, because it was the moment when I pondered, amid all human induced tragedies, chaos and mess, why do we wish to head towards utopia? Why do we have a standard where we judge between good and evil, proclaiming utopia is "better" than dystopia? Can naturalism really explain the full extent of this standard and human hope? I leave this question to you.



A word of discretion, A Clash of Kings contains explicit contents.

Book Review: A Song of Ice and Fire book 1: A Game of Thrones

Winter is coming..

A Song of Ice and Fire, is widely acknowledged as one of the best modern fantasy series. In fact, A Song of Ice and Fire, is commonly compared with Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings. This series has gained massive popularity since the first book was published in 1996, and became even more popular with HBO's TV adaption  A Game of Thrones".

This series is critically acclaimed, and Martin has said A Song of Ice and Fire is his "Magnum Opus". Currently the series is not finished yet, and Martin is writing the last 2 books of the series.

Personally, I found the TV series a bit too graphical for me. This is why I've always hesitated to read these books because I thought the books might be too explicit for me. But as a lover of fantasy epics, I just couldn't resist the call anymore, so I purchased the collection in a box set of 7 books, and started reading them. After reading through the first book in the series, I am quite eager to talk about it.

Synopsis:

A Song of Ice and Fire, is an epic story told in third person, by POV (point of view) characters. The story is set in the fictional world of Westeros, where 3 major stories are inter-woven: 1) Great houses  engaged in conflicts and struggles to win the throne to the kingdom of Westeros, 2) The rise of the dormant, supernatural beings called "The Others" in the frozen wasteland to the north, and 3) The rise of Daenerys Targaryen, an exile princess to a king who was murdered in the previous civil war, her ambition was to come to power and take back the throne with her fire breathing dragons.

Martin drew inspiration from historical events and places such as, the war of roses, Rome, and Hardin's wall. The series is also well known for its moral ambiguous characters, things are not always black and white, but in shades of grey. Furthermore, in this series, major characters are often killed off in unexpected manners at unexpected time. In contrast to traditional fantasy novels where major characters are always safe and have happy endings, A Song of Ice and Fire provides a sense of realism, surprising twists and turns where the outcomes are never predictable.

In the first volume, A Game of Thrones, Lord Eddard Stark, a lord in the northern land of Winterfell, was appointed to be the Hand of the King. He was asked to help the king to rule over the 7 kingdoms of Westeros, while his daughter was to marry the prince, the heir who will one day become the king. Eddard Stark felt uncomfortable about this position of power. Yet he has no choice but to obey the king's call. As he took on the role as Hand of the king, Eddard Stark discovered political conspiracies so great that will threaten the peace of the entire kingdom. In the meantime, other great houses of Westeros are seeking to gain power and control the Iron throne. In the game of thrones, you win or you die. The future of Westeros and the struggle for the throne has just begun...

What I think about the book:

What do I think about this book? Excellent! The truth is, once I started reading this book, I couldn't stop reading it. Martin created a vivid world, with ultra-fascinating characters. One of the strong points of this series, is the way the story is told, by POV characters. This type of story telling ensured in-depth character development, and enables readers to engage with characters more deeply, seeing the story develop through their eyes. As a reader, you can really see how each character has developed by the end of the book.

Another things I noticed, is A Song of Ice and Fire, could be classified by "dystopian literature . It is the opposite of "utopia". This is best reflected in the characters and the world they inhibited. In A Song of Ice and Fire, while some characters are more evil than others, but no character is perfect. Everyone has their flaws and shortcomings, and a background story to inform the readers why they are the way they are. Martin skillfully reflected the best and the worst of human nature in these very human characters. As a result, there are a lot of redemptive qualities in most of these characters as the story and events unfold.

I really enjoyed A Game of Thrones, and I cannot wait to read book 2: A Clash of Kings. But in the meantime, I also have to say some contents in this book are explicit, and not for children. These explicit contents are written in a way that emphasize the bleakness and corruption of the fictional world created by Martin, which is surprisingly similar to our own.

Similarly, I am quite struck by the way Martin has described the human nature, in its best and worst reflection. In the kingdom of Westeros, humans are capable of good, yet they are also capable of evil, everyone fell short of the standard. Obviously Martin build these characters and his world with a mind to reflect the real (our) world, so isn't it striking, that when we truly reflect about ourselves, we know the ideal, yet we struggle and are unable to do what we are suppose to do, as if something is stopping us?

The bigger question will be, with our deeper realization of our human imperfection, who can help us to overcome this? Perhaps this is a question worth your every effort to investigate.

Book Review: Evolution of Adam - What the Bible does and doesn't say about human origins - Part 2

"The Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go".
                                                            Galileo Galilei 1564-1642

So, continuing from part 1. Remember where I was at? I arrived at the point when I realized, Adam and Eve probably didn't exist as historical characters. But I also realized the most important thing is to hang on to Jesus. So where to from there? This is when this book comes in.

I guess in short, in this book, Peter Enns tried to propose that the Bible be interpreted by using the analogy of incarnation. And that is, while Jesus is both God and man, so the Bible is also the word of God and the word of man. Enns proposed that when we read the Bible, we need to keep in mind the "humanness" of the Bible. If I understand correctly, this "incarnation" concept is what made him lost his job. Just because something is controversial doesn't make it right, but it doesn't necessarily make it wrong either. So how does Enns lay out his argument? Let's find out:

Synopsis:

In this book, Enns made his argument by calling the readers to examine the scripture using the following (3 main parts of the book):

- Examine the scripture in the Ancient Near Eastern Context
- Examine the scripture with the knowledge of the diverse theology in the Old Testament
- Examine how New Testament authors use the Old Testament

I thought it would be better to leave the would be readers to discover the full content of this book, because I might not do justice to the book if I try to summarize it. So here, I will provide the title from Enns' 9 theses, so you will have a general idea of what Enns talked about in this book:

1) Literalism is not an option
2) Scientific and biblical models for human origins are incompatible, because they speak different language. The Biblical description of "Adam" does not fit into evolution.
3) The story of Adam and Eve should be interpreted in its Ancient Near Eastern context.
4) There are 2 creation stories in Genesis. Genesis 2 is older than Genesis 1, but appeared as a later chapter, to tell the story of Israel after the nation's exile
5) The Israel's centred focus of the Adam story can also be seen in similarity to Proverbs: the story of Adam is about failure to fear God and attain wise maturity.
6) God's solution through the resurrection of Christ reveals the deep, foundational plight of the human condition, and Paul expressed that fact in the biblical idiom available to him.
7) A proper view of inspiration will embrace the fact that God speaks by means of the cultural idiom of the authors- whether it be the author of Genesis in describing origins or how Paul would later come to understand Genesis. Both reflect the setting and limitations of the cultural moment. 
8) The root of the conflict for many Christians is not scientific or even theological, but group identity and fear of losing what is offers.
9) A true rapprochement between evolution and Christianity requires a synthesis, not simply adding evolution to existing theological formulations.

What I think about this book:

a) The first thing Enns observed, and skillfully laid out, is that if evolution is correct, then we can no longer accept, in any true sense of the word "historical". Because Genesis clearly describes an instantaneous and special human creation. Therefore, any attempt to reconcile evolution and Genesis will prove to be, difficult. Yet, such adjustments are necessary. He then concludes: "The only question is what sort of adjustment best fits the data".

b) I do not see any problems with the mentioning of evolution. It is true that evolution has forever changed the way we should look at the scriptures. I agree with Enns, that to insist that Genesis 1 and 2 are poetry and must contain some hidden scientific truth that confirms modern scientific discoveries, is setting up false expectations. Does the scripture really have to contain falsifiable scientific truth to be the word of God? I am not sure if we really want to place high bids on this risky gamble. I mean, in 1Kings 7:23-26, the scripture clearly indicate pi is equal to 3. Yes, you can say it is an approximation, but if you ask any engineer of scientist to design an aircraft (or a building) using the "biblical approximation" that pi =3, they will all shake their heads and state this is is nothing short of wholesale slaughter.

There are numerous examples in the Bible where the scripture clearly subscribe to scientific inaccuracies. If we force our expectations that the Bible must conform with modern science, then we have totally missed the rich theological teachings in the scriptures, because we will be looking for scientific truth at the wrong place.

c) In regard to document hypothesis and the Mosaic authorship of the pentateuch. I am not sure if the document hypothesis is a credible hypothesis. It does have good points, but the problem is, the document hypothesis can never be proven, and I am also aware that there are some evidence against it (which Enns didn't mention). However, I do agree that Moses probably didn't author the entire Pentateuch by himself. For example, why would he write the story of Exodus in third person? And isn't it ironic that Moses call himself the most humble person in the world in the book of Numbers?

d) One of the most useful part of the book, in my opinion, is when Enns explained why we should read Genesis in its Ancient Near Eastern context. I remember 3 years ago, I read the Epic of Gilgamesh, I was immediately struck by the similarities between the flood story in Gilgamesh and the flood story in Genesis. Some people might protest and say, the details of the stories are different. That is very true, but what we should be looking at, is how the stories are similar in structure yet different in theology, otherwise we will loose the big picture when we analyze the situation. Furthermore, recent discoveries have indicated that Egyptian mythology has a greater influence on Genesis than Sumerian legends. Either way, in my opinion, it is almost impossible to deny that Genesis somehow mirrors creation myths from some ancient, polytheistic cultures. In light of this, Enns' idea that Genesis serves as a polemical function for Israel, is the a very reasonable explanation for the data we have at hand.

e) Understanding Apostle Paul's teaching, can be very difficult at times. One of the recurring discussion on morality, between Christians and atheists, is Paul's teaching on slavery. Apostle Paul did not teach that slavery should be abolished, instead, he taught that slaves should be obedient to their masters. There are many rich theological meanings to Paul's teachings about slavery, in some ways, they still apply to today's employee and employer situation. However, the fact remains, Paul did not teach that slavery should be abolished, nor did Paul took the course of William Wilberforce to abolish the slavery system. When facing this challenge from atheists, many Christians often state that this passage should be read in "context" with the rest of the passage, and some will also argue that we need to understand the "historical and cultural context" behind Paul's teaching. Interpreting the passage within its "historical context", should be quite familiar to most Sydney Evangelicals if you pay attention to the sermon structure, and attend weekly Bible studies.

It is a hermeneutics called "historical-grammatical" method. This is a method when we try to understand the theological meaning of the scripture from its historical and Biblical context (i.e. why the author said the thing he said, and how does it fit in with the rest of scriptures), then we take that meaning and apply it to our modern day lives. For this reason, most sermons at Presbyterian churches or Sydney Anglican churches often go into depths with bible passages, to explore the historical context of past events in attempt to discover the rich theological meaning behind passages. In light of this, it only makes sense if we interpret all of Paul's teaching within its historical context. Otherwise, our hermeneutics will be logically inconsistent.

f) Understandably, most Christian's concern about the historicity of Adam and Eve, is the following: If Adam and Eve did not exist, then that means there is no original sin. If there is no original sin, then that means we are not born into sin, so why did Christ die for our sins? I can totally understand this concern, because I was in a similar position. Yet, when one thinks about this carefully, it is not hard to realize, such a concern is based a series of logical errors.

 - I agree with Enns, that the problem of sin is self evident. To observe sin, one only has to look into the his/her own life, into the world, and see how people are hurting each other.
- I also agree with Enns, that the foundation of Christianity is Jesus Christ who died for our sins and was resurrected again.

Sin is a reality that can be observed, while believing in Jesus Christ really is a matter of faith. But just because we don't know where sin comes from, does that mean sin does not exist? Does this mean we don't need Jesus to save us from our sins?

Similarly,

- Christianity does not have an answer to the origin of evil. But evil certainly exist, and it is a self evident phenomena.
- When Jesus died and was resurrected on the cross, he triumphed over evil.

Evil is a reality that can be observed, while believing in Jesus Christ is once again, a matter of faith. But just because we don't know where evil comes from, does that mean evil is not real and we don't need Jesus?

The truth is, sin and evil are realities, and they are inseparable  Just as the origin of evil is shrouded in mystery, the origin of sin is also covered with a veil not so easily uncovered. Perhaps it is wise to remember that, as Christians we need rely on Jesus to save us from the reality of our own sins. Yet remain open minded to ideas on where sin and evil comes from. When we arrive at this position, not only do our faith become even more Christ centred, but that will also allow us to freely tackle the big and difficult questions with an open mind.

g) I agree with Enns, that we need to understand the cultural idioms in the Bible, to guide us on the correct path of Bible interpretation. For example, I raised a question a while ago, on the topic of "the right hand of God". The right hand of God, is mentioned several times in the scripture (Eph, Pslams, Matthew etc..). One might question, why "right" hand and not "left" hand. I guess we can say with much confidence that, it is a use of cultural idiom, because in most cultures, people are predominantly right handed, so when people say "you are like my right hand", it is signalling how important this person is. However, imagine if you encounter a previously undiscovered people in the Amazon jungle, whose culture predominantly use left hand, and regard right hand lowly because they use it to wipe their posterior after toiletry. Now, if you tell these people that God put Jesus at his "right" hand, without explaining the cultural idioms to them. Imagine the type of connotations they will associate Jesus with due different culture! Between biblical times and the 21th century, cultures have changed a lot. We might just be doing ourselves and everyone a favor if we remember to interpret the scripture within its historical and cultural context, to unpack the rich theological meaning behind the text.

As Enns observed, using the hermeneutics of historical-grammatical method is something that is mainly used and approved in the evangelical Christianity community, especially within the conservative Christian churches. So why not use this method with great integrity and interpret Genesis 1 and 2, as well as Paul's letters within their historical and cultural context? If we, within one chapter of the Bible, we choose to interpret some passage in its historical context and some passage not in its historical context, then there is no logical consistency.

h) Following from g), I think Enns' explanation, of Paul's use of Adam as an emphasis to his Christ centred theology, is a very reasonable explanation. For all we know, Paul seemed to subscribe to the 3-tier universe structure (Philippians 2). But does that mean Paul's teaching are wrong just because his teaching involves a pre-scientific view on cosmology? No, obviously not. Because Paul's teaching aimed to emphasize the importance of put our faith in Jesus and nothing else, this is the "one thing" that Paul kept on emphasizing in all his letters. In this regard, it will be very unwise if we keep on insisting that Paul's teaching require us to believe in a historical Adam and Eve. This kind of insistence, ironically, will undo Apostle Paul's Christ centred message in all of his letters.

Conclusion:

These days, there is a division in the Christian community, so called "conservative" sect and the "liberal sect". The conservative Christians often call liberal Christians "cop outs". While Liberal Christians call conservative Christians "out of date".

I will say to both sides that they both need to wake up! Truth is truth, you cannot be conservative nor liberal about it. Jesus was not conservative, but neither was he liberal. Jesus, cared more about what is true, and he was radical; and for that, they condemned him to death.

Similarly, if we are called to follow Jesus, then this means we should stop branding ourselves as conservatives or liberals. Instead, we should all be truth seekers who are radical enough to want to be humble and passionate about what is true, while letting go of our personal agenda and fears of losing group identity/tradition.

I cannot say with 100% certainty that Adam and Eve weren't real, historical figures. But the fact is, discoveries and evidence are increasingly pointing away from the historicity of Adam and Eve, forcing me to re-think and re-evaluate how to understand Genesis and Apostle Paul's teaching.

After I finished this book, do I have all the answers? No, far from it. But what I did learn from this book, is once again, to be humbled by how much I don't know, and remember that not everyone, and certainly not myself have a perfect understanding of everything. With this realization, I have refined my understanding, remembering that it is in Jesus that I should place my faith. I think God has brought me to a good starting place on this continuous spiritual pilgrimage. God has reminded me, through Peter Enns' book, that I should build my faith on Jesus. By standing on Jesus as the foundation stone, I am free to explore what science and history has to offer in terms of explaining the past and our world, and continue to seek truth in the direction where evidence and new discoveries lead me.

In the end, if you are a Christian and wrestling with the historicity of Adam and Eve, I pray that you will remember the centre of your faith is Jesus Christ, not Adam and Eve, and may God guide you to find the answer you seek.

 If you are not a Christian and reading this, then I want to say that, although neo-atheists such as Richard Dawkins often accuse Christians for not thinking, and blindly following what their pastors teach them. But I hope in this review, I have demonstrated to you these stereotypes are not true. By blending my story into this review, I hope I have shown you, how one Christian (and many others), have wrestled with these difficult questions and yet is reminded to place his faith on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The profound truth is that while we need science to tell us how the world works, but we need Jesus to deal with our hearts to save us from our sins. Science and Bible speak different languages, the former speaks to our understanding of the universe, the later speaks to our heart.

Thank you for reading, wherever you are, may the peace and truth of God be with you.

Book Review: Evolution of Adam: What the Bible does and doesn't say about human origins - Part I

"If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied"
                                                                      1 Corinthians 15:14-19

Hi there, I am about to review a book, its content will cause many Christians to raise their eyebrows and cast suspicious looks at me. To be honest, I speculate, when I make it known publicly that I, agree with the author on many things in this book, there is a high possibility that many will call me a "cop out", "deviating from the Bible", or "getting my fundamental understanding all mixed up" and all sorts of names some people use, to name those whom they disagree with.

At this point, you might be wondering why did I quote from 1 Cor 15:14-19? Read on..

Well, what is this book about?  When you read the title, it seems to be suggesting something about evolution. Actually, this book is not really a Christianity & science kind of book. In fact, this book talks about the historicity of Adam, by looking at history and Biblical history! The author of this book, is Peter Enns. He is a Bible scholar and theologian, who published the controversial book of: Incarnation and Inspiration, Enns was sacked from his job as a theological lecturer as a result of this book.

History taught me one thing, whenever someone gets persecuted for a radical idea, then it is definitely worthwhile to check out what this idea is about. After all, Jesus' teaching was very radical for his time (and still is radical today), and they nailed him to the cross for it.

It is true that when we check out radical ideas from radical people, some ideas could be wrong, but some ideas contain useful insights that will liberate you and strengthen your faith. But back to the topic, let me continue this review by first telling you why I tread onto this path::

Science and Christianity: The greatest wrestling match in my spiritual journey

Why did I read this book? Frankly, since I became a Christian 7 years ago, I have always been wrestling with the matter of science and Christianity. It will suffice to say, that within the 7 years interval, I went from young earth creationism, to old earth creationism/intelligent design, to theistic evolution. People will probably think that I am just becoming more and more of a "cop out". But the truth is, every time I update my view on science & Christianity, my faith is strengthened.

The journey didn't end when I reached theistic evolution. In fact, I found it even more unsettling with this view that tries to reconcile science and the scripture:

- Can we really treat Genesis 1 as a poem and Genesis 2 as a more accurate narrative of human origin? This type of treatment doesn't do justice to these chapters.

- DNA evidence and evolution definitely point away from the possibility that we descended from one single pair of homo sapiens. If you are thinking about the mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosome Adam argument, the reality is that Y-Chromosome Adam lived 140,000 years before the mitochondrial Eve [1]. Since the Bible said Adam lived 930 years, it is impossible for these 2 to be living at the same time period.

- The portrayal of Adam and Eve in theistic evolution doesn't do justice to how the Bible portrays the story of Adam and Eve.

- The view that God chose 2 hominids and made covenant with them, whose transgression became the original sin, can't explain why all hominids should be born into sin.

- DNA evidence and agriculture history does not match the time frame described in Genesis, in fact, it seems almost impossible that Adam and Eve can be the first ancestors for ALL human beings. Unless one makes an extra-ordinary, and unjustifiable proposition against the main stream academic knowledge in these fields.

And the list of problems go on.... while you might be able to counter argue some of these statements, but the trend is, new discoveries and evidence increasingly point further and further away from the historicity of Adam and Eve.

Most evangelical churches in Sydney teach the historicity of Adam and Eve, is central to the Christian faith. Many will even say that without Adam and Eve being historical characters, Christianity will fall apart. For this reason, I have put the topic of historicity of Adam and Eve behind the curtain. Admittedly, it is something that I didn't want to think about. It was like a skeleton in the closet. Eventually, paper cannot cover fire, the skeleton finally came out, and I was forced to confront it.

I searched the Bible, and found 1 Cor15:14-19 shed light into this matter. Here is the key: Notice here, it doesn't say "if Adam and Eve didn't exist our faith will be in vain". No no! It says if Christ didn't rise from the dead, then our faith will be in vain and we will still be in our sins (emphasis here)! I was reminded, my faith is called "Christianity" not "Adamianity". I was reminded, to fix my eyes on Jesus! If you are reading this and wrestling with the same problem, I hope you will fix your eyes ONLY on Jesus too.

On the other hand, if you are reading this and think Christianity is false because science proves Christianity is wrong, then please remember, Christianity is NOT built on science, but it is built on Jesus Christ who died for yours and my sins, so if we accept Christ as your savior and Lord, we will not perish but have eternal life (John 3:16), Jesus deals with our hearts.

What great encouragement from the scripture! At this point, I was immediately reminded of the importance to rely on Jesus and not on any other thing. With this renewal and reminder, I stepped into the dark, labyrinthine dungeon! I was going to confront the skeleton in the closet, in Jesus I place my faith! God will help me to find the answer to defeat this skeleton!

At the beginning of my pilgrimage, many puzzles were in the way, let me list SOME of them:

- If Adam and Eve weren't historical figures, that means there was no "original sin". Without original sin, we aren't born into sin, so why do Jesus need to die for our sins?

- If Adam and Eve weren't historical characters, does that mean Genesis is "made up"? If Genesis is made up, then how can I trust the rest of the Bible is not "made up?"

- 3 years ago, I read the Epic of Gilgamesh, I was immediately struck by the similarities between the flood story in Gilgamesh and Genesis. Why do these ancient stories mirror each other in structure?

- Apostle Paul seems to be referring to Adam specifically in Roman 3, 5 and 1 Corinthian. If Adam and Eve didn't exist, does this mean I cannot trust Apostle Paul's teaching and the Bible?

- How can I trust the Bible is the infallible word of God, while the scientific view expressed in the Bible clearly reflects a less accurate, pre-scientific understanding?

- Who wrote the Pentateuch (the first 5 books of the Old Testament)? Did Moses really wrote them? For example, isn't it strange and ironic, for Moses to write in a holy book, that he is the most humble person in the world (Number 12:3)? Many evidence in the Pentateuch suggests Moses is probably not the sole author of these 5 books.

- Should I really read Genesis 1 as a poem and Genesis 2 as a historical narrative?

- How did the author of Genesis know what happened at the beginning, and wrote it down, if only God was present at the beginning? Who was the human observer to testify the creation account?

- The grand question, how should I read the Bible (which hermeneutics to use)?

And this is when I came across Peter Enns' book!

Does this mean I am going to become an atheist, raving about the problem of evil and suffering and calling my self a follower of the church of flying spaghetti monster? I guess you can already tell that this didn't happen. As my blog is still titled: "From a Christian's perspective" and not "from an atheist perspective".

Stay tuned for part 2.