Dear Albert Mohler,
We hope this finds you well. First, we offer our congratulations for making it on the Colbert Show. That’s a fantastic show, and we tune in often. Second, we offer gratitude for fighting for people to believe in us. It’s an incredibly sweet act — our thank-you note is in the mail.
While we appreciate your remarkable interest in us, we think you’ve gotten us wrong. For example, you said, “When Adam sinned, he sinned for us, and it’s that very sinfulness that sets up our understanding of our need for a savior…. Without Adam, the work of Christ makes no sense whatsoever.”
While we understand your evangelical piety and unequivocal love for Jesus, we didn’t sin for you. We also didn’t sin to in order make relevant the work of someone born thousands of years after us.
To this day we live in the most remarkable grief. Perhaps you’ve forgotten Cain and Abel. Our suffering has not been alleviated, and no one has ever sent a chaplain to visit us. It’s poetic that you and others remain more concerned about our sinning than our grief. Sadly, we aren’t the only people upon who you focus more attention about sin than sadness.
Our contention with you rests firmly in your statement, “The moment you say, we have to abandon this theology in order to have the respect of the world, you end up with neither biblical orthodoxy, nor the respect of the world.”
In the midst of all of this you have forgotten the love of God. Your contention is with biblical orthodoxy and respect of the world, neither of which Jesus ever commanded.
You will not find, “Blessed are those holding biblical orthodoxy” in the Sermon on the Mount. “Fight for the gospel and you will find respect in the world” does not follow Jesus’ commandment to “love thy neighbor.”
No, we’re not Christians, but we’ve been around long enough to know that when rigidity and literalism reign, hope does not.
All we ask is that when you argue for our “being real people” that you tell the whole story. In your mind the story jumps from Genesis to Romans. You have focused so intently upon the event of sin that you have overlooked our suffering. From the Torah to the Gospels redemption and completeness remain highly sought-after realities. Don’t make us the battering ram for ignoring suffering while profiting from our sin.
The church is dwindling in privilege throughout the United States. While you want to retain respect, you don’t seem as intent on retaining relevance. In the haste to offer the altar call, do not overlook the suffering that those who sit in the pews bear with them every week. That remains a missed opportunity, to recognize that our (humanity’s) sin creates a broken world.
We are making our way through our grief alongside the world. From wars and famine, to shootings and poverty, we ancient figures stand in solidarity with those that suffer. Say a prayer for us, and we’ll do our best to pray for you.
Remember Al — if we may call you that, since you call us by our first names — God pronounced creation “good” and Jesus pronounced the world worthy of love. What would happen if you and all Christians, evangelical or not, took those pronouncements more seriously?
Until next time, remember to eat your fruits and vegetables daily — including apples. We hear those Fuji apples are delectable.
Best,
Adam and Eve
__
Written by Zachary Bailes, M.Div. student at Wake Forest University Divinity School. He is editor of Those Crazy Liberals … and Conservatives and a contributor for Progressive Christian Alliance .
(Source, HERE)
As have read some theologians about the doctrine of original sin, I understand that a difficulty with it is related to the way in which the guilt of Adam (for his sin) is transmitted to us today. I grant that this is not easy to understand. But I believe that the heart of the doctrine (of original sin) is not here, but in another place: in the idea of inherited sinfulness (and not so much in the idea of inherited guilt). I guess that this inherited sinfulness is a lot more uncontroversial – because is very much empirically verifiable. I understand what Zachary says when he writes that our falleness has a lot to do with our grief and pain: this aspect of our falleness should not be neglected – because is extremely real, and also very clear revealed in the Scriptures. But I believe Zachary is mistaken when he neglects to say also something about the other consequence of our falleness: our inherited sinfulness. And without understanding this aspect, it is also difficult to understand our need for a Redeemer. Because the idea of redemption has a lot to do with that of bondage – and bondage has to do primarily with our sinful nature (and the way in which the demonic world keep us in slavery through it).
By: vali on 9 September 2011
at 10:40 am
I agree with you Vali, but this is a pamphlet. You cannot expect this kind of literature to be exhaustive. It also deals with some particular non-sense that Mohler likes to ride on.
Also, the aspect of pain and grief it brought – not only in humans, but also in God – should not be neglected. It has to do with another implication of sin, often neglected by Calvinists, in their obsession with guilt and the wrath of God. It is that of sin breaking the loving heart of God. And also affecting us ontologically. It is these aspects of the Fall that Orthodox theology rightly emphasizes, often, unfortunately, by totally neglecting the (legitimate, but not exclusive) forensic aspects of the Fall.
By: DanutM on 9 September 2011
at 12:47 pm