Well, it seems that the church action may have backfired a little. People were pretty upset about it, not that it had taken place (they all agree the person's behavior was not consistent with church values) but about the way it was handled. They did not think it was necessary to name the person from the pulpit or even make a statement about it, especially because this is a small town. On the other hand, I am wondering if it was done the way it was done for a reason.
About an hour before I was to go out for the evening Bible study the woman who I'd been speaking with about evolution and creation called me. It took her a little while to get to her point: She did NOT want me bringing up what Pastor had said about evolutionists and atheists. Because it might start an argument. There are some pretty strong-minded people there. I repeated what I said, that I was not out to start a quarrel, in fact, I refuse to discuss evolution with anyone who does not have a science background (and I don't mean Creationism or Intelligent Design); however, my concern is what this church requires its members to believe to be members. And they may say one thing about yes, you can be a Christian or even a member and still believe in evolution, but from what I have heard and seen, this does not seem to be the case in practice. (And when I get phone calls telling me not to bring up a certain subject, then my suspicions are confirmed--that I am being steered in the direction they want me to go. So much for the free exchange of ideas.)
Anyway, it was a pretty interesting discussion based on what God wants and does not want. That He did not want Adam and Eve to eat from that tree is pretty clear. They should have been satisfied with accepting that there was some knowledge He did not want them to have. In that case, why didn't He warn them about the serpent, who was the shrewdest of creatures (do I detect a hint of anti-intellectualism here; a bias in favor of ignorance rather than brains?)? What were Adam and Eve expected to do? They were innocent. Like many of us here, they had no concept of deceit.
In fact, I brought that very thing up and said that this was something many autistic people struggle with because deceit is such a foreign concept to us. We can learn it (some of us, and some better than others) but it is not natural for us. The woman who called me said something about "how blessed." I said to her, "no, that is NOT blessed to be innocent in that way. Not in a fallen world like we live in." (And it certainly wasn't for Adam and Eve the way the story turned out.) She changed the subject. But I wonder if the author of this story is saying that God intended for humans to live like people who never really reach maturity; that autism or something like it was mankind's original state? It's interesting that the tree is the Tree of Knowledge, not the Tree of Superpowers. Because one of the ideas that came up in discussion is that Adam and Eve felt deprived, they felt left out, they felt that they could improve on God, so they took matters into their own hands. By implication that means that one should be satisfied with their state in life and not try to improve oneself or take matters into one's own hands? Are we seeing the first anti-progress tract?
But the story is also about rebellion and since Moses is traditionally considered its author I think maybe a look at what was going on in Moses' life might give a clue. Moses was not a democratically elected leader of the Israelites. Yes, he led the escape from Egypt but he was not the only leader; others, notably Aaron and Miriam are mentioned as well. And he was an outsider; he may have been born a Hebrew but he was adopted into Pharaoh's family and then later exiled when he killed an Egyptian overseer. Which is to say he was not a member of the community; he didn't live with them, didn't grow up with them. And then he comes in with this message from the Burning Bush which probably didn't sit too well with those who had grown up leading the community. The point is, all through Exodus Moses was constantly putting down rebellions and fending off challenges to his leadership. In that light, Genesis 3 could be seen as propaganda: you don't need to know things, you just need to obey whoever is in charge. The first man and woman didn't and look what happened to them.
And thus was born--DRAMA!
About an hour before I was to go out for the evening Bible study the woman who I'd been speaking with about evolution and creation called me. It took her a little while to get to her point: She did NOT want me bringing up what Pastor had said about evolutionists and atheists. Because it might start an argument. There are some pretty strong-minded people there. I repeated what I said, that I was not out to start a quarrel, in fact, I refuse to discuss evolution with anyone who does not have a science background (and I don't mean Creationism or Intelligent Design); however, my concern is what this church requires its members to believe to be members. And they may say one thing about yes, you can be a Christian or even a member and still believe in evolution, but from what I have heard and seen, this does not seem to be the case in practice. (And when I get phone calls telling me not to bring up a certain subject, then my suspicions are confirmed--that I am being steered in the direction they want me to go. So much for the free exchange of ideas.)
Anyway, it was a pretty interesting discussion based on what God wants and does not want. That He did not want Adam and Eve to eat from that tree is pretty clear. They should have been satisfied with accepting that there was some knowledge He did not want them to have. In that case, why didn't He warn them about the serpent, who was the shrewdest of creatures (do I detect a hint of anti-intellectualism here; a bias in favor of ignorance rather than brains?)? What were Adam and Eve expected to do? They were innocent. Like many of us here, they had no concept of deceit.
In fact, I brought that very thing up and said that this was something many autistic people struggle with because deceit is such a foreign concept to us. We can learn it (some of us, and some better than others) but it is not natural for us. The woman who called me said something about "how blessed." I said to her, "no, that is NOT blessed to be innocent in that way. Not in a fallen world like we live in." (And it certainly wasn't for Adam and Eve the way the story turned out.) She changed the subject. But I wonder if the author of this story is saying that God intended for humans to live like people who never really reach maturity; that autism or something like it was mankind's original state? It's interesting that the tree is the Tree of Knowledge, not the Tree of Superpowers. Because one of the ideas that came up in discussion is that Adam and Eve felt deprived, they felt left out, they felt that they could improve on God, so they took matters into their own hands. By implication that means that one should be satisfied with their state in life and not try to improve oneself or take matters into one's own hands? Are we seeing the first anti-progress tract?
But the story is also about rebellion and since Moses is traditionally considered its author I think maybe a look at what was going on in Moses' life might give a clue. Moses was not a democratically elected leader of the Israelites. Yes, he led the escape from Egypt but he was not the only leader; others, notably Aaron and Miriam are mentioned as well. And he was an outsider; he may have been born a Hebrew but he was adopted into Pharaoh's family and then later exiled when he killed an Egyptian overseer. Which is to say he was not a member of the community; he didn't live with them, didn't grow up with them. And then he comes in with this message from the Burning Bush which probably didn't sit too well with those who had grown up leading the community. The point is, all through Exodus Moses was constantly putting down rebellions and fending off challenges to his leadership. In that light, Genesis 3 could be seen as propaganda: you don't need to know things, you just need to obey whoever is in charge. The first man and woman didn't and look what happened to them.
And thus was born--DRAMA!
