Читать книгу Trajectories - Bryan C. Babcock - Страница 12

James Spencer

Introduction

The fall of humanity has been the subject of a great deal of theological reflection. The narration of the disobedience of the first human couple is a core component of Israel’s national narrative. This chapter will examine the fall through an analysis of the dynamics of Gen 3:1–7 in relation to structural evil. Though it is not often treated in a formal, systematic, or even explicit, fashion, structural evil is available in the works of several theologians. Augustine, for instance, describes the difficult interplay that exists between individuals and society by noting his experience in positions that “require the holder to be loved and feared by men.” Such positions have the capacity to diminish one’s potential and hold one captive to humanity’s praise. In this manner, the joy that Augustine once placed in the truth is transferred to the “deceitfulness of men.” Augustine’s experience reveals the difficulty of separating from social conventions and the dynamics that govern them. It is the difficulty of escaping humanity’s “well done, well done.” The presence of sin in this case is evident in the social practices that inspire individuals “to be loved and feared, not for Thy sake, but in Thy stead” (Confessions 36.59).

Cornelius Plantinga suggests that structural evil is intimately connected to personal evil and “comprises a vast historical and cultural matrix that includes traditions, old patterns of relationship and behavior, atmospheres of expectation, social habits.”48 In describing social or structural evil, Plantinga does not absolve humanity from responsibility for sin. Instead, he extends individual culpability for evil by highlighting the impact of individual acts of evil on the world around us. He notes,

Though we cannot always measure culpability for it, we do know that sin possesses appalling force. We know that when we sin, we pervert, adulterate, and destroy good things. We create matrices and atmospheres of moral evil and bequeath them to our descendants. By habitual practice, we let loose a great, rolling momentum of moral and spiritual evil across generations. By doing such things, we involve ourselves deeply in what theologians call corruption.49

While we do not fully comprehend the extent of our individual acts and ongoing participation in evil, whether knowingly or unknowingly, we are not innocent in the creation of the world around us or in the evil that occurs within it.

It is important to note that evil is not confined to intentionally evil acts. Surely intentional acts of evil contribute to structural evil in a variety of ways, but structural evil also comes “through ignorant if well-intentioned choices.”50 The reciprocal relationship between personal and structural evil, as well as the often unintentional complicity that perpetuates structural evil underscores the complexities involved in identifying, examining, avoiding, resisting, and counteracting structural evil. Individuals live within a series of relationships. They live in relationship to the natural world, to other humans, to institutions and organizations, to governments, and to God. Charles Taylor describes the way people understand these relationships in terms of “social imaginaries,” or “the ways people imagine their social existence, how they fit together with others, how things go on between them and their fellows, the expectations that are normally met, and the deeper normative notions and images that underlie these expectations.”51

Individual and corporate social imagination provides a sort of logic or sense through which humans navigate complex interactions on a day-to-day basis. Such imagination is inspired by human notions of order, fairness, and, ultimately, fitting participation within a given social imaginary. In other words, the social imaginary provides the background for behaviors and those behaviors reinforce the social imaginary. As such, behaviors often betray aspects of individual or corporate social imaginaries, which “begins to define the contours of their [the participants’] world and can eventually come to count as the taken-for-granted shape of things, too obvious to mention.”52

Thinking about structural evil in terms of Taylor’s concept of social imaginaries offers a new means of describing the phenomenon of structural evil that recognizes the interdependence of the background understandings that provide context for actions and for the actions themselves.53 Structural evil does not excuse intentional acts of evil, nor does it bracket out one’s culpability for unintentional evil acts. Instead, structural evil recognizes that evil acts, whether intentional or unintentional, individual or collective, are undergirded by common understandings of how society is ordered, as well as reinforcing or otherwise influencing that common understanding. At root, structural evil is a theological problem whereby the underlying order of things is misrecognized resulting in a number of distortions some of which we notice and others which we don’t.

The Fall, Structural Evil, and the Gospel

While the gospel is often rightly discussed in terms of individual forgiveness of sins, the gospel entails far more than the salvation of individuals. It also impacts the manner in which those individuals relate to one another and to the world around them. If, as argued above, structural evil is the misrecognition of the fundamental order of God’s creation, the gospel is the good news that proclaims the true order of things and gives a sure hope to all creation that God’s order will be restored.

Salvation by grace through faith has implications for the individual soul and for the whole of creation. Living in light of the gospel means more than acting ethically or morally. Rather, living in light of the gospel means that God empowers us to be at peace finding strength and solace in the knowledge that our troubles are “light and momentary. . .achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all” (2 Cor 4:17). We have, through the gospel, a hope that allows us to break away from the misrecognized order of structural evil in order to represent God faithfully by conforming to the image of Christ.

The gospel is the slap in the face we need to dismiss our delusions about ourselves and the world. It reminds us of the leveling power of depravity and the common ground that all humanity finds in the need for God’s grace (Eph 2:8–22). It reminds us that the powerful serve at the will and whim of our God. It reminds us that we do not belong to this world, but that “our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ” (Phil 3:20). Ultimately, the gospel calls and empowers God’s people to align with God participating with him as he reorders creation according to his perfect will and wisdom.

Analysis of Genesis 3:1–7

After narrating the creation of the world and all things in it, the book of Genesis focuses in on a set of specific events in the garden. We find the serpent conversing with the woman who has been placed in the garden with man. The serpent is characterized as “crafty.” This English translation does not preserve the ambiguity of the Hebrew term (arum), which is not always used with negative connotations (Prov 12:23; 13:8; 14:15). As modern readers, we know the story and recognize that the serpent is an agent of chaos. Within the narrative, however, it is important to allow the character of the serpent to emerge since it is not necessarily clear that the woman automatically recognizes the serpent as her enemy.54 Part of what the woman is trying to determine is whether the serpent represents life or death.

The serpent’s line of questioning takes advantage of this ambiguity. While the first question has often been understood as clarifying the content of God’s command to the human couple, there is good reason to understand the question in a slightly different manner. The Hebrew construction that begins the serpent’s question in Gen 3:1 may be better understood as a rhetorical interjection that highlights the exaggerated nature of the statement. In other words, it is not so much that the serpent is trying to clarify the original content of the command. Instead, the serpent is attempting to highlight the absurdity and severity of that command.55

Reading the initial question in this manner, the serpent’s words might be paraphrased as “What more could God demand! Has he said, ‘You shall not eat from any of the trees in the garden!?!” In essence, the serpent is implying that by denying the human couple the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, God is withholding something essential and might as well starve the human couple. The serpent has accused God of being less-than fully benevolent in keeping the human couple from eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

In this light, the woman’s response is not a misquotation, but an interpretation of the command. The woman does not doubt God’s benevolence, but suggests that God has prohibited the tree’s fruit for the good of her and her husband. The combination of “eat” and “touch” is found again in legislative contexts which prohibit the handling or eating of various unclean animals (Lev 11:8; Deut 14:8). The use of this language suggests that the woman is drawing a connection between the nature of the tree (i.e. that it is unclean) and the rationale for God’s prohibition. The tree has some inherent flaw that makes it deadly to the human couple.

Having listened to the woman’s explanation, the serpent now makes explicit his accusation against God. There is nothing wrong with the tree. God’s prohibition is motivated by self-interest and a desire to deprive the man and woman so that they do not reach their full potential. God wants to keep them under his thumb. The man and the woman will never achieve their highest stature unless they break loose from God’s command and begin to fulfill their own destiny.56

As the woman examines the tree, the plausibility of her explanation begins to fade. The tree was “good for food” and “a delight to the eyes” (Gen 3:6). Being persuaded by the serpent’s wisdom and trusting now that the serpent is indeed an agent of life, she also recognizes that the tree offers wisdom (v. 6). Unfortunately, the woman misjudges the serpent. Rather than bringing life and wisdom, the serpent points the human couple toward chaos. By choosing to believe that God’s order was wrong and that they should somehow be able to transcend their position in the cosmos to be equal with God, the human couple disobey God’s command. They misrecognize their place in the world, doubt God, and, as a consequence, must now live a cursed existence in which God, humanity, and the rest of creation are not rightly related.

The Fall and Structural Evil in the Old Testament

Pharaoh’s efforts to curtail the multiplication of Israel not only represents the evil musings of one man, but also the sort of evil that derives from a particular societal order. The purpose of the increased labor and genocide implemented by Pharaoh against Israel was to curtail the growth of the nation and to prevent Israel from joining Egypt’s enemies in the event of an attack. The comparison of the previous Pharaoh and the Pharaoh “who knew not Joseph” highlights the second Pharaoh’s dismissal of God. The systematic oppression of the Israelites reflects the Pharaoh’s dependence on his own power to provide security for Egypt. That this dependence manifests itself in the inhumane treatment of Israel is rooted in the underlying assumption that what Pharaoh has built must be protected at all costs.

Pharaoh’s program against Israel is rooted in taken-for-granted assumptions about the world and God’s activity in it. The political and economic dimensions of Pharaoh’s activities are not simply an individual perversion, but the extension of the logic of a system dependent on tyranny, military strength, and material production. In other words, Pharaoh has no viable choice, but to oppress Israel because of his commitment to a particular way of life. Egypt could not stand unless Pharaoh had a workforce that was constantly working to produce wealth. Similarly, this workforce had to be constrained because Egypt’s security was guaranteed not by its faith in the one true God, but by its military capacity to defeat those who opposed it. This way of thinking denies God’s ability to provide without labor and to protect without military might. Pharaoh, despite being given alternatives, would have been hard pressed to shake off the logic of the system that he had seen build Egypt into an impressive empire.

Structural evil is also evident in the pronouncements of the prophets against the established systems of power which exhibit and are guided by human rather than divine wisdom.57 The frequent condemnation of oppressive practices designed to increase personal wealth and security, injunctions related to the perversion of religious practice, and general dismissal of God’s power through dependence on political alliances, characterize a social system with underlying assumptions concerning the value of material wealth and militaristic strength. Worse still is the false theology that, at times, arose in relation to religious structures. At various points in Israel’s history, the people and their leaders attempted to use spiritual disciplines such as fasting and Sabbath to manipulate God as if he were obligated to respond to their piety. Similarly, the people and their leaders also mistakenly thought that God was somehow tied to Israel in a way that precluded judgment.

Jeremiah 7, for instance, critiques the underlying assumptions related to the association of the physical temple with God’s continued blessing and protection of Israel. The false sense of security fostered by the existence of the temple reinforces the practice of false worship and the continuation of . God’s continued presence, as witnessed by the physical temple, was seen as an implicit legitimation of Israelite practice. The role of the prophet in this case is to correct and reorient the community’s vision by helping them to recognize rightly their misplaced assumptions and providing them with appropriate theological perspectives which would reshape their character and motivate faithful action.

The Fall and Structural Evil in the New Testament

Romans 1:18–32 demonstrates a dynamic similar to that described regarding structural evil. Here the natural is exchanged for the unnatural as a consequence of human disobedience. This exchange and God’s subsequent giving over of humanity to a “depraved mind” resulted not only in the development of a disposition toward wickedness, but in the approval of those who practice such wickedness (v. 32). This approval may well be akin to what Augustine identified as the “Well done! Well done!” of mankind in relation to Jas 4:4. He references the “well done” again in his discussion of offices. Concerning the “third kind of temptation” which involved being “feared and loved of men,” Augustine notes,

Because now certain offices of human society make it necessary to be loved and feared of men, the adversary of our true blessedness layers hard at us, every where spreading his snares of “well-done, well-done”; that greedily catching at them, we may be taken unawares, and sever our joy from Thy truth, and set it in the deceivingness of men; and be pleased at being loved and feared, not for Thy sake, but in Thy stead . . .58

As Augustine clearly recognizes, the affirmation of humankind can become a hindrance to the pursuit of God. On first examination, however, such affirmation does not appear pernicious, but, as Augustine’s description makes clear, these affirmations are deceptively damaging to one’s desires, potentially misdirecting them toward creaturely praises and away from true praise of God.

The gospels offer what are possibly the most significant instances of structural evil in the New Testament through the depiction of Jesus’s work amongst those who are ostracize by society and through his ongoing critique of the religious establishment. Jesus refuses to play by the rules established by the Pharisees, Saducees, or scribes. Instead, he points to the true order of things and what it means to be God’s people. His engagement of those outside of spheres of power and influence and his condemnation of the religious leaders of his day demonstrate Jesus’ confrontation of structural evil. He was not only seeking to address the sins of individual believers, but to overturn the a system that was not representing God faithfully despite claiming to do so.

The Fall and Structural Evil in the Christian Life Today

As believers, we are responsible for our own actions and activities, but these actions and activities are not disconnected from the broader communities of which we are a part. All of us influence and are influenced by broader social, cultural, and organizational contexts. Like the woman in the garden, we find ourselves trying to discern the truth and, if my own experience is normative, often failing to do so. Christians, both as individuals and groups, have misrecognized the order of things throughout history and will continue to do so until Christ’s return. The fact that we will continue to fail until that time, however, does not negate the call to live lives worthy of Christ.

Understanding that structural evil persists, in part, because we continually misrecognize the order of things, requires believers, both individually and corporately, to critically examine underlying assumptions about the way the world supposedly works. The presence of structural evil should not produce within us an isolationist posture. We must continue to engage our fallen world and our imperfect church. We must, however, be diligent in our reflection on the Scriptures and on Christian practice. We must look beyond our normal community norms and resist the sort of conformity that does not call us to mimic Christ, but an incomplete articulation of him. In short, the fall has limited our vision and made us less sensitive to the disorder of our world. Reflection on the fall and the structural evil that has resulted from it should cultivate within us a dependence on the one who is willing and able to change our fallen hearts and minds.

Questions for Discussion

1. Describe some specific areas of life that the fall has impacted?

2. How is it significant to understand the fall as an event that puts all of humanity on the same level in light of the gospel?

3. What examples of structural evil in the Old Testament can you think of?

4. What might be some examples of structural evil in today’s world?

Bibliography and Recommended Reading

Emmrich, Martin. “The Temptation Narrative of Genesis 3:1–6: A Prelude to the Pentateuch and the History of Israel.” EvQ 73 (2001) 3–20.

Hamilton, Victor P. The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1–17. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990.

Joines, Karen R. “The Serpent in Gen 3.” ZAW 87 (1975) 1–11.

Moberly, R. W. L. “Did the Serpent Get It Right?” JTS 39 (1988) 1–27.

Augustine. The Confessions of Saint Augustine. Translated by Edward Bouverie Pusey. London: Aeterna, 2015.

Sailhamer, John H. The Pentateuch as Narrative: A Biblical-Theological Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992.

Scullion, John J. Genesis: A Commentary for Students, Teachers, and Preachers. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1992.

Skinner, John. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis. International Critical Commentary. New York: Scribner, 1910.

Speiser, E. A. Genesis. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1964.

Summer, George R. “‘You Have Not Yet Considered the Gravity of Sin’: A Key Retrieval for Our Time.” ProE 25 (2016) 261–73.

Townsend, P. Wayne. “Eve’s Answer to the Serpent: An Alternative Paradigm for Sin and Some Implications in Theology.” CTJ 33 (1998) 399–420.

Trible, Phyllis. God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality. Overtures to Biblical Theology. Phil-adelphia: Fortress, 1978.

Vogels, Walter. “Like One of Us, Knowing tôb and ra’.” Semeia 81 (1998) 144–57.

Wenham, Gordon J. “Sanctuary Symbolism in the Garden of Eden Story.” Proceedings from the 9th World Congress of Jewish Studies, Jerusalem. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1986.

———. Genesis 1–15. WBC 1. Waco: Word, 1987.

48. Plantinga, Not the Way It’s Supposed to Be, 25.

49. Ibid., 27.

50. Murphy, “On the Priority of Personal to Structural Evil in Catholic Social Teaching,” 150.

51. Taylor, Modern Social Imaginaries, 23.

52. Taylor, Secular Age, 176.

53. Ibid., 29–30.

54. Joines states that “the serpent in Gen 3 represents the embodiment of a strange combination of life, wisdom, and chaos” (Joines, “Serpent in Gen 3,” 9). When the woman looks at the serpent, she does not necessarily see it as a symbol of evil and chaos, but of wisdom and life.

55. Hamilton takes a similar view (Book of Genesis, 186). Speiser also concludes that 3:1 is not a question suggesting that the combination is a “half-interrogative, half-reflective exclamation.” See Skinner, Genesis, 73.

56. Sailhamer states, “The centerpiece of the story is the question of the knowledge of the ‘good.’ The snake implied by his questions that God was keeping this knowledge from the man and the woman, while the sense of the narratives in the first two chapters has been that God was keeping this knowledge for the man and the woman” (Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative, 103–4). Walton’s analysis is similar, though he identifies conceptual parallels within ancient Near Eastern literature (204–6).

57. VanGemeren discusses the real politic and the vox populi as standing in opposition, in many ways, to each other and to divine revelation. VanGemeren, Interpreting the Prophetic Word. The conflict between real politic and vox populi and divine revelation suggests the presence of social or structural evil.

58. Confessions, 36.59 (trans. Pusey, 173).