X

The Colossian Forum Subscription Form

| Resume a previously saved form
Resume Later

In order to be able to resume this form later, please enter your email and choose a password.

Subscriber Information







Subscriptions

Resources

The Colossian Forum offers free resources to help you transform polarizing cultural conflicts into opportunities for spiritual growth and witness.

Mailing Address







Please enter the required value for your country.

Colossian Blog
April 24, 2012 | Andy Saur

Book Review – The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn’t Say about Human Origins by Peter Enns

Whose Bible? Which Adam?

 

The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn’t Say about Human Origins by Peter Enns. Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2012.  Pp. 192

 

 

 

 

April 24th, 2012
Book Reviewed by James K.A. Smith, 
Senior Fellow for The Colossian Forum

In a June 2011 cover story, Christianity Today documented what has been dubbed “The Search for the Historical Adam” (a coy play on the so-called “Quest for the Historical Jesus”).  The phenomenon described is the unique challenge posed by our contemporary situation—what the Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor calls the “cross-pressure” experienced by believers in the modern world.  Specifically, the new discussion about Adam, Eve, and human origins is propelled by accumulating evidence for evolutionary origins of the human race.  As evangelical Christians have pursued science as a vocation, they also have experienced increased “cross-pressure” between the biblical account of human origins and the picture that has emerged from the sciences—including archaeology, biology, and genetics.[callout title=Callout Title]“Evangelical readers…generally tend to live more in the tensions between their deep, instinctual commitment to Scripture and the challenges to that commitment that arise in life in the modern world.”[/callout]Even those evangelicals who reject evolutionary accounts have nonetheless felt the cross-pressure of this situation.  (See Tim Morris’ review of Should Christians Embrace Evolution? for a relevant discussion here.)

It is into this “cross-pressured” situation that Peter Enns wades with this new book, The Evolution of Adam.  In fact, Enns believes that evangelicals feel this pressure more than either fundamentalists or mainline Christians: “Evangelical readers,” he notes, “generally tend to live more in the tensions between their deep, instinctual commitment to Scripture and the challenges to that commitment that arise in life in the modern world. … This type of burden does not seem to be as pressing in either mainline forms of Christianity or in fundamentalism” (x).  This is why evangelicals are also Enns’ primary audience.

But as the title of the book already suggests, Enns’ aim is clear.  Because evolution is, as he puts it, “a game changer,” the “general science-and-faith rapprochement is not adequate because evolution uniquely strikes at issues of the Christian faith.”  Specifically, Enns asserts, “[e]volution tells us that human beings are not the product of a special creative act by God as the Bible says but are the end product of a process of trial-and-error adaptation and natural selection” (xiv).  And “if evolution is correct, one can no longer accept, in any true sense of the word ‘historical,’ the instantaneous and special creation of humanity described in Genesis” (xiv).  So rather than trying to “reconcile” the Bible and evolution, Enns is forthright: he argues we need to rethink Genesis and Paul—by which he means reconnoitering our expectations of what the book of Genesis and the epistles of Paul have to offer (xviii-xix).  In this respect, Enns’ project is very similar to John Walton’s proposal in The Lost World of Genesis One, situating Genesis as a book that reflects an ancient Near Eastern cosmology.  Thus we shouldn’t expect the Bible to be trying to “teach” any “scientific” claims about human origins.  As Enns constantly emphasizes, “the biblical authors…were only expressing their assumptions about the nature of the cosmos” (xvii).  So we should adjust our expectations accordingly.  If we do that, Enns concludes, then we’ll find that what Genesis and Paul teach about human origins doesn’t tread on the territory of what we know from evolutionary science.  The result, he believes, will be peaceful coexistence.

I wonder.

In this review, I’m not particularly interested in debating the specific position that Enns holds.  While it might seem odd, I will forego assessing whether or not Christians can or should affirm an evolutionary account of human origins—not because I think that is unimportant or because I don’t have a position but because I think we have a lot of work to do before we get to that question and debate.[callout title=Callout Title]…if evangelicals are going to debate these matters well, we need to consider more foundational issues and not rush ahead to nailing down a “position.”[/callout]Indeed, in many ways, the very mission of The Colossian Forum is predicated on the conviction that Christians too quickly rush ahead to settled “positions” before reflecting theologically on just how we should proceed.  If one wants to disagree with Enns’ conclusions, it is crucial to first attend to the whole framework within which he pursues his project.  In fact, even if one were inclined to agree with his conclusions, it is important to consider whether one also wants to accept the way he gets there.  More importantly, if evangelicals are going to debate these matters well, we need to consider more foundational issues and not rush ahead to nailing down a “position.”

Thus I will focus on what we might call Enns’ “methodology”—and more specifically, the assumptions that undergird his approach, many of which simply reflect standard operating procedure in the biblical studies guild (and so are not unique to Enns).  Indeed, in many ways, Enns might be sort of caught between the practices of the biblical studies guild and his own sincere desire to aid and equip the church to be faithful in the modern world. So any criticisms that follow are not criticisms of Enns’ intent, but more an attempt to open up a conversation about the limits of the paradigm in which he renders this service to the church.


Which author?

There is a feature of Enns’ argument that could easily go unnoticed only because it is so ubiquitous: his account is entirely “from below.”  That is, Enns’ argument is predicated on the working assumption that the meaning of the Scriptures is tethered to—and determined by—the intent of the human authors.  Indeed, in this approach human authors seem to be the only relevant authors when it comes to understanding the Bible.  There is literally no mention (that I could find) in which the meaning of the Scriptures is linked to what the divine Author might have intended.[1]  So when Enns speaks of what Genesis means, he always and only refers to “the biblical authors” (xvii) or “the Israelites” (42)—these are the only operative “authors” in the entire analysis.  The meaning of Genesis is determined by what the Israelites “placed” there (70) and is read as an “expression” of Israel’s faith (75).

Similarly, we are regularly told what “Paul’s gospel” is (93), with just a hint that Paul’s gospel should perhaps not be identified with “the” Gospel.  If any meaning is ascribed to Adam in the New Testament, it is Paul who is doing it: “Paul lays much at Adam’s feet, more than a straightforward reading of Genesis dictates” (133).   One can get a feel for how “flattened” biblical meaning is for Enns in this passage later in the book (in contrast, say, to the “ecclesiocentric” hermeneutic of Richard Hays, where meaning overflows human authorial intent[2]).  Consider Enns’ summary:

Simply put, we cannot and should not assume that what Paul says about Adam is necessarily what Genesis was written to convey—any more than we should assume that what Paul says about Isaiah or Habakkuk is exactly what those authors had in mind…  If we fail to grasp that point and assume that Paul is an objective interpreter of Genesis [because we are?!], we will paint ourselves into a corner where we will expect to find something in Genesis that Genesis is not prepared to deliver (117).

Note who populates the terrain of biblical interpretation here: Genesis (or the “authors of Genesis”), Paul, and us.  Does it feel like anything is missing?  Or Anyone?

While Enns affirms the inspiration and authority of Scripture, this sort of hermeneutical approach functionally naturalizes biblical interpretation.[3]  Because this sort of account of biblical meaning is tethered to the intent of human authors, there is no functional role for divine authorship in determining meaning—which is precisely why Enns treats these books and letters as discrete entities rather than parts of a whole canon (more on this below).[callout title=Callout Title]…in the end what we get is a kind of biblical primitivism that locates the “original” meaning of the human author and settles for that as what God meant.[/callout]While such sophistication with respect to genre analysis, archaeological background, and comparative literary analysis is offered as an antidote to “literalist” readings, in the end what we get is a kind of biblical primitivism that locates the “original” meaning of the human author and settles for that as what God meant.  It at this juncture that the working assumptions of “biblical studies” will constantly bump up against the hermeneutical stance of “ecclesial” interpretation since they approach the Scriptures with both different assumptions and different ends in mind.[4]  In the vein of Alasdair MacIntyre, one could say they are different practices working with very different “standards of excellence.”[5]

This unstated but working assumption generates two further problems: First, as already mentioned, and as will be discussed further below, the contextualization of Genesis and Romans in the canon of Scripture does not impinge in any way on what Enns thinks these texts mean.  Second, Enns’ exclusive focus on human authorship is a way to divide and conquer.  By sequestering the meaning of Genesis to what the ancient Near Eastern authors meant, Enns thereby sequesters the meaning of Genesis from overlapping with scientific claims about human origins.  Indeed, on his reading, the book of Genesis is actually irrelevant to historical, scientific questions about human origins (69).

This sequestering of Genesis from human origins gives us “NOMA” by other means.  NOMA is a famous acronym coined by evolutionary theorist Stephen Jay Gould, who claimed that science and faith were “non-overlapping magisteria”—two different authorities with different jurisdictions or domains.  Science, for Gould, dealt with facts; while religion dealt with values.  As long as we kept that straight, then the two would never conflict because there would be no “overlapping” jurisdiction.  The problem, of course, is that Christian faith does make factual, historical claims and is not just a nice collection of “moral teachings” (and science is also loaded with values).  So Gould’s NOMA model has been roundly rejected.

And yet Enns seems to revive a version of it in order to “solve” the (“perceived”) tension between evolutionary accounts of human origins and the biblical understanding of human origins.  But note the price for eliminating this tension: rejecting the notion that the Bible has something to say about human origins.  Thus Enns questions “whether the Adam story is even relevant to the modern question of human origins;” if we appreciated this irrelevance, “much of the tension between Genesis and evolution is relieved” (69).


Whose “Genesis?”

As I noted above, reflective of the practices of interpretation we inherit from the guild of biblical studies, Enns’ unit of analysis is the book (Genesis) or the human author (Paul).  So the meaning of Genesis is, one might say, “internal” to the book of Genesis.  Or, more accurately, using a metaphor from the philosopher Paul Ricoeur: the meaning of the text is located primarily “behind” the text—in the human author’s intention.  And behind that is the cultural milieu of the Ancient Near East.  So if we are going to know what Genesis 1-3 means, we need to probe through and behind the text to its genesis in the authors and editors of this discrete book—which requires recognizing that behind them is a cultural context that not only conditions but determines “what Genesis means.”  Similarly if one wants to understand Paul.

This is so common and seems so commonsensical that it might be ill-advised to call it into question—except for the fact that the Bible itself challenges such a hermeneutic method.[6]  First of all, the Christian church is not a recipient of the book of Genesis as a discrete unit; we receive the book of Genesis within the Bible and that Bible is received as a whole—as a “canon” of Scripture.  Second, internal to the canon is the conviction that meanings God intends are not constrained by what human authors intended.[callout title=Callout Title]The meaning of Scripture is not limited to what human authors intended.[/callout]To use Ricoeur’s metaphor again, the meaning of Scripture is also generated in front of the text—in the people of God’s continued interaction with revelation, illumined by the same Spirit who inspired the authors of Scripture.[7]  The meaning of Scripture is not limited to what human authors intended—which is precisely why the meaning of prophetic texts outstrips what human authors might have had in mind.  As Richard Hays puts it, in some ways Christians read the Bible back to front.  But the dominant methodology that Enns reflects has no functional room for appreciating this point, which is why he seems to think that defining what the “authors of Genesis” had in mind settles the matter.  It doesn’t.

This sort of a-canonical approach also explains why Enns sees such a strange relationship between Genesis and the apostle Paul as a reader of Genesis.  “Paul’s reading of Genesis,” he comments, “is driven by factors external to Genesis.  Paul’s use of the Old Testament, here or elsewhere, does not determine how that passage functions in its original setting” (87, emphasis added).  Well, that might be true; and Enns is exactly right to offer a corrective to irresponsibile habits of Bible reading that are little more than baptized eisegesis, reading into the Scriptures what we want to find there.  But is the “original meaning” the determinative factor for the meaning of Genesis for us?  We receive a canon of Scripture that recontextualizes each book—situating every book in relation to the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, which is why the “location” from which we read the Bible needs to be the practices of Christian worship.  Worship is the primary “home” of the Bible and it is in worship that we cultivate those habits and virtues we need to read Scripture holistically.[8] That will certainly generate meanings of Old Testament books that could never have been intended by their human authors; but that doesn’t mean they were not intended as meanings to be unfolded “in front of the text” by the divine Author.[callout title=Callout Title]The church has always staked its reading of the Bible on the conviction that Scripture’s meaning exceeds what the original human authors could have intended.[/callout]

Enns’ approach leaves little room to recognize such recontextualization within the canon—nor does he accord any positive, constructive role to tradition (cf. 114).  In fact, if it becomes a contest between “the authors of Genesis” and Paul, Enns sides with “the original meaning” of Genesis as the determinative meaning: “what Genesis says about Adam and the consequences of his actions does not seem to line up with the universal picture that Paul paints in Romans and 1 Corinthians […]. I do not think the gospel stands on whether we can read Paul’s Adam in the pages of Genesis” (92).  To use Enns’ language, Paul attributes something to Genesis that the “authors of Genesis” are not trying to give us. Again, this account is entirely “from below,” as if it is Paul alone who “invests Adam with capital he does not have either in the Genesis story, the Old Testament as a whole, or the interpretations of his contemporary Jews” (135).

But now the problem above comes home to roost: what if there is an Author who is the author of both Genesis and 1 Corinthians?  What did he intend?  And could he intend meanings in Genesis that outstrip what the “authors of Genesis” intended?  The church has always staked its reading of the Bible on the conviction that Scripture’s meaning exceeds what the original human authors could have intended.  So we can’t neatly and tidily settle the cross-pressures we feel at the intersection of Genesis and contemporary science by simply limiting the meaning of Genesis to what was intended by its Ancient Near Eastern authors.


What’s “history?”

A third undercurrent to consider in the book, which is not unique to Enns: a tendency to implicitly dichotomize the “historical” and the “theological.” So he tends to belabor that Genesis offers a “theological” take on human origins (e.g., p. 33) and castigates readings of Genesis that treat it as “journalistic” (50) or offer a “blow-by-blow” account (62).  “Genesis cries out to be read as something other than a historical description of events” (58).

Enns is exactly right to push back on “conservative” or “literal” readings of the Bible that anachronistically impose a “journalistic” sense of “history” on ancient texts.  Indeed, ancient Christian interpreters would be puzzled by this (and Augustine was downright embarrassed by such readings of Genesis).  So it is helpful to appreciate the original intent and setting of these texts in order to counter our very modern habits of reading the Bible as if it were the same genre as Robert Caro’s history of LBJ’s presidency.  Enns helps us to see how modern our “traditional” (i.e., literal) readings of Genesis are.  But in response, he verges on making the “theological” seem a-historical.

Surely we need more nuance here since the core theological claims of the Gospel have historical hooks.  I don’t want to fault Enns for not offering a more nuanced account of “history”—or what “counts” as “historical”—but only want to note that this book is further evidence that this is a theme that deserves much more attention from Christian scholars.[9]

Our options are not either a-historical “theological” claims or literalist “historical” claims.  We shouldn’t confuse or reduce “historical” to journalistic paradigms or blow-by-blow chronology.  We need to develop more nuanced accounts of history in order to do justice to the theological.  There is much work to be done on this front.


What’s at stake?

Finally, when Enns synthesizes Genesis and Paul to articulate a doctrine of original sin, I think he misjudges and underestimates just what’s at stake in the “search for the historical Adam.”

He already misframes this in the Introduction to the book.  He attributes the following syllogism to “traditionalists”—to those who are going to disagree with him and defend the “traditional” understanding of Genesis.  According to Enns, they reason as follows: “[A]s the argument often goes, if there was no first Adam, then there was no fall.  If there was no fall, there is no truly inescapably sinful condition and so no need for a savior.  If evolution is true, then Christianity is false” (xvi).  Let’s break this down into syllogistic form; remember, this is what Enns describes as the “traditionalist’s” logic:

Premise 1: If there was no first Adam, there was no fall.

Premise 2: If there was no fall, there is no truly inescapably sinful condition and so no need for a savior.

[Unstated premise 3: Jesus as the Savior of sinful humanity is at the heart of Christianity.]

Conclusion: Therefore, if evolution is true [i.e., if there was no first Adam], Christianity is false.

Enns clearly wants to disprove the conclusion; and very much wants to affirm premise 3.  So if he’s going to disprove the conclusion, he is going to have to disprove either premise 1 or premise 2 or both.  And his prime target is actually premise 2; it is this premise that he will reject.

Enns obviously does not want to deny the Gospel.  He understands the heart of the Gospel to be the good news that sinners are graciously saved by the death and resurrection of the sinless Christ.  The key components of this Gospel, then, are our sin and Christ’s death and resurrection.  So as long as we affirm both of these—universal human sinfulness and the death and resurrection of the sinless Christ—then we will have preserved the Gospel.  And Enns very much wants to affirm both of these.[callout title=Callout Title]Enns thinks he can save the Gospel by simply affirming universal human sinfulness without taking a stand on the origin of sin; but that is to fail to recognize that what’s at stake is the goodness of God.[/callout]

But it is in this context that I think Enns either misrepresents or misunderstands the historic, orthodox doctrine of the Fall and original sin.  He speaks as if the doctrine of original sin was just an account of the cause of our universal human sinfulness (124)—and it is just this sort of causal claim that he thinks is untenable in light of evolutionary evidence for human origins.  But Enns thinks we are free to abandon this causal claim associated with original sin and instead simply affirm universal sinful humanness—and hence the need for a Savior, thereby preserving the Gospel.  We “must remain open on the ultimate origins of why all humans are born in sin (original sin) while resting content in the observation that all humans are born in sin (sin of origin)” (125).

Unfortunately, that’s just not the case.  Because if we don’t have an account of the origin of sin we will end up making God the author of evil—a thesis that has been persistently and strenuously rejected by the orthodox Christian tradition.  Enns thinks he can save the Gospel by simply affirming universal human sinfulness without taking a stand on the origin of sin; but that is to fail to recognize that what’s at stake is the goodness of God.  If God uses evolutionary processes to create the world and sin is inherent in those processes, then creation is synonymous with fall and God is made the author of sin—which compromises the very goodness of God.  And if the goodness of God isn’t central to the Gospel, I don’t know what is.  I don’t deny that this is an incredibly thorny issue; and this is not necessarily an apologetic for a “blow-by-blow” understanding of the Fall. I only point out that Enns’ account doesn’t recognize it as an issue.  And that is a problem.  Indeed, I think it explains why so much of the recent debate about the historical Adam has been an adventure in talking past one another—and why we need a new conversation to delve further into these issues, working with what Hays calls an “ecclesiocentric” hermeneutic rooted in the worship practices of the church.

The Evolution of Adam is an important book.  But I think it should be an occasion to recognize that the current state of the conversation about theology and human origins has some homework to do, revisiting foundational themes and questions that, in this book, are unasked.

 


[1] Appeals to God’s “authorship” of Scripture do not entail simplistic “dictation” theories of inspiration.  For a nuanced account of divine authorship, see Nicholas Wolterstorff, Divine Discourse: Philosophical Reflections on the Claim that God Speaks (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995) and Merold Westphal, Whose Community? Which Interpretation? Philosophical Hermeneutics for the Church (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009), 35-44 and 147-155.

[2] In contrast, consider Richard Hays’ account of Paul’s “ecclesiocentric” hermeneutic in Hays, The Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993).

[3] For his account of inspiration, see Peter Enns, Evangelicals and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005).

[4] There is a growing chorus that is noting this tension.  See, for example, Michael Legaspi, The Death of Scripture and the Rise of Biblical Studies (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011); Stephen Moore and Yvonne Sherwood, The Invention of the Biblical Scholar: A Critical Manifesto (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2011); and J. Levenson, The Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament, and Historical Criticism (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993).

[5] For a relevant discussion, see James K.A. Smith, The Fall of Interpretation: Philosophical Foundations for a Creational Hermeneutic, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012), esp. ch. 7.

[6] In The Fall of Interpretation: Philosophical Foundations for a Creational Hermeneutic, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012), I argue that a hermeneutic like Enns’ which focuses on “authorial intent” narrowly conceived is actually a distinctly modern interpretive strategy—one which many evangelicals have also adopted.

[7] For a classic statement, see David Steinmetz, “The Superiority of Pre-Critical Exegesis,” Theology Today 37 (1980): 27-38.  More recently, see Hans Boersma, Heavenly Participation: The Weaving of a Sacramental Tapestry (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011), pp. 137-153.

[8] See Jim Fodor, “Reading the Scriptures: Rehearsing Identity, Practicing Character,” in The Blackwell Companion to Christian Ethics, 2nd ed., eds. Stanley Hauerwas and Samuel Wells (Oxford: Blackwell, 2011), 155-169.

[9] For hints in this direction, see Richard B. Hays, “Knowing Jesus: Story, History, and the Question of Truth,” in Jesus, Paul, and the People of God: A Theological Dialogue with N.T. Wright, eds. Nicholas Perrin and Richard B. Hays (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2011), 41-61.


 

James K.A. Smith is a Senior Fellow of The Colossian Forum and professor of philosophy at Calvin College.

 

Suggested Posts
“So, What Do You Do?” — Meditations from the Dentist’s Chair
July 10, 2019 | Emily Stroble
“So, What Do You Do?” — Meditations from the Dentist’s Chair
I’ve been thinking about the dentist. You know, the sour-tastelessness of cotton balls, the awkwardness of having a numb mouth full of other people’s fingers, various sharp implements, and a small vacuum cleaner, and being asked a question? The question never has a “yes” or “no” answer (I’ve a suspicion that SAT prompts are written by dentists). It’s usually something like: “So, what do you do?” I’ve been having a hard time describing my job, even outside of the dentist chair. It’s funny because I probably know a hundred words for “communications.” Yet, when someone asks me what I do, I’m tempted to go for the short, easy answer: “I do communications for a local non-profit.” I was convicted recently, when the person I was speaking with responded, “Oh wow, non-profits! You’re a good person.” She meant it as a compliment. I felt pride, and then a twinge of guilt. Ironically, I’d failed at my literal job description: communicating the mission of The Colossian Forum. Instead, I’d emphasized me. And generalized everything else. How often do we cut the tricky words right out of our conversations? It’s easy just to state my opinion or give generalized, safe answers, rather than engage with the complexity of human experiences and wrestle with the “whys” of what we believe. It might protect my feelings, my security in my own correctness, but a conversation where I state my opinion and you state yours in the most general and least prickly words possible isn’t a conversation; it’s barely small talk. Good communication, on the other hand, carries concepts and meaning from one mind to another. If I receive and understand what you really mean, your words have been good transport for your thoughts, like a sturdy envelope or a strong Wi-Fi connection. I love being a “word person,” but finding the right words to carry my meaning is a humbling experience. Initially, I introduced The Colossian Forum as: A non-profit which reconciles churches in conflict. But this implied to some people that TCF works in personal disputes, rather than deep societal and philosophical divisions that touch every member of the Christian community. But the truth is, we have made a lot of arguments in the church fiercely personal. If our opinion is critiqued, we feel our dignity has been attacked. If we have the better argument, we think it means we’re smarter, better Christians, and we urgently put down our brothers and sisters to prove our superiority. It’s still all about us, not Christ. So, I developed this second attempt at explaining TCF: It’s a Christian non-profit which helps people reclaim conflicts—like faith and science, sexuality, and politics—by focusing on Christ’s redemptive love. But those words aren’t quite right either. “Reclaim” has a territorial sound, and we have been so entrenched in a mindset of warfare that the fear and anger are reflexive. Some people physically recoil from me when I mention “origins, sexuality, and politics.” It hurts. Never mind finding a “solution” or “resolution.” Is there any way to overcome the emotional fallout of the debate? Any salve for the burned relationships and festering bitterness? Any way to stanch the hemorrhage of people leaving the church? As Christians, we end up finally numb to the pain and avoidant, or mouths full of sharp arguments. And, like my dentist, the world is asking, “So, what do you do?” I truly believe we have to become better Word people. John, in his Gospel, calls Jesus “the Word.” In a way, Jesus’s life, death, and resurrection are the ultimate acts of good communication. Jesus is the Word which carries God to us, into our understanding, into our lives. Jesus shows us who God is and what God does: God heals. God reconciles. God loves. Jesus says over and over again that he came to express God’s law and love, not his own independent will, wants, or opinions. If we imitate Jesus, it’s not about us anymore, either. We speak, like Jesus, to carry the Word of God to those around us. At TCF, we work on this good communication, on being better witnesses to the reconciliation, love, and hope God calls us to through our unity in Christ and our community with each other.   If you feel called to be Word people with us, we invite you to connect with us. Peruse resources that might be useful to you and your faith community, subscribe to our blog, or attend an event. Or, sign up for training to become a Colossian Way Leader and help your faith community become a place of reconciliation. Get more information or register here.
A Reflection for Easter
April 20, 2019 | Sarah Nicholas
A Reflection for Easter
As we celebrate Easter, we invite you to reflect upon this writing by Henri Nouwen.   "From Action to Passion" by Henri Nouwen I was invited to visit a friend who was very sick. He was a man about fifty-three years old who had lived a very active, useful, faithful, creative life. Actually, he was a social activist who had cared deeply for people. When he was fifty he found out he had cancer, and the cancer became more and more severe. When I came to him, he said to me, "Henri, here I am lying in this bed, and I don't even know how to think about being sick. My whole way of thinking about myself is in terms of action, in terms of doing things for people. My life is valuable because I've been able to do many things for many people. And suddenly, here I am, passive, and I can't do anything anymore." And he said to me, "Help me to think about this situation in a new way. Help me to think about my not being able to do anything anymore so I won't be driven to despair. Help me to understand what it means that now all sorts of people are doing things to me over which I have no control." As we talked I realized that he and many others were constantly thinking, "How much can I still do?" Somehow this man had learned to think about himself as a man who was worth only what he was doing. And so when he got sick, his hope seemed to rest on the idea that he might get better and return to what he had been doing. If the spirit of this man was dependent on how much he would still be able to do, what did I have to say to him?... The central word in the story of Jesus' arrest is one I never thought much about. It is "to be handed over." That is what happened in Gethsemane. Jesus was handed over. Some translations say that Jesus was "betrayed," but the Greek says he was "handed over." Judas handed Jesus over (see Mark 14:10). But the remarkable thing is that the same word is used not only for Judas but also for God. God did not spare Jesus, but handed him over to benefit us all (see Romans 8:32). So this word, "to be handed over," plays a central role in the life of Jesus. Indeed, this drama of being handed over divides the life of Jesus radically in two. The first part of Jesus' life is filled with activity. Jesus takes all sorts of initiatives. He speaks; he preaches; he heals; he travels. But immediately after Jesus is handed over, he becomes the one to whom things are being done. He's being arrested; he's being led to the high priest; he's being taken before Pilate; he's being crowned with thorns; he's being nailed on a cross. Things are being done to him over which he has no control. That is the meaning of passion - being the recipient of other people's initiatives. It is important for us to realize that when Jesus says, "It is accomplished," he does not simply mean, "I have done all the things I wanted to do." He also means, "I have allowed things to be done to me that needed to be done to me in order for me to fulfill my vocation." Jesus does not fulfill his vocation in action only but also in passion. He doesn't just fulfill his vocation by doing the things the Father sent him to do, but also by letting things be done to him that the Father allows to be done to him, by receiving other people's initiatives. Passion is a kind of waiting - waiting for what other people are going to do. Jesus went to Jerusalem to announce the good news to the people of that city. And Jesus knew that he was going to put a choice before them: Will you be my disciple, or will you be my executioner? There is no middle ground here. Jesus went to Jerusalem to put people in a situation where they had to say "Yes" or "No." That is the great drama of Jesus' passion: he had to wait upon how people were going to respond. How would they come? To betray him or to follow him? In a way, his agony is not simply the agony of approaching death. It is also the agony of having to wait. All action ends in passion because the response to our action is out of our hands. That is the mystery of work, the mystery of love, the mystery of friendship, the mystery of community - they always involve waiting. And that is the mystery of Jesus' love. God reveals himself in Jesus as the one waits for our response. Precisely in that waiting the intensity of God's love is revealed to us. If God forced us to love, we would not really be lovers. All these insights into Jesus' passion were very important in the discussions with my friend. He realized that after much hard work he had to wait. He came to see that his vocation as a human being would be fulfilled not just in his actions but also in his passion. And together we began to understand that precisely in this waiting the glory of God and our new life both become visible. Precisely when Jesus is being handed over into his passion, he manifests his glory. "Whom do you seek?... I am he" are words that echo all the way back to Moses and the burning bush: "I am the one. I am who I am" (see Exodus 3:1-6). In Gethsemane, the glory of God manifested itself again, and they fell flat on the ground. Then Jesus was handed over. But already in the handing over we see the glory of God who hands himself over to us. God's glory revealed in Jesus embraces passion as well as resurrection. "The Son of Man," Jesus says, "must be lifted up as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him" (John 3:14-15). He is lifted up as a passive victim, so the cross is a sign of desolation. And he is lifted up in glory, so the cross becomes at the same time a sign of hope. Suddenly we realize that the glory of God, the divinity of God, bursts through in Jesus' passion precisely when he is most victimized. So new life becomes visible not only in the resurrection on the third day, but already in the passion, in the being handed over. Why? Because it is in the passion that the fullness of God's love shines through. It is supremely a waiting love, a love that does not seek control. When we allow ourselves to feel fully how we are being acted upon, we can come in touch with a new life that we were not even aware was there. This was the question my sick friend and I talked about constantly. Could he taste the new life in the midst of his passion? Could he see that in his being acted upon by the hospital staff he was already being prepared for a deeper love? It was a love that had been underneath all the action, but he had not tasted it fully. So together we began to see that in the midst of our suffering and passion, in the midst of our waiting, we can already experience the resurrection. Imagine how important that message is for people in our world. If it is true that God in Jesus Christ is waiting for our response to divine love, then we can discover a whole new perspective on how to wait in life. We can learn to be obedient people who do not always try to go back to the action but who recognize the fulfillment of our deepest humanity in passion, in waiting. If we can do this, I am convinced that we will come in touch with the glory of God and our own new life. Then our service to others will include our helping them see the glory breaking through, not only where they are active but also where they are being acted upon. Henri Nouwen, “From Action to Passion,” from “A Spirituality of Waiting” by Henri J. M. Nouwen, in The Weavings Reader, ed. by John Mogabgab. Copyright 1993 by The Upper Room. Used by permission. NOTE: RECUPERATED FROM THE NOW-DEFUNCT http://www.bruderhof.com/articles/FromAction.htm USING THE INTERNET ARCHIVE WAYBACK MACHINE.

601 Fifth St. NW, Suite #101
Grand Rapids, MI 49504

(616) 328-6016

info@colossianforum.org