Sorry, Jesus, I know it's your season, but your birthday was just the sequel. Adam's story is humankind’s
Godfather I.
Think of it, in just about 2,000 Hemingwayesque words Genesis provides the template for most of the existential issues that would vex mankind throughout its history:
Vanity--1:26 God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.”
Myth v. science—Defying biology, which tells us that all humans develop first as female and only later do some evolve into male, Genesis posits that man came first and woman came after (2:23 “The man said, “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh. She will be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.”)
Patriarchy—Adam is given dominion over the earth and would get to name the animals, while Eve is given bupkis to do.
Privatization—Despite the generosity of giving humans the earth, the skies, the seas and all the fruits, animals, fish and vegetables therein, God fences off one small piece of creation and tells them, “That’s mine, not yours. Don’t touch.”
Generational Conflict--2:24 “Therefore a man will leave his father and his mother, and will join with his wife, and they will be one flesh.”
Sexism--3:16 To the woman he said, “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth. In pain you will bring forth children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”
Body shaming--3:7 “Both of their eyes were opened, and they knew that they were naked. They sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.”
The Blame Game--3:11 God said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?” 3:12 The man said, “The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate.” 3:13 Yahweh God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?” The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”
Authoritarianism--3:17 To Adam he said, “Because you have listened to your wife’s voice, and have eaten of the tree, of which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat of it,’ cursed is the ground for your sake. In toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. 3:18 Thorns also and thistles will it bring forth to you; and you will eat the herb of the field. 3:19 By the sweat of your face will you eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken. For you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”
Murder and incest—There is no possible interpretation of Genesis that does not lead to the inescapable conclusion that mankind is descendant from the mating of a mother with her son who killed his brother out of jealousy.
I’ve written before (and since) about my admiration for the story of Genesis—from a literary standpoint it is a remarkable bit of writing in how well it encapsulates humanity’s essential duality—vassal or rebel--and core conflict—obey or question. It has application not only to the existential issues outlined above, but is highly revealing in regards to whom in the story we side with—God or humanity. If you side with God, I would say that it goes beyond piety and reverence, and speaks to a character more inclined to trust authority, play strictly by the rules, and be unforgiving of those who break the rules. If you side with man/woman, you are not simply declaring yourself irreverent or irreligious, but inclined to question authority, not leave well enough alone, and cut most every sinner some slack.
What’s instructive about that dichotomy is that it is pretty reflective of our current sharply divided political landscape in the US. And recent scientific studies seem to support that. In a fairly comprehensive, if slightly dense, article in Salon, Paul Rosenberg summarizes much of the work that’s been done in neuroscience to understand how differently “conservative” and “liberal” minds are wired. Most positively, he writes, “…Conservatives score higher on conscientiousness, while liberals score higher on openness to new experience.” Not so charitably, according to the research, conservatives are prone to a "heightened sensitivity to threat bias." "authoritarianism, dogmatism–intolerance of ambiguity," "social dominance," and "system justification." Liberals are "disorganized, indecisive and perhaps overly drawn to ambiguity."
Or to spin it my way…it is the liberal in us that allows us to understand why Adam and Eve dared to eat of the forbidden fruit, and it is the conservative in us that believes they were rightly punished for it.
To drill down a little deeper into our daily headlines—it is the naturally conservative affinity for law and order that allows conservatives to side with authority figures like the police and CIA, even when those institutions appear to act excessively, because conservatives place a high premium on physical order. They want their Garden of Eden to remain inviolate. On the other hand, it is the liberal affinity for ambiguity that allows it to side with the victims of excessive force…to risk the tranquility of the Garden to see what it’s like to walk in the shoes of another…to risk the fury and punishment of authority to question that authority.
Much has been written as to how much race, class and politics have contributed to the endless nightmarish debate we’re having on our national identity. It’s enlightening--albeit in a depressing way--to consider that these civic wars may be rooted further back in time, before there were any such things as race, class, and politics…back to a time known as paradise.