Tag Archives: children’s rights

Beasts Of The Southern Wild

Last night I chose to RedBox the Oscar-nominated film Beasts Of The Southern Wild. It was a bit out of my comfort zone, I usually prefer science fiction and fantasy, but I watched the movie having no idea about the plot or characters. I had heard and read so much praise for this film that I actually had my doubts it would be any good. Good thing I don’t listen to my doubts that often. BOTSW was a great film, it was well-written and well-executed overall. I don’t want to give away any spoilers for the film, but wanted to say I highly recommend it.

Kidding With Adam and Eve Part 3: The End? Or A New Start ReThinking Genesis 3?

kid adam eve

For the previous three posts in this series:

Kidding With Adam And Eve: A Brief Series: An Introduction

Kidding With Adam and Eve Part 1: Clement of Alexandria

Kidding with Adam and Eve Part 2: Irenaeus of Lyons

To conclude this miniseries, I would like to reflect on what Clement, Irenaeus, and other Church Fathers have taught us about the potential of Adam and Eve as immature children. To see the first human beings not as adult Frankenstein monstrosities born perfect, immortal (or mortal for that matter) but as innocent infants who lacked Wisdom is to challenge the notion of Original Sin. Original Sin has historically been taught, at first, as being passed down biologically. The readings of Genesis that argue in OS’s favor do much to not stress the priestly offices of Adam and Eve. Fortunately both narrative and historical readings of Genesis are bringing Christians back to realizing that these little tikes were not (theologically understood) first as primary in terms of numerology, but first, as in place and vocation. Adam and Eve are members of the first family of worshippers who folks like Irenaeus thought to be part of God’s plan to have the Logos dwell with us from the beginning. It is this teaching of Ancestoral Sin, that idea that Adam and Eve introduced the Curse of Death into this world that, IMO, leads to a better understanding of the whole of the biblical narrative, it remains consistent with a Christus Victor view of atonement as well as free will arguments in favor of the Triune God’s existence.

Some of the political implications for seeing the YHWH’s First Family in the Garden of Eden as small children is to make our children, the future of our societies, the centers of our political thought. Rather than being seen as afterthoughts to be taken care of by the educational system, children’s rights, whether we are talking about labor laws (Here Comes Honey Boo Boo), protections against domestic violence, even our foreign policy where we murder innocent Yemeni and Pakistani children with our inhumane droning policies would get called into question if children were to take center-stage.

This may be the end of this mini-series for now, as it relates to Clement and Irenaeus, but today I ran across a guy named Theophilus of Antioch, who has some of the similar teachings to Clement and Irenaeus on Adam and Eve. I plan on exploring his interpretation in the months ahead. For more, see Brian LePort: Theophilus of Antioch according to Rick Rogers

Are there any other Church Fathers PRIOR TO CONSTANTINE who had this view of Genesis? I would be very interested. Please let me know in the comments below or on twitter or facebook.

Thanks in advance.

Kidding With Adam And Eve Part 2: Irenaeus Of Lyons & ReThinking Genesis 3

For the first two posts on this series see:

Kidding With Adam and Eve: A Brief Series On Re-Thinking Genesis 3: Introduction

Kidding With Adam And Eve Part 1: Clement of Alexandria and ReThinking Genesis 3

In the first part of this mini-series, I wrote about Clement of Alexandria and his belief that Adam and Eve were children when they led to the beginning of humanity’s fall. Clement of Alexandria was addressing a literate, pluralistic society, 2nd century Alexandria, Egypt where the Greco-Roman pantheon held the most power at that time. Clement’s arguments about Eve & Adam are found in his major address to non-Christians, Exhortation to the Greeks.

For the story of Irenaeus, it is significantly different. As I will show, Irenaeus of Lyons was contending for the Christian faith with persons INSIDE the Christian community of his day. Valentinian churchianity was a new phenomenon in Irenaeus’ day. It was the latest craze, and very little is known about these persons except for what Christian apologists say about them (obviously, negative). In Valentinus’ system, human beings were classified into three groups of people: spiritual people, the ensouled normal people, and the earthly/material people who were destined for damnation forever. For more see, Valentinus, NT Canon.org. Now, these Valentinian Gnostics were preaching a religion that was offensive to Irenaeus for two major reasons (I am limiting it here to only TWO for my purposes in Kidding with Adam and Eve): first, the idea that there are THREE classes of people who are HAVE THREE PREDETERMINED destinies does not sit well with Irenaeus, especially since it did not speak of such things in the Old Testament (story of Israel). Secondly, this deterministic deity, is a real douchebag. What’s the point in worshiping a god who created you and me and everything that has matter as naturally evil?

Now, in order to use Scripturally-influenced logic to refute the Valentinians’ erroneous claims, Irenaeus had to argue what the beginning origin of humanity was all about. Irenaeus was a disciple of a Christian presbyter (church leader) who was martyred, his name was Polycarp of Smyrna. Before he was burned alive, Polycarp prayed to “the God of angels and powers, and of every creature,” a God who would bring about “the resurrection of eternal life, both of soul and body, through the incorruption [imparted] by the Holy Ghost.” The Martyrdom of Polycarp, NewAdvent.org Irenaeus somehow migrated to a place what we now call Southern France where he served as a pastor whose goal was it to care for souls, give instruction to laity, and fight heresy. Being a disciple of Polycarp,one of the themes in Irenaeus’ theology is the in-corruptibility of human body & soul at the Resurrection. This comes as part of God’s goodness, God sharing God’s eternality with human beings who freely choose to fellowship with God. “For there is no coercion with God, but a good will [towards us] is present with Him continually.” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 4, Chapter 37).

Irenaeus continues, “But if some had been made by nature bad, and others good, these latter would not be deserving of praise for being good, for such they were created; nor would the former be reprehensible, for thus they were made [originally]. But since men are all of the same nature, able both to hold to what is good; and on the other hand, also the power to cast it from them and not to do it.”(Ibid) Notice what Irenaeus is arguing against: the THREE CLASSES OF PEOPLE argument from the Valentinian Gnostics of his day. Irenaeus goes on to argue against the Valentinian arguments that God COULD HAVE made humanity perfect from the beginning. This is a rather silly argument, Irenaeus notes, because God as divine, is UNCREATED, human beings (like Adam and Eve) are created beings. God made Adam and Eve as infants so that could grow up in maturity to be like the Logos who became FLESH (AH Book 4, Chapter 38). It is only when Adam and Eve are eating real spiritual food (the Bread of Immortality/The perfect Bread of the Father) do they become perfect (share in God’s eternal existence).

As for human destinies, Irenaeus is a big-time advocate for free-will. He contends, “The light does NEVER ENSLAVE ANYONE by necessity, nor again, does God exercise compulsion upon anyone unwilling to accept the exercise of His skill.” (AH Book 4, Chapter 39) If human beings become heretics, apostates, or immoral it is only because we do so by our own fault, since we are, in Irenaeus’ eyes, free agents born with rationality, mental powers that allow us to reject or submit to God. Angels, fyi, also have free will in IoL’s theology, and their superiority over humanity is really just temporary.

As for Eve, Irenaeus does not really mention her by name (and the same with Adam). He sees Eve as having fallen into Heresy by listening to the serpent.

In part 3, the conclusion of this mini-series, I will sum up what Clement and Irenaeus’ “Adam and Eve as Kids” understanding of Genesis 2-3 means for us today, and why.