Theology Midterm

GLOBAL JUSTICE, CHRISTOLOGY, AND CHRISTIAN ETHICS

LISA SOWLE CAHILL Borton Col/ege

~CAMBRIDGEV UNIVERSITY PRESS

'i-(

IS- '0 '~s )')/ -:s

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS

Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, Sao Paulo, Delhi, Mexico City

Cambridge Uruvershy Press The Edinburgh BUIIJmg, Cambndge c B2 BRO, v K

Published in the United States of America by Cambridge Umverury Press, New York

www.cambndge erg Information on chis ririe: www.cambndge.org/978IJ07028777

© Lisa Sowle Cahill 1013

This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any pare may take place without the written

permISSIOn of Cambridge Umversiry Press.

First published 1013

Printed and bound in the United Kingdom by the MPG Books Group

A catalogue recordfOr thn publIcatIOn isavarl4ble from the British Library

Library ofCongrm Cataloguing in Publication data Cahdl, Lisa Sowle, author.

Global justice, Chrisrology and Chrtsdan ethics I Lisa Sowle Cahill. pages em. - (New studies in Chnsrian ethics) Includes blbhograpbrcal references and index.

ISE:"!978+1°7-02877-7 (hardback) I. Chnsdanuy and jusnee. 2. Globalization-Religious aspects-Christianity

jesus Christ-Person and offices. 4. Christian ethics 5. Bible-Theology. L Title. BR1I518q} 201}

241-da3 Wl20404J5

ISBN 978-1-1°7-02877-7 Hardback

Cambridge Universny Press has no responsibility for the petslstence or accuracy of URLs for external or third-parry internet websires referred to in this publication, and does not guarantee that any content on such .....ebsires is,

or will remam, accurate or appropriate.

Creation and evil 45

is precisely the function of religious narratives, stories, and practices ori- ented around maxims such as "All are made in the image of God," "Love your neighbor as yourself," or "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." Though the absolute claims of religions can be co-opted for violent ends, I submit that rhe heart of true religiosity, asdemonstrated in all the major world religions, is humility and gratitude before God; uniry of all in the name of God; and, in moral terms, mutual forbearance, a spirit of reconciliation, inclusive cooperation, and compassionate action againsr suffering.

GENESIS CREATION NARRATIVES

Christian faith puts love and mercy at the center of the narrative of redemprion culminating in Jesus Christ. Readers of the bible and theologians alike often see crearion as mere background ro rhe story of salvation carried forward by Abraham, Moses, Exodus, Sinai, and Jesus. They understand God's liberation of Abraham's descendants and God's covenant at Sinai as signs of saving love.A sort of prelude ro God's action in history, creation is but the first chapter of a human career that went horribly wrong with rhe "fall." Theologians like Aquinas, Luther, and Calvin understand creation ro have established a certain ordering of human life and of nature in general that continues ro guide ethics and politics. Yet the real concern of Christian fairh is subsequent actions of the covenanting God to redeem God's people from the calamity by which, as Calvin put it, we are no longer able to see in creation the "mir- ror" of God's glory." To so view creation is to misunderstand its scope and to short-circuit

the redemptive significance of Genesis. There has been a recent move by biblical rheologians ro reconnect creation rheology ro salvation history, and even to see salvation in terms of God's continuing creative action. Here again, erhical practices and aims influence theological perspectives and priorities. The creation texts are works of moral and religious imagin- ation that shape a communal erhos.v Interest in creation is strong among scholars committed to ecology and ro dialogue among the world's reli- gions. But sometimes ethical categories, salutary in themselves, have left creation in the shadows.

>l John Calvin. lnstiruta of th~ Cbnstian &/igton, vel. I, trans. Henry Beveridge (Grand Rapids. MI: Eerdmans, J981). book I.v'1-4.

" See Wllliarn P. Brown, TheEthos of the Cosmos: TheGenesis of Moral Imagination in the Bible (Grand Rapids. MI: Eerdmans, 1999).

Global justice, cbristology, and Christian ethics

In fact, the twentieth-century marginalization of creation by influen- tial Europeans such as Gerhard von Rad and Karl Barth was itself ethic- ally inspired. Despire Barth's prima facie claim that theology is simply a response ro God's unilateral self-revelation, nee-orthodoxy was motivated in no small part by the need ro reinvigorate the gospel's countercultural edge. Midcentury theologies of election and ofGod's hisrorical command to the church were part of a struggle against the so-called theology of creation devised by National Socialism ro legitimize its ideology." In the t950S,G. Ernest Wright's God Who Acts lifted up God's historical activity as central to the bible, again at the expense of nature and creation. Other factors diminishing attention to creation have been anrhropocenrrism, existentialism, and liberalism, all of which privilege the human perspec- tive and especially human freedom and choice. More recently, political and liberation theologies have rightly accented oppressive social forces, but neglected the rest of nature and humanity's place within it.'

\

In the past decade or two, many biblical theologians have come ro "regard creation as the very foundation upon which all other foundations of biblical faith rest (e.g.,election, covenant, salvation, and eschatologyj.?" !God's creative presence in the world is as real and dynamic as God's [redemption of a people. In fact, the rwo cannot be separated. Terence Fretheim maintains that the present organization of the biblical canon indicates a distinct theological orientation and judgment, as of at least 500 BCE, and mosr probably centuries earlier. The bible places creation before exodus and redemption precisely because, from the perspective of Israelite faith, the experience of salvation refers ro creation as a basic and integral part." Creation lends depth to redemption and suggests its uni- versal frame of reference." The biblical creation narratives establish the essential goodness of exist-

ence (asover against existential suffeting and guilt). They portray relation- ship as rhe divinely modeled form that created goodness takes. Moreover, the creation narratives fill out the substance of good and divinely blessed relationship as mutuality, generosity, and life-givingness ("fruitfulness").

>1 See William P. Brown and S. Dean Mcbride, jr .• Preface to William P. Brown and S. Dean McBride, Jr. (eds.]. God W'lJoCreaUl: bsay! in Honor ofW. 51lJlq TOW71~r(Grand Rapids. MI: Eerdmans, 2000), pp. xi-xhi, and Terence E. Pretherm, God and World in the Old Testament: A Rr:latir;nal1heology a/Cr/atlOn (Nashville: Abingdon Press. 200S), pp. ix-xi.

.6 See Prerheim, God and World, pp. Ix-x. '7 Brown and McBride, Preface to God Who CuatCf, P' xiv. For comribunons to the literature, see Frerheirn, God and World, pp. xi-xiv .

.. Frethelm, God Imd World, pp. xiv-xvl.

.~ Ibid., pp. XIV, xvl.

Creation and evil 47

First, creation isgood. In the vision of the biblical creation narratives, what exists is made, validated, and blessed by God. This is not a particu- larly iconoclastic point; familiar ro most ate the repeated declarations of Genesis I, "God saw that it was good," culminating in "God saw evety- thing that he had made, and indeed, it was vety good" (Gen. 1:31).More interesting to the careful reader are the ways in which this verdict can be complexified. It is useful to compare creation in Genesis with other ancient, more prevalent Near Easrern myths of "creation by combat," like the Enuma Elish. The trouble with s,!!chJ1'Y!hsis that they "ontologjze" evil, see it as primordial, and vindicate violence as God's way ordeal- ing with it.'? The combat myth, probably in a Canaanite (Ugariric) ver- sion, did leave its mark on the biblical narrative (e.g., Job 26:7-t4; Ps. 74:t2-17, 89:5-14), but in a minority voice. According to the prevailing witness, God creates with remarkable ease, even empowering ("letting") the waters and the earth to share in the process" and commissioning all living things to "be fruitful" in their own ways. It is intriguing, therefore, that the God of Genesis 1says to humans not

only that they should be fruitful, multiply, and fill the earth, but also that they must "subdue" it and, in troublesome wording, "have dominion" over all that lives (Gen. 1:28).Chaos, perhaps not; but is there some hint here of unruliness, of disorder, in the world as originally made, even before the fall? And is there some way to think of a "not yet ordered quality" without pulling that quality into an Augustinian framework, in which the systematic ordeting of all things is constitutive of the very meaning of goodness? Catherine Keller notes that chaos precedes the Creator's activity (Gen. 1:2). The Creator's action models creative responsiveness ro "chaos" as "uncertainty, unpredictability, turbulence, and cornplexiry," Problematizing "order" in nature harks back to the discussion of evo- lution and the prospect that nature may be inherently multivalent and multidirectional. Disorder, the unpredictability of complex interactions, and divergent

natural needs and purposes may not be evil in themselves. They may be the necessary conditions of growth and creativity. Yet they do tequire certain human responses. There will be competitive goods and goals

JO J. Richard Middleton. 7h~ Libadtmg lrnag~: 7h~ Imago Dti m Gemms 1 (Grand Rapids, Ml: Brazos Press, 2005), p. 254. See also J. Richard Middleton, "Created in the Image of a Violem God? The Ethical Problem of the Conquest of Chaos in Biblical Creation Texts," Interpretation, 58/4(October 2004), pr· 341-H·

II Middleton, Liberating Image, pp 264-5. See also W. Sibley Towner's review of Middleton's Lihmmng Image in Inurprrtation. 59/4 {October 2005). pp. 408-11.

J' Catherine Keller, "The Lost Chaos of Creation," LiVing PuLpit. 9:2 (2000), pp. 4-5.

Global justice, christology, and Christian ethics

within humans, among humans, and among different forms of life.These cannot always be "harmonized," and perhaps they should not be. Still, humans are called to enhance life and diminish suffering. The command ro humans to take responsibility for creation's unsynchronizarion, even when they are not to blame for it, even in some way to "subdue" it, dis- closes the narure of "evil" as responsibility's converse. Moral evil is the failure to avoid or minimize the harm that plurality and contingency can cause, to manipulate contingent drives and ends for selfish advantage, and to resolveconflicts through domination of perceived competitors. Genesis does nor answer the question of why aspecrs of creation as humans know it should be liable to causing harm. It does answer the question of the fit- ting human response, the response that images God. The Lord permits the first human to name the other creatures, con-

noting God-given powet and authority. In the ancient world and in the Hebrew Bible, names indicate the essential quality of something; ro know someone's name is ro have (at ro be given) power in relation ro that person. The naming of rhe animals by the human suggests a pro- cess of understanding, familiarizing, and assuming power as responsibil- ity. Humans within the world are ro take responsibility for "every living creature" (a mandate that seems ro call fat the addition of a "helper" and "partner", v; 18). Together, human beings, as commissioned by God, ate to help bring beneficent order to a creation that is not already orderly and harmonious in every vliay. This approach does not explain the origin of disorder or the rationale,

if any, behind it. It simply accepts that unordered ness and potential con- flict do exist, that creation is good nonetheless, and that the goodness of creation includes human responsibility to "subdue" at least some aspects of earthly existence as we are given it. In this frame, "dominion" does not mean destructive or prideful domination, but "ruling" that emulates God's wisdom and care. Because all humans ate in God's image, this ruling is democratized ro all, not merely to a kingly or royal subset." The purpose of the special role with which God commissions humanity is "rule within the ecosphere in God's manner,"> The picture of creation's goodness receives still another nuance from

the story of humanity's sequential fabrication by God from preexisting materials. God personally fashions and gives life ro each human being.

)l Pretheim, God {lnd World, pp. 50-3. ,~ W. Sibley Towner. "Clones of Cod. Genesis 1:26-28 and the Image of God in the Hebrew Bible," InUrprn4ltOll, 59/4 (October Z00S). p. 348.

Creation and evil 49

Yet, at stage one, humanity is determined by its maker to be "not yet good" - a fact expressed by God in view of the human's loneliness. The human needs a suirable kind of "helper" and "partner." Together, God and crearure venrure an unsuccessful trial of various candidates for the posirion (Gen. 2:18-20). Although the animals are already "good," none are a good "fit" wirh the needs and capacities of the human. The search process and eventual creation of the woman as a solution to the man's "nor good» solirude reinforce rhe poinr rhar created goodness and respon- sibility rake the form of relationship - between God and the first human, between the two humans together, and finally between the pair and God. And the humans are always envisioned as part of a larger created envir- onmenr with which they are also in relation and which even constitutes them (humaniry derives from "dust of the ground"; Gen. 2:7)· From the beginning, whether in Genesis I or 2, God creates in multi-

pies. "In the beginning ... God created the heavens and the earth" (Gen. 1:1; cf. 2:4). And crearures generate their own relationships. All living creatures, and in Genesis I even nonliving ones, have a generative relation to successivecreations. "Let the waters bring forth swarms of living crea- tures" (1:20). Among living rhings, fruirfulness is premised upon multipli- city and relationship within every distinct kind or species. Likewise, the creation of humans is complere and good, as indicated in borh Genesis crearion stories, when there is more than one of them. The first sexually undifferentiared "earth creature" (ha-adam) (2:5)is soon joined by a part- ner.The creation of humanity is complete when there is a pair of sexually different humans, a man ('iss) and woman ('issa) (2:2r-4)." Together the female and male are creared in the image of God (1:27).

Unique among creatures, they disclose in a special way the reality of One who remains "wholly orher.?" The aspect of humanity that constitutes rhe image is mutual and creative relationship, not intelligence, freedom, or a human soul. Humans, in the image of God, are fulfilled in relationship to others. Humans are essentially social creatures. Together the firsr pair takes up the commands to "be fruitful" of their own kind and to assume responsibility for fellow humanity and for creatures of other kinds (1:28;

II The first human is called ha-'adam in a play on the word for {he earth or ground, from which "i(~was taken- )Ja-tldamah. After the creation of the second human, distinct words for male and female are employed (' iss and 'iSIR). See Phyllis Trible. God and tht Rhetoric of Sexuality (PhJaddphia: Fortress PII:SS, (978), pp. 76-80. 94-J05.

JO For 3. review of interpretations of [he image and of current proposals. see Towner, "Clones of Godj" and }anell Johnson. "Berweee Text and Sermon: Genesis 1:26-28," Interpretation, 59h (AprH200~). pp. 176-9.

5° Global justice, cbristology, and Christian ethics

2:15,18). The "complicated responsibility" of humanity, "for and with the Other," and for the earth, "mediates the very presence of God."? The image as personal, relational, and reciprocal is supported by the

"let us" rhetoric in Gen. 1:26 (seealso 3:22, H:7). The Priestly author and editor does not, of course, refer ahead to the doctrine of the Triniry. Most scholars agree that the plural divine subject reflects an earlier polythe- istic notion of a retinue of divine beings, a "Divine Council," clustered around a heavenly king (seealso I Kings 22:19-23; Job 1:16, 2:1; Ps. 82, 89: 5-7; Isa. 6:1-8; and Jer. 2j:l8). Yet rhis plurality can be recaptured within monotheistic faith as implying that "whatever it is in human beings that mirrors God mirrors the divine realm as a whole.?" Undeniably, the nature of divine relations with humaniry is in the

Hebrew Bible a complex matter, even in Genesis. "At times rhe reader finds a God who is angry, jealous, and a deliverer of death and destruc- tion against those who obstruct the divine plan. At other times, God appears compassionate and forgiving.'~' But the fundamenral and over- arching role of the creation narrative in the Pentateuch makes it plausible for communities of faith to select its depiction of God as the one that ultimately controls the interpretation of other narratives of divine activity. The ethical and political test elaborated in the first chapter of this book is operarive in the discernment process. In Genesis I and 2, God does not rule as a despot or as an angry monarch, but with love, life-givingness, and generosity. God even acts as the "servant" of the human image in ere- arion by determining to make for the first human a mosr suitable partner and permitting the human to test whether the goal has been achieved." The human image of God takes shape in relation to this model. God is mirrored in human dialogue, joinr decision making, and active cooper- ation cocreate and sustain life. The image of God in humanity is found in relationship that recog-

nizes the "other" as a suitable partner for companionship and help." The imaginative device of God taking the woman from the man's rib

J~ Knsnn M. Swenson, "Care and Keeping East of Eden: Gen 4:1-16 in Light of Gen 1.-3," lntrrpretanon, 60/4 (October 2.006), p. 373.

l~Towner, "Clones of God," 3. J9 Johnson. "Between Text and Sermon," 1.This complexity will be addressed later in the chapter. 4° Frecbeim, God and World, pp. 48-60. 4' The Hebrew word for "helper" {'t'ur} should be understood to mean, not a subordinate, but an equal companion. a "suitable counreepan." In fact, the word Can even be used to refer (0 God as the savior of Israel. See Trible, God and the Rhrtori, o!Sexuality. P: 90; and Carol Meyers, Discovering Eve: Ancimt Israelite Women in Context (Oxford: Oxford Universiry Press. 1988), p.85·

51 underscores the uniry of two diffetentialed creatures in a single embodied nature, a one-flesh unity and a social unity. Two human beings not joined by "blood ties" or kinship, nor yet in sexual union, not certainly by the (later) "institution" of marriage, are drawn together as "one." Proclaims the first human in recognizing a counterpart: "This ar last is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh" (2:23). The first man compates the woman to rhe animals, after all, not to human males. He recognizes her not specif- ically as a "woman," but as first and foremost a human being, much ber- rer than any other "living creature" to remedy his loneliness (z:18-20). The second human's creation isa model for human relationships in gen-

eral, as constituted by a sort of "different sameness." Human beings ate irreducibly unique but called to mutuality in one-flesh relationship. They are to be "helpers" and parmers for one another. As constitutively dif- ferent human individuals, they are constitutively destined for fellowship. Their sociality is not merely psychological at spiritual; it has an inherent reference to shared life in the material world. Materialiry or physicality is a necessary condition of human personhood. Embodiment is a qual- iry nor shared wirh God, but it is still necessary for humans to "image" God. In Genesis 2, it is specifically their embodiment that distinguishes the woman and man as "different" partners in relationship, and it is their embodiment as 'same" that allows mutual recognition (though the story is told from the man's point of view). The exclamation of the first man, when presented with rhe first human

"other," represents the capacity for fellowship of all human beings, inher- ent in our embodied connectedness and communicative capacity: "This at last is bone of my bones, fleshofmy flesh" (2:23). Karl Barth seesimage as our call to "fellow-humanity," to "freedom in fellowship." "God created man in His own image in the fact that He did not create him alone but in this connexion and fellowship," for God, like humanity, "is not solitary," but properly" in connexion and fellowshlp/" The human body establishes basic needs that society is meant to

serve for everyone in every culture. The body also makes it possible to communicate and cooperate with others, and to express our spiritual cap- acities in art and religious practices. Above all, rhe human body makes it possible to recognize and acknowledge other human beings as like ourselves,with the same essential needs and vulnerabilities, and aspersons wirh whom we can enter into relationship. Human embodiment and

Creation and evil

... Karl Barth, Church DQgrmuu'i Ill/", (Edinburgh: T & T Clark. 1961), p, 117. iJ Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics lJIh (Edinburgh. T &T Clark, 1960), p. 32+

52 Globaljustice, cbristology, and Christian ethics

inherent socialiry make it possible to name some fundamental and uni- versal goods that every human seeks in cooperation with other humans. Among the most obvious are food, shelter, and the labor that provides these: reproduction of the species and the institutions that organize and socialize reproduction, that is, marriage and family: and political organ- ization that arranges social roles to the mutual benefit of society's mem- bers and defines means of access to the basic goods. (The universality of basic goods will be elaborated in Chapter 7)· The embodied differences of the first two, accentuated by their naked-

ness) are part of their creation for embrace and partnership. They are not yet cause for suffering or strife (2:25). "Bone of my bones, flesh of my flesh" fellowship is the moral ideal or critetion that should structure all human differences in relationships that image God. From the beginning of their existence, God is in beneficent relation to humans; so to be in God's image, humans are to be in similar relations with each other. In Genesis, the two most fundamental of all embodied social endeavors are family and work. Each is connected to the creation of the human body in God's image, because each constitutes a basic form of relationship, in which bodily needs and capacities bring people rogether cooperatively, in joint projects. Together, humans ate charged to care for and work with the rest of creation and to be the parents and educators of future genera dons. Though the creation stories deal directly with only two individuals,

these stories implicitly refer "image" to larger communities and society. The mandates to be fruitful by bearing children and to work project for- ward to human community, ro social identities created through shared practices. A collective sense of humanity and of the image is conveyed in the first version by the terms of God's decision to create ("let us make humankind in our image": r.z.e), by the double use of the plural "them" to indicate both "humankind" and "image" (1:27), and by God's decision to "let them have dominion" (1:26). In the second version, the collective is suggested by the Hebrew word for the first human being ("ha-adam" in 2:7), which can be used either singly or collectively." The collective image of God in humans begins with the first pair, expands via intergenera- tional relations, and moves outward to all the forms of collective human endeavor necessary to sustain human goods and fulfill human porenrials. In Genesis, creation is neither static nor a past event. Creation has a

forward momentum, evident in the command to "subdue the earth" and in the blessing of fertility (1:28), as well as in the idea that the humans

H Towner, "Clones of God," PP 3-4.

Creationand evil 53

are nor only [0 "keep" or preserve the garden, bur also to "rill" or culti- vate it (2:15). Humans are not placed in creation as a completed paradise for their passive enjoyment, or even for protective conservation. Work, as endowing human life with purpose and fulfillment and as an activity rhar images God's own creating, is a fundamental aspect of human existence." Throughout the book of Genesis, work on the land, tilling the land, and reaping the bounty of rhe land are pan of God's promises. As humans cre- ate and nurture the next generation, they contribute "procreatively" to the future of all for which God conrinues to provide inreractively. Procreation establishes the family and kin groups that carry God's promises forward, in Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The embodied work of procreation, par- enthood, and conrribution to the ongoing life of extended families blesses humans with their most fundamenral and universal experiences of love, Out of which they learn concern for others and the discipline of cultivat- ing goods and wholes orher than or larger than the self. Two literary devices in Genesis link originally diverse sources. They are

the "generations" formula, which occurs eleven times in Genesis, and the divine "promises" of blessing, beginning immediately after the creation of male and female in God's image (1:28), and eventually extended to "all the families of the earth" through Abraham (12:3)." The generations and promises themes extend the relation and calling of two first individuals into communal vocations, linking the creation of humanity with fam- ily histories and community, with the well-being of the earth and of the earth's diverse peoples, concretizing the universality of God's continuing creation. Though all creation remains under the active reign of God," creation

is vulnerable to human misdoing. Humans as in God's image must fulfill a moral mandate. They are to unite differences in fellowship, fulfilling God's promises through family, social cooperation and work, and pro- ductive stewardship of the environment.

THE fALL

Into this dynamic of promise intrudes "the fall," dramatized in Genesis 3- This srory is often inrcrprered as a straightforward narrative of Willful

l~ Claus Westermann. Creanon, trans. John J. Scullion, S J. (Philadelphia: Ponress Press. 1974). pp.80-2. .

• 6 Thomas W. Mann, " 'All [he Families of [he Earth': The Theological Unify of Genesis," Interpretation, 4)/4 (1991). P: 34}·

," Fretheim, God Ilnd World. pr· 4-5, B. 172-3.

54 Global justice, cbristology, and Christian ethics

ingratitude and disobedience to God. Yet the story of Eve and Adam's expulsion from the garden is actually complex and ambiguous. Feminist scholar Phyllis Trible noted long ago that, just as the creation story has been misconstrued to validate the inferiority of women, so the fall story has been misread to set trouble in paradise on Eve's side of the ledger." In fact, when the woman interacts with the serpent (3"-5), [he man is also present (3'6). Both the active and [he passive sinner are equally guilty, and the consequences of their sin bring an ironic reversal. The passivepartner in crime will be forced to earn a living with [oil and exertion (3'i7-19). The active agem will be subject to the uncontrollable pain of childbirth and to [he "rule" of the man (3:16).49 In addition to the question of relative human guilt and punishment,

the narrative of Genesis 3 suggests further perplexing questions. Indeed, [he story does not come together in a dear picture of created harmony, willful wrongdoing, and unequivocal guilt and responsibility. Instead, it reflects evil's enigmatic and even absurd quality, as well as rhe blurry boundaries of moral agency and the ineluctable quality of sin. The story ishighly suggestive and rich with layers of psychological and socialmean- ing. No one reading can resolve its contradictions or do justice coitssym- bolic depth. One common interpretive mistake is. in my view, to try (0 explain

the origin of evil in terms of some "necessary" aspect of God's good cre- ation. For instance, the humans' liability to sin is sometimes seen as an unavoidable concomitant of human freedom." Such explanations reflect a perceived need to vindicate the Creator's goodness and justice. But Genesis really offers no such explanation, fot it does not conceive of the divine ways as in need of justificarion. I agree with theologian Terrence Tilley that "theodicy is legerdemain." Theodicies attempt unbiblical and unpersuasive "rational" answers, while "the testimonies of scripture and tradition about God and suffering ate obscured." The testimony of the creation narratives about evil and suffering is that humans should respond to it in the way the Creator does and should do so in relationship with God. Terence Frerheim wiselyentitles his chapter on the fall "Creation at

~I Tnble, God and rhrRhetonc ofSrxuallty, pp. 72, 112-14, 12,6-31. ~9 Ibid. lO Even Frerhelm makes an uncharacteristic departure from the content of Genesis on this score. He speculates, "For God ro have forced compliance to rhc divine will and not allowed creatures {he freedom to fail would have been (0 deny any genuine relationship"; Cod and World, p. 70.

II Terrence W. Tilley, Prologue to Anthony J. Tambasco (ed ), tht Bib/~ on Suffmng: Sonal and PolmcalImplications (New York: Pauhsr Press, 200r), P: I.

Creation and evil 55

Risk: Disrupted, Endangered, Restored (Genesis 3-11).'" This title makes two important points. First, the fall portrays the reality of human sin but does so from the

standpoint of the possibility of salvation, not from the standpoint of its ultimate origin and rationale. Second, the fall must be seen in light of the first eleven chapters of Genesis, the "primeval history" (and indeed of the whole Pentateuch). Seen as a whole up to the calling of Abraham (Gen. rz), the narrative does not explain why evil exists, so much as examine its dynamics, implying strategies of reform. Evil exists primarily as dis- ruption of relationships; the proper response is to restore those relation- ships in alignment with God's continuing activity as Creator, Savior, and Susrainer, Genesis 3makes it hard to pinpoint the precise origin or "first moment"

of moral evil. It also makes it hard to see the sin of the fitst humans as truly "original" or as an entirely "free" choice, The role of the serpent is especially puzzling. Why does the serpent suggest to the woman that the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden would be good to eat (3=1-4), even though God has apparently forbidden it (Z:9, z:ty), all creatures are "good," and "sin" has not yet occurred?" Genesis I already intimates that creation is not "naturally" orderly in every respect - hence humans are to subdue, name. and exercise dominion over destructive varieties of dis- order. But the setpent, described as "crafty" (3'1), seems bent on inducing in the woman a process of rationalization or self-deception toward very questionable ends. She does not come up with this herself. The humans ate portrayed as "naked" and "not ashamed" (2:25). This

characterization, albeit with sexual overtones, connotes a more general state of innocence and defenselessness." The serpent. in contrast. comes across as manipulative, unaccountably insinuating doubt, suspicion, and disharmony into the human-divine relationship. Though nor overtly "evil," the serpent is not neutral either. The serpent is disruptive. He is immediately successful in destabilizing the woman's trusting relation to

5' Frerheim, God and World, P: 69. II Genesis 2'9 actually mentions two trees in the middle of the garden, the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. In Genesis 2:17, God tells the first human (before the creation of the second) not to eat of the latter. the former having apparently dropped out of the picture. Genesis 3 mentions only a singular "eree in {he middle of the gardeo," but the serpent's predic- tions about the consequences of euing, "Youwill nor die ... and you will be like God, knowing good and evil" (3·4-5), allu~e to both. Moreover, the two are sent away from the garden Jest they "take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever" (p.2). The story is likely a combination of fWO versions or two traditions about the trees, borrowing from other ancient myths.

\4 Trible, God and the RhetOriC a/Sexuality. P.109.

56 Globaljustice, christology,and Christian ethics

God. "Youwill not die ... you will be like God, knowing good and evil" (3:4). The intelligence of their conversation is ironic. The woman's first and fatal mistake is to not name the serpent for what he is, not subduehis promptings, and not assume righrful dominion as one made in the divine image. Yet it is not without cause that the woman, questioned by the Lord,

tries to evade responsibility with the rejoinder, "The serpent tricked me" (3=13). The man's similar excuse is that "she gave me fruit from the tree, and I ate," but he points our even more boldly that it was the same woman "whom you gave to be with me" (3:12). Of course, the woman could just as easily have taken God to task for creating the serpent. God does not accept the blame game and declares the serpent cursed for hav- ing started the process (3'14).But this only reinforces the impression that moral evil and responsibility originate prior to human choices. And it cerrainly does not resolve the issue of why God so made the world in the first place. If rhe fall narrative isnot an account of the originofevil, it does capture

evil's captivating dynamics, the dynamics of what later came to be called "original" sin. Genesis 3 shows us how evil entraps human agency. Once evil has blighted our relationships, it becomes unavoidable for each of us. The inevitability of sin is not due to a blot on the soul, a defect inherited through sexual reproduction, or a twist in the wills of individual agents. It is due ro a combination of factors: the evolved and "natura!" instinct of evety living thing (and gtoUp) to preserve itself and its advantages, an instinct that is not morally wrong in itself; the social and practical ways in which identity and selfhood necessarily are consrirured; the gradual developmenr of moral awareness in all persons; and the de facto perva- sivenessof biased social behavior. "Social" explanations oforiginal sin haveoften been rejected asnot doing

justice to sin's universality and necessity. This line of critique, however, resrs on the wrong assumption that the self isessentially independent of its social environment and able in principle to resist mere "socialization." As has been shown by pragmatists like Charles Sanders Peirce, G. H. Mead, and William James, and more recently by Catherine Keller and Charles Taylor, identity, agency,and freedom alwaysarise within a COntextof inter- actions among selvesand all the aspects of their environmenrs.s Solidarity,

II The pragmatists and Taylor were discussed In the preceding chapter. See also Catherine Keller, From a Broken Wt'b: Separation, Sexism and Srlf(Boston: Beacon Press. 1986); and Faa o/rhi' Deep: A Theology ofBuoming (London: Routledge. 2003).

Creation and evil 57

not individuality, is the most illuminating framework for understanding sin" - as it will be also for salvation. Perhaps the serpent stands for thepreexisting and thepractical character

of human implication in waywardness, in guilty relationships in which one seems to be caught even before recognizing them for what they are. While yet in a state of innocence, the woman is drawn into a process of rationalization, impairing her capacity fot clear-eyed and responsible judgment. The story presents human evil as somehow tied to knowledge, specifically moral knowledge ("knowledge of good and evil") and to the conditions under which moral knowledge is obtained. Moral knowledge concerns tighr relationships, relationships that humans can affect and for which they have responsibility. The woman desires such knowledge but adopts a strategy to acquire it that compromises her relationship to God and consequently her moral relationships. She allows the setpent to shape her understanding of what she can, does, and should know. Rationalization is not jusr a willful, self-generated seties of intellectual

conrortions. It is a biased yet plausible interpretation of events and pos- sibilities, pulled together from among options, within an environment, by an interested agent, to constitute a viewpoint that legitimates action. Rationalization isa strategy of self-deception. Rationalization depends on preexisting contexts and relationships, and on already being invested in certain outcomes. It is a warped exercise of practical reason about real goods to be achieved, an exercise in which the self averts attention from the real worth of various goods, the relation among the goods, and the effects that seeking a good, at a certain time, in a certain way, will have on other beings. Inreraction with the serpent, which the story portrays as initially unex-

ceptional, gradually induces the woman to reason in the wrong way about goods available to her. She privileges a perceived opportunity for wisdom (j:6) over her trusting relation with God and over her vocation !O image God's rule, a vocation she should be fulfilling in partnership with her (silent) partner, The crux of the woman's sin is forgetting her own dignity within creation. In addition to her failure ro order her decision rightly regarding the serpent, the man, and wisdom, the woman also fails to

~ ~ed Pc.[Crs. Sin: Radical Evil in Soul and Society (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1994), P: jo. On sm, original sin, and the social nature of sin, see Peters, Sin, Andrew Sung Park, 1h~WQund~d Heart of God: 'Ibr AHlin Concept of Han and tht CJmstian Docmne (JfSin (Nashville; Abingdon Press, 1992); Tatha Wiley. Origina/Sm: Origins, Deoelopmenn. Contemporary Mtanings (New York; Paulist Press, 2002); and Darlene Fozard Weaver. "How Sin Works; A Review Essay," Journal of Rt/'glOus Ethics, 29 (200I). pp. 473-501.

Global justice, christology, and Christian ethics

order her relation to the "good" tree and its attractive fruit. Instead, her sense experience, her alfections, and her reasoning process all confirm the serpent's enticements. Though the woman's moral state in the process prior to eating the fruit

could be termed "temptation" but not yet sin, the matter is not so simple. In fact, the woman, by conversing with rhe serpent, is already participat- ing in a social interaction that has power to draw her consciousness, her thoughts, her emotions, and her imagination away from God's life-giving activity. Responsibility, accountability, and guilt emerge in a process, not at a "point." What is true of the woman is also true of all other humans. We develop moral consciousness already within social relarions that are dangerous if not already damaging. We understand what is "good and evil" within contexts that potentially distort our evaluation of goods and of how priorirization of goods for ourselves affects others with whom we are in relationship (personally or through social structures). Though the serpent encourages the woman to adopt a distorted per-

spective on knowledge and its fruits, the serpent's predictions are not entirely wrong. A symbol in the ancient Near East ofwisdom and immor- tality, the serpent delivers on half of his promise that the woman will enjoy both. The humans will in fact die after their eating, but they do gain knowledge: "the eyes of both were opened" (3:7). Even God con- cedes rhar the humans had "become like one of us, knowing good and evil" (}:22). But did they know "good and evil" like God - as the serpem had predicted? Some interpreters see the fall as a fall "upward" into maturity and

understanding," Perhaps the first pair needed to change, and "should" have. "They had to enter the world of work, sweat, and tears, of child- bearing and the joys and frustrations of sexual relations (Gen. 3:16-19), and they had to do so at the price of surrendering a life wirhout risk and without end.?" But the details of the story do not support this view.Afrer all, life in the garden before the fall was already not risk-free, nor had immortality been explicirly promised (though threat of death was part of God's warning to obey; 2:17). In fact, death is presented as a consequence of the man's having been taken out of dust in the first place (P9). It is

l7 See Prerheim. God and World, p. 7I. . II Joseph Blenktnsopp. Treasurer Old and New' Dsays m ,the TJ;(~/ogyof tht Pentereuch (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmam, 2004), p. JOI. The chapter is ruled GJlgamesh and Adam: Wisdom through Experience In Gdgamesh and in the Biblical SlOry of the Man, the Woman. and the Snake."

Creation and evil 59 hard ro claim either rhar rhe garden was a fool's paradise or rhar rhe nar- rarive itself presents rhe fall in a positive lighr. Byearing rhe fruit, rhe first humans do come ro know what good and

evil are, and in rhis way they are more like God. But Eve is unlike God in rhar, when she reaches the capacity and rhe duty ro recognize evil, she is already involved in its processes. In their state of original nakedness, the couple is naive and vulnerable, like children whose moral sense and sense of self ate not far developed. Infants and children naturally, innocently, and unconsciously seek to have their own needs met, and only gradually become aware that others have similar needs and that others are affected by one's choices. (This is why Augustine's illustration of original sin with a "greedy" nursing infant is ludicrous and unconvlnclng.)? By the time moral awareness emerges, a child is already involved in practices that pri- oritize the needs of the self Ir is then difficult ro reverse the pattern. One's emergent moral sense is already biased coconrinue pre-moral behavior of advantage ro the self. It is much easier and more attractive co "justify" ongoing or accustomed behaviors and rarionales that work to one's advan- tage than to widen the scope of moral consideration. The environment is not just an environment; it is a constituting aspect

of the self and its habits. To say that selfish behavior is irresponsible and sinful is not co say that the good of the self is not a proper end among others. Ir is often morally necessary ro assert the needs and goods of the self(orof a group) over against oppressive relations and structures." Also, one has an obligation ro advocate for those for whom one is most respon- sible bJ' virrue of special relations, such as children in one's care. But at the root of all oppressive structures is disproportionate self-interest that has successfully arranged the social system in its service. Moral evil and oppression may be described verysimply as the violation of some relation- ships or persons, so rhat different persons can lay claim to more power, goods, and benefits than they deserve. It is not only the relation between the serpent and the woman that is

problematic even before the fatal decision to take and eat. The relation of the two humans is equally indicative of the impending disaster. The rwo are ro embody God's image as rogether ordering in a life-giving way.YerGenesis never depicts the couple as acrually engaging in activ- ities thar fulfill this calling. The first active move after the woman's

l~ Augustine, ConfeSSions. Lvil (.r, Valc~ie Saiving Goldsfetn, "Ihe Human Situation: A Feminine View," ]ollmal of Religion, 40 (ApnI196o), pp. 100-11..

60 Global [ustice, cbristo logy, and Christian ethics

crearion is her solo rejoinder ro the serpem, repeating God's command. From there the conversation goes downhill. The man and woman do not react together at all, much less demonstrate equality, reciprocity, and mutual care. The woman and man are both in the garden when the serpem approaches (3:6), but they do not reflect rogether about God, the garden, the tree, the serpent, their own relationship, or the proposal before them. The woman is reflective with the serpent, who is not her "helper": if the man is reflective he certainly keeps quiet about it. She talks, he sits, she takes and eats and gives, he eats. Then their eyes"were opened" - passive voice. Their first joint actions seem to be making loinclorhs (3:7) and hiding from God (3:8). Questioned, they hurl accu- sations rather than face up ro their shared vocation and their failure to assume it. Even before the pair disobeys the tree command, they are already

exhibiting a "fall" from unified relationship. Though created "good," the human beings did not waste much time in destabilizing the situation. Separately eating the fruit, the two fall definitively out of order ro God, each other, and the other aspects of creation. "Life has lost to Death, har- mony ro hostility, unity and fulfillment ro fragmentation and dispersion. The divine, human, animal, and plant worlds are all adversely affected ... Truly a love story gone awry:~' As God announces (not commands)." the human body will now resist

the blessings of fruitfulness and land, turning blessings into the painful labor of childbirth and agriculture (3:16-t9)6, The woman will "desire" her lost union with the man, but he will now "rule over" her, in a fallen way (3'!6). The man soon names "his wife," as he did the animals (3:20). Patriarchy designates the rule of man over woman, but patriarchy is much more (han the institution of marriage, a family system, or a system of sexual subordination. "It is a domination system. Such systems, then and now, are characterized ... by 'unjust economic relarlons, oppressive political relarions, biased race relations, patriarchal gender relations, hierarchical power relations, and the use of violence [0 maimain them

6r Trible, God and th~Rhaonc of Sesualny, p. 139. 6, There is a modern consensus, stimulated not least of .allby femimst biblical interpretation. that the so-called curses and punishments of GenesIs 3 are not divine decrees to be observed for- ever. They are God's announcement or dedaration of (he consequences that Eve and Adam (and (he serpent) have broughc on themselves and the test of crearfon. These consequences arc to be resisted and Hans formed as part of the process of redemption. See Frechclrn, God and lX/or/d. p.75·

6l Carol Meyers proposes that the Hebrew phrasmg suggests Eve is not destined to suffer in child- birth specifically, bur through a grealer number of pregnancIes, stress and grief in parenting., and toil in general See Meyers, Discovering £/1(, pp 103-9,118

Creation and evil 61

aII.'''6, Patriarchy exemplifies and is the first instance of all social domin- ation systems, especially ones built around ideologies that inscribe social inequality in the innate differences of human bodies. Rather than rec- onciling conflicts and rectifying harms among creatures, such systems exploit them to the advantage of a few. Domination systems ate the deplorable result of human betrayal of God's image. Following on their parents' choice, Cain and Abel present an almost

immediate and ultimate destruction of God-imaging relationship. In a corruption of the embodied "generations" trajectory of creation, which ought to be the basis and school of fellowship, Adam and Eve's children pull their parents' legacy into the future in terrifying ways. The brothers divide in conflict over the value and rights of their work on the land, and its social and religious significance. Their fraternal and human one-flesh unity ends in fratricidal violence, causing further alienation from the earth itself and exile from kindred and community kl-14). The later bestowal of blessing on Noah and his sons in Genesis 9,with its compan- ion outlawing of murder, confirms that human life in the image of God especially excludes the killing of other human beings (9:6). Sin consists not in wanting to know good and evil, but in seeking

undue control over the conditions and results of this knowledge, with- out humility about the scope of one's power or the justice of one's vision. Cain is understandably disappointed that God does not look favorably on hisoffering, preferring that ofhis brother. This preference seems arbitrary. Cain's real fault is in reacting with rage and not accepting that God's waysare not always explained." Humans and their communities sin when they, like Cain, make themselves and their particular projects the center of religion and morality, justifying the destruction of their competitors.

BETWEEN SIN AND REDBMPT10N: ABRAHAM.

SARAH, AND HAGAR

The story of redemption through God's chosen people Israel begins with the call of Abraham (Genesis 12), a character whose trust in God amidst uncertainty and "unfair" demands contrasts strongly with Cain. The srory begins abruptly, as the Lord simply and suddenly speaks ro Abraham (Abram), summoning him to abandon all that is familiar and

6.1 Wiley, OrIginal Sin, P' ~7,clttng Walter Wink. Engagmg the Powers: Discernmenr and Resistana m a 'lJ?orJdojDomination (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, J992), p. 107.

6\ See Frerheim, God and W/Jr/d, p. 78.

Global justice, cbristology, and Christian ethics

journey into the unknown. "Go from your country and YOUtkindred and your father's house to the land that I will show you ... So Abram went" (Gen. 12:1, 4). Abraham leaves his home in southern Mesopotamia C'Ur of the Chaldeans", II:28) and travels into the "promised land" of Canaan, where he makes a covenant with the Lord (Gen. 121:6-8). With divine help, Abraham and his wife, Sarah, already past childbearing age, estab- lish a family line through which God's plan of redemption will be real- ized (Gen. Z1:1-3). Abraham's trust in the ways of the unknowable God is proved in his

obedience to the command to sacrifice his son, Isaac, the child through whom Abraham had expected God to fulfill the promise to "make of you a great nation." This demand is no more intelligible in human terms than God's command not ro eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, God's creation of a world that humans need ro "subdue" lest they fall into evil, or God's preference for Abel's offering over that of Cain. In fact, this and other commands of God deserve to be quesrioned from a moral standpoint. But the point of the story is that Abraham does not falter in his relation to God or his confidence in God's agenda: "I will bless you, and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing ... and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed" (12:2-3). The srory ofAbraham, Sarah, and Isaac, however, is no mote a story of

unambiguous faith than is the story of Adam and Eve a story of unam- biguous sin. While Abraham is usually remembered as a paragon of trust, first he and then Sarah doubt the predicted miracle birth, laughing at the news (17:17, 18:12).And Abraham eventually goes along with Sarah's plan to take the matter into their own hands. Thus commences an incident that shows that even the patriarchs and matriarchs of God's chosen live in a world marked by evil and are not immune [0 its perverse practices or exempt from its "domination systems." The couple's wrongdoing does not stop with their determination to control a course of events that God is inexplicably allowing to go "off course." Confronted with continuing "barrenness," Sarah proposes to use her foreign slave, Hagar, as surrogate mother, and Abraham approves (16:2). On the surface, it may look like all the evil plans are motivated by

Sarah. No doubt the narrative was recorded by a male editor interested in protecting Abraham as a model of faith. Yet the editor of Genesis has also placed the srory of Abraham under the judgment of the srory of Adam. Ironically, Abraham repeatSAdam's sin by nor making this a well-considered, truly joint, and much more prudent decision. The pair's actions also illustrate the way patriarchy structures the institutions of

Creation and evil

childbearing, as projected by Genesis 3.Rather than patiently wait for the blessing of fruitfulness to be fulfilled through their own one-flesh part- nership, rhey exploit Hagar's powerlessness and fertiliry. She is ordered to have sex with Abraham, producing a child for his benefit and rhat of Sarah. Hagar is not envisioned to share in the Lord's "blessings: but expected merely to serve as their unconsenting instrument. Hagar does become pregnant. But almost immediately, rhe arrange-

ment unravels, for now Hagar "looked with contempt on her mistress" (16:4). Hagar is only too eager to rake advantage of the cultural equa- tion of women's value with childbearing to turn the tables on her abuser. Rather than rectify any of the accumularing injustices, Abraham under- writes the dynamics of the power game, reminding his wife of her super- ior status: '''Behold, your maid is in your power; do to her as you please'" (16:6). So Sarah "dealt harshly" with Hagar, and Hagar runs away. In one of the few places in the bible where God appears directly to a woman and speaks to her, God tells Hagar to go back to Sarah, assuring Hagar that "the Lord has given heed to your affliction" and promising thar she will bear a son, Ishmael (r6:7-13). For good reason, some African American womanist rheologians find

in Hagar a sort of "patton saint" of those triply exploited by race or erh- niciry,gender, and slavery.Ante-bellum U.S. slaveswere forced to accept the sexual advances of masters and bear them children, while suffering the abuse of harsh and jealous plantarion wives. Like Hagar, they longed for escape, fleeing into great danger, little refuge, and unknown futures. Delores Williams, in Sisters in the Wilderness, acclaims the Hagar story asa rich resource for a long tradition of African American biblical inrer- preration, a story that is particularly apt for the expression of the experi- enceof women." She poinrs out that Hagar does exert her own agency and escapes into freedom, but that action brings her into very precarious strairs, a situation that persisted for American slaves even afrer the Civil War.God does not exactly "liberate" Hagar, but does provide the neces- sities of survival. Ar God's instruction, the pregnant Hagar returns to the household,

where she can at least be assured of security in giving birth and nurs- ing her infant. But after Sarah has her own baby, Isaac, she sees Ishmael and Isaac play together and becomes angry. She wants to ensure that no "son of this slave woman" will "inherit along with my son Isaac." Since

60 Delores S. WiUiams. Siurrs in the Wi{deT'11m: ]he Challenge ajWomanist God-Talk (Maryknoll, NY. Orbis Books, 1993).

Global justice, christo logy, and Christian ethics

women's lives are defined largely through their sons and the sons' fathers, rhe women compete. Sarah fully intends to protect her own son's priority over that of her rival. At her insisrence and over Abraham's reluctance to repudiate a son, he accedes to Sarah's demand to send Hagar and Ishmael away from the family (21:8-14). The Lord's actions pose questions of rheir own, for God compensates

Hagar without directly challenging the patriarchal structures, or even raking Abraham and Sarah to task for their unjust manipulation of rhem. It isnor clear whether God really has compassion on Hagar or isonly con- cerned about the safety of Ishmael, the offspring of Abraharn.v The Lord assures Abraham thar though Isaac will be rhe heir of the promise, God will "make a nation" of his other son too. Therefore, ir is apparemly not a problem that Sarah isdemanding rhey be ousred (21:12-13).Giving Hagar bread and water, Abraham sends her imo the wilderness. Hagar has not been apprised of the plans God has disclosed to Abraham. Her suffering is great, and her desperation grows. When the water is gone, she casts her child under a bush and retreats, pleading, "Let me not look on the death of rhe child" (21:16).What more onerous suffering than that of a mother unable to save her baby from starvation at human hands, a mother also lacking any human offer of consolation in her sorrow? But God hears the baby crying. God tells Hagar to pick him up and shows Hagar a well of water - now revealing that he is going to give Ishmael descendams too. Ishmael is finally saved by the mercy of God (21:17-t9). The story of Hagar is a pU221e.It provides such a good model for the

experience of oppressed women today because it reflects emrenched injus- tices with which women must cope - with the help of their own courage and God's guidance, but nor always with rhe result of rrue liberarion. Sometimes the best rhat can be achieved is mere survival; Hagar and her child come close enough to desrruction that we are reminded how often survival is out of reach. Why does God permit and even encourage the unjusr rreatment of Hagar byher "owners"?Why does God not denounce their sinfulness and call them to repentance? One way to understand the tale of Abraham, Sarah, Hagar, and their

children is in relation to Israel's process ofidentiry formation. It reflects, if arnbivalenrly, on the dynamic of particularity and universality, the prob- lematic of us-them thinking, and the human realities of self-assertion and attempted dominance, that thread through both the Hebrew Bible

6-> Mignon R. jacobs, G~ndtr, Pourer. and Persuasion: 7h~ Genais Narratiim and Conumporary Portratrs (Grand Rapids. 1.11: Baker Academic, 2007), pp. 147-9, lSi.

Creation and evil

and the Chtistian New Testament. "Hagar the Egyptian" is an outsider (Gen. 16, 21) whose origin recalls the tempting power of a wealthy people where Abraham temporarily sertled (after passing Sarah off as his sisrer ro Pharaoh) and where Joseph rook refuge and became prosperous. The fam- ily of Abraham becomes enrangled with the family of a foreign woman, whose son with Abraham it must reject or "abject" in order to assert its own permeable and insecure identity." Hagar ultimately asserts her own identity, in a parallel contrast to Abraham: she procures a wife for het own son from among her people, Egypt." Ishmael, however, remains ar rhe borders of Israel's consciousness, never fully separated and unwilling to be tamed. The identities of Abraham and Hagar, Isaac and Ishmael, ate established, but the connection is never entirely broken: Ishmael goes back to bury his father, though he remains an outsider to the family his- tory (Gen. 25:9). The process of establishing identity for these figures and the peoples

they represent is hazardous and conflicrual, even violent. Secure identity seems £0 require self-definition "over against" others, implying exclusion if not dominance. The story leaves unsettled the divine reaction to this situation. It is clear that Abraham and his descendants are God's favored people and that the son of Sarah is the true link to the future of Israel. YetIsrael seems unable to pursue het destiny in full separation from other peoples. Relationships with other people are relationships that Israel both chooses and abjures, both exploits and repents. Even though God sets Israel apart, God roo is related to other peoples and takes steps toward their protection. The book of Genesis still has religious authority and appeal because its mediation of the divine is rich, complex, and ultimately redemptive. The creation stories set a tone for what follows. The universal presence and providence of God in creation are echoed in Israel's stories of redemption, even though Israel's election is the prominent theme. The bible construes gteat continuity between creation and redemption.

Redemption is the restoration of the image of God and liberation fat ever new and greater human community, fruitful interdependence with nature, and personal intimacy with God. The universality of God's creat- ing and saving acts is established in creation, reestablished in God's cov- enant with Noah (Gen. 8:21, 9:n), reaffirmed in God's promise to bless all peoples of the earth through Abraham (Gen. 12:3), focused through

6' J Cheryl hum. "Hagar m Proch; The Abject in Search of Subjeceiviry," In Peter S. Hawkins and Leslergh Cushing Stahlberg {eds.), From the Margi1JS I: Women a/the Hebrno Bible and Their AfUTllVt'l (Sheffield; Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2009), pp. 1-16.

69 Ibid .. p. 16.

66 Global justice, christo logy, and Christian ethics

Israel's election as "light ro the nations" (Isa. 49:6), and cosmically expan- sive. The liberation of Israel from Pharaoh's cruelty is depicted as a uni- versal victory. demonstrating "the reign of God over the entire cosmos (15'18)" and the promise of a new heaven and a new earth (Isa. 65'17; 2 Cor. 5'17)7' Redemption is a continuation of God's creative power, a reclaiming of humans to fulfill the image of God as they were given life to do. As illustrated in the wilderness events, redemption is also a restor- ation of the life-giving abundance of the land and of nature." "God who created continues to Create- not abandoning the primal cosmic design ... but renewing, adjusting, and amplifying it (e.g., Isa. 34-35; 40-45; Ezek. 34:Z5-3I; Rom. I-II; Rev. Z[-Z2; cf. Sir. 24)."" On the assumption, then, that rhe central messages of Genesis are

the righteousness and beneficence of the Creator, the mandate that all humanity embody the image of God, and God's redeeming covenant, the following conclusions may be drawn. First, the image of God is reflected in human relationships. If relationships truly image God, they will not violate the one-flesh union of spouses, of women and men, and of every human with every other. The true humanity of all must be respected, even when needs conflict. The eloquent "subrext" in the story of Hagar is that her situation is unjust and deserves compassion. as interpretations and artistic ponrayals over the centuries have' accentuated." Second, when relationships are subject ro violence and exploirarion, the redemp- tive response follows the lead of God's compassion for the powerless.God includes Hagar as a beneficiary of the saving acrions directed in the story primarily to the good ofIshmael. Third, despite redemptive experiences, relationships. and practices, evil remains. The destructive force of evil, especially evil against the most vulnerable, must be confronted. It can be resisted but not explained in any satisfactory moral or religious terms. Hence the ambiguity of the story of Hagar. Fourth, historical human rela- tionships inevitably take shape within structures of personal and social sin, but that does not mean the end of responsibiliry. Nor does God cease to act redemptively for and with humans, even when they remain captive to rhose structures and even when God's intentions seem opaque. Neither patriarchy nor unjust treatment of outsiders is overturned in Hagar's story, but rheir effects are alleviated, and their victims given a future.

7° Prerheim, God and World. p. 1II. 4' Ibid .. p. 125. 7' S Dean Mcbride, [r., "Drvme Protocol: Genesis 1.1-2:3 as Prologue to the Pentateuch," in Brown and Mcbride (eds.), God Who Creates, p. 40.

7J J. Cheryl Exum, "The Accusing Look: The Abjecrton of Hagar in Arc," Religion tlnd thr Arh, n (Z007), pp 143-71.