Being naked and human
This is just a thought for those who struggle with the authority (which we can distinguish from the literalism) of Genesis.
Let's assume, for the moment, that humankind indeed evolved from some species of ape. Let us therefore further assume that the account in the opening chapters of Genesis does not literally describe the origins of humankind, but instead is there to provide insight through metaphor. Let us also for the moment put aside theological formulations such as Original Sin and the typical Sunday School teaching associated with the Fall.
Instead, let's look at the simple fact of the narrative itself. Isn't it interesting that some writer somewhere in the middle of nowhere so many millennia ago specifically pinpointed the wearing of clothes as that which marks the advent of Man-in-the-world? Generally accepted scientific thinking has, until the present day, focused almost exclusively on language and tool-making as that which evidences a transition from pre-human to human. Archaeological and behavioral research has primarily been concerned with understanding how and at what point some hominid creature was able to manipulate objects and/or symbols in a way that can legitimately be called "human" -- so that we can better understand where we come from and how we got there.
But the Bible asserts that at the moment we became who we are, we covered our genitals. Many animals communicate with each other through sounds and gestures. Apes can even be taught certain elements of human language. Several animals use tools in some form or another as well -- to build homes or obtain food. But only one animal (albeit not universally) covers its genitals with clothing. That's us.
Could the mind that first conceived this have been right in some way that even today's most learned experts don't yet quite understand? That is, is there something uniquely authoritative about the Genesis account? And how does this observation about nakedness tie (via the account of the Tree) into the idea of a morality -- that, even though none of us apprehend it perfectly, there is some "right" and "wrong" to which we must strive to conform? Why is naked wrong? Why is nakedness the first thing that we ever thought was wrong -- and therefore the first indicator that we became distinctively human?
Why is anything wrong and some other thing right? Why do we aspire to something we perceive as "rightness" in any way at all? Why is this, in fact, our obsession? And what does this obsessive aspiration have to do with covering ourselves?
Like I said, this is just a thought for those who have lost their sense of the OT's miraculous authority because of their inability to accept its literalism. Hope it helps.
"So why do you worry about clothing?" -Matthew 6:28
For we who are in this tent groan, being burdened, not because we want to be unclothed, but further clothed -- that mortality may be swallowed up by life. -II Corinthians 5:4
Let's assume, for the moment, that humankind indeed evolved from some species of ape. Let us therefore further assume that the account in the opening chapters of Genesis does not literally describe the origins of humankind, but instead is there to provide insight through metaphor. Let us also for the moment put aside theological formulations such as Original Sin and the typical Sunday School teaching associated with the Fall.
Instead, let's look at the simple fact of the narrative itself. Isn't it interesting that some writer somewhere in the middle of nowhere so many millennia ago specifically pinpointed the wearing of clothes as that which marks the advent of Man-in-the-world? Generally accepted scientific thinking has, until the present day, focused almost exclusively on language and tool-making as that which evidences a transition from pre-human to human. Archaeological and behavioral research has primarily been concerned with understanding how and at what point some hominid creature was able to manipulate objects and/or symbols in a way that can legitimately be called "human" -- so that we can better understand where we come from and how we got there.
But the Bible asserts that at the moment we became who we are, we covered our genitals. Many animals communicate with each other through sounds and gestures. Apes can even be taught certain elements of human language. Several animals use tools in some form or another as well -- to build homes or obtain food. But only one animal (albeit not universally) covers its genitals with clothing. That's us.
Could the mind that first conceived this have been right in some way that even today's most learned experts don't yet quite understand? That is, is there something uniquely authoritative about the Genesis account? And how does this observation about nakedness tie (via the account of the Tree) into the idea of a morality -- that, even though none of us apprehend it perfectly, there is some "right" and "wrong" to which we must strive to conform? Why is naked wrong? Why is nakedness the first thing that we ever thought was wrong -- and therefore the first indicator that we became distinctively human?
Why is anything wrong and some other thing right? Why do we aspire to something we perceive as "rightness" in any way at all? Why is this, in fact, our obsession? And what does this obsessive aspiration have to do with covering ourselves?
Like I said, this is just a thought for those who have lost their sense of the OT's miraculous authority because of their inability to accept its literalism. Hope it helps.
"So why do you worry about clothing?" -Matthew 6:28
For we who are in this tent groan, being burdened, not because we want to be unclothed, but further clothed -- that mortality may be swallowed up by life. -II Corinthians 5:4
