The "Narrative" of Genesis 1-11

I've long been fascinated by the use of the term "narrative" in progressive theological circles.

Usually, the word is used in one of two contexts, either to bash more conservative theological perspectives as "too focused on literalism" or "missing the scope of the narrative".

What fascinates me about it is that most who make a big deal about the narrative of God's redemptive history are also those who insist that Genesis 1-11 has little or no basis in actual history.  Adam, the Garden of Eden and the creation account were written for pre-scientific cultures as a way of explaining that the Hebrew God was better than all the other gods, and the accounts have no bearing on the central focus of the New Testament on Christ inaugurating a New Kingdom.

Why is this fascinating?

Because what they have done is completely altered the narrative.  Those who insist we only focus on the narrative have altered its very meaning.

An analogy is in order.



Imagine the entire Lord of the Rings narrative without Sauron and without the one ring.

Suppose one tells the story of a smallish human like creature named Frodo and his friend Sam.   Frodo and Sam embark on a dangerous journey to a distant land and this journey is fraught with peril and hardship.  At the end of the journey, they go to a mountain and their journey ends.   As a result of their journey, they are honored as heroes for their bravery and courage and many are inspired by their deeds of sacrifice.

It all begs the question, why did they go on this journey and did it have a purpose?  If one person says the journey was necessary because long ago an evil Lord with strange powers had created an object, a ring, that held the power to enslave all living creatures in darkness, and Frodo and Sam managed to destroy that ring, ushering in real peace and security for many generations, one would have a proper context for why their journey mattered, why they were honored as heroes.

If, on the other hand, someone else suggested that there was no evil Lord, no ring, and that those elements of the story were all mere legend, one would wonder, "why then did Frodo and Sam go on this journey at all?".

Why did they leave the shire and risk life and limb?   Why travel all the miles, enduring hardship, homesickness, danger peril, physical strain?

And more importantly, what exactly was accomplished at the end?   Why would a trip to a volcanic mountain have any effect on anyone, including themselves?   Without the ring, the journey serves no purpose.

If we were then told it doesn't matter that the ring never existed, but we should take inspiration from their valor and courage because the ring is a metaphor for evil and corruption, one would still ask, "yes but what did their journey accomplish?   How is their journey connected to this metaphor of evil and how did their journey in any way affect things?"

At this point, our questions would likely be dismissed as naive, and we should just enjoy the narrative.

"But", someone will ask, "it doesn't seem like a story that makes much sense, I'd rather read something else".

And at that point, we would be told that disinterest in the story is because of those insufferable literalists who insist that there has to have been a real ring.