I am a fan of the horrific (horror) and the absurd (shit that makes no sense). Whether I actively seek it or not, judging by my TikTok feed, the horrific somehow finds me. I listen to horror podcasts as lullabies; I find horror comedic sometimes. In essence I love horror; including the 2-sentence horror genre.
The beauty of 2-sentence horror is in its subtlety. It communicates so much in the silence of its unwritten words, communicating lore in just two sentences. Just like the one that has come to haunt us today. A horrific story about endangerment due to innocence and the horrors of parental negligence.
The kids decided to play doctor.
Nobody realized they could reach the medicine cabinet.
In this story, the parent(s) - for some reason I keep imagining father - leave the children to play with each other, confident in the safety of the children due to safety precautions such as putting the medicine bottles in the cabinet that's supposedly out of reach to the children.
No one thought to check if the medicine was actually stored away safely. If it truly was out of reach from the children. Do the children know what they are and where they are? Who's checking up on them goddamn kids?!
Children are beings of chaotic naivete, unconsciously absorbing knowledge and dismantling the material fragments of their world in a bid to understand what they see, hear and taste. As creatures of poor, insufficient imitation they don't tend to understand much of what they copy and much of what they shouldn't do.
These children decided to play “Doctor". For there to be a doctor, he has to have a patient in need of a treatment; a cure, medicine. What's a doctor without medicine right? The children have no concept of the years of necessary training and honing of skills needed to be a doctor. They wanted to play doctor, that's all that mattered.
2-sentence horror stories have another part to them that makes them so interesting as well as frustrating - ambiguity. They don't really tell you how the story starts and how it ends. The ambiguity allows you to shape the story in whatever form or direction. It only provides you the essence of the story, its premise. Succumbing to the very same nature of ambiguity, let's draw this story to its (probably) horrific conclusion.
The children - somehow - knew about the medicine in the cabinet and - unbeknownst to the adults, could reach it. They take the medicine bottles and transform that element of realism into a part of the fantasy - the medicine has become a set prop. The doctor - after diagnosing their patient - proceeds to treat them, feeding them medicine.
One pill, two pills, three pills and voila, patient cured. But as we know, imagination ultimately does not trump reality - the mind does not triumph over matter. The patient, a child entrenched in the tragic naivete of childishness begins to choke. The other child, thinking it a part of the play, proceeds to do CPR, violently but innocently crushing her lungs.
With a cough of blood amidst a violent gasp for air, the play ends. The Doctor returns to simply being a little naive child announcing his return to reality with a wail. A wail so powerful it grabs the attention of the gods - the adults. Who - with annoyance with a fragrance of care - begrudgingly interrupt their divine communion to check on the chaotic imps of their universe.
What they find renders their supreme minds in shock. Their creations; their children were dying by their own hands. They rush to bring them to an actual doctor, but they're too late. A child died and another became a murderer. All of which could have been avoided if they only locked the medicine cabinet.
There is a similar story that comes to mind. This story is known by billions of people and yet I suppose, have a different reading to how I shall present it here. The story is a tale as old as time, with a phenomenal cast whose names have transcended the ages.
The story of Genesis 3 is an interesting one. Until recently I never gave much focus to the storytelling elements and structures embedded within biblical narratives, Genesis in particular. There's the main cast of Adam, the first man, alongside the first woman, Eve. Then there's the phenomenal second cast of the cunning Serpent and God.
Despite God being a secondary character in the story - having little page time, he's a fascinating character who plays multiple roles and functions. He is the creator, governor, sovereign, king and Lord, supreme being of all life and also Father - originator and first authority.
God is a multifaceted character and we could analyse his performance as a character in the story depending on which function(s) you focus on. Personally, I've been fascinated by analysing and critiquing God's role as a parent and how it holds up. Was God a good father to Adam and Eve?
Before we answer that question we must first establish standards. But the standard by which someone is a good parent switches based on what “stage" their child is. This might be weird to say, but Adam and Eve ARE children. I know, strange but they are. I find it amusing that whenever we speak of Adam and Eve, we conceptualise them as adults when at best they were adolescents in adult bodies.
Adam and Eve were created with a fully formed adult body, but a newly born mind. The mental essence of an adult is experience. We believe adults should be an accumulation of knowledge, skill etc all embodied in experience. This gives them “sense" and “good judgement". The couple didn't have this.
Adam and Eve knew nothing beyond what they saw, the days they lived and what they were taught by their parent - by God. The only form of guidance and training they had was God. God knew more, God had seen more, God was an adult and they were kids. But God's not just any adult, he's their Father - their parent.
It's a parent's job to educate their children. To train, feed, provide and protect their children. One could argue that children require protection and guidance no more in their early years than at any other point in their lives. A parent is supposed to teach and protect. Ensure they have the appropriate knowledge they need to understand and operate in the world surrounding them. Recognizing that they will make mistakes and that the disastrous ones are usually a failing of parenting.
But God doesn't seem to teach Adam and Eve. He actively forbids them from seeking and acquiring knowledge (Gen 2:15-17, Gen 3:1-3), cementing a fear of “knowing" via promises of instant death. God kept Adam and Eve naive - their eternal, all-knowing father chose to keep his children ignorant. Now one might argue that God did “instruct” them, to which I say - issuing do’s and don’ts is in no way “teaching”. Instructions are nothing but polite commands that require only your action, not understanding. Adam and Eve knew nothing of death, consequence or disobedience.
They were naught but the type of prepubescent children commonly left alone at home to care for themselves. Their parents believe since they left behind “instructions" and resources, they have all they need. “They're mature for their age. They can take care of themselves”. Leaving the children to self-parent themselves. Unlike adults, these children lack the ability of nuance and discretion that comes with experience. They simply understand the mere surface of an instruction and nothing of its nuance. In the same way, Eve (and Adam) is unable to identify the nuances that distinguish one divine being from another - one familial adult, from another. It is this lack of ability to nuance that leaves Eve (and Adam) susceptible to the serpent's deceit.
Imagine this scenario: the kids are left alone at home to look after and care for themselves until Daddy comes back. Daddy left them with a bunch of instructions like how to microwave their lunch and supper, staying away from the apple pie in the fridge and not letting any strangers into the house. The serpent comes around, knocks on the door with a smile that just melts your heart, and… Eve lets him in? Why? Because the serpent is not a stranger.
Some people frame the serpent in the narrative to be a foreign entity to the garden, an outside influence that came into the garden to corrupt the pure life that existed within the grounds of the garden. But that’s not true. The serpent - just like the couple - is a native of the garden. One might argue he was there before the human couple. The children were warned against strangers - which the serpent is not. Some have come to believe the serpent to have been the devil; Satan. This makes the serpent even less of a stranger. As Satan, the serpent would carry a divine presence, one they would have been familiar with due to being around God and the angels. In whichever characterisation of the serpent you choose, the serpent is not foreign to Eve and Adam. The serpent is trustworthy.
One would assume that God - being omniscient - knows of the serpent and would have warned his children - as a good parent would - against the serpent. I remember different times my mom would warn me against particular adults or members of the extended family. Any familiar adult that the children were not considered safe around was either kept away at all times - and for when that’s not possible, was warned against at all times. To have left Adam and Eve alone unguarded against the terrible uncle (Satan, the serpent), is an act of neglect; especially when said uncle is leagues above the children.
The Bible refers to the serpent as “more crafty than any other beast of the field that the Lord God had made” (Gen 3:1). Now this wouldn’t matter much since humans are said to be of a higher intelligence. But no matter how high the intellect of a human is, the true potential of that is not manifested (usually) in a child - in particular one that has no form of education. The human couple have been kept away from seeking and acquiring knowledge themselves, while not being taught anything but what they need for daily life. When the mind of a naive child is set against the mind of the (presumably) matured serpent, the most cunning of the wild animals; we simply need to sit back with a bowl of sugary buttered popcorn and watch the beat down.
This matchup is made even worse if we accept the characterisation of the serpent as a divine being; Satan. The being said to have been so powerful and convincing he leads 1/3rd of heaven's hosts astray. Eve (and Adam) is a sheltered, naive and uneducated child who knows nothing of the lands that exist beyond Daddy's compound. To expect either of them (Adam or Eve) to be able to stand against the serpent makes no sense. This is like expecting a 5-year-old to defeat a 20-year-old in a combat of fists or words - the concept is asinine.
Another thing to be aware of is the serpent did not lie. The common narrative is that the serpent lied to and deceived Eve (and Adam because he was right there beside her, but we always seem to conveniently forget this). The serpent simply said, “No you will not die if you eat the apple pie in the fridge. You’ll be just like daddy, knowing what an apple pie tastes like” (Gen 3:4-5). This might genuinely be why Eve then found the tree to be good and desirable. After all, what child doesn’t want to be like their parents?
The children eat the fruit of the tree (our apple pie) and become like daddy (Gen 3:22). Just like the serpent said, they didn’t die after eating it. The mind of a child (and I argue an adult) is one programmed for curiosity. They desire more than “do’s and don'ts”, cherishing more open and explanatory provision of information and guidance. Like I said before, instructions are not teachings. They can augment teachings, but they in themselves are not teaching. Many (African) parents say they’re teaching their child how to live a certain way or do a certain thing yet provide no actual teachings. They provide tasks to be done, with vague instructions and expect their child(ren) to be able to do them - just like they expect from any adult. The failure of the children to live up to expectations is always taken as a personal wrong of the children and not a result of bad parenting.
The children (Adam and Eve) do not know better. They are naught but naive sheltered children who made a mistake. They fail to live up to Daddy's expectations, unable to employ nuance and discernment (even though they couldn’t have anyway). The question is how does Daddy respond to this? How does their parent respond to the mistake of his children? What corrections are made in teaching the children better or in how the parent formulates their surroundings to better care for and protect the children? Pray do tell, how?
God kicks them out of the house. Daddy comes home from a long day of work to find the fridge ajar, the pan for the apple pie on the floor and crumbs littered everywhere. He bellows and calls for the eldest Adam: Where are you? (Gen 3:9). In typical sibling fashion, Adam throws Eve under the bus (even though they both committed the act together; Gen 3:12). Eve in a panic tries to come up with an excuse blaming the serpent (who strangely doesn’t get to offer up a defence; Gen 3:13). As typical with children, they try to pass around blame in a bid to ween off the wrath they see on their parents face from themselves. As much as I try, I am unable to not see God's reaction to their very first (recorded) mistake as typical of an African parent.
In my experience - both as a child and a teacher, I often find it amusing how parents exempt themselves from being complicit in their child's mistake, specifically their prepubescents. These parents contribute the bare minimum of effort in the education and socialisation of their children and act shocked when their child commits an error. They respond with indignation, anger, incredulity and (as unbelievable as it sounds) innocence. They mostly blame the child for most, if not all of the mistakes committed. Bellowing with firm and loud voices “Shouldn't you know better?”, except how were they to know better? Their parents who were supposed to teach them didn’t. How could they have known better? Why expect of them knowledge that isn’t inherent nor self-evident?
God doesn’t draw Adam and Eve into an embrace of forgiveness, nor does he reprimand them with the harsh voice of correction. Nay, God castigates them using vile speech rife with curses and rebukes. He condemns them to a life of suffering and strife. To suffer and live a life of barely any significance (Gen 3:16-19). God's reaction to his children's first (recorded) mistake is anger and wrath, not forgiveness. God takes no responsibility for the neglect suffered by the children which led to the transpiring events but rather lays it all bare at the feet of the children. After he vents out in curseful anger, he kicks his children away from home, changes the lock and gets new security (Gen 3:23-24). One mistake was all it took for the full parental abandonment of Adam and Eve.
The job of a parent is an arduous and perilous one. Many parents constantly suffer from the anxiety of caring for and raising another human being who - for a large part of their life - is dependent on them. Accidents occur constantly either due to children wilding out (kids will be kids) or the parents' oversight. Society is not so structured as to afford parents the ability to constantly keep watch over their children's safety and development; it is not unreasonable for them to let the ball fall once in a while. A parent being neglectful due to oversight doesn’t make them evil or malicious. Just like their children, they will also make mistakes and will require forgiveness. But whatever wrong is done by the child, primarily due to the parent's neglect is not the fault of the child, but a result of the parent's failure. A parent who fails to account for everything is not the same as one who willfully neglects everything.
In the 2-sentence horror, the parents kept the medicine stored away in the cabinet but failed to consider if the children could reach the cabinet. God on the other hand simply just tells his children “Don't touch or eat it”. He doesn’t hide the medicine away in a cabinet and assumes it is out of reach. Rather, he places that which is harmful to them directly in the middle of the garden where it is easily accessible. He doesn’t encourage his children to seek and learn but rather intentionally keeps them ignorant and uneducated. He doesn’t set a guard over them to protect them from temptation but leaves them susceptible to it (unarmed and unprepared). God fails to teach, to care, to prepare and to protect his children. God fails in the very basics as a parent.
While this is a scathing review of God in this narrative, this is not a theological statement of inference. As stated in this essay, this is simply a review of the Genesis 3 narrative through the lens of family dynamics, and critiquing God's role as a parent. Whether you agree or not, two things are obvious about this essay. First - this is not a theological review of scripture. Second - God was not a good parent to Adam and Eve.
Thank you so much for reading all the way to the end. I hope it was an enjoyable one for you albeit a somewhat provocative one. I’d love to hear your thoughts and opinions on the essay and its topic. Do you agree with the essay? Do you think differently? Leave a comment, I’d love to read it.