Does the Historicity of Adam Really Matter?

I just read a great article by Michael Reeves at Reformation21 titled "Adam and Eve". He discusses (rather cogently I might say, but don't take my word for it) why the historicity of Adam would seem to matter (it impacts the doctrines of Christ, the Trinity, and sin, among other practical biblical concerns). I'd be interested to hear others thoughts interacting with the article (whether positively or negatively--but that means the article should be read if you are thinking to comment on it ;-)...

Myth and Meaning (That Won't Last?)

N.T.Wright has made a brief video over at Biologos where he discusses "myth" in relation to Genesis 1-3.  He (as many others I've read) suggest that "myth" is a perfectly acceptable term referring to something which is true even if not historical in the sense of a strictly historical account (he even says those who reject "myth" in relation to Genesis should "lighten up" since the meaning is what really matters in the account).  "Myth" therefore suggests some greater meaning behind the "history" of the text.  It is meaning-laden and not simply a recounting of events.  While it is certainly true that the portions of Scripture purporting historical accounts indeed convey more meaning that goes beyond a simple recounting of events, yet does greater meaning imply lack of historical veracity?  This notion seems (all too) often to be applied to Genesis (but only the first 11 chapters), but not to other portions of Scripture like the Gospels.  I find this phenomenon fascinating and disturbing at the same time. 

Kudos to those who can (inconsistently) hold to such views and maintain their faith in the historicity of the life, death and resurrection of Christ Jesus and see this same essential belief as non-essential regarding the very creation of the world and the fall into sin.  If the "meaning" is all that matters and not the "fact" or historicity of an event then why do they still hold to such concerning Jesus?  Because this is considered essential to faith in the revelation given.  Why then do they deny the historicity of Genesis 1-11?  Because they have "evidence" that tells them otherwise (i.e., the geological record, apparent age of the cosmos, etc.).  But doesn't the "evidence" also tell us that people are not born of virgins?  Doesn't the "evidence" also tell us that the dead stay dead (especially after being assured of death and being buried)?  I'm not sure why the "evidence" concerning beginnings should be deemed more credible (considering it is completely impossible to reproduce and therefore belongs more to philosophical science than experiential) than the evidence concerning how people are born and die? 

While I would never say that anyone who denies the clear statements of Genesis as referring to historical events (albeit events of great meaning) cannot be saved...but if such foundational doctrines as creation, the imaging of God, human origins, and the beginning of sin and death can be dismissed as simply meaningful (i.e. "myth") and not historical, then where will that leave those who follow in our footsteps and no longer care to hold to other "meaningful" events as indeed historical (i.e., the birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus).  Will such "meaning" last in the face of rejecting the historicity of the events?  Only time will tell...