Theology for the Masses

So far, I have been faithful to my yearly reading plan.  Some days I skip, some days I double up.  So far, I am through Genesis 47.  The fledging Israelite clan has just moved into Egypt.  Joseph has saved the region by means of God’s interpretation of Pharaoh’s dreams and increased Pharaoh’s power tenfold by exploiting the Egyptians and their neighbors.

Fool me once…

There are two main themes that I saw happening time after time.  The first is the role of subterfuge in the text.  From Tamar to Joseph’s brothers to Jacob to Rebecca to Isaac, subterfuge is employed for both personal gain and for weaker parties to succeed against stronger ones.  Sometimes this subterfuge is ratified by the text, often if fact, such as in the cases of Isaac/Rachel cheating his older brother/son out of his birthright (against the wishes of his father, I might add) or Tamar impregnating herself after Judah denied her what he promised.  Other times subterfuge is condemned,  such as the many times wives are passed off as sisters.  Still others yet are committed with evil intentions, but God still uses them for good, see Joseph’s brothers.  This poses a problem for those trying to construct an ethical framework from the text.  The intentions and outcomes of actions determine how the narrative judges them, not the actions themselves.

Biblical Family Values

Also of note is the horribleness of family structures.  Slaves?  Ok.  Polygamy? Cool!  Biblical family values indeed.  Oh, while we are on the topic of social considerations, females are definitely afforded little power in the societies described in Genesis so far (effects of the curse, maybe?).  However, the inspired text often has women enacting their agency and power by means of the before mentioned subterfuge.  In all of these cases, the text ratifies their actions!  (We’ll call this point one.five)  What does this mean for denying women agency in society (and churches)?

Characters, Not Robots

The second theme revolves around God and his interaction with humankind.  Just as we saw with Cain, God is actively engaged with humans and, while in control of history, allows humans to enter into the bends of time and influence their own situations.  The most poignant example is Abraham bargaining with God for Job’s life.  God fixes the shoreline, but gives the waves within to their own devices.  Well, perhaps that is a bit too simplistic.  He does not merely fix the shorelines and allow free reign therein.  He actively engages the people in the story, influences them.  He is not distant nor domineering.  He loves and comes near.

So far, the text of Genesis imagines a God who can fix history, but also also allows for real human agency, without which the text makes no sense.

Anyway, enough rambling for now.

I have never taken up a “read through the Bible in a year ” plan until this year.  To aid in my reading, I picked up the NLT’s 24/7.  It is arranged by day so that you always know what you need read on a given day.  The daily readings are arranged in a narrative-chronological order.  Thus, I have been spending a lot of time in Genesis, with some excursions into Chronicles.

The nice thing about this product from the NLT is that there are nice margins where one can take notes.  This is actually what sold me on the product.  Accordingly, I have been writing notes and reflections in the margins of this useful little product.

I have tried to not get caught up in the details of the texts, but to focus and meditate upon the purposes of the passages at hand, to get a sense of what the writer(s) were trying to convey

Much of my notes in Genesis have been noting all of etiological moments.  This is why X is such, that is why Z came to be.  A great example of this is Genesis 10:6-20, the account of Ham and the origin of Babylon, Assyria, the Canaanites, Hittites, etcetera.

Something else that struck me, besides all of the etiology, was God’s pleading with Cain to master his sin in Genesis 4:6-7.

Then the LORD said to Cain, “Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast?  If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it.”

There are several things stick out in this passage.  Firstly, I like the intimate relationship the Lord has here with Cain.  In the middle of Cain’s frustration with the rejected sacrifice, God pleads with him to do the right thing.  Hope is given to Cain, that though Cain is burning with anger and jealousy, wanting the favor of another, he can still have righteousness – but only if he chooses to do so.

What hope, what responsibility is afforded to Cain here by God in his pleadings?

When God is talking with Cain about his anger, God couches his language in terms of Cain’s freedom of the will.  Similarly, God describes sin mastering Cain in terms of potentiality, not actuality.  The two verses end with God pleading with Cain to actively master sin and deny its power over him.

Because of my reformed friends, I constantly run my readings through a reformed filter, just as I run them through a churches of Christ filter.  I cannot imagine reading this through a reformed, TULIPed theology.  Perhaps it is possible, I just can’t conceive of it.  God just does not describe humanity and sin with total depravity and unconditional election in mind.

Anyway, these aren’t researched thoughts, just some initial impressions

I was reading/journaling Genesis this afternoon and came across the genealogies of Cain and Seth.  As I am sure several of you have noticed, there are some striking similarities between several names in the lists. [1]

Is there anything to the similarities?  I am sure it can easily be chalked up to naming practices. [2]   Just seeing if anyone had heard any other way of reading the similarities.

1. An Ellipsis denotes genealogical records omitted from the biblical record by myself [↩]
2. see Henry Francis Imler, Henry Leon Imler, Henry Michael Imer, Henry Thomas Imler, and Henry Reed Imler [↩]

Introduction
In another post on God seeking his own glory, Tom and I had a wonderful discussion on some different texts that really had this issue at heart. One text that came up was Genesis 50:20 which reads,

As for you, you meant to harm me, but God intended it for a good purpose, so he could preserve the lives of many people, as you can see this day. (NET)

To give his take, Tom has written a two-post reply (the second post has yet to be put up as I write this). This is my response to what he wrote. My response is in two areas: a.) textual and b.) theological. I am going to put both responses here in this one post so forgive the length if it gets long. continue reading…

This was originally supposed to be one post, but it got so long I needed to break it into two. My best arguments, I think, are in part 2, but part 1 is necessary foreground, especially for the uninitiated.

A Brief Statement of the Issue:

Certain Calvinists, [1] with their emphasis on the ultimate sovereignty of God, conclude from various biblical passages that Yahweh is the author and determiner of evil. That is, because Yahweh is sovereign, He must have control over both good and evil. [2]   My intention in this post is to wrestle with one of those passages – Genesis 50:20, where Joseph, after looking back on all the evil actions of his brothers, says, “Even though you intended to do harm to me, God intended it for good, in order to preserve a numerous people, as he is doing today.”

Some Hermeneutical Humility:

Let me be honest here (and hopefully have a bit of humility in an argument that all too often becomes about ego) and suggest that it is certainly possible to read this text the way Calvinists do – that God determined this particular evil in order to bring about good. It is possible, but not necessary, and maybe not even desirable. The logic of which will lead to dangerous places, which I will discuss further toward the end of this post.

The Calvinist Philosophical Assumptions:

Calvinist’s have philosophical assumptions guiding their interpretation of this text. Contrary to their claim that Arminians are the ones with philosophical commitments hindering a true reading of the text, Calvinists here attempt to preserve the innocence of God in this matter by saying that Joseph’s brothers freely chose to commit this evil, but their decision was determined by God. By making a “free choice” they say that Joseph’s brothers are morally responsible and God is not accountable. Yet, to make such an assertion they have to appeal to a Compatibilistic sense of freedom. A sense of freedom, that I will argue later, is destroyed by this text.

Contextual Observations

As of yet, my complaints in this post are from a larger theological, philosophical, and maybe even ethical framework. But the true question, for any good Protestant (though I’m not always sure I’m really a good one), is what the text says. Does the text say that God intended (purposed, determined) Joseph’s brothers to commit these evil actions so that His saving purposes (and, might John Piper add, his ultimate glorification) might be revealed and worked out?

Lets begin with the context:

God knew, all the way back with Joseph’s dreams and his Technicolor Dream-Coat, that his brothers were going to be jealous of him. The text nowhere indicates that God determined their jealousy! This is important for Calvinism b/c in Calvinism God doesn’t just determine people’s actions, He actually determines their desires!  [3] But nowhere, in any of this, does the text attribute the evil desires of Joseph’s brothers to Yahweh. The actions J’s brothers participate in are solely and completely of their own doing. We have no textual evidence that God determined their actions. Only that God took free actions and determined to make something good out of them. We cannot pull this isolated text out of the larger context and think it has settled the matter.

But here’s the thing, and let me give Calvinism some props here - I actually think this verse does suggest that God sovereignly acts in this localized event, that He is active in the way things played out. While the text does not say that God gave them their desires or determined their actions, it does affirm that he was sovereignly and actively involved in some way.

Arminian/Open Theistic Determination

But does God’s sovereign action in this instance prove Arminianism/Open Theism wrong? No, actually, both of these positions also hold that God can and does determine certain things to happen. In the words of Jerry Walls concerning this text, “God foresaw the good that would eventually come out of this and (after considering all possible creatable worlds) he chose the world in which these circumstances and choices took place, and he allowed them for the sake of the good that would follow. This way of reading the story makes perfect sense of Joseph’s claim that the brothers meant it for evil but God meant it for good.” [4]

In other words, God’s intentions/determination [5] to work salvation out of evil actions is seen here, but without any recourse to his determination of Joseph’s brothers evil desires. The text never connects the determination of God with the actions of Joseph’s brothers. It is never says that He determines their actions on a primary or secondary level. Yet, it does maintain that God sovereignly decided that this would be the best course of action to bring about the salvation of Jacob’s family.

1. John Piper and DA Carson are the two most popular. [↩]
2. I am no longer convinced that this is Classical Calvinism. I think this is John Piper’s aberrant Calvinism, most likely. Though, he is not the only one who believes this. However, John Calvin, himself, more believed that God allowed sin, but did not determine it. See his Institutes, 3.23.8. [↩]
3. For more on this see my previous entry, “I Do Not Permit a Calvinist to Use “Permit” Language.” It got raving reviews even from Calvinists!!! (Just kidding) [↩]
4. Jerry Walls & Joe Dongell, Why I’m Not a Calvinist, 151. [↩]
5. Also, I might note here that for the Arminian and the Open Theist, what God intends is not the same thing as what God determines. God may intend things that do not come to pass. The Calvinists do not have this same assumption. They maintain that what God intends must necessarily be determined as well. Because of this, our disagreement is not exegetical. Our disagreement is a theological one that must be settled with other texts which connect intention and determination and explicates their differences/similarities. This text does not provide such an explanation. [↩]

For all our debates about the nature and genre of the Creation stories in Genesis 1 and 2, I’m amazed by the lack of discussion surrounding the meaning of the Spirit’s activities in 1:2 where the text reads, “And the Spirit of God hovered over the face of the deep.”

We’ve been so sidetracked by other questions, often questions the text isn’t even asking, that we’ve overlooked this odd and fascinating feature of the Creation narrative – the presence and activity of God’s Spirit.

Neglecting the Spirit’s role in creation is easy for us, not only because we’re distracted by the Creationism vs. Evolution questions, but also because we’ve severely limited the Spirits role in the Christian life to conviction of sin and assurance of salvation. Or, more specifically, we’ve limited the Spirit’s role to our subjective devotional lives.

But prior to the need for conviction of sin and the need for assurance of salvation, the Spirit was involved in the work of creation. Contrary to our privatized Pneumatology, the fingerprints of the Spirit are clearly displayed in the cosmos.

But what do those finger prints look like? And why was the Spirit hovering over the deep?

By placing the Spirit within Genesis 1:2, where we have the beginning of a movement from darkness and void to order and light, the author suggests the Spirit is the agent by which creation is given form and order. The Spirit is not removed from the creation; the Spirit is intimately with the creation, guiding its development and progress along with the spoken word of God.

The Spirit’s hovering over the face of the deep is significant. For the ancient Hebrews, the sea was a force of chaos and unruliness. Often mythologized in Babylonian religions, the chaotic character of the sea is confirmed by numerous biblical accounts: Noah’s Flood and the destruction of the entire world, the crossing of the Red Sea, Jonah and the whale, Jesus and the calming of the Storm. Even more telling is in Revelation when the sea is the place from which the great Beast comes (13:1) and, ultimately, a place to be destroyed in the new creation: “and there was no longer any sea.”(21:1)

Furthermore, within our narrative, it is important to note that the deep is possibly a subtle reference to a Babylonian deity, Tehoim, “a belligerent and monstrous ocean goddess.” If so, Genesis 1:2 would have been an especially comforting verse for ancient Hebrews wrestling with the constant pressures of Babylonian culture and religion. Not only are the chaotic waters of the deep under the Spirit’s dominion, but implicitly and subversively, Babylonian religion is stripped of its power and demonstrated to be inferior to the religion of Yahweh. For in our narrative, the Spirit is holding at bay the chaotic forces of the world – Babylonian religious and cultural influence, to be more specific. The Spirit drifts over the deep and demonstrates the dominion of God over the disorder soiling the life of an exiled people attempting to be faithful to Yahweh’s covenant “in a foreign land.” (Ps. 137:1-4)

I know the objections will be that there are no forces of evil yet b/c Genesis 3 has not yet occurred. But, again, like the Creationism debates, I don’t think that’s the question the narrative asks.

Rather, it assumes some sort of rebellion has already occurred. You see, the pre-Fall narrative is replete with numerous subtle references to Babylonian deities, and even words which indicated violent subjugation (1:28). Furthermore, such an answer also accounts for the mysterious serpent in Genesis 3 – another possible allusion to a Babylonian deity, and one which would, again, make a lot of sense to an ancient Hebrew person struggling with the constant influences of Babylonian religion and culture.

Thus, what we’re learning from Genesis 1:2 is that those forces of chaos, those things in the world that are disorderly and unruly, are still held in check by the Spirit. The Spirit is already at work to bring the creation back to its original intention – the order of God.

The implication of this is, yes, that there were forces of death operative within creation prior to Genesis 3, but these forces were not yet operative within humanity or the earth in which humanity resided. But these forces of death are being checked by the Spirit. Indeed, even though the narrative makes subtle references to pagan deities, these subtle references are subtle precisely because the narrator wants the reader to see that the sea was created by God and that God is in control. The sea is not a deity, it is part of Yahweh’s creation and He is sovereign over it as the Spirit hovers over the deep and keeps it in its place (Ps. 140:9). “The author here plainly understands God’s act of creation to have involved some type of conflict with cosmic chaos, but also clearly portrays Yahweh as being more than up to the task.”

So what is the Spirit doing hovering over the face of the deep? Displaying and maintaining God’s sovereignty over creation. Demonstrating God’s intimate concern for the details of His creation. And ensuring the ancient reader that God maintains control over the chaotic influences and forces of false religion. The gigs up: the Sea is demythologized and shown to be part of creation. It is not an independent agent, and insofar as chaotic forces do control the sea, Genesis 1 will not allow us to despair, as if Yahweh has lost his sovereignty.

*I reserve the right to change my mind later about any of this.*

I thought this post series would be interesting considering Tom’s earlier post on Genesis 1:26-27. While the post did not address the issue of Egalitarianism vs Complementarianism, the issue of the date of the text is very interesting considering previous conversations here at MassTheo. The balshanut blog has been summarizing some interesting articles on linguistic studies and how they impact dating the OT, specifically דמות found in Genesis 1:26-27 speaking of humanity being made in “God’s image/likeness.” The blogger has really put into practice what he has been posting on for sometime recently and I really appreicate that. It helps me see how it works. The post series takes the reader on a journey to see if the Hebrew term דמות is an Aramaic loanword or an Aramaism (the Aramaic word being צלם). The point of this is to see if the presence of this Aramaic rooted word points to a late date or to an early date. The conclusion that is reached is that the evidence leans to a pre-exillic date but not in a conclusive and definitive manner. There just isn’t enough evidence to really come down hard either way and when the periscope was written. I just found these posts interesting and hope you do too. Here they are.

In his דמות and צלם, Part 1.

In his דמות and צלם, Part 2.

In his דמות and צלם, Part 3.

Over a year ago I wrote a number of posts on the topic of Evangelical Feminism vs. Biblical Complementarianism. This post will further that discussion.

If Patriarchy was a Pre-Fall reality, then it would be present within the biblical text in some discernible form. I previously demonstrated that the 2^ndcreation account (in Genesis 2) does not support such a reading, but I said nothing at the time regarding the 1^st creation account in Genesis 1.

Genesis 1:26-28 describes the creation of humanity “in the image of God” and after his “likeness.” There are a number of hermeneutical and theological difficulties related to these phrases - particularly what exactly it means to be created in God’s image and how that relates to the phrase about “according to our likeness.” Couple those things also with the use of plural pronouns and you’ve got a longstanding theological and exegetical argument.

What I want to demonstrate in this post is that the structure of the pericope provides us insight into the author’s intention –that is, the way he formulates the narrative gives us insight into what he means by the mysterious phrases. More to the point, though, when we see what he means, we are also given insight into the Pre-Fall relationship between the man and the woman - one which, as I will demonstrate, is one of equality not patriarchy. This argument will, in effect,support my reading of Genesis 2 and 3 which says that Patriarchy is a result of the Fall, not prior to it – contrary to the BC position which says Patriarchy is inherent in the creation.

The Hebrew text in 1:27 reads something like this…(the word order is important – often skewed by our English translations)

“Created God humanity in His image. In the image of God He created him. Male and female He created them.”

Structurally, the text is a Chiasm (an inverted parallelism) followed by a straight forward Parallelism. Notice the Chiasm 1^st…

A Created humanity

B God

C man In His image

C’ In the image

B’ of God

A’ He created him

Surrounding the whole things is the Creative purposes of God. Central to the chiasm, and thus the emphasis of the writer, is the Image of God. Unfortunately, besides the fact that it is the creative act of God, no other exegetical clue is provided for us to help us discern the substance of the Image of God…that is, until the parallelism which begins with the 2^nd half of the chiasm:

A    In the Image of God B. He created C. Him

A    Male and Female B. He created C. Them

What the structuring of this narrative suggests, then, is that whatever it means to be in the image of God, it must be fully understood in the context of BOTH male and femaleness. Man is not the image of God without woman and woman is not the image of God without the man. They are both, together, the image of God. In other words – what the chiastic structure gives emphasis to (the image of God), the parallelism gives substance to (male and female).

Now notice that there is no implied subordination within this structuring. Rather, there is implied equality. Nothing within this text points to patriarchy or male headship. The Biblical Complementarian argument fails to account for the fact that this first creation account doesn’t even have a creation order for the genders. This narrative suggests that male and female are equal before God – for they both, together stand before Him and are equally created in His image – so much for the old discussions about whether women were really created in God’s image or not.

I know that BC’s generally don’t argued from Genesis 1 to support their view, but I think this structure provides the basis for understanding Genesis 2 (by means of structural particularization: a general idea occurs first, followed by the specifics of that general idea. The specifics are understood in light of the preceding general comment) and, thus, another point indicating the essential equality of men and women – both ontologically and functionally. Indeed, they are both given dominion and told to subjugate the earth. There are no inherent difference of roles within this text.

Here is an excellent post from Ancient Hebrew Poetry on the genre of Genesis 1 that might help in the discussion of the previous post on Genesis 1:1-2. However, since this deals with the genre of the text, I thought it best to post this as a separate thread. I’m curious about what all who blog here think about this particular take on the genre of Genesis 1. I found the article interesting and am still working through what the author of the post said.

The Genre of Genesis 1

(Here is a second post that deals with whether Genesis 1 is poetry or not: Is Genesis 1 Poetry?)

“In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.” Genesis 1:1-2

Does the Bible, specifically Genesis 1:1-2, support a doctrine of creatio ex nihilo (creation from nothing)? Would such a doctrine have made sense to ancient Israelites/early Christians? How does Gen. 1:1-2 fit into the schema of it’s contemporary ancient mediterranean understandings of the creation of the world? If something was there, then what was/is it? Further, what is really at stake in the answers to these questions?

I’m currently reading a lot about this in one of my classes and have some thoughts…but I’d like to see what you guys have. Certainly, those familiar with Hebrew could contribute much to our understanding of what the text itself (may) say(s).

Here is a visual tour of the Answers in Genesis’ Creation Museum in Kentucky. I went with my dear friends Tom and Mike in August 2007. I’ll walk you through our experience exhibit by exhibit with my commentary.

Arrival

We reached the Museum in a caravan of three vehicles. Mike and I were heading on to St. Louis from there, and Tom had to return to Wilmore. I was driving a U-Haul

I was forced to park our U-Haul behind the Museum… can you guess why?

We entered the Museum and purchased our tickets – only $17 if you sign up for their email list! While I was in line, I overheard a family (the right proper nuclear family ™ – mom, dad and 3 boys) announce to the ticket-seller that this was their third visit to the Museum (open since Memorial Day 2007) and that they were seriously considering buying lifetime passes (a mere $1,000 per person, presumably adjusted for inflation). Once inside, we milled about looking at various odd displays before venturing into the bookstore.

Inside the bookstore, we found this on top of a tall bookshelf:

On the way out of the bookstore, we saw this:

Now, you can’t really tell, but it’s a bust of St. George slaying a dragon (maybe the bookshelf dino’s sister or something?). Above it is inscribed a text from the St. George legend (myth?).

We left the bookstore (to return afterwards). On our way into the Tour of Biblical History, we passed an animatronic cave-girl feeding a carrot to a squirrel while anamatronic velociraptors drank from a nearby stream:

And so, on that note, we began our journey.

Entering the Tour de Exhibits

Immediately upon entering into the Museum Proper, we were faced with a series of displays that forced the singular question upon which the Museum’s entire theology rests: Do you trust in Human Reason or God’s Word?

The choice is clear… we must follow either human reason and God’s word. But what’s the worst that could happen if we don’t choose God’s word? So glad you asked! Walk this way!

The Consequences of Following Human Reason

We next enter into an exhibit that displays the consequences of choosing Human Reason. First, a twisted hallway painted all black with news clippings pasted all over the walls. What news, you ask?

Yes, this was the “the gays are going to clone themselves” wall (abortion wall not pictured). Apparently the only possible outcome of using your brain is that you become gay, then clone babies and kill them before they reach term. Clearly, brothers and sisters, human reason is evil and bad. How are we to stand before the terror of their cultural onslaught? Fortunately, we were then able to see some heroes who preserved God’s Word for us so that we could have good and true guidance that in no way requires us to think:

According to the next display, the Jews are evil because the added Oral Tradition to God’s Word. Jesus (who, I guess wasn’t a Jew and didn’t use Oral Tradition) tried to tell them how silly they were, so they killed him. And then the Catholics came along and messed up Jesus’ teachings by adding a bunch of silly Church Traditions to it. So, last but not least, we are presented with the man who, according to the placard in front of him, saved us from the Jews and Catholics. Ladies and Gentlemen: Martin Luther himself!

Now that we’ve rescued the Bible from all those who doubt, what does God’s Word say about how we got here? Stay tuned for the next installment of pictures guaranteed to be more outrageous than the first!

In Matthew 5:21-22, Jesus equates hate, insult and name-calling with murder. For a long time, I just accepted the common explanation that Jesus is “reinterpreting” the Law, pushing for a “deeper” understanding of “what God really meant”. As I blogged several days ago, however, I am beginning to see that Jesus was reading the Law through the lens of love defined as self-sacrifice. Thus, all commandments must be reexamined through that lens. And so what of “Thou shalt not murder”?

What is murder, exactly? In his compelling analysis of the Cain and Able myth, Volf argues (quite persuasively) that Cain murders Abel because he refuses to redefine himself. Able is the quintessential nothing – he is the second son, he is a shepherd, even his name means something like “vapor”. Cain, on the other hand is strong. He is a farmer, the first son, strong and able (hahaha, get it?). For no good reason we can see, God chooses Abel. God. Chooses. Abel. Cain cannot accept this; the very fact of Abel’s existence now calls his own understanding of himself into question. And, rather than reevaluate himself, Cain chooses to remove that which caused him existential dissonance. He strikes down his brother, the Other, thereby allowing him to maintain his identity unchanged.

If we allow this story to be paradigmatic for understanding the process of murder (and I know it’s not going to be 100%, so let’s agree not to get caught up in the details), I think this sheds some interesting light on Jesus’ comments. Murder arises from a challenge to the integrity of our Selfs. So too I suggest do hate, insult and labeling. Rarely do we hate something that does not affect us; apathy is a much commoner response to these nonentities. Our hatred arises from that which is a challenge to our Selves. Consider, for example, racism in the States – the races that bore the brunt of race-based hatred (Irish, Italian, African, etc) were always those races whose proximity to the dominant culture forced those in power to question and to reevaluate their assumptions about what made them human. We have a tendency toward self-preservation and stability; it seems to be human nature to lash out in anger against that which threatens us. Insult and labeling are public means by which we can consign the Other to safe categories that no longer threaten us.

And so I can see why Jesus considers murder, hatred, name-calling and labeling to be related. They are really all symptoms of the same problem: our tendency to objectify and dehumanize that which threatens our Selfs, our identities. Jesus calls us to lay down our Selfs in favor of embracing the Other. If we cannot allow the Other into our Selfs, to challenge and reshape us, then we will never be able to allow God, who is entirely more Other than any human, to enter into us, to shape us and to change us. Perhaps this is what Jesus means when he teaches us a few verses later to pray, “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us,” and then follows that with, “If you do not forgive sin here on Earth, neither will your Father forgive your sins in heaven.” We are not in a place to accept God’s forgiveness, to repent, unless we can learn how to do the same down here. Only the peacemakers are called children of God.

And let’s not reduce this to cause-effect. We miss the point if we pull a magic formula, a one-to-one correlation between forgiveness on Earth and forgiveness in Heaven. Rather, we learn to be forgiven, to live as the forgiven, in the kingdom of Heaven that is coming to Earth, even as we learn to forgive sin here on Earth.

“Dead man, is it being high that makes you alive, that makes you leave behind three boys and a wife? …As the track marks work their way up your arm, my mother taught my brothers and I not to call you ‘Daddy’, but to call you ‘Father’. And I believe there is something here to be learned of Grace, ’cause I can’t help but love you.”
– “The Widow”, As Cities Burn

I came across this today at slackivist via katagrapho. Slackivist is trying to discuss the purpose of origin stories. He begins by looking at a question of why crow’s feathers are black and then looks at the ultimate answer to the question:

Q: Why are the crow’s feathers black?

A: Courage and helping others are good. Remember that every time you see a crow.

Fred then suggests that the same thing happens in Genesis.

Q: Where do rainbows come from?

A: Selfishness is destructive — to you and to every living creature. Remember that every time you see a rainbow.

Again, the answer isn’t directly related to the apparent question because the apparent question isn’t really what the story is about. This may seem complicated, but if you read these stories it’s quite obvious. They’re not subtle about it. Their message is not some hidden meaning that needs to be decoded. It would be very difficult, in fact, to read or hear such stories without taking away the meaning they are meant to convey.

Thoughts? I can’t really give any of my own analysis of anything until next week (note the question posing nature of all most posts the last few months). Is this a good way to approach the book of Genesis? What are the pros? What are the cons? What are the ramifications/implications of each? Can one maintain inspiration and view some of the Bible stories in this manner? Once again, merely saying it is a Liberal Christan idea only sidesteps the issue. There may be things of value in Liberal Christianity. There may be things that desperately need to be changed in Conservative Christianity. Don’t just sling mud, help us understand the issues.

When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up–for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground, and a mist was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground– then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. (Gen 2.5-8)

I am unconvinced with the literal version of Genesis one and two. There are lots of issues here, none of which I want to explore here in depth, at least in the post. There is no way that the earth was created in six 24-hour periods about six or seven thousand years ago. The empirical evidence simply does not support that conclusion. The particulars do not make sense either. Where did the light come from in Gen 1:3? It was not from Sola, because Sola is formed several days later in Gen 1:14, nor was it from God, because it would have always been there. Then there is the minor issue of there being two creation stories back-to-back. In the first one, man is formed after the plants are brought forth; while in the second, man is crafted before the plants. In addition, in the Gen 2 creation story, the text says that the creation of the heavens and earth only took one day.

There have been many a word typed and shouted in trying to formulate a picture of science that admits a young earth and a consistency between the stories in Genesis one and two. However, I have not heard a version that can successfully do this.

What is my larger worry here? That, by maintaining these views, the church is driving people away from the good news of Jesus Christ.

In light of this, the first two stories in Genesis, in the whole Bible are myths and not literal word-for-word accounts of what physically happened. What do I mean by myth? I am not typing of a made up story that are completely false. Instead, I refer to a story, not an historical account, one that is true on one or several levels, even though it is not a historical “video-camera” account of what happened.

Ok, if the two stories are logically inconsistent and, based on the empirical evidence that we have, also not consistent with the leading theories of the origin and development of the universe and earth; then what do we do with them?

As I have stated before, I favor the divine fiat theory. I came across five other views over at Open Source Theology. Here are the five other ways to view this problem: Open Source Theology:: Genesis 1 as “True Myth”.

1. Genesis 1 fits within a literary genre of creation myths, but only Genesis 1 gets the story right.
2. Genesis 1 is a myth that eventually proves to be verifiable as truth.
3. Genesis 1 is a myth whose truth is to be found in the moral and metaphysical lessons it teaches.
4. Genesis 1 is a myth written by God.
5. Genesis 1 is part of an all-encompassing myth created by God that includes not just the Biblical text but also the “real world.”

They discuss these alternatives and talk a lot about the notion of real myth and what that means. I would recommend checking the article out and I hope you either share how you view the creation stories here or over there. I think this issue is of tremendous value and needs to be reconciled with our larger world-views. I maintain that both the earth is as old as it seems and that God inspired a true writing of Genesis one and two. Now, how exactly that works out, I don’t know – but damn I want to know.

LINKS:

• Open Source Theology:: Genesis 1 as “True Myth”.
• Answers in Genesis
• Institute for Creation Research
• Young-Earth Arguments: A Second Look