Theology for the Masses

I’m in the middle of reading Kingdom Triangle by JP Moreland for an upcoming class at Asbhry this fall. I have such mixed thoughts about this book so far. For every good insight he makes, Moreland commits an asinine ad hominim attack on someone’s position. The tone is hasty and… almost frustrated. It just seems as though he is picking the chaff of possible positions and calling it their wheat. I expect more from someone like Moreland.

This is not to say that the work is without merit. He is doig some interesting stiff with the idea of story (which he is calling drama for aome reason) and thick/thin worlds. I’ll post some more on this latter.

Over at the Karis blog, a local Acts 29 Church plant, head pastor Kevin Larson had the following to say about The Shack:

I’ve posted this before, but I keep hearing people recommend The Shack, so I wanted to put it up here again. People argue that the author is just using metaphors, but the point of metaphors is to accurately represent the realities to which they point. To be clear, God is not an elderly African-American woman. And, no, I haven’t read it. Sorry if that bothers you. I have too many books to read and too little time. [Video of Mark Driscoll]

The following is my response.  I’d love to get your input on the issue (or head over there and talk about it):

I have no problem with you not reading the book – I know I don’t have the time to read it either (even though I want to do so). However, why exactly does the portrayal of God the Father as an African American woman bother you so much? From what I understand God (in the story) shows up as a n African American woman because of the main character’s deep wounds from his own father.

I am sure that we both agree that God the father is not male nor female. Genesis 1-2 teaches us that the image of God contains both the female and the male aspects. As such, the "fatherness" of God the Father is more a social description than a sexual description. God the Father as an African American woman displayed these social aspects, but in the gender of the female. As a matter of fact, I think that God the Father shows up as a male later on in the book. (I am not sure, however, I am only going off of descriptions of the work by students of mine that have read it and statements by the author during and interview at Catalyst this past month.) Any description of God in English (or any language for that matter) can only possibly give a flawed and partial picture of God. The finite can not contain fully the infinite.

Given this and the above, I don’t have a problem with God the Father being described with this metaphor – and that is how the author intended the book – as a metaphor. The book is designed to get the read to ponder the mystery of the Trinity and push the reader into repairing their relationship with God.  It is meant to be purely metaphorical – not a systematic theology.  The author is fully aware that this is not an accurate description of the trinity – and that a fully accurate statement on the trinity is impossible.

I guess what worries me is the aversion to a book that you have not read and statements that seem to contradict the author’s intended purpose.  The fact that the only stated problem with the book is its depiction of God the Father as an African American woman concerns me.  I know that your role as a head pastor means that you are responsible for the teaching of the people in your church and that you need to ward off false doctrine.  I just want to encourage you to reevaluate you stance towards this book.

But, with that said, the work you all (Karis) in the community is inspiring to other churches – keep up the good work of growing and cultivating the Kingdom of God!

Thoughts?

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 like the way Peter Enns articulates the problem of myth and biblical studies, especially given our discussions on the term.

The Following is from Page 40 of Inspiration and Incarnation:

Christians recoil from any suggestion that Genesis is in any way embedded in the mythologies of the ancient world.  On one level this is understandable.  After all, if the Bible and the gospel are true, and if that truth is bound up with historical events, you can’t have the beginning of the Bible get it so wrong.  It is important to understand, however, that not all historians of the ancient Near East use the word myth simply as shorthand for untrue, made-up, [or] storybook.  It may include these ideas for some, but many who use the term are trying to get at something deeper.  A more generous way of defining myth is that it is an ancient, premodern, prescientific way of addressing questions of ultimate origins and meaning in the form of stories: Who are we?  Where do we come from?

I think that is a definition we can all agree upon, no?

“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).

I would like to open up a free for all forum on the topic of the term myth and the ramifications the term has for biblical studies and theology.

Possible conversation starters:

• Can a myth be real? In what sense?
• How did the ancients see history? myth?
• When looking at texts that were written by the ancients, what perspective should we assume? Should we view the texts as they did, or should we approach the text in the same manner as we would one with similar features that was written today? (i.e. it looks like history, it is history)
• What unsaid connotations go along with the word myth? How does this impact
  Is there a difference between myth as a technical term and myth as a popular concept? How does this distinction in the minds of the laity impact scholar’s and theologians use of the term?
• If myth, in its technical usage, is too problematic of a term for use with the laity, what can be done about it? New term? Better educated laity?
• Most importantly, what is at stake in using the term myth?

There are just some starter questions – feel free to address any or none of the points.