Theology for the Masses

I’ve always found impossible Paul’s imperative to “pray without ceasing.” I mean, seriously, who has time for that? Even Luther’s comment that he’s so busy that he feels he has to pray for 3 hours a day doesn’t quite get at Paul’s impracticable “without ceasing” requirement – 3 hours is hardly “without ceasing.” Surely Paul doesn’t expect me to kneel beside my bed for all 16 waking hours.

But what if “without ceasing” isn’t a measurable category? What if I can’t set my stop-watch count this kind of prayer? What if I can’t gauge it? What if it can’t be calculated by the time I spend on my knees next to my bed or verbalizing prayers from the Lectionary?

I had a liberating thought a while back: Unceasing prayer can only be done in communion with the Holy Spirit…..Here me out before you say, “Thank you Captain Obvious!”

You see, this kind of prayer cannot be put on our check-list of spiritual activities for the day. Rather, it is a continual and constant communion with the Spirit throughout the day. It is the recognition that the Spirit, as a person, is always present and always engaged with us. Like the face of the Deep in Genesis 1:2, the Spirit hovers over us, always drawing us out of the chaos and into communion.

This is also a recognition that all our mundane tasks – “when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up” (Dt. 6:7) – can be done in communion with the Spirit, with an ever increasing awareness of the Spirit’s nearness. God is not distant, God the Spirit desires us to delve deep in Trinitarian fellowship.

So, while Luther’s 3 hours is important (especially as a discipline), we cannot restrict our communion with the Spirit of God to 1/8 of our day. The Spirit’s presence permeates every aspect of our lives. Every cry of our heart against injustice, even the ones we don’t utter prayers for, is heard by the Spirit as an appeal to the Father to set things right. When we hurt the Spirit groans and prays for us – even though we haven’t uttered a word.

No longer do I find Paul’s imperative an impossibility. No longer do I assume I don’t have time for that. No longer am I convicted by Luther’s prayer life in comparison with mine. Ceaseless is as simple communion with another person. It is the desires and thoughts which invite God to establish His kingdom on earth. It is our efforts to work with the Spirit to display, as true image bearers, God’s name in a chaotic and rebellious earth. It is orienting our being toward God’s Spirit. It is our groanings to have heaven touch earth in such a way that Christ is revealed in all his goodness. In these things we draw deeper into communion with the Spirit, deeper into participation in the divine nature. In these things we pray without ceasing.

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).

May I present part 2 of my pictoral tour of the Creation Museum! You’ll remember that we left last time secure in the fact that we can trust God’s Word ™ over the evil, corruptive forces of Human Reason. We saw how God’s Word ™ had been preserved throughout the centuries, despite the fact that evil persons such as Jews and Catholics had tried to corrupt it. And so now we turn to the modern incarnation of this (apparently) ancient war: the defense of Creationism in the face of Darwin’s bastard step-children, the evil Evolutionists.

The First Four Days (In the Blink of an Eye)

The couple of rooms are pretty much what we expected. We were treated to “scientific” Old-Earth “theories” based on Human Reason (read: foolish atheism) claiming that Creation is more than 6,000 years old. We saw various computer models illustrating how Young Earth science made better use of the available evidence, and how (surprise!) the Museum’s understanding of this evidence is perfectly in line with God’s Word. (It’s so comforting to know someone has it all figured out!) And at one of the unfinished displays, we were treated to an example of the Museum’s ever-vigilant dedication to undermining the rhetoric of Human Reason.

Clever, no?

Oh, and in case you were wondering (I know I was), the reason you should care about this is that believing in an Old Earth undermines all Christian doctrine and theology. Apparently unless you believe that Genesis 1-11 is literal, historical fact, then you are an evil, pagan.

Day Six (because who really cares about plants and birds? no one. that’s who.)

Whew… two whole rooms without people? It was almost getting to be too much! Fortunately, by the time we got through the second room, we were treated to a documentary film that chronicled all six days of creation in a relatively short time period (even shorter than Six Days! man, these Museum people are GOOD!). Once we’d been properly prepared, we were shown into the Garden of Eden.

I learned so much in this room! Did you know that all animals were vegetarians before the Fall? True story.

Who’s going to blame this guy for loving pineapple? Not me, that’s for sure.

They were so tame you could feed them!!

Did you know that no animals or plants were toxic or venomous before the Fall? TRUE STORY. Did you know that before the Fall, Eve never looked Adam in the eye!?! TRUE STORY! Don’t believe me? Not only was it in the video we watched; I got photographs!

Let’s go to the film:

Note Adam’s strong, upward gaze. He’s in control here, folks!

Oh Eve! You’re so demure and feminine! Oh, by the way, while you were off frolicking, the Outdated Stereotype store phoned; apparently your model is being recalled.

Dinosaurs in the garden? That you can FEED WITH YOUR HANDS?!? I know, I know. You’re thinking, “This is too good to be true!”

Oh, and alas, you were right. All good things must end. And so we come to the one scene where Eve finally looks Adam in the eye: when she offers him grapes. Or a pomegranate. Or something. I always thought it was an Apple.

The Devil Made Me Do It (Sin and Fallout)

Surprisingly, the serpent (who was Satan) did not have legs. Before or after the Fall. I was disappointed. So, apparently Adam and Eve ate the fruit, got kicked out of the Garden and God showed them how to make animal sacrifices. I have this awesome picture of Adam and Eve wearing deer skins and standing behind altar on which are lying the two slain deer, fully skinned. I can’t find the pic, but I’ll keep looking. Consider the implications – God skinned these two deer and made Adam and Eve wear the skins, probably while the poor things were still dying. That is awesome because little kids come see this museum. Oh, and in case you were wondering, the theory that Genesis 3’s claim that God made them clothes of skin is actually God showing them how to sacrifice is actually rabbinic oral tradition. Yes, the same Oral Tradition that was condemned as evil about 4 rooms ago. What’s that? No, that’s not a contradictory display. You can only find something contradictory if you’re using Human Reason, and we’re not doing anything even remotely resembling something reasonable here at the Museum.

And I’m sure you were wondering, but the animal sacrifices were insufficient because humans and animals are unrelated. This was the one and only place in the entire museum I found them giving explicit reasons that Evolution allegedly undermines Christian doctrine. Apparently, if evolution is true, then we can all just do animal sacrifices. Somehow. But since the bible says that animal sacrifices weren’t sufficient (which, to their credit, it actually does, in Hebrews – though of course they don’t bother with such things as citing references) then apparently evolution can’t be true. Now, can someone please tell me where the Bible ever gives “we’re not related” as a reason animal sacrifice isn’t valid?!?!

Anyway, now we move onto the hall of Sin. This is the room I described from last post with the gray walls and the black-and-white photos featuring the consequences of sin. They were (in order): An African kid starving, A Wolf eating raw meat and looking menacingly at the camera/audience, A mushroom cloud, Bones from the Holocaust, A Woman screaming as she gives birth, A Tornado, Heroin (complete with a spoon and needle, WTF? exactly how educational is this museum supposed to be?! here kid, THIS IS HOW YOU FREAKING TAKE HEROIN!)* and A Graveyard.

Sin is bad. And don’t forget that it’s all because you forgot to listen to God’s Word and started thinking for yourself. Human Reason will pump you full of drugs, genocide you with radiation, make you have babies and take you to Kansas where a wolf will eat your heart while you starve to death.

Also, since you were curious, it was at this point that animals started eating meat and being venomous. Apparently God had build the potential for these things into various animals, but did not reveal them until after the Fall. In a rare fit of exegetical fantasy, the Museum presents Isaiah 11:6-9 (which is an apocalyptic passage) as proof of this clearly sound theory. I find it fascinating that this idea is so completely insane that even Museum realized that no one would believe this unless they could find a Bible verse to throw at it. Fortunately, we don’t need to pay attention to context when citing. Context sounds a little too much like Human Reason for our tastes. God’s Word is God’s Word! We don’t need no context!

What could possibly be next? Oh, we haven’t talked about incest yet!

The Fallen Community

Note in this picture (of Cain, Abel, Adam and Eve), that Adam and Abel are inside the wall, while Cain and Eve (who is pregnant, but not with Seth!) are in their appropriate positions outside the wall.

Also note that Mike’s arm is outside the community.

So, Cain kills Abel (who was apparently the first prophet, more rabbinic Oral Tradition!) and then takes his sister as a wife. But isn’t that incest? Isn’t that something the Bible forbids?! Oh silly. Genetic drift hadn’t happened yet, and God’s Laws are pragmatic, not moral. So calm down. Plus, you’re gay. What’s that? Oh, well on a display called “Who did Cain Marry?”, we find this statement (reproduced verbatim):

“Since God is the One who defined marriage in the first place, God’s Word is the only standard for defining proper marriage. People who do not accept the Bible as their absolute authority have no basis for condemning someone like Cain for marrying his sister.”

Were you paying attention? If you don’t conform to our white-middle-class-fundamentalist view ::ahem:: we mean, our biblical view of marriage, then you don’t have any room to talk. So take your liberal Reason and go home.

The Flood was a cool display. Apparently Noah hired a bunch of guys to help him build the ark, but they all thought he was crazy. We know this because the displays were animatronic and talked. Yeah, they were that creepy. Some pictures:

They actually showed all the people dying. Again, I’m impressed. There are babies on that rock. At least they’re not shying away from the implications. Of course, these are also all pagan evolutionists, so… well… they probably deserved to die in the first place. I mean, they helped Noah build the ark. So they don’t have an excuse.

Sadly, not life-sized. Even sadder, not biblically accurate. Apparently the biblical specifications don’t build something that would actually float. So a Navy simulator came up with this version. However, and we would like to make this very clear: using a Navy simulator to fix something in the Bible is not using Human Reason to augment God’s Word. What we at the Museum are doing here is completely different from what we’re criticizing everywhere else in the Museum. Somehow.

Fun fact: because we can’t account for how rapidly species have changed after the flood, we are going to tell you that “these differences suggest God provided organisms with special tools to change rapidly.” No word on what those special tools were, but my guess is Craftsman. Also, if you were curious how the various animals got to the different continents, it turns out that they used rafts made of dead trees (killed in the flood) that float on the ocean currents. No, I am not making this up. The Museum people made it up. And they have a video simulation to prove it:

The Museum concludes with videos of college students who don’t believe in God. These are the victims of the Enemy. Given that the Museum’s primary demographics are Elderly persons and parents with young children, this is a brilliant piece of propaganda to encourage giving. The Elderly can fight against the ever-more secular Universities to get us back to those mythic “good ole days” and parents with young children can fix the problem before their kids get there. The final station is a well-produced, well-acted and (relatively) well-written 20-minute video gospel presentation. At the beginning, a guy compares a T-Rex tooth to the Bible, apparently because both are old and cool. Other than this, nothing from the Museum’s previous 2.5 hour tour appears or is referenced in the video. Somehow this is meant to prove that the Gospel is dependent on a literal reading of Genesis 1-11.

Oh Those Terrible Lizards!

I was getting pissed – we’d gone through the whole museum with almost no reference to Dinosaurs! Fear not! They had their own separate exhibit, complete with Job quotations and models!

A great question! And one we were exited to have answered.

The Leviathan and Behemoth in Job were both dinosaurs. Yes, really. Go ahead and go read their descriptions in Job 40-41. Yeah. They could breath fire (at least Leviathan could). Don’t you know that’s where dragon legends came from? No, we’re not joking. Why are you laughing? I mean… consider knights…

See?! Knights in the middle ages hunted dragons to extinction. We even watched a 10 minute video (of which I purchased a copy) explaining all of this in lucid, rational terms. Why are you laughing?

And with that, we left. We managed to doge most of the museum people, who all wanted to know what we thought. I’m sure they thought those were tears of joy.