I have been learning about a perspective on creation that I had not really thought of before. The story of creation in Genesis was given to a group of ancient people who were leaving a polytheistic society (Egypt) and entering a polytheistic society (Canaan). God was making the point, through the creation narrative, that he wanted them to become monotheistic. The creation narrative dismisses the other gods that the people would have picked up culturally over time.
With that context and purpose in mind, the creation narrative in Genesis was not intended to be used scientifically. It was not meant to be taken literally. It was a story given to a certain people in a certain context. It is theological language, not scientific language. As an example, creationism should not be used to combat darwinism. It is an inappropriate application of Scripture. The Bible will be more free to transform our lives when we stop trying to transform the text into applying to things that it was never meant to be applied to.
That does not mean that we cannot learn from the creation narrative today. It helps us to place ourselves in God's plans, and we can still learn a lot about God. Our modern Western culture still has many gods and idols just as Isreal did. They may not be cast in bronze and transported around for us the kneel in front of, but idolatry is very strong in our society. God still wants us to worship him, and not any other gods in our modern polytheistic society.
15 comments:
Bryan
Hoo boy, you've stepped on some'sacred toes' here. But I agree in principle.
To me there are two relevant points in the creation story: first, God created; and second, man rejected God. Whether you believe in a literal 6 day creation, a 6 'period' creation, that God created with an evolutionary process, whatever, it's all secondary to the two take away points: there is a Holy Creator God, and I'm a sinner.
BTW, when you get time, read 'The Language of God' by Francis Collins and 'Coming to Peace with Science' by Falk. You'll find them interesting. :)
John V
Bryan,
I challenge you on this blog on creation and science or maybe you should call it 'creation vs science.' It raises some real concern in my soul as to what I read here and wonder if your "instructors" are truly teaching the inerrancy of the Word of God. You state the creation story was given to a group of ancient people...No - it was given to all of us and it shows the power, grace and love of God. You say we should not use it to battle against darwinsim. God gave us his word to battle against principles of evil and non-truths. I don't understand how one can say that creation is just a narrative and does not have scientific background. It also seems you are saying that the story is not completely historical but rather just a story. I'm not sure what you meant but to say but I do believe the creation is scientific, historical and accurate. God does use stories in the bible for lesson-sake but most of those occur in the New Testament. Also, you say the "bible will be more free to transform our lives when we stop trying to transform the text into applying it to things that it was never meant to be applied to. Yes, I do agree partially with this b/c we should understand the context of what we are reading. It helps us to understand what was going on at the time. But, the Bible has so much power to teach us anytime through the power of the holy spirit that even if we do not know the context who's to say we cannot grow in truth from it? The text of the Bible is living. It can be applied to anything if the spirit wants to. I caution all of us to listen to instructors but to ultimately use the Word as their filter to come to the truth. In my opinion it seems like your teachers have taken the bible out of context a bit so I wonder...what else? I do agree we have too much idolatry in our world...even looking at God for what he can do not for who he is a form of Idolatry according to Pastor Matt chandler (Pastor of the Village church in TX).
I'll send more but I gotta go.
I was hoping this post would stir up some comments! My disclaimer (which maybe I did not write very well in my blog entry) is that I am learning about many different perspectives on biblical interpretation. This particular perspective on creation was interesting to me, so I wanted to throw it out there to see what others thought. I'm a big boy, so I welcome the comments.
Jason... good points. I don't think my instructor was trying to say that the Word of God is not true, or that it does not have any application today. I think he was making a point, using the creation narrative as an example, that in our modern, scientific era, we often try to make the Scriptures apply in ways that they were not intended to be applied. We sometimes break everything down to use devotionally, or into principles, or in scientific debates, so that we try to make the Bible mean what we want it to mean through out own interpretations and cultural lenses. I am not saying it is right or wrong, but it is a perpective that I thought was interesting. Feel free to push back.
John... thanks for the book suggestions. I'll check them out next time I'm not in a heavy reading season for class. I appreciate your comments, bro!
Bryan,
Here is what you wrote..."With that context and purpose in mind, the creation narrative in Genesis was not intended to be used scientifically. It was not meant to be taken literally. It was a story given..." Now, what I read here is that the perspective they are giving is what you wrote...that it is a "story" and not reality and that it should not be used or taken literally. Again, how can a believer who believes the Bible is the infallible truth and inerrant word take the scriptures and say that they are not historic or should be taken as literal. The story of creation is literal in the Word. Granted, there are passages that God uses as stories to get across a point but they are the parables. If the creation story is a narrative and that is all, then where did creation come from? I'm not sure if your teachers actually believe this perspective or just throw it out there b/c that is what is possibly in the mainstream and I did not necessarily assume that is what you meant. I'd be curious to hear what your teachers do believe. Your turn.
OK, Jason... I'll do my best to develop the perspective I brought up in the blog post (which I'm sure is going to unpopular with many of the readers of this blog).
Creation science, or creationism (the argument that the biblical story of creation in Genesis should be interpreted literally in order to combat darwinism and evolution), did not really emerge in Christianity until the Scopes Trial in the 1920s. Creationsim has become the most popular theological position. However, arguing whether the creation story is scientific fact or not misses the point of why God gave us the creation narrative. It is a theological story, not scientific. Just because I am using the word "story" does not mean that I am diminishing it as not inspired by God. God gave us the story, we are just applying it incorrectly within the modern era in a way that it was never meant to be applied.
We try to make it scientific because we are products of the Enlightment. Modern science wants to know how everything happened, while Genessis answers the question, "Who created the world?" Science and Genesis try to answer two different questions. The creation stories were told to people with a pre-science worldview, so the Scriptures should be thought about by us in that way. We should not try to twist them into proving modern forms of creationism (which tries to use the story to give scientific proof to creation of the universe). The first chapters of Genesis were given to us before science really existed, so the early chapters in Genesis have no interest in discussing science or developing scientific arguments for worldviews.
Of course God still speaks to us today. In giving us the creation story in Genesis, he reveals much about his character and why we are all here. God is the creator of the universe, and he is perfect in every way. However, our culture today wants to know the answers to all kinds of questions about how God created, and the creation story is not equipped to answer such questions. Instead of spending so much of our time trying to apply scientific meaning to the text, we should be actively searching that text for the incredible theological meaning which it was intended to provide. We should not be trying so hard to prove something out of nothing. The point of the creation story in Genesis is that God wants us to only worship him, and the God who created everything.
Sorry for the typos... long day!
I like Bry taking the controversial role once in a while. I love it. Creation to me is that God created. How did he do it? I don't know. How long did it take? Don't know that either. We should use science to explore the wonder of how he did it. Anyway, hope you don't get lynched before we record tomorrow.
Bryan.
Please do not apologize for posting something controversial...I love this stuff. I am better face to face so I'll wait until I come up so we can discuss it in person. Oh wait, you are coming here first so if we continue to debate it out I'll just throw you in my pool.
I'll just leave it I think I get what you are saying, and to me it sounds very academia and less Biblical. I know your heart man and I know you want to grow in Christ so I don't doubt your sincerity. I still am not on the same page with some of what you said but again, I'll wait to discuss it with you.
I'm looking forward to hanging out, Jas. I also enjoy face to face (written words don't always capture what is intended by the writer). Thanks for taking an interest in what I'm learning.
Bryan
This debate reminds me of a discussion I had with a missionary friend of mine many years ago. It was like 3:00 AM, we were both tired, and we were debating 'deep theology'. Jim said "I had a professor at Bible college who once told our class: You want deep theology? I'll give you deep theology. Love your brother. If you ever get that right, come see and I'll give you some more."
Now, I say that not to poke fun at this debate, but more to say that there are some things like how God created, God choosing the elect vs. free will, etc. that theologians have debated for centuries. Quite frankly, I personally love the debate; it challenges my thinking, and I have certainly modified my stance on some things over the years as I've learned more from my brothers. That said, to me there are things that are more important to expanding and building the Kingdom than debates over issues that we'll only find the answers to 'on the other side'.
Lastly, I definitely believe that the Word is inerrant, and that the Scriptures and true science (which is the observation of that which has been created) can be reconciled. For me where it becomes difficult is where we draw the line as to what was meant to be taken literally, what is allegory, etc.
John VBryan
This debate reminds me of a discussion I had with a missionary friend of mine many years ago. It was like 3:00 AM, we were both tired, and we were debating 'deep theology'. Jim said "I had a professor at Bible college who once told our class: You want deep theology? I'll give you deep theology. Love your brother. If you ever get that right, come see and I'll give you some more."
Now, I say that not to poke fun at this debate, but more to say that there are some things like how God created, God choosing the elect vs. free will, etc. that theologians have debated for centuries. Quite frankly, I personally love the debate; it challenges my thinking, and I have certainly modified my stance on some things over the years as I've learned more from my brothers. That said, to me there are things that are more important to expanding and building the Kingdom than debates over issues that we'll only find the answers to 'on the other side'.
Lastly, I definitely believe that the Word is inerrant, and that the Scriptures and true science (which is the observation of that which has been created) can be reconciled. For me where it becomes difficult is where we draw the line as to what was meant to be taken literally, what is allegory, etc.
John V
Well put, John! The classes encourage me to try to hash out what I'm learning with others, but the content definitely does not trump the relationships (or as you said, loving each other well).
Great stuff bro. I like to listen to (read) debates like this because they make me think, although I tend to avoid jumping into them because they seem to take more time to get to a stalemate than I'm willing to give up. Great post and I'm glad you wrote it. It's fun for me to read the back and forth nature of these discussions (especially when they are between friends and I know there is no change in the relationship because of the debate). Keep rockin.
PS... Steve and I will geekify you sooner or later.
Well said Jon. I agree with your comments.
emerging now... you'll never geekify me! Thanks for the post, bro.
Post a Comment