What I Write About

I write about the infinite number of intersections between every day life and the good news of the God who has come to get us.

Tuesday, June 27, 2006

My (Possibly Heretical) 2-Cents

I've spent much of the last month in the first several chapters of Genesis, and I can't read it without thinking about the Creation-Evolution conversation that's ongoing--mostly in Christian circles. Here's my possibly heretical 2-cents (always good when a blog post could end up in apostasy!).

Creationists believe strongly in a literal six-day creation. This is imperative in our understanding of the Scriptures as authoritative, they argue. And so they begin with the Genesis account go from there: they argue for a young earth (about 5,000 years old) and dismiss evolution as conjecture and guesses. You can get a more full explanation of their views from the web site for Answers in Genesis .

In my reading of the first couple chapters of Genesis, this strikes me not only as questionable science (which I confess to know little about) but poor Bible reading (which I know only a little more about). The creation account in Genesis 1 is written with repeated refrains that open and close each section. There is rhythm and meter to it. Genesis 1 is not written as a scientific account of how things came to be. It is written as poetry.

If we're going to be faithful readers of the Bible, we have to read it on its' own terms. The Psalmist writes that God has set a tent in the heavens for the sun. I don't know of anyone diligently examining the galaxy for tent pegs.

Poetry is meant to capture our imaginations and point to something bigger than itself. Often, it is meant to provide symbols and images that point to something that is so large it cannot possibly be captured in words. This is what I believe is happening in the first chapters of Genesis.

And so Creationists not only go astray with their science (struggling to account for dinosaurs and lots of other things), but also with their Bibles that they want so badly to preserve. In trying to make these Scriptures do what they weren't intended to do they actually rob the Scriptures of the glory and beauty that they do have in pointing us to a great God who makes and again-makes over and over again. We fight the wrong battles and so miss the point of the war.

Remember as well that Genesis is written by Moses and company as they're wandering in the desert. In a time of trial and purification, the message in the first chapters of Genesis is powerful: God is the sovereign maker of heaven and earth. He is Lord over all that has happened, from the original formation of the water and earth to what the people have just experienced where the seas parted and the Israelites crossed over on dry land (note how similar the water/dry-land separation account is to how the parting of the Red Sea is described in Exodus).

Let me quickly clarify that there is another camp of Christians who posit an "Intelligent Design" approach to understanding creation which I'm much more in favor of. This view looks at the Scriptures and the fossil record as well as the order and purpose how things came to be and says that mindless Darwinian Materialism (the idea that matter is all that there is) can't possibly account for all of it.

Just my two-cents. I think I'll put on my flame-resistant clothing as the Creationists out there prepare their torches for the heretic-burning.

4 comments:

TheDudeAbides said...

Hey AK, have a safe flight tomorrow morning. Hopefully we'll cross paths if you get here early enough. Ill be taking the shuttle to the airport around 12. if i dont see you, have fun here in madison, i think us blue ridge interns have broken it in for you pretty good!!

Liz Hundley said...

Hey Alex! I've never commented on here before, content just to read your thoughts in anonymity. But today, I thought, "Why not? Let him know he does have some faithful UNC-IV blog-stalkers." Haha.

So my thoughts on your post- I don't see what you said as heretical at all. As you mentioned, "We fight the wrong battles and so miss the point of the war." Maybe fiat creationism is right, or maybe God took a more gradual approach. Does is really matter?

Yes, I think we should sharpen our minds as individuals and try to find some answers to perplexing scientific questions, but that doesn't change the basics. The point of the creation account is that God is the Creator and He loved us a lot. Enough to make a veritable paradise for us in Eden, breathe life into us, and then walk with us. The images of creation, perfection, and closeness are all there whether you take it literally or not.

While I love digging into scientific facts and seeing where the evidence leads, I don't think we as Christians should have our faith shaken if indeed evolution was the process God used (which, of course, is up for debate). That was the problem of the Church so many centuries before when the heliocentric model of the universe was discovered. The Church couldn't accept it because it didn't fit in their little box of preconcieved notions about God.

Well if there's anything I've learned this year, it's that God is bigger than our little boxes. He could use any method He wanted in creation, and chances are we probably won't really be able to understand the logistics that well anyway(Isaiah 55:8-9). But it's always mind stretching to try, and that's why we engage in these debates.

So, it all boils down to this- God is good. He may be wild and not understandable sometimes but he is good. And I also think it's good that you addressed this topic on your blog, Alex, challenging us to think deeper and explore more fully the context of the Scriptures.

Have a fruitful week in Madison!
Liz Hundley

Alex said...

great stuff, ya'll! i'm cramming stuff in-between classes, so i'll have to wait to respond to jon's questions later, but they are certainly appreciated.

Liz, thanks for jumping in! I'm glad to have IV stalkers!

Alex said...

jon, i know that it's been forever since you posted your objections to this post. let me just say here that the book that has most influenced me in this issue (and that has much better science to back it up than I'll ever understand) is "Creation and Time" by Hugh Ross. If you're interested in seeing this perspective worked out much better/wholistically than I could ever do justice to (especially on a blog) than you should check it out.