Does Christ’s Physical Resurrection Matter?

           

The topic of Christ’s resurrection has often been a topic of intrigue and debate mainly because of theories that have been formed over what really occurred. The theories have ranged from accusations that Jesus mysteriously survived the crucifixion, to his disciples stole the body and fabricated the whole thing, to his disciples suffered hallucinations, to it being a metaphorical resurrection of Christ coming to life in the hearts of the disciples, to the argument that the disciples, among many, really did witness the miraculous.  I personally find the evidence for a real resurrection account to be sufficient over all the other theories. So, if any of you would like to hear my thoughts on that, say so and I would be more than happy to make it my next post.  However, my main point here is to show why it is vital that it be true otherwise Christ was no Messiah, but would have been the failed revolutionary or false prophet as others claimed him to be.

            The Claim

Throughout the Synoptic Gospels there is plenty of anticipated warning given by Jesus that both his death and resurrection were on the horizon given that his demise had already been in the hearts and on the agendas of the elders, chief priests and scribes (Matt. 12:40, 16:21; Mk 8:31; Lk. 9:22).  It must, nevertheless, be understood that in this first-century world any talk of rising from the dead or resurrection was understood to denote an occurrence happening to the physical body.  As N.T. Wright has extensively laid out, bodily resurrection was something the many Jews believed could and would happen as a future event while most of the Pagan world, along with some Jews, denied especially in the context of a future life.[1]  Death was a one way road.  Now I know the tendency to assume that the Pagan world was just being faithless, but what reason did they have to think any different?  The eventual death of the body had never not occurred as far as they knew.  The idea of new life was something God reveled to Israel via Abraham, Moses and the Law, Israel’s oracles and so on and became inherent within Jewish theology and hope. 

Decay

However, this is most pronounced in their view of sin.  Sin is ultimately disobedience to YHWH not because he has some sick need to dominate and smite, but because he is the source of life and working contrary to that source of life was going to cause bondage unto death.  An appropriate analogy is like that of a flower that has been cut from its root.  While it too appears to still be healthy and alive, it is only a matter of time before its decay becomes evident the longer it is away from its root system.  So also, sin irreversibly crosses that boundary that initiates the curse of being severed from our life source thus bringing death to both the organic aspect of humanity as-well-as the spiritual (Gen. 2:17; 3:3).  From that point forward humanity is in need of an act of mere regeneration by way of re-creation. This act is essentially what we see initiated by the Ten Commandments as God’s new act of creation (hence the Law’s intrinsic purpose of setting the Hebrews apart through restored fidelity to YHWH)  that comes to further completion in the Messiah who was obedient/faithful to the point of death (Matt. 5:17-19).     

    

New Life   

Paul expounds on this notion for the church of Corinth (a people steeped in Pagan thought and tradition) who had trouble grappling with this concept:

For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures… If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.  Then those also who have died in Christ have perished.  If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied. (1 Cor. 15:3-4, 17-19 NRSV). 

In essence it is that simple; if Jesus did have a bodily resurrection, then sin and subsequent death have really been overcome, but if he did not rise then nothing has changed and we are still in bondage to sin. However, since we believe Jesus did rise from the dead, we do have a reason to believe that we are in the initial stages of freedom and things are different.  Therefore, we have entered into an overlap of time between times.  This is to say that “‘the present evil age’ has been invaded by the ‘age to come,’ and is the time of restoration, return, covenant renewal and forgiveness”.[2]  Therefore, God’s initial act toward the completion of re-creation could not end except in a literal reanimating of both organic and spiritual life in Christ the “firstborn of creation” (Col. 1:15).  Perhaps this raises more questions than it answers, but it is the beginning of understanding.

[1] N.T. Wright. Surprised By Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection and the Mission of the Church (New York: Harper Collins Publishing 2009), 37.

[2] N.T. Wright. Christian Origins and the Question of God: The Resurrection of the Son of God (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press 2003), 332.

Tradition!

This year I decided to take part in Lent and I must say I have come to some new conclusions about the practice.  Now I know there are some of us who come from denominations that for whatever reason don’t participate in it, but I want to use my Lenten observations as a means to look at how we Christians should approach our traditions.  Of course it would not be terrible if it also helped us discern what traditions were worth keeping and what are worth abandoning.   

Nevertheless, in its historical setting Lent was practiced in the days and weeks leading up to someone’s baptism in which each person would prepare themselves via confession, prayerful solitude, fasting and so forth before the public declaration of their faith.  However, Lent today is different.  It is now an communal activity practiced annually with the same reflective aims, yet it has become more of a time to daringly give up something cherished (i.e. food, unnecessary spending, social media etc..) between point A (Ash Wednesday) and point B (Easter Sunday). This then raises the question, does anything really change?  Don’t get me wrong it is good that this has become an annual tradition for all Christians, but it is meant to be an avenue for drawing near to God while God draws near to us in a way that allows God to transfors the human-self toward inner Christ-likeness.  This is, as Judy Bauer says, for the purpose of spiritual growth in a way that carries us from an old state of being to a new way of living.[1]  Thus, some might see the Lenten tradition is reminiscent of the “spiritual disciplines”. The disciplines also seek to purposely enter into a place where we set aside external things in exchange for God’s direct renovation of our interior life.   

    

These observations have come from my going without while feeling like I am only going through the motions.  We so often fall into the trap of trying to rush through these things which I suspect happens because first, we have let the hurried aspect of our social-sphere demand it’s way in to the deepest part of inner spiritual self, and second, because we are blinded by illusory ideas that our spiritual health and nourishment has been met and requires nothing further.  However, grace and the sanctifying process say otherwise (Phil. 2:12-13). The truth is life with God is a journey that begins new every day requiring fresh submission and willful dependence on him.  Therefore whether we are participating in Lent, taking communion, or merely entering into daily prayer, it is all purposeful for growing us in God.          

      

Tradition as whole exists to pass-on “ideas, commitments, customs, manners, and celebrations of life in its complexity” all for the sake of memory and community.[2]   I believe Christian traditions do the same thing, but are intrinsically tied to a memory and community belonging to a larger picture of past, present and future divine outworkings which draw an entire creation home from exile (Ps. 96:10; Isa 56:7; Matt. 25:31-32; 28:19-20).  Therefore, all Christian traditions that refocus human thought and life back on our patient God and his work should never be approached arbitrarily or superficially. It is always working to further the development of new Christlike character in our personhood and thus requires active participation. In essence our aim should always be deeper communion with God. 

[1] Judy Bauer. Lent Easter Wisdom Nouwen (Ligouri, MO: Ligouri Publications 2005), viii.

[2] Richard E. Wentz. American Religious Traditions: The Shaping of Religion in the United States (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress 2003), xi.

Earning Worth: When Personhood is Cheapened

How do you define the worth of a person?  Is it by what they do; is it how much they have; or is worth ascribed via different means?  Whether we admit it or not there are obvious norms woven into our social fabric which say a person’s worth is based on their ability to contribute to and enhance the society to which they belong.  Those who cannot contribute are seen as drains on community resources and therefore drains on society and we show it.  One example of this, offered by Hauerwas and Vanier,  is seen in the way the people who are considered “normal” contributors in the world have found subtle ways of hiding or segregating the so-called “abnormal” non-contributors in the world (e.g. mentally or physically disabled, blind, deaf, homeless etc…).[1]  This has been done to greater and lesser degrees through the formations of various institutions that intentionally keep the often vulnerable non-contributors out of sight, out of mind and without a voice.[2] So should we now say that people are more commodity than human? Have subjects been turned into objects?  I propose that life is much more important than this. Perhaps even a sacred thing from conception onward, and take notice of the word onward because the average pro-lifer only seems concerned with beginnings. 

Throughout both the Hebrew Scriptures and NT there is a moral ethic which says that human life is of unsurpassable worth.  This begins with the outworking of human creation in which Yahweh authors life (Gen. 2:7; Psa. 139:13-16), shares the enterprise of creating with the biological world (Gen. 1:11), but then explicitly makes humankind in his very image (Gen. 1:26-27).  However, we must ask to what extent do we bear God’s likeness? The usual erroneous ways of concluding this either begins with anthropomorphisms (i.e. projecting human attributes onto God as if God were also made of bone, flesh, brain, organs and so forth), or we ascribe all of God’s overwhelming power, absolute control, autonomous nature and unilateral action onto humanity. The problem with the second is that it would then make the entire “natural world available for human manipulation and exploitation” which would have led to self-destruction long ago.[3]  

Conceivably we might then take it to mean that God shared his power in more productive ways such as offering humanity the unique capacity to be intentionally-faithful, to love, to will, to imaginatively create, to be relational and care for the rest of creation in ways that it cannot in return do for us.  Subsequently, when God gives humans the God-like permission to fill the earth, subdue it and take dominion over it (Gen. 1:28) it might be better understood that we were and are to take responsibility for it in creative word and conscientious deed, as appose to coercion and violence.  Psalms 8 echoes this as it seemingly draws from the Genesis 1-2 polemic against chaos with Yahweh’s ordering the cosmos and then establishing humanity as a center of sorts for helping maintain that established order (8:3-5).  In verses 5-8 humanity is celebrated as royal personhood that again has authority and responsibility to order and care for creation for the sake of “establishing justice and righteousness.”[4]  Therefore, humanity is a little more than some arbitrary addition to a biological universe, but has a multifaceted purpose that is privileged to help bring order as-well-as the potentiality to usher in its restoration, hence the God/human Messiah with all restorative teachings and implications.

     Likewise, God early on made declarations of human life being beautiful and worthy of respect and saving.  In the Levitcal law for Jubilee the Israelites were commanded to never take advantage of one another but to care for each other’s needs especially concerning those with less (Lev. 25:13-17; 35-36). So also, it is said that oppressing the weaker and poor is altogether an insult to the world’s Maker. Instead, it is in kindness we honor Him and display morality and integrity (Prov. 14:31-32).  Perhaps most profound of all is when Jesus says what you do, or do not do, for the least of these you have in turn done to Me (Matthew 25:45).  The connection between Creator and personhood exists as an intimate connection that we not only hinder by disconnecting the two, but commit a holy offense.  Therefore, it is in this image-bearing way that human life has a sacred purpose and responsibility to care for and make new avenues of togetherness and community that include all persons from least to greatest. This idea of community, as I have demonstrated in past posts, must be done even when the only benefit is for that of another.  

So, why is it that we still struggle to make this a consistent feature in our life ethic and mind-set toward the other?  Perhaps it is because we fail to see that our socially formed ideas and practices, which disable others, have left us unaware of two things: first, those deemed lesser in society share a core commonality of humanity, but secondly we have become blind to our own inefficacies and need for care, grace and mercy.  My initial attention toward those who are disabled is indicative of the bigger problem whereby we build and protect self-images.  There is not one who is free from absolute dependence, yet we belong to a world that, at its core, believes a person is stunted if they are not self-reliant.  The reality is we come into this world relying on the care and mercy of others and we often go out of this world relying on it as well.  The in between time where many believe they have reached independence is a lie because within any societal context one’s daily needs for human necessity often rests in the hands someone else (doctors, farmers, water sourcing, clothing makers, and so forth).  We would then be remiss to think that this dependent feature does not overlap into things of the unseen. Humanity bears the image of a God that oversees our needs in both and intimate and broader sense.  So what all this points to, or attempts to point to, is that God in turn desires a people who will do what He does within their societal existence as ambassadors of His Kingdom that defines human life and worth as that of a chosen consecration. 

[1] Stanley Hauerwas & Jean Vanier. Living Gently in a Violent World (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press 2008), 29.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Terrence E. Fretheim. God and World in the Old Testament: A Relational Theology of Creation (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press 2005), 48-49.

[4] Walter Brueggemann. The Message of the Psalms (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Press 1984), 37.

Why Does God Allow Evil and Suffering?

Chances are if you are a living/breathing/cognitive human being you have either heard it asked, been asked, or you yourself have asked the question “if God is so good and loving then why does he permit evil?”  There are many generic answers to this question of evil (also known as theodicy) that are often more harmful than helpful.  These range from God allows bad things to happen for a reason -to- it is part of His plan -to- suffering is God’s mercy in disguise- and even to- in God’s sovereign ways (or perhaps diabolical plan) He has predestined some for good and some for bad and then judges each according to how he made them to be (no cynicism towards Calvinism here).  Nevertheless, one’s worldview tends to frame how they understand and answer the question, so perhaps we need to reframe our view.  Greg Boyd has done some of the most concise work that looks at scripture’s constant interplay between God working toward the good of the world, while both humanity and some in the angelic realms work more against God’s will than for it.  In Satan and the Problem of Evil, Boyd outlines probably the best model for this warfare theodicy which I have adopted into my own theology and essentially outlined here. So here it goes:

1.  Love must be freely chosen: While this may seem contrary to rational thought, the allowance for evil begins with the nature of love.  If we can agree on the assumption that we are to be participatory agents in God’s love then love by definition is not legitimate if humans or angels are programmed like machines to have it. Rather, it requires all to be capable of a certain amount of self-determining freedom to choose or reject it.[1] 

2. Freedom suggests risk: The very idea that the participatory agents have the freedom to accept or reject love means that the future to some degree is open for God. The story of Jonah (and likewise for many of the prophet’s messages) shows an open future in that God sends Jonah to warn Nineveh that unless they change they will be destroyed due to their continuous wickedness. This carries implications for the possibility of painful risk for God that while He is in control of the final outcome He has to some extent relinquished absolute control of His agents for the sake of having relationship with them.[2]

3. Risk requires moral responsibility: Risk implies that we are not just free agents, but also moral agents who can be held accountable for how we use our freedom.  For better or for worse we become responsible for our actions toward one another and thus in many ways responsible for each other.[3]

4. Moral responsibility implies the principal of proportionality and its ability to influence: This is to say that because our moral responsibility comes in our capacity to bless and our capacity to curse it will always carry the same potential and proportion for evil as it has for love.[4]  This gives way for the constant mistreatment of others or self as we often see in our daily life and experience. 

5.  The power of influence is irrevocable: It is not as if the perpetual destructiveness carried out by the world’s rebellious agents is working for God’s or human’s greater good. Rather, God has allowed it to continue because to revoke our ability to influence would unhinge our moral responsibility that remains central for relationally-mutual love.[5]

6. The power to influence is finite: While humans and angels have the irrevocable self-determining freedom and moral responsibility to influence, it does not stipulate the scope or duration of that freedom.  In a sense the quality of freedom will cut both ways given that God’s creatures are finite and God is omnipotent. There are plenty of scriptural implications illustrating that God will not allow those who misuse their freedom to eternally continue as the time will come when Christ will return to set all things right.[6]

---

[1] Gregory A. Boyd. Satan and the Problem of Evil: Constructing a Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy(Downers Grove, IL; InterVarsity Press 2001), 53-56.

[2] Ibid, 115.

[3] Ibid, 165.

[4] Ibid, 169-170.

[5] Ibid, 181.

[6] Ibid, 190-191.

Christians & Governmental Powers: Thinking Through Romans 13:1-7

           

 While this is not necessarily a follow up to the last post, giving Romans 13 a stronger interpretation could address some questions that may have been raised by my restorative justice propositions.  Plus, it has been on my mind lately as an under-addressed problematic text in mainstream Christianity so this is my not so original (though no less prolific) resolve.  Romans 13:1-7 says:

¹ Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God.  ² Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.  ³ For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you wish to have no fear of the authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive its approval; ⁴ for it is God’s servant for your good. But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for the authority does not bear the sword in vain! It is the servant of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer.  ⁵ Therefore one must be subject, not only because of wrath but also because of conscience.  ⁶ For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, busy with this very thing.  ⁷ Pay to all what is due them—taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due (NRSV).

The mainstream interpretation of this often occurs in one of two ways.  The first is that all governments are a Godly entity which one should blindly follow because, after all, they are God’s authority used for “sword-wielding” (i.e. wrathful) purposes.  This is obviously problematic because it has given rise to the Constantines, Crusaders, Nazis and other likeminded regimes that would use this verse to justify total allegiance to governing tyrants. 

The second way of looking at Romans 13 has been to attempt a “reasonable” approach that says one should then only submit to moral governments and vehemently revolt against the immoral governments.  However, we are then faced with the dilemma of not only deciding at what point of immoral a government should become disqualified, but now distinctions are being made about governments which are obviously not even conceptualized within Paul’s thinking.[1]  So allow me to suggest a third view. 

            John Howard Yoder makes, what I believe, to be an indisputable observation about the text. This is that Romans 13 cannot be read apart from Romans 12 because they were composed as a literary whole. Leading up to these chapters Paul is explaining God’s mercy bestowed on the Gentiles (1-5), then the unearned renewal of the “body through the Spirit” (6-8) and followed by the continuation of unmerited redemptive concern that God maintains for Israel (9-11). Then in Romans 12 Paul is suggesting that God’s mercies on humankind should elicit the human response of non-conformity to the world, suffering love, abandoning vengeance and overcoming evil with good(specifically by those who have responded to and accepted God’s redemptive mercies). This extended from Paul’s understanding that God’s victorious progress is moving from merciful past to triumphant future.[2]  How does this line up with the previous interpretations of chapter 13?  Well, it doesn’t. 

Perhaps when we read 12 and 13 together Paul is making a moral statement on Christian conduct rather than a metaphysical one about government (metaphysical meaning that God is creator or the initial causation of governmental powers).   Rather, Paul seems to suppose that mankind took that initiative upon himself and now God merely ordered them as if Sovereignly allowing governments to have a place within the created order of the universe.  The fact remains that hierarchy, power struggles and disregard for human dignity, both violent and non-violent, has been at work since the dawn of human-sin.  So, this does not mean that God approves of every government or that what they do is good human behavior, but they at the moment do have a place and God will use them for what good he can so to maintain some amount of societal order (and yes I am making this statement from the belief that we are to some extent free-agents and God does not force or coerce creation).  Nevertheless, this is not instruction for Christians to assert themselves in that role.[3]

If anything there is a contrariness that separates government from Christianity. Christians exist in a time between times (i.e. the time before God sets all things to right once and for all) and are thereby subject to the world’s systems and social-orders as is. The sword-bearing secular government creates some order by means of force and self-preservation while the Christian seeks God's way of peace and altruism as the means to restore God’s intended order.  It is no mistake that between Paul’s instruction for Christian life and service (Rom.12:1-21), & his desire to apply the law of love for others (13:8-14), that he place his appeal to submit to government.  He is essentially telling the Christian-Jews of his present time, who were being oppressed by their anti-Semitic Roman government, to become nonresistant.  This does not mean that they are to submit in a way that will carryout the evil of the government, but they were never to respond to the government’s evil, violence and force with their own versions of evil, violence and force (Rom. 12:17; Matt. 5:39).  To return to the eye-for-eye tactics is to do exactly what Paul warns against and conform to the world’s behavior (Rom.12:2).  Why would God bestow mercy so that we could continue down the same path and in the manner that human trajectory has long been on?  So also, what is the foremost mark that God has given his Spirit if not a transformed character of person and thus a renewed way of living in the world?

---

[1] John Howard Yoder. The Politics of Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans 1994), 200.

[2] Ibid, 196-197.

[3]  Ibid, 201-202. 

Peacemaking: Learning to Abandon Impartial Justice

       Peacemaking is often a highly idealized skill that is rarely enacted, especially where justice is concerned. In fact, one might begin to wonder when and where it is enacted in a world where violence, power-struggles and end-justifying-means have become the ways of human survival.  I think we first have to come to terms with what justice is presently compared to what it should be. 

Blind Justice

Justice itself has been widely misrepresented and misinterpreted as only being done effectively when it is blind or impartial to both parties. This justice has long been represented by the Justitia statue.  It is a statue of woman who while blindfolded holds the balancing scales of justice in one hand and a sword in the other.  This is supposed to represent an objective ruler who does not judge based on fear or favor, but rather seeks to weigh evidence thereby justly taking sides and using the authority of the sword to retributively give someone the due punishment for their offense.   Perhaps this is the main reason we westerners have lost the mediating ability in our social practices.[1]  As David Augsburger suggests, this has created loss of intimacy where one relies on bureaucratic court systems that by nature are impersonal, uncaring, costly and personally unproductive.  Moreover, this alien intrusion into personal lives has taken up adjudicating over mediating which in turn has caused disputants to keep affairs private. This privatization alone creates a new set of liabilities.  Without the mediating reconciler intense confrontation can arise, one may subjectively coerce the other and it can give way to manipulations and power struggles.[2]  Nevertheless, it all becomes a detached way of dealing with interpersonal problems that finds no real resolve in the matter. Moreover, it then has the power to make life altering decisions for others based on available evidence and hearsay but makes no room for restoring relationships.

                                                                                      

Invested Justice
It cannot be more plainly stated than to say that love and justice should be indivisible. Throughout much of scripture love for God, love for each other and doing justice to others is the theme, action and standard by which humans are to live (Lev. 19:18; Matt. 5:43, 23:23; Lk. 11:42;  Jn. 13:34).  When we can care for one another in that way, we will finally be in a position to get to the heart of the matter.  This brings the need for reconcilers who do not impartially asses and pass down judgment, but are those who can address the situation with clarity and thereby maintain love for both parties for restoring purposes.  This is a justice that meets people in their specificity.

One example that illustrates this would be the parable of the “Prodigal Son” (Luke 15:11-32).  We see a king’s son who demands his inheritance from his father and defiantly sets out to indulge in whatever he wants only to eventually squander it all.  After famine sweeps through the land and he hires himself out to feed pigs, he has a moment of clarity. The son realizes that even his father’s servants were better off than he was.  He gains the courage to return home so to ask for his father’s forgiveness and work for him as a servant. His father, however, did not let him even get to the house before running out to greet him celebrating the fact that his son was home by requesting his servants to prepare a gathering and then goes as far as to reestablished his son’s role as if he had never left.  Can we actually call this justice?  Yes, but only because the relationship defined the justice and when relational care is what informs the motive, mercy becomes the “must” of belonging.  This is what Miroslav Volf calls God’s unjust justice which sees the rich, proud, conceited, lowly, poor and everyone in between as his cherished ones which he wishes to restore.[3]  Therefore, when being a peacemaker we must remember to live concerned for everyone involved.  Our social ethic is driven by our faithfulness to God and our faithfulness is represented by treating others in the same manner that our God has treated us (Matt, 18:21-35; Jn. 8:1-11).  

  

Life of a Peacemaker   

Being a peacemaker is an essential role that characterizes the Christian life.  It is seen within the Beatitudes when Christ says, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God” (Matt. 5:9 NRSV).  Something to know about the Beatitudes is that they were contextually in a time where Roman rule was heavily oppressing Israel. Zealots arose wanting to show that Israel was in fact God’s children who could establish God's kingdom through military-like violence and force against all opposing enemies.[4]  I’d imagine this revolutionary-type thinking became endemic by the simple fact that Christ feels the need to state this. 

Subsequently, the Beatitudes reveal themselves to actually be qualities which will distinguish the life of those submitted to God, rather than being some arbitrary conformity, or set of rules that Christ’s disciples are to live up to.  One should be reproducing what they have seen the Father do and embody peace (Rom.16:20; 1Thes. 5:23; Heb. 13:20); thus we can abandon all efforts to find retribution through the destruction of enemies.[5]  This kind of thinking is not appealing to the way we have been conditioned to think, feel and respond because it requires vulnerability.  People naturally look to protect self-interest, so the idea of willingly setting aside personal interest so to enter harm’s way for no other gain than for the betterment of those in conflict is an uncomfortable process to want to execute.  Nevertheless, this is peacemaking and it can only happen when genuine love for God and neighbor has so enveloped one inwardly that it produces the life that brings God’s kingdom outwardly.  This is justice God’s way.

---

[1] For those of you wondering how I can say this when so many verses point to God as the impartial judge, (Job, 34:19; Acts 10:34; Rom. 2:11 etc.)  I am merely making the case that because of God’s love for creation, there seems to be a paradoxal act of God having impartial-partiality for everyone.

[2] D. W. Augsburger. Conflict Mediation Across Cultures (Louisville, KY: John Knox Press1992), 193.

[3] Miroslav Volf. Exclusion and Embrace (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press 1996), 221-222.

[4] Glen H. Stassen & David P. Gushee Kingdom Ethics (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press 2003), 45.

[5] Ibid.

The Problem of Evolution vs Creationism

The Dilemma

As fitting as it is, the topic of Genesis was not my intended first post for the year, but since it keeps coming up juxtaposed evolution in media and other blogs[1]  I have decided to weigh-in.  Let me begin by saying the Evolution vs Genesis 1-2 debate is a faulty one (given that Genesis is the creation account most often attacked).   I cannot offer much to the discussion of evolution, but I do know that science works off of empirical evidence to support its theories and while it does not have a lot to offer to the God vs no-God discussion, it does know a little something about biological progression.  In light of that evidence the Genesis-origin account does not add up. 

On the other side of this, and more to the point of my discussion, it has led many Christians to hold fast to young-earth theory, so to cling to Genesis as a literal account, and it has also led other Christians to see science as being correct and therefore looking at Genesis as a metaphorical text. This is to say that Genesis is not attempting to offer science because it has a much bigger point to get across.  Therefore, the endless debate has ensued over whether we should be reading Genesis literally or metaphorically.  Perhaps the answer is both so long as it is in the right context.

Whose Cosmology?

As with any text, ancient or modern, it helps to know a little something about when it was written, the circumstances driving its composition and the genre it belonged to.  If we begin with Genesis' authorship (or even the Pentateuch as a whole) by logic and tradition it has long been attributed to Moses dating as far back as the 15^th century BC, but the evidence shows that Genesis (as we know it) was composed somewhere in the exilic to post-exilic era from around 600-400 BC.[2] This aspect is critical because the authors of this time period were reframing their understanding of the creation-texts and traditions through the lens of common Near-Eastern cosmology, worldviews and assumptions that existed throughout the ancient world.  Thus we must first look at Genesis as ancient cosmology and not impose our modern science onto the text.  John Walton points out that there was not one revelation given to the ancient Israelites that sought to correct their thinking about the cosmos, rather YHWH accommodates his speech to fit their thinking so to communicate effectively.  In the ancient world the people “did not know that stars were suns; they did not know that the earth was spherical and moving through space; they did not know that the sun was much further away than the moon, or even further than the birds flying in the air. They believed that the sky was material (not vaporous), solid enough to support the residence of deity as well as to hold back waters. In these ways, and many others, they thought about the cosmos in much the same way that anyone in the ancient world thought, and not at all like anyone thinks today.”[3]  This is the first set aspects to consider when interpreting Genesis.

 Material Origins is Our Thing

 The other main aspect of the Near Eastern world comes down to ontological factors (i.e. what does it mean to exist).  We in the modern age spend a lot of time attempting to understand the material ontology of our biological world, but this was not the case for the ancient people.  For them the material/physical aspect of the world was a blind presupposition that was, at best, of little interest.  Rather, their concern was functional ontology.  This is equal to the average person today caring about what materials and processes went into making their new phone, computer, car or whatever… they don’t!   The average person only wants to know how their technology works, how it is powered and what can it do.  This is function and function was not only the fascination of the ancient world about the world, but they went as far as to say that things which lacked function and order also lacked existence.[4]  For them an ancient temple could be materially built to all its specifications, but until people were in it actively doing their temple/priestly duties it was not a temple and so it was with creation.  We see this in the opening of Genesis.  It does not actually begin with nothing, but shows a lack of function and order in the cosmos.  This is seen in verse 2 which uses the Hebraic adjectives “tohu” (formless) and “bohu” (void) to describe the state of the earth.  However, Walton suggests that the word tohu translated as formless is the translator’s attempt to interpret from a material origin mindset when the technical translation of tohu should read “unproductive”.[5]  Accordingly, we can see the seven days of creation not as God materializing the physical universe, but rather it was the act of God establishing roles, order and functions for the universe.  Though I will not go into an in depth interpretation of all seven days, Walton makes an important observation that in days 1-3 God is establishing functions and in days 4-6 he is installing those functions.

God Took the Day Off?

The last aspect that offers no actual science, but gives purpose to the text, is day seven when we finally are given the genre of Genesis 1-2 and the climax of God’s role in it all, yet any modern reader is bound to miss it.  The verse says that it is on this day that God rested (Gen. 2:2).  Many in the past have considered rest an afterthought and quickly moved past it.  However, the Near Eastern reader, as Walton has shown, would have seen the action of God resting and knew this text was not myth, history, or science, but a temple text.  In ancient times deities only rested in their temples. Moreover, the essence of “divine rest” was not that of human rest, but it suggested that all was in order and now the deity was ready to engage in ruling. This is also the basis for the seven days as it too is a symbol of completion and it made way for the understanding that cosmos was and is God’s tabernacle. This imagery pervades the Old Testament (Psalm 132:7-8; 13-14) revealing that God is always ruling and always working in creation. This is the reason for the absence of miracles (God intervening) in the OT because God was never thought to have left.  Ergo, the functional origin is much more congruent with who God had always revealed himself to be.  One can then see that when we give ourselves to the material-origin interpretation, creation becomes digressed to an inaccurate event that was over and done with long ago, but in the functional reading it becomes the launching pad for God’s work that began and is constantly continuing forward.[6]  Terence Fretheim termed it the relational model of creation in which both God and creatures have an important role within the grand scheme of creative enterprise when it comes to function and effect.  God has created an overlapping sphere of interdependence and creative responsibility wherein the creatures can rest assured that God is unalterably committed to human care, life and remaining deeply immersed in it for the sake of a new creation.[7]  The act of God coming to tabernacle in the cosmos with humankind was his purposeful action from the beginning and it repeated itself through the Bible and is the end goal to come. 

So, for those who felt like they could not find compatibility between their science class and their Bible, rest assured that the two are working  with completely different sciences that are seeking completely different objectives. 

References

[1] The subject gained attention because the upcoming debate between “Bill Nye the Science Guy” and “Ken Ham the Creationist Man” in February.  Here are a few of the discussion links: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/christandpopculture/2014/01/bill-nye-vs-ken-ham-continuing-the-american-tradition-of-spectacle-and-culture-war/;   http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-hill/bill-nye-ken-ham-debate-three-things_b_4570330.html;  http://scribalishess.wordpress.com/2014/01/03/reading-genesis-1-literally/

[2] The work done in form criticism and redaction criticism reveals that the Pentateuch compilation fits the profile of Hezekiah’s and Ezra’s time period and as Brueggemann shows was likely a response to the Babylonian exile. Israel was possibly looking to maintain or regain their identity as the nation chosen to reveal YHWH to the rest of the world, but it had to show how their God was different from what the surrounding pagan nations believed about their gods and those deities subsequent modes of creation.  Also Peter Enns offers a well structured analysis on how we can arrive at this conclusion.  Walter Brueggemann. Theology of the Old Testament (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress 1997), 74.  Peter Enns. The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Doesn’t Say About Human Origins (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press 2012), 9-34.

[3] John H. Walton. The Lost World of Genesis One (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press 2009), 16.

[4] Ibid, 35.

[5] Ibid, 48-49.

[6] Ibid, 72-73, 77.

[7]Terrence E. Fretheim. God and World in the Old Testament: A Relational Theology of Creation (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press 2005), 26-27.