Evolution...

As we listened to lecture, by Dr. Paul Teel, on evolution last week, a friend leaned over and whispered to me, "I'm going to ask, 'If evolution is true how come there are still monkeys?'" I suggested he casually scratch his armpits while he asked. He responded, "Yeah or shit in my hand then throw it at the lecturer..."

Evolution is a hot button topic for Christians particularly evangelicals so it seems fitting that we address it. Most of us are familiar with people the passionate Young Earth Creationist position: the earth is 5-10 000 years old Genesis 1-11 is concrete historical reality, evolution is lie perpetuated by sinful unbelieving scientists, if Genesis isn't "true" than why should we believe in Jesus...

I have sympathy for this position. I have held it within the past 10 years. And while I no longer hold this position and in fact, I would use words like "false teaching" to describe it. I want to affirm that these are people with good intentions passionate about their faith and scripture. 

Another group can be loosely described as the "It doesn't matter" group... This I think is approximately where my parents stand and where I was prior to my couple of years of fundamentalism. This group generally argues that creation "perspectives" are a non "salvation" issue and therefore not worthy of argument or broken relationship. The focus on "salvation" issues highlights our "salvation" priority that I pointed out and questioned in What is the Gospel? last week. 

The third position I present is Evolutionary Creationists. This is the position of Dr. Paul Teel. This would be how I categorize myself. This is is the position that recently got a Regent professor uninvited from preaching at the church he pastored for 10 years...! This position takes science, the Bible and theology very seriously. It affirms variation in breeding, leading to advantageous mutations which are paid off in increased reproduction (natural selection), and that this process is continuous and ongoing... This position affirms the authority of the Bible and argues that Gen. 1-11 are not concrete history (a position already held by Augustine) but mythic theological presentation and reflection. Thus this position considers creation to by a dynamic community of beings upheld through space and time by the Triune God. Evolution does not interpret itself and does not require one to be an atheist. 

Ok so these are three positions. There are a few more, which are nuances of these, but I am not going to address them.

I want to affirm that all truth is God's truth. I want to affirm science and scientist's pursuit of the truth and embrace with them their discoveries of the good creation God has created. I want to be aware of both the limits of science to speak to metaphysics and that the foundations of science rest on Christian theology. I want to be able to talk about faith and science without fear...

I have some friends who no longer identify as Christians. These same people are passionate seekers of truth and believe that evolutionary theory is true. While, like with everything, beliefs and conversions, either to or away from faith are complex, I wonder to myself would it have been as easy to walk away from a church deeply engaged with positive dialogue with science? Does the common Bible vs. Science binary, create a very strong sense that if one accepts science, one must reject faith? I think this perception is very common and unfortunately is unwittingly perpetuated by those who say, "it doesn't matter..." This group is very difficult to determine the size of because of their effective silence within the conversation. Usually this means that the YEC position gets the megaphone and the floor... From my perspective this is a problem on a number of levels. 1) it perpetuates poor literalististic/"first glance" Biblical hermeneutics and exegesis 2) Christian youth are either prepared by the church to be dogmatic fundamentalists or not prepared at all, and therefore liable to reject the church when they discover the church has largely rejected/not engaged "reality"... 3) Those outside the church most engaged in truth seeking are, not inaccurately, likely to be dismissive of a community that out of ignorance and misguided loyalty has rejected observed reality 4) Scientists inside the church are largely ostracised...

Therefore, the way we handle this issue in a very real way has consequences both in keeping and gaining community members... Of course taking a positive position towards evolution is liable to get you declared a heretic by someone, people might leave your church, if you are a pastor you might get fired, or you may be "uninvited" to speak at a church you previously pastored... I expect that someone will declare this post "heretical"... Given that Darwin was a Christian, and many early evangelicals such as Benjamin Warfield and Augustus Hopkins Strong were strong supporters of evolutionary theory... I think it is sad that we have subsequently allowed this issue to be divided and polarized in such an unfortunate way. So speak up next time it comes up and say, "I believe in evolution and I believe in God and I believe in the authority of the Bible."

If you are interested in further exploring the Evolutionary Creation position (for you doubters, yes this is actual science, I promise) check out:

BioLogos - founded by Dr. Francis Collins (head of the Human Genome Project)

The best would be if churches started having legitimate scientific symposiums with these guys...

Ok. My final comment is my dream of both Biologos and AnswersinGenesis being at Missionsfest Vancouver next year and engaging in a dance battle right in the middle of all the booths to some old school Hokus Pick or maybe DC Talk... 

CYOA – Genesis 1 – Smorgasbord

I am not sure what to write about Genesis 1. It is not because I have no ideas, but rather there are too many. I am grateful for Duncan’s palace/temple post, which I just read as I was finishing this because it says a lot and I therefore do not need to repeat that excellent reading of this text. Nevertheless, I find my thoughts scattered as this section of scripture forms and shapes much of my theology, but it seems like too big a conversation to fit into a blog. This is the passage I have spent the most time with of all of the Bible. From the realization in grade three, when we were doing the days of creation, that this is an illogical story (how could there be light without the sun!), all the way to my final college class where I learned to read this text in Hebrew, and everywhere in between this story has been pondered. There is too much to say so this will not be a nice blog to read but a smattering of ideas.
• This text is myth (in the good sense) meant to be read as theological story, telling us about God, not as science, something the text was never meant to convey. (there is much ambiguity around whether day means 24 hour day or “a period of time”…both of which miss the point that it is a story about God and what God is creating “palace/temple” not how or when the world was created.
• The story begins with a title, the first verse is most likely a title, so the plot actually begins with chaos
• Most likely compiled and put into its final form during the Babylonian exile, this texts context depicts a God of order in perceived chaos (exile as essential chaos…can’t have redemption and reconciliation without the lack there of, thus defined by what it is not)
• It tells of a God who is not at war to create (contrary to other ancient creation stories), but creates through ordering, (and intentionally with disorder in sequence, e.g. light before sun)
• Forming and Filling – First three days form, second set of three fill
• Contains ancient cosmology of a firmament between two seas, one above and one below. (I am pretty sure no one believes this is the case anymore, so I find it funny when literalist attempt to state this as science, then claiming the flood was the break or something. This argument totally misses the point of the first 11 Chapters of Genesis, which are all mythical truth (There my cards are out, these 11 chapters are story). It is a story of creation, choice, consequence, care, and God’s guidance as we attempt to move forward into recreation, then poor choice again and the cycle continues) – side note: this reminded me of a C.S. Lewis quote, that God is proud of us even in our stumbles. Like a proud parent watching a toddler take a few steps then fall, not angry at the fall, but ready to help the toddler attempt a few steps again.
• Birds are to bird, creepers are to creep, living beings/souls (animals) are supposed to live. Intentional Hebrew word play for communicating “being” of creation, not necessary purpose or productivity
• God does not like Mondays, the second day of the week was not proclaimed good.
• The stars and moon get little attention compared to their importance of the cultures surrounding Israel
• Intention was that the sea and sky were to swarm swarms, so now that we have effectively killed off the swarms of fish we have really messed that up
• Ambiguity of gender, how do you read it…Male and female he created them, or Male AND female he created them. I would go with this gender in the first chapter is non-important. There are both genders but there is no role in this first chapter. One Jewish reading is that people at this point contained both sexes which were later split.
• Rule and subdue – tend and care for, serve and protect, have dominion and dominate, be a servant of… your choice I guess
• Man in our image…to follow up on Duncan’s post…the last thing done in a temple is the placing of an idol, and idol that reflects the God it images. Reflects in more than appearance but function as well. Thus, humans are the idol of God, we are to reflect God on earth. This also explains why idolatry was such a bad sin in the Bible, it does not only undermine God but undermines humanity’s role in the world, we then are abdicating our position. Things go wrong when we relinquish our position of care giver/authority…ex idolatry of the economic system, things get out of control when they are detached for the humans who are in them.
• Chapter 3 - I had to put this in because it is so intriguing…The words for naked and cunning/crafty are incredibly close to the same word in the Hebrew. A trade occurs naked for the serpent’s craftiness. I think it is a word play. Maybe showing of the intention always was for the people to realize that they were naked?

So there you have it a number of my thoughts. Lots of run-on ideas, I hope it made some sense. Maybe there was even a new nugget of information you picked up. I would love it if you (readers) would post which idea was your favourite/new idea or if you have an idea of your own I did not state, post it in the comments section.

CYOA: Genesis 1 - Dupes and Troglodytes

OK, I have held almost every view of Genesis 1 at one point or another. I was for a while during my youth a zealous young earth creationist. I have also been of the "it doesn't matter" perspective. And I currently hold that a literary approach to the Bible, and Genesis one in particular, is the best in determining meaning. One of the problems with Genesis 1 is that the question is rarely Genesis 1 but rather your view of scripture, and culture and science etc. This quote from Rick Watts of Regent College sums it up well:

"how one reads Genesis 1 has in some circles become a litmus test of Christian orthodoxy, whether conservative or liberal. Hold the "wrong" view and one is either a dupe of secular critical theory or a troglodyte literalist" - Rick Watts, Making Sense of Genesis 1

Having not held the literal view for sometime, I am always surprised at how difficult it is for most people to change positions from a literal perspective. In my first semester at CBC in Ken Esau's Old Testament survey a 30 minute lecture on the different Christian perspectives of Genesis 1 easily convinced me that my dogmatic literalism on the topic was foolish. I, for some reason, found it very easy to change positions at that time and in that context. Perhaps in my conversations with people on this topic I have done a bad job of explaining myself or for some other reason it has been the wrong time or context for them. In my Timothy and Titus class I presented dogmatic Genesis 1 literalism as a false teaching which I had been delivered from.

The most interesting suggestion I have heard recently via N.T. Wright, during his talk at Christian Life Assembly -Langley, that an Ancient Near Eastern person hearing Genesis 1 would immediately understand it as the building of a temple. Rick Watts, in his article linked above, also touches on this and much of my post will be a condensed and paraphrased version of his amazing scholarship. Therefore if you just want to skip the middle man you can go directly to "page 42" and read the full article, it's not really that long. Here's another tantalising quote:

the essential first step to knowledge, even and perhaps especially in that highest and holiest of all modern callings, science. All of us, Christians and scientists together, simply have to take a great deal on trust, to assume much, if we are ever to get started on the path to knowing. The saying is sure, without assuming something no one shall know anything. But having said that, it is important regularly to reassess those assumptions in the light of our growing knowledge and in doing so to recognize that truth in this kind of historical and literary endeavour is much more a matter of coherence than of certainty. - Rick Watts

A literary approach demands that we take the text very seriously and on its own terms, therefore the issue of genre becomes the opening question. Three things are significant to note: the large amount of repetition, the structure of forming and filling - following the description of the earth as formless and empty, and finally there is a progression from heaven to earth in the creative acts. So the problem is that within the Bible this particular style is utterly unique. It does not look or read like either Hebrew poetry or standard historical prose. I agree with Watts that the highly structured and stylized form indicates a "poetic character" to the text and we should be alert to the possibility of hyperbole, metaphor, and symbol rather than expecting literal concrete history.

When looking across various ancient cultural origin stories it is easy to realize that they all agree that a God brought order out of chaos what they disagree about is which God. Therefore Genesis 1 cannot and is not trying to answer the question "Is there a God?" (a very modern question) but rather "Which God ordered creation into existence out of chaos?"

Creation is an act of speech, highlighting Elohim's supreme kingly power. However, creation through speech is not unique. The Hopi say that Spider Woman sang the world into existence, Ethiopians believe God created both the world and himself by saying his own name, Australian Aboriginals also have an account of creation being sung into existence (Cameron, 43), and the Egyptian God Atum creates animal life by command (Watts). Watts highlights some of the very interesting similarities and differences between other origin stories and Genesis 1. I think that this is a much more profitable approach to determining the truth intended by the text. Context, Context, Context!

Ok, so why the days if we're not talking about literal days? In the Canaanite story of Baal's destruction of Yam (which may or may not be a creation story) after Baal's victory there is a 7 day building program that results in a house/temple for Baal. Similarly in the Bible Yahweh's temple as built by Solomon is built in 7 years (1 Kings 6:37-38). The Bible is filled with architectural imagery when describing creation (Ps 18:15; 82:5; 102:25; 104:5; Prov 8:29; Isa 51:13,16; 2 Sam 22:8,16; Zech 12:1; cf. 2 Sam 22:8).

"Heaven is my throne, and the earth my footstool" Isaiah 66:1 i.e. All of creation is God's palace/temple.

Furthermore, on day six when the temple/palace is nearly complete the final creative act is to place God's image (humanity) into the temple.

Finally, I would like to point out that Genesis 1 moves from dark, formless and empty to shalom (peace/rest). This is a salvation story because it promises God's ability to ultimately bring shalom, which becomes the primary plot of the Bible. The story culminates in Revelation with the New Jerusalem, a global temple/city, coming down to earth and the full unification of heaven and earth and Sabbath rest is enjoyed forever.

Genesis 1 does not answer the question "is there a God" or "how did God create" (in the scientific sense), Genesis 1 speaks to "who is God?" "why did God create?" "who are we?" and "why were we created?" These questions are of the utmost importance in defining identity and relationships: to God and creation and each other. The lack of science, or scientific interest in this account makes it's truth claims no less powerful nor does scientific discovery diminish it's importance in value.

To limit our definition of truth to the material and concrete is to diminish existence to such a degree as to make it into something else entirely.

Works Cited: Rick Watts, Making sense of Genesis 1 ; Julia Cameron, The Vein of Gold