Twitter
Facebook
RSS
And I want to start with this thought (no use holding back on the first day, right?): if the creation story we found in Genesis were located in any other sacred text out there and some other religion was trying to pass it off as Truth, we'd call BS faster than you can say "punctuated equilibrium."
What is there to really believe is literally accurate in this story? A talking snake? The sky being made out of water? God creating day & night and light & darkness all somehow without the assistance of the sun? Or God creating "two great lights... the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night." Evidently, someone -- notably God, in this case -- forgot to inform the Hebrews while he was inspiring them that the moon isn't a light (and the sun isn't any more special than any other star out there).
Okay, okay... I know I'm treading on thin ice here, but consider this for just a moment with me. Break this story out of its accepted framework in the Judeo-Christian tradition. What if you were reading this story and thought it came from, say, an African pygmy tribe? Or an ancient pagan culture, say from somewhere around Babylonia or maybe China?
If we're honest with ourselves, I'd bet our first reaction would be laughter, and then, "How could anyone think that is literally true? C'mon."
I'm starting this week with this uncomfortable question because it's largely where I've begun my re-evaluation of this creation story. I came to know Jesus in a conservative Southern Baptist church. We brought in preachers and teachers who taught that the only way you could rightly interpret Genesis 1-3 was absolutely literal. And I believed it with all my heart. I got together with a group of students from our church on a semi-regular basis to watch the young earth creationism videos from Dr. Kent Hovind, and ate them up. I loved it. Couldn't get enough of it.
It was only recently that I began to feel the freedom to question some of these hard and fast beliefs and reread the Genesis creation story for itself, not for any agenda being imposed upon it.
And that's when the ludicrousness of a talking snake - and the other stuff listed above - really hit me.
Think about how quickly we dismiss other cultures' creation myths (and notice also how quick we are to label them 'myths' as opposed to our 'true' version of events) because of how silly they are. Would not these other cultures look on our Hebraic story and think the same thing?
Isn't this what every creation myth has in common?
There's a simple and obvious reason for this: creation myths were... well, created... thousands (even tens or hundreds of thousands) of years ago by primitive people. They were a way of making sense of the world around them and the role they played in that world.
To an ancient people, of course it makes sense to call the sun the greater light and the moon the lesser light - and assume that the deity you worship created them specially for your world. They had no idea that there were billions of stars out there like the sun, or that the moon was just a chunk of rocky space debris like hundreds of others in our solar system.
So the all-important question then: is this story truth? Well, to the ancient Hebraic people it certainly was. And isn't that what matters? The creation story in Genesis 1-3 helps them - and us - understand and frame in their worldview. It helps us interpret their understanding of life and what roles they play in this world and how they (and we) relate to that Creator God.
Think about it - if you subscribe to a creation myth that holds the world was created by gods slicing one another apart or destroying things or some other random acts of violence, you are going to relate to those gods in fear. If your myth has gods that have overtly human flaws and can make mistakes and have to go back and fix decisions they made, you are not going to place any confidence or faith in those deities.
But if we worship the Creator God Elohim found in Genesis 1-3, we see that he is creative, interested in peace and harmony, merciful, benevolent, and desirous of a positive relationship with his creation. Our role is to pursue those values and that relationship with him.
This stands in marked contrast to nearly every other creation myth surrounding the Hebrews back when they wrote this one down. And that makes the question of "was there really a talking snake?" a lot less important.
(I realize this post, and this series, is going to make a lot of folks really uncomfortable. It makes me really uncomfortable. And I'm certainly not trying to propose that I've got anything completely figured out. I might not even fully agree with everything I write this week! My desire is simply to process with you - to throw some thoughts out there and spark some conversation - and some thinking of your own on this topic. So have at it - what do you think?
Coming up this week:
Tuesday - Out of Africa
Wednesday - Wise Men
Thursday - Jesus and Paul
Friday - Stuck in the Middle
6 people put in their $.02:
At this point I am a literalist, though I am certainly not dogmatic about that. I have read the other views and I understand how people can believe some of them. However there are 2 issues that keep me in the literal camp: #1. If we do not take the creation account in Genesis literally, that opens up for questions about the literal-ness of all scripture. Where do we draw the line? If a snake can't talk does that mean Jesus couldn't have risen from the dead? And #2. Which God is the creation story talking about? The Hebrew account in Genesis 1-3 is talking about the true God of the universe. Other accounts deal with other gods or no god at all. As a believer in and follower of the true God, I choose to believe the creation account written by His people.
Jason, thanks for your thoughts, bro. I appreciate them! As to your question in #1, I would answer of course not. This is a form of the slippery slope theory which sounds much more dangerous than it actually is. Just because we can say one portion of Scripture wasn't meant to be literal doesn't mean that none of it is. Part of it is realizing that Scripture was written in different genres, and part of it is using discernment and study when we approach the Bible.
I agree with your second point wholeheartedly; however, I would also add that we often choose to believe *our interpretation* of the creation account written by His people. Other Christians believe a different interpretation and still think they believe in the creation account as well... and folks who subscribe to other religions also think their creation story is the absolute truth as well.
I think you'll really enjoy Tuesday's and Wednesday's posts in this series... stay tuned! :)
Very good post Matt. I am excited to read your thoughts on this during the week. I have been thinking quite a bit about all of this lately...not in a scholarly way as you do...but just considering it in the back of my mind. It is scary for me.
Part of my struggle is that for one - how far can we take the scriptures and decide that parts are truth and other parts are just stories. If some things are not true - we need to be honest with ourselves and realize that - but how far can that go?
And then I have also always held to creation as an important part of our relationship with God. Being made in his image...God moving to restore us and creation. And at this point you have not said anything opposing this. Even questioning the Genesis story does not mean we are not made in the image of God or that God did not create us...but it is one step closer to that.
But I have also considered as you have shared a bit - I think of Pandora's Box and how the first time I heard it how ridiculous it sounded. But over the last year I have thought about how much the Genesis story has certain elements of Pandora's Box. Or other creation stories.
Just a few quick thoughts...rolling around in my head. Excited to read more Matt. You have taught me a lot over the years. I have missed working with you this last year because of your ability to give new insight to hard scriptures and hard thoughts.
Pete, thanks for this! I appreciate it and your thoughts.
You know, the crazy thing is I think that humans being created in the image of God is one of the most important pieces of this creation story - and I think it's one that gets overlooked so often as people argue and bicker about whether or not these were literal "days" or not. (You'll be interested in Friday's post and where I'm at with all this stuff. At the risk of giving it away, I will say I don't think evolution is any better of a theory than young earth creationism either...)
And it seems lots of people struggle with the slippery slope stuff. I did for a long time, too, and completely understand where you're coming from. It's frightening to admit parts of Scripture aren't literal (or even potentially aren't "true" in the modern sense of the word). But once you get over that fear, it is so liberating and freeing. Like you said, it's part of being honest with ourselves. The fact that there have been many godly men who were able to make this distinction over the centuries is very reassuring to me. You'll want to make sure to catch Wednesday's post for sure on that topic.
Thanks, man. Love you, bro -- and I miss working with you and hanging out too.
Some theologian (NT Wright? Pete Enns? Not sure.) was comparing the "image of God" phrasing to ancient Middle-Eastern practice and concluded that royal images placed throughout the kingdom (especially statues) were the king's way of reminding everyone throughout his lands whose territory it was, and under whose authority. He suggested that this is the true intended meaning of what is otherwise a somewhat mysterious phrase.
"Image of God" doesn't mean God shares our physical or mental attributes. It means we, as the pinnacle of creation, represent God and his authority over the world, just like the steles and statues that a Pharaoh would have placed throughout Egypt and the rest of his empire.
In this sense, it does the creation account no disrespect to suggest humans evolved over millions of years, and there at last came a day when we were "done", and God imbued us with moral souls and declared us his representatives on earth.
Paul,
You are correct - it is NT Wright. I've watched a couple videos of his where he explains that theory, and it is rather compelling.
I particularly agree with this line in your comment: "'Image of God' doesn't mean God shares our physical or mental attributes. It means we, as the pinnacle of creation, represent God..."
It amazes me how often we get that backwards.
Post a Comment