We had this study in our home group last Wednesday evening (29 Oct 2008). A much less complex study than Study 1, and so not half as much fun or grist for discussion.
Still, worth having rather than not.
An aspect of our studies I do not like is that they often amount to comprehension tests, and do not seem to be structured to promote reflection or any depth of consideration of the subject passage; one can take the questions as far as one likes, of course, but for most, they can tend to produce less than penetrating discussion.
"In God's image" did promote some lively conversation; with one person thinking that it meant that we looked physically like God! Imageness has attending it something of a communion of capability and epistemological confidence, I think, in that to the extent of the 'image-ness' we can have a high level of certainty that our rationality will be a conduit for truth, truth about our setting (the world we are in, with much relief to empiricists), and truth as a reliable result, at least potentially, of our thinking. Naturally there are limits to this, particularly introduced by the Fall, but I think we are given access to thinking 'true' thoughts, and thoughts that correspond with the external 'truth' of what is about us. Our thinking might not produce a thorough veracity, but to the extent that it does take us toward that destination, it does so genuinely.
We had a bit of a laugh over the question of 'rule' in vs. 28: ruling over the fish? Fish, for goodness sake!! How do we 'rule' over fish?
We then discussed 'subdue' a fair bit; noting that the scene was that of God forming a set of interdependent relationships with mankind a participant in those relationships, this being the circumscription for 'subdue'. Therefore not 'subdue' as in exploit and demean the very good that God had created, but serve it for its prosperity (and therefore ours) but in a non consumerist and deeply enjoyable and sustainable manner.
Of course the great rent in history, the Fall, changed all that with its besmirching of the 'very good'; and we live with the results of that brokenness to this day.
Naturally, the 'divine command for vegetarianism' came up. The answers here surprised me, with some people taking this as either a serious or not serious 'command' and not seeing it in the 'flow of biblical history' to adopt Schaeffer's term. Rather than a command, it is simply a statement. If there was no death of living beings, as death came with the fall, then animals were not for food (except stuff like milk, and wool too, if that could be eaten :-)! ). Its a pretty obvious 'rule' of textual construction that if something is specifically given, then the things not given are excluded. We then talked about the 'rule' being overturned in Gen 9:1-4, where the fall's effect on all life had an end result for the relationship between man and animal.
God's 'very good' of all his work on the preceeding days was regarded by all of us as a kind of summation of satisfaction; and an indicator of completion, given the 'mere' 'goods' preceeding.
The final question was an effort to get some practical use out of the study: what would it mean to reflect the image of the creator in the coming week?
Well, as were are made in the image, marred as it is by the Fall, there's not much we can do but reflect it. We will think, communicate, reason and love, and organise and create inevitably throughout the week; we will also act as though we can truly know things, within our cognitive limits and as though truth is at least a possibility in our discourse and thought lives. We will also act as though our mental lives are congruent with a truely 'there' external world. How could we do otherwise?
Some people wanted to put a moral tint on the notion of 'image' and while that is certainly there, it does not exhaust the concept, IMO. I rashly asserted that even Hitler (why do we always choose him, and not the greater mass murderers of Stalin or Mao?) reflected the image of the creator! Just not completely!!
31 October 2008
30 October 2008
Pannenberg on Creation
From Pannenberg “Theology of Creation and Natural Science” The Ashbury Theological Journal v. 50 n. 1 1995
Half a century ago Karl Barth wrote in the preface to his treatment of creation in his Church Dogmatics (III/I, 1945), that there are “absolutely no scientific questions, objections or supports concerning what Scripture and the Christian Church understand to be God’s work of Creation.” Such a restriction of the theology of creation to a “retelling” of what the Bible tells us about this subject, has its price and the price to be paid here was that it could no longer be made clear, in how far the biblical faith in creation means the same world that the human race now inhabits and that is described by modern science. The affirmation that the God of the Bible created the world degenerates in to an empty formula, and the biblical God himself becomes a powerless phantom, if he can no longer be understood as the one who originates and completes the world as it is given to our experience.
It follows that the decision has to be made as to where the connection between what the examination of the creation (the 'natural' world) finds and the revelation of creation as historical event is to be made. Further in the same article, Pannenberg discusses the intersection of philosophical ideas and scientific proposals. At this juncture too there seems to be opportunity for critical analysis. Pannenberg finds the area wanting, and offers theology as the 'step in'. I'd agree (I'm sure P. would be impressed by that!!), but would urge that the ideological commitments are clarified before any such work is done.
Half a century ago Karl Barth wrote in the preface to his treatment of creation in his Church Dogmatics (III/I, 1945), that there are “absolutely no scientific questions, objections or supports concerning what Scripture and the Christian Church understand to be God’s work of Creation.” Such a restriction of the theology of creation to a “retelling” of what the Bible tells us about this subject, has its price and the price to be paid here was that it could no longer be made clear, in how far the biblical faith in creation means the same world that the human race now inhabits and that is described by modern science. The affirmation that the God of the Bible created the world degenerates in to an empty formula, and the biblical God himself becomes a powerless phantom, if he can no longer be understood as the one who originates and completes the world as it is given to our experience.
It follows that the decision has to be made as to where the connection between what the examination of the creation (the 'natural' world) finds and the revelation of creation as historical event is to be made. Further in the same article, Pannenberg discusses the intersection of philosophical ideas and scientific proposals. At this juncture too there seems to be opportunity for critical analysis. Pannenberg finds the area wanting, and offers theology as the 'step in'. I'd agree (I'm sure P. would be impressed by that!!), but would urge that the ideological commitments are clarified before any such work is done.
27 October 2008
Creation and Evolution, or 'the forced choice?'
Sermon outline.
Go here for the mp3 of the sermon.
Forced to choose between 2 mutually exclusive alternatives?
'Young Earth" creationism --- Atheisic evolution
How do we approach this issue?
+ the role of the Bible
+ the place - and limits - of Science
Between the Extremes
+ apparent age
+ 'gap' theory
+ day-age creationism
+ theistic evolution
Genesis 1
+ who? why? & what? (not how?)
+ the 'apologetics' of creation
Our Response?
Go here for the mp3 of the sermon.
Forced to choose between 2 mutually exclusive alternatives?
'Young Earth" creationism --- Atheisic evolution
How do we approach this issue?
+ the role of the Bible
+ the place - and limits - of Science
Between the Extremes
+ apparent age
+ 'gap' theory
+ day-age creationism
+ theistic evolution
Genesis 1
+ who? why? & what? (not how?)
+ the 'apologetics' of creation
Our Response?
Sermon 2: On Creation and Evolution
In his reply to my letter on his first sermon, my minister stated that I should await his resolution of a number of points that attracted my criticism of his 'literary-literal' divide in the second (this) sermon.
I will post a more detailed review of it in the next few days, d.v., but for now will give a rough response.
In some ways, overall, not too bad a treatment of the question; but in the end, unsatisfactory, theologically, IMO.
The minister started out discussing the poles of the debate: so called 'young earth' creationist (perhaps this should be called Historical Creationist, reflecting that it was the majority view of the church up until the mid 19th century) on the one side and 'atheistic evolutionist' on the other. He identified Richard Dawkins as a prominent representative of the latter, and rightly criticised Dawkins' portrayal of the debate as one between two alternatives; however I don't agree that the Bible allows a spectrum of equally valid views between the two poles.
He then went on to identify a number of alternative views, most the classical compromises that seek to harmonise the Bible and the conclusions of modern materialism. At least he mentioned the excesses of 'science' that transmogrify deplorably into 'scientism' where there is an excess of unrecognised ideology masked, and probably to its proponents as much as anyone else, as science!
The views he mentioned were the apparent age theroy, 'gap' theory, the day-age theory and theistic evolution. I think the day-age theory that he espouses is a sort of irrational 'stepped' evolution, so effectively a variant of theistic evolution, but without the full blown attempted melding of God's work as revealed and that of the created world's as imagined.
Many old war horses were trotted out during the sermon; such as science tells us not why, but how, that the Bible tells us why but not how, but failing to pick out the philosophical issues that lie beneath both; which I will attempt in my longer response.
At the end of the service, the compare ('reader' in Anglican terms), wanted us to put aside 'side issues' such as creation vs. evolution, and concentrate on Christ...this is a frequently heard comment amongst certain evangelicals, but it is a comment that betrays a narrow, and I think, impoverished theology...more on this later; but for now, just think on John 1:1-3, Hebrews 11 and the tension Paul teaches between sin, by implication the pre-fall creation, and the new creation.
In the end I thought it was an opportunity missed, both for the cause of Biblical understanding, and for that of God's relation to the world as both creator and covenenter. But more of this later.
I will post a more detailed review of it in the next few days, d.v., but for now will give a rough response.
In some ways, overall, not too bad a treatment of the question; but in the end, unsatisfactory, theologically, IMO.
The minister started out discussing the poles of the debate: so called 'young earth' creationist (perhaps this should be called Historical Creationist, reflecting that it was the majority view of the church up until the mid 19th century) on the one side and 'atheistic evolutionist' on the other. He identified Richard Dawkins as a prominent representative of the latter, and rightly criticised Dawkins' portrayal of the debate as one between two alternatives; however I don't agree that the Bible allows a spectrum of equally valid views between the two poles.
He then went on to identify a number of alternative views, most the classical compromises that seek to harmonise the Bible and the conclusions of modern materialism. At least he mentioned the excesses of 'science' that transmogrify deplorably into 'scientism' where there is an excess of unrecognised ideology masked, and probably to its proponents as much as anyone else, as science!
The views he mentioned were the apparent age theroy, 'gap' theory, the day-age theory and theistic evolution. I think the day-age theory that he espouses is a sort of irrational 'stepped' evolution, so effectively a variant of theistic evolution, but without the full blown attempted melding of God's work as revealed and that of the created world's as imagined.
Many old war horses were trotted out during the sermon; such as science tells us not why, but how, that the Bible tells us why but not how, but failing to pick out the philosophical issues that lie beneath both; which I will attempt in my longer response.
At the end of the service, the compare ('reader' in Anglican terms), wanted us to put aside 'side issues' such as creation vs. evolution, and concentrate on Christ...this is a frequently heard comment amongst certain evangelicals, but it is a comment that betrays a narrow, and I think, impoverished theology...more on this later; but for now, just think on John 1:1-3, Hebrews 11 and the tension Paul teaches between sin, by implication the pre-fall creation, and the new creation.
In the end I thought it was an opportunity missed, both for the cause of Biblical understanding, and for that of God's relation to the world as both creator and covenenter. But more of this later.
26 October 2008
Study 1: Genesis 1:1-25
To people who have had some exposure to the discussion on Genesis 1 in the context of views of origins, many of the terms of the debate are well known, and are used with a type of 'in-game' shorthand. So it was a surprise to discuss the passage in my Home Group (a small group of people from my church that meet one evening a week to reflect on a Bible passage and pray), and find that the terms usually encountered in origins discussion were completely alien! I was quite surprised by the uproar that some of the 'suggested' answers given by the minister, I assume, attracted, as well as the perpexity that some of the questions caused.
Some people didn't understand the term 'worldview' and thought that it meant the view held by 'the world' as opposed to a biblical view, for example.
The suggested answers made reference to 'Enuma elish', 'genre', 'polemic' etc. Because these were so out of context for my fellow members, they were quite affronted by their introduction into a Bible study; the theological assumptions in the study: both questions and suggested answers, were overwhelming for most. Indeed, the questions themselves; and I'll post them up some time, left most group members puzzled, and unable to form an answer, let alone discuss a view. Needless to say, discussion drifted all over the place; but heart-warmingly, seeking to respond to the passage and do so with Christ in mind.
I liked the answer of one elderly man, who when confronted by the questions attempting to lead us down the literary path said something like: "it says God made it bang, bang, bang," with hand taps on the table for emphasis.
Interesting how the obvious and the contrived can be so far apart.
The contrast to the 'studies' we were used to; which simply stimulated discussion about the meaning of the passage in its own terms and for our Christian practice, was 'deep and meaningless'. It tendentiously intended to second guess a particular, I think, unhelpful, approach to the text, rather than help people apply it to their view of God.
Funny, in a way, but sad.
Some people didn't understand the term 'worldview' and thought that it meant the view held by 'the world' as opposed to a biblical view, for example.
The suggested answers made reference to 'Enuma elish', 'genre', 'polemic' etc. Because these were so out of context for my fellow members, they were quite affronted by their introduction into a Bible study; the theological assumptions in the study: both questions and suggested answers, were overwhelming for most. Indeed, the questions themselves; and I'll post them up some time, left most group members puzzled, and unable to form an answer, let alone discuss a view. Needless to say, discussion drifted all over the place; but heart-warmingly, seeking to respond to the passage and do so with Christ in mind.
I liked the answer of one elderly man, who when confronted by the questions attempting to lead us down the literary path said something like: "it says God made it bang, bang, bang," with hand taps on the table for emphasis.
Interesting how the obvious and the contrived can be so far apart.
The contrast to the 'studies' we were used to; which simply stimulated discussion about the meaning of the passage in its own terms and for our Christian practice, was 'deep and meaningless'. It tendentiously intended to second guess a particular, I think, unhelpful, approach to the text, rather than help people apply it to their view of God.
Funny, in a way, but sad.
22 October 2008
Dinosaurs
At the service last Sunday, when the sermon on Genesis 1 was given, the Reader for the service, who is a teacher at a secondary school, mentioned his experience of the religious ed. studies that he gives.
He said something like, he can talk about Jesus and his sacrifice till the cows come home, but then his students will ask about how the dinosaurs fit in.
It seems that children have a firmer view of the need for resolution of the quesitions that emerge between the Bible and modern atheistic-derived views of our history: the world takes its history back to dust, the Bible takes ours back to the one who made the dust: a person, not innanimate matter.
Now, the concerning thing is this: people looking for answers to real questions, that are framed with an appreciation of the concreteness of this world, and therefore that must attend to its history, are given answers that neglect the real world, and instead escape into a nonexistent land of myth and fantasy, that we never touch, in 'real' life.
Then I look at Paul's sermon in Acts 17 and wonder why the church has not learnt from his connecting the gospel to God as creator...maybe that's the 'connect' that Connect09 should be making!
He said something like, he can talk about Jesus and his sacrifice till the cows come home, but then his students will ask about how the dinosaurs fit in.
It seems that children have a firmer view of the need for resolution of the quesitions that emerge between the Bible and modern atheistic-derived views of our history: the world takes its history back to dust, the Bible takes ours back to the one who made the dust: a person, not innanimate matter.
Now, the concerning thing is this: people looking for answers to real questions, that are framed with an appreciation of the concreteness of this world, and therefore that must attend to its history, are given answers that neglect the real world, and instead escape into a nonexistent land of myth and fantasy, that we never touch, in 'real' life.
Then I look at Paul's sermon in Acts 17 and wonder why the church has not learnt from his connecting the gospel to God as creator...maybe that's the 'connect' that Connect09 should be making!
21 October 2008
Sermon on Genesis 1: Outline
Outline of the sermon my previous blog responded to.
In the Beginning…(Gen 1)
Introduction: Asking the Wrong Question
1. Recognising Genesis 1 as a Literary (not Literal) Account
Foming______________Filling
1. light & darkness______4. heavenly bodies of day & night
2. water & sky_________5. creatures of water & sky
3. land & vegetation_____6. creatures upon the land
__________7. DAY OF REST
2. Recognising Genesis 1 as a “mythbuster”
- Rival stories of creation
- Rival deities?
- Cf. One God—purposeful—man the pinnacle—good
3. Recognising Genesis 1 as a Theological Account
- Our Sovereign Creator
- Order from chaos
- Created by a powerful word (and Spirit)
- Good…good…good…very good (1:31)
Our Response?
In the Beginning…(Gen 1)
Introduction: Asking the Wrong Question
1. Recognising Genesis 1 as a Literary (not Literal) Account
Foming______________Filling
1. light & darkness______4. heavenly bodies of day & night
2. water & sky_________5. creatures of water & sky
3. land & vegetation_____6. creatures upon the land
__________7. DAY OF REST
2. Recognising Genesis 1 as a “mythbuster”
- Rival stories of creation
- Rival deities?
- Cf. One God—purposeful—man the pinnacle—good
3. Recognising Genesis 1 as a Theological Account
- Our Sovereign Creator
- Order from chaos
- Created by a powerful word (and Spirit)
- Good…good…good…very good (1:31)
Our Response?
20 October 2008
Response to Sermon on Genesis 1
Letter to my minister on a sermon he gave this week.
I was pleased that your series on Genesis commenced with theological questions. Too often consideration of Genesis 1 sets out initially to grapple with various concordist challenges to the detriment of its central message.
Without wanting to throw a spanner in the works, the notional separation of a literary and a literal take on Genesis 1 is problematical on a number of fronts, in my estimation.
At the outset the distinction seems artificial, as anything intentionally written is by virtue of this fact literature and will be marked by literary devices of various sorts. The question of genre, and the framing of a hermeneutic approach from this is pertinent; but whence our conclusions about genre? From two directions, I think. The overarching 'meta-genre' of the containing unit of text has to be one determinant, with the other responsively being the lexical-grammatical forms and micro-structure of the subject text.
Of course, the meta-genre that Genesis 1 forms a part of is largely historical; about 20% of Genesis 1-11 is concerned with passing time, denoted with a high level of specificity – and I am aware of some of the debates here, but it is inescapable that a large number of verses are to do with historical flow denominated with what would appear to be precise date references; furthermore a similar proportion of Genesis 1 has a similar characteristic.
Undeniably, there are various forms of literature within the Pentateuch, including a snippet of poetry in Genesis 1, and elsewhere, legal codes (compare Ex 20:11, for example), and lists. Blocher refers to Genesis 1 as a 'list' and its form seemingly lines up nicely with Numbers 7. Indeed, the regularity of the treatment in Genesis 1 reminds me more of a computer data structure than anything else: a fabulous means of communicating a sequence in an economical and unambiguous manner; with particular reinforcement of the flow. In fact, in Genesis 1, the author is emphatic about chronological flow.
But, the critical question for the so-called 'Framework Hypothesis', is does the passage allow the six days to fall into paired triads? First raised, to my knowledge, by Herder, in the 19th C. then debunked by Keil and Delitzsch, revived by Noordzij, rebutted by Young, given fresh air by Kline, as the doyen of contemporary frameworkers, then criticised by Pipa and McCabe (and McCabe part 2), amongst others. It's had its latest day out to my knowledge with John D at an ISCAST seminar a few years ago at UNSW.
All said and done, though, it doesn't work! The correspondence proposed appears to hold at first blush, but when the detail is brought to the table, any coherence evaporates. Heavenly bodies of D4 are placed in the firmament of D2, not D1. Birds of D5 breed on the ground of D3 and they are not in the firmament, but on its face; the creatures of water of D5 live in the oceans of D3. The land for D6 has its first mention by implication on D1, in the earth's wilderness state. No line up at all! The point has often been made in the literature, but the frameworkers have failed to deal with it.
The 'forming-filling' analysis seems interesting, but I think also falls short of the mark. In not properly handling the cascade of dependencies that build in complexity as a network of relationships are woven through the six days; days of organising and distributing with increasing refinement. Acknowledging this provides a sounder basis for developing a theology of creation than the comparative aridity of the 'forming-filling' model, in my view.
Then, one has to ask, what would be the purpose of a 'framework,' if there was one, or even of the 6 days if purely a literary stylism? I've not read anything that convincingly sets out a purpose that is proximately connected with the content of the text and not 'puff'. There are 'purposes' proposed, but they are distant from the text's references, and being distant, do not make a connection with what is related in the terms related. They are not consistent with the relational intimacy that the Bible speaks of between God and mankind, and so, in concept, depart from the text and do not support its central message of relationship and dependency. I actually asked John D. how Genesis taught what is commonly claimed if it wasn't true to life. He gave no answer (but that could just be John being John).
Similarly to the approach you discussed, the abstracted theology that is presented as being the point of the revelation ends merely with a form of propaganda for God's being an orderly creator, we being his dependent creatures or in symbolic contests with competing myths: polemical 'mythbusting' as you put it. No adequate explanation is ever given in these contexts as to how a mere arrangement of words, without any real world referent that corresponds to those words, busts any myth? It's merely an unproductive case of 'my myth vs your myth,' reminiscent of the old Goon Show joke "give up, or I'll show you a photograph of a gun"
God's formation and his re-formations of his relationship with his creation, then his particular people is always based on his acts (initiated by his word), not just words empty of concrete effect; facts, not fiction; acts grounded in a realist encounter. Consider, for example, the competition with Baal and the wet wood.
Genesis 1 stands at the commencement of a great trajectory of history that will culminate in the (real) new heavens and the new earth; the incarnational trajectory is similarly historical, with the Son of Man doing what the Son of God (Adam, referring to Luke's genealogy) failed to do. The two trajectories are coupled ontologically; if one is undermined they both collapse.
My fundamental concern with the direction taken in your sermon is that it was not sufficiently free from the dualist shackles that dog us in both theology and culture. For example, if God brings order from chaos, the question immediately springs as to the origin of the chaos. It would seem peculiar to make a problem in order to solve it, and just for rhetorical reasons. Or it may invite reference to a sort of 'counter-demiurge' to do the initial 'chaos making'. Either way, inconsistent, I would think, with Genesis 1 which has its focus the steady and grand unfolding from initial conditions.
Assigning to Genesis 1 the status of a purely theological account of origins also steps through the idealist portal and invites us to run a kind of OT docetism. The disconnection of theology from the real world runs counter to the Bible's pattern of theology being embedded in real world events: that is, events bounded by our 'earth frame of reference' and the horizon of the categories of human experience: what is in relation to God and in this world of his making is coupled, not disarticulated.
Nowhere in the Bible is there such a disjunct between what God reveals and what he does as the 'literary' theology of creation requires. Moreover, to make such a separation immediately undermines any attempt at a polemic not rooted in actuality. Doubly ironic for the creation account in that it sets the terms of its perspective very forcefully: by making it's only referents the categories of our life: place, time and relationships all which are within the terms of our experience, and in material terms; how peculiar if the revelation of creation is very 'this-worldly' in terms and categories, but intends to reveal something 'unworldly' (that is, something else really happened, not this, but the 'other' is more significant that what is conveyed)! Thus it raises the question of the truth-value of Genesis 1, if it is only true 'theologically'. The 'idealist (or, even worse, dualist) on the premises' alarm bells start ringing because 'theology' is itself not 'real'. Theology is our discourse about God and from his revelation and that alone. To say that Genesis 1 is only a theological truth is exactly what we would avoid in theologising about the Incarnation, for instance, and should be what we would avoid with any part of the revelation, particularly where the question of genre interfering with an historical appreciation is typically answered tendentiously. No, it is only possible to do theology with Genesis 1 because it is put in the same 'historical realist' frame as all God's dealings under his covenants and the only frame of our experience of God. The history of relationships is earthily historical; to think that Israel invited Babylonian or other pagan myth-making to underpin its very personal and concrete religion is surprising, to say the least.
Overall, it would be interesting to contemplate how we might know that Genesis 1 is not true to actual events circumscribed by our spatial-temporal frame and so establish that it makes only a 'theological' play, and not a realist one. Would we refer, or defer, to the conclusions of a worldview that starts with the assumption that there is no God? Would this not have us jettison the worldview that emerged from Genesis—from taking Genesis seriously, and literally, I might add—and, as you rightly mentioned, formed the basis for modern science, as Jaki, Harrison and others have described?
The final word I think which unhinges the dualism of Genesis 1 as a 'theological' account, but not an historical-realist account is the remark that M. made at the end of the service, He said something to the effect that he would now be able to discuss the 'unreal story' [of creation] with his classes but not imply an 'unreal God'. To the contrary! If the origin is an 'unreal' story, then we must look elsewhere for who we really are: the God who cannot found a relationship in actual events is probably not a god that can maintain any relationship with temporal creatures…as holds much of the New Age movement. I'm sure most of his students will see the unreality of a god who only attaches to us through a non-story that tells of things that didn't happen. Literary or not: a God we cannot meet.
I was pleased that your series on Genesis commenced with theological questions. Too often consideration of Genesis 1 sets out initially to grapple with various concordist challenges to the detriment of its central message.
Without wanting to throw a spanner in the works, the notional separation of a literary and a literal take on Genesis 1 is problematical on a number of fronts, in my estimation.
At the outset the distinction seems artificial, as anything intentionally written is by virtue of this fact literature and will be marked by literary devices of various sorts. The question of genre, and the framing of a hermeneutic approach from this is pertinent; but whence our conclusions about genre? From two directions, I think. The overarching 'meta-genre' of the containing unit of text has to be one determinant, with the other responsively being the lexical-grammatical forms and micro-structure of the subject text.
Of course, the meta-genre that Genesis 1 forms a part of is largely historical; about 20% of Genesis 1-11 is concerned with passing time, denoted with a high level of specificity – and I am aware of some of the debates here, but it is inescapable that a large number of verses are to do with historical flow denominated with what would appear to be precise date references; furthermore a similar proportion of Genesis 1 has a similar characteristic.
Undeniably, there are various forms of literature within the Pentateuch, including a snippet of poetry in Genesis 1, and elsewhere, legal codes (compare Ex 20:11, for example), and lists. Blocher refers to Genesis 1 as a 'list' and its form seemingly lines up nicely with Numbers 7. Indeed, the regularity of the treatment in Genesis 1 reminds me more of a computer data structure than anything else: a fabulous means of communicating a sequence in an economical and unambiguous manner; with particular reinforcement of the flow. In fact, in Genesis 1, the author is emphatic about chronological flow.
But, the critical question for the so-called 'Framework Hypothesis', is does the passage allow the six days to fall into paired triads? First raised, to my knowledge, by Herder, in the 19th C. then debunked by Keil and Delitzsch, revived by Noordzij, rebutted by Young, given fresh air by Kline, as the doyen of contemporary frameworkers, then criticised by Pipa and McCabe (and McCabe part 2), amongst others. It's had its latest day out to my knowledge with John D at an ISCAST seminar a few years ago at UNSW.
All said and done, though, it doesn't work! The correspondence proposed appears to hold at first blush, but when the detail is brought to the table, any coherence evaporates. Heavenly bodies of D4 are placed in the firmament of D2, not D1. Birds of D5 breed on the ground of D3 and they are not in the firmament, but on its face; the creatures of water of D5 live in the oceans of D3. The land for D6 has its first mention by implication on D1, in the earth's wilderness state. No line up at all! The point has often been made in the literature, but the frameworkers have failed to deal with it.
The 'forming-filling' analysis seems interesting, but I think also falls short of the mark. In not properly handling the cascade of dependencies that build in complexity as a network of relationships are woven through the six days; days of organising and distributing with increasing refinement. Acknowledging this provides a sounder basis for developing a theology of creation than the comparative aridity of the 'forming-filling' model, in my view.
Then, one has to ask, what would be the purpose of a 'framework,' if there was one, or even of the 6 days if purely a literary stylism? I've not read anything that convincingly sets out a purpose that is proximately connected with the content of the text and not 'puff'. There are 'purposes' proposed, but they are distant from the text's references, and being distant, do not make a connection with what is related in the terms related. They are not consistent with the relational intimacy that the Bible speaks of between God and mankind, and so, in concept, depart from the text and do not support its central message of relationship and dependency. I actually asked John D. how Genesis taught what is commonly claimed if it wasn't true to life. He gave no answer (but that could just be John being John).
Similarly to the approach you discussed, the abstracted theology that is presented as being the point of the revelation ends merely with a form of propaganda for God's being an orderly creator, we being his dependent creatures or in symbolic contests with competing myths: polemical 'mythbusting' as you put it. No adequate explanation is ever given in these contexts as to how a mere arrangement of words, without any real world referent that corresponds to those words, busts any myth? It's merely an unproductive case of 'my myth vs your myth,' reminiscent of the old Goon Show joke "give up, or I'll show you a photograph of a gun"
God's formation and his re-formations of his relationship with his creation, then his particular people is always based on his acts (initiated by his word), not just words empty of concrete effect; facts, not fiction; acts grounded in a realist encounter. Consider, for example, the competition with Baal and the wet wood.
Genesis 1 stands at the commencement of a great trajectory of history that will culminate in the (real) new heavens and the new earth; the incarnational trajectory is similarly historical, with the Son of Man doing what the Son of God (Adam, referring to Luke's genealogy) failed to do. The two trajectories are coupled ontologically; if one is undermined they both collapse.
My fundamental concern with the direction taken in your sermon is that it was not sufficiently free from the dualist shackles that dog us in both theology and culture. For example, if God brings order from chaos, the question immediately springs as to the origin of the chaos. It would seem peculiar to make a problem in order to solve it, and just for rhetorical reasons. Or it may invite reference to a sort of 'counter-demiurge' to do the initial 'chaos making'. Either way, inconsistent, I would think, with Genesis 1 which has its focus the steady and grand unfolding from initial conditions.
Assigning to Genesis 1 the status of a purely theological account of origins also steps through the idealist portal and invites us to run a kind of OT docetism. The disconnection of theology from the real world runs counter to the Bible's pattern of theology being embedded in real world events: that is, events bounded by our 'earth frame of reference' and the horizon of the categories of human experience: what is in relation to God and in this world of his making is coupled, not disarticulated.
Nowhere in the Bible is there such a disjunct between what God reveals and what he does as the 'literary' theology of creation requires. Moreover, to make such a separation immediately undermines any attempt at a polemic not rooted in actuality. Doubly ironic for the creation account in that it sets the terms of its perspective very forcefully: by making it's only referents the categories of our life: place, time and relationships all which are within the terms of our experience, and in material terms; how peculiar if the revelation of creation is very 'this-worldly' in terms and categories, but intends to reveal something 'unworldly' (that is, something else really happened, not this, but the 'other' is more significant that what is conveyed)! Thus it raises the question of the truth-value of Genesis 1, if it is only true 'theologically'. The 'idealist (or, even worse, dualist) on the premises' alarm bells start ringing because 'theology' is itself not 'real'. Theology is our discourse about God and from his revelation and that alone. To say that Genesis 1 is only a theological truth is exactly what we would avoid in theologising about the Incarnation, for instance, and should be what we would avoid with any part of the revelation, particularly where the question of genre interfering with an historical appreciation is typically answered tendentiously. No, it is only possible to do theology with Genesis 1 because it is put in the same 'historical realist' frame as all God's dealings under his covenants and the only frame of our experience of God. The history of relationships is earthily historical; to think that Israel invited Babylonian or other pagan myth-making to underpin its very personal and concrete religion is surprising, to say the least.
Overall, it would be interesting to contemplate how we might know that Genesis 1 is not true to actual events circumscribed by our spatial-temporal frame and so establish that it makes only a 'theological' play, and not a realist one. Would we refer, or defer, to the conclusions of a worldview that starts with the assumption that there is no God? Would this not have us jettison the worldview that emerged from Genesis—from taking Genesis seriously, and literally, I might add—and, as you rightly mentioned, formed the basis for modern science, as Jaki, Harrison and others have described?
The final word I think which unhinges the dualism of Genesis 1 as a 'theological' account, but not an historical-realist account is the remark that M. made at the end of the service, He said something to the effect that he would now be able to discuss the 'unreal story' [of creation] with his classes but not imply an 'unreal God'. To the contrary! If the origin is an 'unreal' story, then we must look elsewhere for who we really are: the God who cannot found a relationship in actual events is probably not a god that can maintain any relationship with temporal creatures…as holds much of the New Age movement. I'm sure most of his students will see the unreality of a god who only attaches to us through a non-story that tells of things that didn't happen. Literary or not: a God we cannot meet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)