For little kids

I recently picked the Bible Societies' book "Christmas" by Susannah McFarlane.

What a great idea to get children interested in Christian faith and to start understanding it.

Then, on page 6, it started to unravel.

"People didn't want to do what God told them to....They wanted to decide things, not God."

And this was for kids, who spend their whole lives being told what to do...is God like that? Just a bigger teller what to do?

I don't think so. Just think about Genesis 1:27 and 3:9-10. God made us for relationship, to be 'in sync' with him, then sought that relationship.

What's missing in the book is that God started out as the one who loves, who seeks relationship everywhere.

Thus the text might better be:

"People didn't want to be friends with God and live how he had made them to. People turned away from being God's friends and tried to be God's bosses. But they didn't know enough, and weren't wise enough.

We are all like that, we think we know better than God about who God made us and we muck things up...often we do this a lot.

No matter how hard we try, we cannot really be God's friends because we keep telling him we don't want to live like he made us."

You get the picture. For kids particularly, its about relationship, about relationship broken, and about God himself coming into our world (that he made for us) to make us strong enough to be his friends again.

Then, of course, you'll have to deal with what it means that God made everything. The first thing kids will hit at preschool is materialistic, pagan evolution, which de-personalises the universe, pushes God away from real involvement with us, and denies that he created us in any real and meaningful way.

Indeed, part of the theology of Genesis 1 is that God stepped into our world in the very act(s) of creation and did so to show his means of creating: by his direct word, and that this creation was immediately from the 'hand' of God. The place made for us to be friends of God. The creation account embeds the relationship in the real concrete world; not in some immaterial fiction that has no relation with anything real in our lives.

A Christmas observation

One of the 'problems' of theology is whence the possibility of relationship between the eternal God and man in his finite world, between the eternal and the temporal.

This is done in Genesis 1 where God acts in our time-constrained and physical world, with physical effect and rational (existential) causality by his will (his word): the stage-setting intersection of eternity and humanity, enabling the reciprocal communion between us and God because we are in God's image: like him in aspects of our nature; and he is existentially active, really present, in our world. Being here, so we can be with him. He demonstrates this in Genesis 1 (demonstration being better than mere assertion) as he tells us what and how he did.

The incarnation completes and authenticates this: with God in Christ being one of us, but God and man, rescuing us from our alientation from our Creator. Both concretely grounded in the Real. The Real, where we  sweat, weep, laugh and love.

This goes further and joins God's nature, his being, with our existential experience; but only, again, on the basis of God demonstrating his existential sharing in our temporal world: the whole point of Genesis 1 as a concrete realist account of events.

It solves what I call Rorty's dilemma, which Rorty sketches in this wonderful essay Trotsky and the Wild Orchids. Where it leaves Rorty reminds me of Schaeffer's comments (in The God Who Is There) of John Cage's similar dilemma. Cage made 'deconstructed' music, but couldn't safely pursue his hobby of wild mushroom collecting (and eating) in similar fashion. Cage's assertions about the world did not work. Without a rigiourous order and classification system for his mushrooms he would not avoid sudden liver failure and certain death. His world and its meaning did not intersect as did not Rorty's in that essay.

As the church broadly embraces the conceit of Paganism in imagining impossibly long ages for Earth's existence (but, ironically, insufficiently long for evolution to even theoretically operate), it puts everyone in Rorty's and Cage's position: their irrationality of the intellect fails to play out in life. Denying Genesis, we do the same: endorse the impossible life and its conceits, obstructing the gospel at every turn, and keeping people on the road to perdition, with a God detached existentially from our world and therefore relationship.

Not only this, but we reinforce the unreality of Genesis 1 by making it a mere symbol, or figure, or a 'framework' of something else. The trouble is, if Genesis is not true to events, then it conveys nothing about the Real, rather it leaves us in the Hindu position of illusion.

Our real reality is defined by what really is (and the source is essential to understanding this), and if our reality comes otherwise than Genesis 1 sets out, then it is that something else which is basically definitional of us, our lives and relationships.

PS, all that said, Cage's piece 4'33 is worth listening to.