Why I believe in God (Peter Jensen)

This piece was published in my church's newsletter for 31 July 2011, attributed to the Archbishop of Sydney, Peter Jensen.

I was asked recently about the reasons for belief and even more to the point, why I believe in God. I'm sure there are more, but here are ten of the factors which have created my belief in God.
First, the fact that he believes in me. That is, I have not found God at the end of a stringent enquiry into the nature of the universe. He found me, wandering as i was, and he revealed himself to me. It was his revelation, not my interrogation.
Second, the fact that his revelation was a public one. That is, it is not my private possession. When God revealed himself it was like the sun shining. As Jesus said, "I am the light of the world". Looking for God without looking at Jesus is like playing football without a ball—like seeing without insight.
Third, the fact that his revelation was a personal one. I do not believe in God because I have a superior intellect or am a better person. It is because God illumined my understanding by his spirit [sic-no capital 's'] as I looked at the person and work of Jesus Christ. God has to be God in the way in which I come to know him.
Fourth, I found that his revelation makes sense of the Bible. Overall, the Bible contains god's preparation for Jesus and then his fulfilment in Jesus. His preparation was more than sufficient to create a God believing people. The God they believed in was a God who made and then kept his promises; made promises and kept promises of an extraordinary nature. The most extraordinary, God-like keeping of promises is in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Fifth, I see that the worship of Jesus is a reality in the world. Everywhere people have treated him as God and seek to obey him. From that point of view it is no use asking is there a God—clearly there is. His kingdom is in the world. The actual question is, what sort of God? Is he a God whom I should worship?
Sixth, I judge that the worship of God makes best sense of the world. The standard human belief that there are many gods makes no sense of the unity of the world. The recently popular belief that there is no God makes no sense of the morality and beauty of the world. The belief that there is one remote God who cannot enter his own world makes no sense of the love in the world. The belief that Jesus Christ bore the burden of the sins of the world makes best sense, especially of a world of pain and suffering.
Seventh, I judge that believing in this God makes the best sense of history. I do not believe that history is circular, infinitely repeating itself. I do not believe that history will have no end. Believing in the God who has revealed himself in Jesus Christ explains the nature of the human experience of living in time and enables us to have the hope which give [sic] meaning.
Eighth, I judge that belief in God makes best sense of what I see in the community. The will of God expressed in the law of God is a tremendous positive force for good. The will of God followed by men and women is wholesome and life-giving. It creates generosity and public virtue. It frees people from such crippling vices as gambling and substance abuse.
Ninth, because I know that belief in God makes the best sense of what I experience in my own life. I have learned long ago that I am a weak and faulty creature, prone to error and vulnerable to pain. God and belief in God spares me some things because his law guards me against things which are harmful. I am not spared from the ordinary conditions of life in a world such as this. But I have found that in the midst of the trials of the world, the love of God is manifested in ways which assure and re-assure.
Tenth, because I know God. The way we have asked the question skews it a little. Our belief is intellectual but it is not merely intellectual; it is personal. To quote and old pro verb, God is not a problem to be solved but a person to be known.

My comment

Now, there're a lot of interesting angles there; and together, they make strong case, I think.
I was, however, quite struck by his avoiding the basic ground that the Bible sets out for belief in God, and indeed, his worship: that he is creator! I think, immediately, of course, of Romans 1:20 and that he grounds his revelation and sets his covenant relationship is the world that he has made.

Speed

I recently heard a discussion that one of the indicators of God's being creator, and not the cosmos itself being its own 'creator', or processes within the cosmos being required to give effect to God's fiats in Genesis 1, is the parsimony of action implied in Genesis 1.

That is, a clear result of intelligence brought to bear is the economy of effort that is applied.

This is echoed in a number of passages in the Bible:

The centurion's servant is one. The centurion expected instant results from Jesus' command, just as he expected from his troops.

There are also examples in the Psalms:

Psalm 33:8-10: he spoke and it happened!

Psalm 148:5: same as above!

Genesis 1 itself indicates parsimony of causative effort: God spoke...and it was so!

I don't think this leaves much room for setting aside the implications of rapidity in Genesis 1.

Bavink, Lankshear and myth

Recently, searching my emails I came across this letter from 3 years ago: in Internet time, this is ancient history, of course, and what fun to share it.

William,

Bavink in "In the Beginning" makes the observation that materialism leads to occultism, and points to the late 19th C when it did just that... I'll hunt up the quote as its quite pithy.

Along those lines, thinking about Lankshear's jumble of ideas; particularly his joining of EE [Enuma Elish] and Gen 1: it seems that his fundamental take on reality in referring to a mythical view as having credibility; that is, an a-historical tale being able to meld with what is historical (or at least factual; as he seems to think for some reason that God is creator), must itself be mythical.

He is letting a source that is outside biblical revelation structure his world view... what is that source? Well, it could be either purely materialist (maybe provide links to Gisler's JETS paper on beware of philosophies and Mortensen's The Master's Seminary Journal paper on materialism and age of earth; I can give links if you don't have them) which means that he is judging the bible on the basis of a view that denies the world view of the bible: that is, a view that says "there is no god'; 'material is all there is' and 'man has no moral, generative or epistemological relationships outside himself' that is, is ethically and actually independent. So; Lankshear appears to base his thinking, at least by default' on this world view and uses it to analyse the Bible; from the get go he has prejudiced his thinking.

Alternatively, his view might be that consequence of materialism: mythological: that there are factors to consider that are not principally material, but have arisen culturally as a response by the imaginatively powerful to their situation in the material world...which reduces entertainingly to 'mere fiction'. If myth is a cultural response to a historical situation, then its interesting, but probably unimportant... Lankshear is then using the unimportant to assess the credibility of the Bible!

Another thing about ANE and other myths, they all take the cosmos as a given; effectively; even if they pretend to be a true cosmogony; they are not, as in EE they are either a theogony, or a story of the origin of something within the cosmos, not of the cosmos and its ontological implications for us...so, myths are pretty skinny; and they do not allow us to build anything of substance; thus mythologically referenced cultures have not produced natural science; nor objective history.

On this last point, he fails also to understand the critical importance in Jewish culture of objective history: Jewish thought regards objective history with bedrock importance; it is not a mythological culture at all, but a concretely historical one; for it to base this on a myth is both absurd and incoherent: cultures do not and cannot build objective historically referred structures on mythological foundations: the Jews have done the reverse: their culture is objectively historical and concretely real down to day 1.

Once Lankshear manages to reflect on the structure of his thought world he might be able to adopt a biblical noetical frame of reference which would instantly eliminate the explanatory dead ends of materialism and its cousin mythology.

BTW, I'll lend you Bavink: he's old fashioned (well...just old) but has some great ideas, including a wonderful logical critique of Darwinism as it then was.

Southern Baptists

I've mentioned Al Mohler's work in previous posts.

Al has written a goodly amount on the matter of origins on his blog.

Here are some links:

The Futility of Theistic Evolution

Christianity and Evolution: Seeing the Problem

Creation vs. Evolution: The New Shape of the Debate

Evolution on the Mind

Should we really thank God for evolution?


The Buzzing Fly: Why the Creation-Evolution Debate is So Important

The Christian World View as Master Narrative: Creation

Mohler on Hawking on Creation

Mohler on Ruse on Creation'ism'

A darwinian compendium.

A knight of the mind.

Darwin's dog.

You'll get the idea!

God and Science

This letter appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald today (16 July 2011)

God and science
Mike Phillips (Letters, July 15) suggests that Tony Maher has engaged in cherry picking of his beliefs and that there is an inconsistency between accepting climate change science on the one hand and belief in a creator god on the other.
As many theistic scientists will attest, it's a false dichotomy to pit God against science. Scientific inquiry looks at the world and how it works, while theology looks behind the curtain and wonders why it all exists to begin with.
One might look at how the world began, the other at why and by whom the world began. The two disciplines ask and answer completely different questions about life.
Cherry picking? I don't think so. But Mike Phillips might be comparing apples with oranges.
Andrew Miers Bardwell Valley

Phillips' letter rightly identified the foundation of Christian theism (although without using that term) being that God is creator. Oddly, he sees the significance of this cornerstone idea or doctrine, while many teachers of the church fail to understand it, leading at best, in many cases to views such as Miers' above.

Miers and others who see a spilt between what happened and what it means are philosophically out of tune with the Bible's world concept, and theologically under-done when it comes to discussion of origins. The Bible is very clear that what happened is the basis for the significance of what happened (the 'why' that Miers notes). There is no split in the Bible's framing of the world of thought and event so that 'meaning' is carried on a different plane to causal continuity. Certainly the Bible insists that 'word' is necessary, but you may note, that the word with respect to origins is about what happened in causal continuity, and not other than what happened.

Phillips gets it: if the Bible is not to be trusted when it deals with events in causal continuity, then what it derives human significance from is but a fiction, and the 'really real' events, and their inherent meaning, are otherwise, and God is divided! A house divided, of course, is a house bound to fall, particularly when theologians set out to divide what God has conjoined.

Phillips knows that it is 'God of the real world' that Christianity has in mind; he just disbelieves. Miers on the other hand seems to think that Christian faith is in a God of other than the real world: disconnected, not Elohim who connects with us, or draws worship from us because he is creator of the real that we are in!

For the sake of brevity I won't go through the flowering of modern science in the rich bed of Christian theology and belief, including the face-value reading of Genesis 1.

Un-knowledge

The application of symbolism to critical biblical passages remains an interesting thing to contemplate.

Going on from my earlier post,

There is a major problem in attempts to cast the early chapters of Genesis as other than having the meaning of their face reading; particularly noting that the face reading is set in terms of of the causality of the world of our being and experience (coordination points are in the chronological alignment, the pattern of causality that is identical our experience, the continuity of space-time between the Genesis 1-3 depiction of the world and ours, and the uniformity of relationships between that depiction and ours, for example).

The problem is that unfooting Genesis 1 unfoots the understanding of our origin, relationships and sin (particularly the relationship with God) that only can come from Genesis 1.

The claim that G1 is mythic, or symbolic (which amounts to the same thing) immediately removes the information-content that it would otherwise convey. This means that the origin of all things, of our relationship with God (both made, in Genesis 1:27? and broken in Genesis 3:n, and fore-redeemed (Genesis 3:n), and our self-identity are not known, if they are not factual in the only account we have.

Then to explain sin, for example (but also to explain anything else in these chapters), becomes problematic. To understand the claims of scripture people must know the real connections that did, do and will affect them; they mythic connections will not do this, as people's lives are lived, challenged, enjoyed and frustrated in the real world, not the uninformative mythic one from whence comes at best metaphors of the real world. So is we can't show a 'real-world' engagement that explains our situation and all its dimensions, then it does not provide for us to understand our position.

This has a pastoral aspect.

If a person grappling to understand sin and God's redemptive response is told that sin is only explained in the Bible in symbolic terms, then the person can ask "then where did it really come from?" And how would we know? If G1 doesn't tells us what really happened, then what did really happen, and how would we know? Are we therefore really linked to God as G1 says, and do we really bear God's image, or is that just an ex-post facto hope for significance and meaning? The person could well ask, what is 'really real' and the 'real' point of reference for our existential position. If G1 is relegated to the symbolic, then the person would well look to materialism as the final reference point: materialism which eliminates God and the existential position would be the tissue of nonsense that Camus, Satre et al would leave us.

The unwitting, or perhaps just unacknowledged reference made when G1 is regarded as symbolic is that the world as we know it becomes 'a given' not created, and the result of itself, not of will. Alternatively it defaults to an implicit materialism which provides that true knowledge about the world in its totality (our world as experienced) leaves God out, as a not quite real figure; linking only through the tendrils of symbol, not the stout columns of what is real. So he's not really part of our world, but is set more in pagan terms, being an element of a prior world: the world as given, as Enuma Elish, for instance, assumes.

The odium of theistic-evolution

What is so odious about theistic-evolution, I think, is that it makes a represenetation of God, with respect to origins, that diverges from the representation God makes of himself through the creative actions; actions that are linked to who he is (Romans 1:20).

In saying that 'no, God didn't do that, but he did something else that not he but I tell you.' it is saying that God is different from how he has communicated himself, and the relationship of God to creation is not what the Bible sets out.

This arises, I think, in part from the thrall of modern materialism, but partly out of a misplaced idealism descended from ancient Greece, where 'god' is too exulted to have any real connection with the material.

But this is not Christianity. God has provided the material world as not only the setting, but as part of his covenant with man, as him who is in God's image, the steward of the creation, to whose redemption the 'whole creation' looks.

The theological trouble with theistic evolution

The trouble with theistic evolution (or Christian Darwinism) is that it says something about God that is different from what God says about God.

It makes a different relationship between God's words and actions from that which God states.

Adios theory

Published in the Sydney Morning Herald 25 June 2011: trouble is Lyell was right...adios theory!

4 big moves

I recently re-listened to Al Mohler's address on the age of the universe at a recent Ligoner Ministeries Conference.

In it he remarked that the Bible has four essential movements that condition the span of action between God and man: creation, fall, redemption and new creation.

These are four moments in the relation between God and us, where God's actions are material in the relationship.

And the relationship parameters are isotropic. That is, the zone of contact doesn't shift between them: sometimes metaphor, sometimes imaginary, sometimes real-world. They all must be real world and interact with our life-perspective, our experience as subjects, uniformly. Some cannot be appraised as 'lets agree this is important' (myth), and others as 'this occupies unique space in the time-space zone that effects and constrains my actions, choices and life-perspective'.

But even more, the zone of contact is action by God.

Most of the views of the account in Genesis 1 that depart from the direct meaning also seem to set aside that this is God telling us what he has done. Him describing the actions through which he represents himself to us in an unavoidably meaningfully tangible manner. It is not some artful allusion to 'teach that God is creator' but is the sequence of things that he did, being creator by which he communicates himself to us, and demonstrates that his claim to being creator is not empty, but delivered! So its 'personal'. Most of what I've read seems to want to de-personalise the account; yet the Bible is all about God's actions towards his creation, within his creation to the end of the new creation; once it is denied that he can give information about his acts, or that they occur in terms of different parameters from all his other acts, and from how acts 'work' (with causal continuity and contingency) in the time-space creation, then we don't have God's telling us about himself at all, but about someone/thing else. Strange way for one who is love to operate then. Does one write to a friend to tell him what one didn't do, or what one did do, as genuine self-revelation?

A friend made this comment in response to the above:

Interesting to note that when Philip said to our Lord Jesus "Lord show us the Father and that will be enough for us." The Lord Jesus replied with "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father...at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves."

The historical evidence of the Lord Jesus' recreative acts gave testimony of who he is; and so the evidence of God's creative acts giving testimony to who the creator is. Undo one, and you undo the other.

Creation outside Genesis

I was privilaged to attend a conference at St. John's Park Baptist Church recently titled Getting Genesis Right (check under sermons for the sound files).

One of the lectures was titled Creation outside Genesis.

This is the list of biblical references discussed (compiled by Dr. William Barrick of The Master's Seminary):

Exodus 20:8-11; 31:17
Deuteronomy 4:32
2 Kings 19:15
1 Chronicles 16:26
2 Chronicles 2:12
Nehemiah 9:6
Job 4:17; 9:8; 38:1-41:34 (38:4, 12, 32-33; 40:15)
Psalms 8:5-6; 33:6; 89:11-12, 47; 96:5; 104:2-5, 24; 115:15; 136:5; 148:4-5
Proverbs 14:31; 17:5; 22:2
Ecclesiastes 12:1
Isaiah 37:16; 40:26-28; 42:5, 12, 18; 44:24; 45:7; 12; 18; 51:13
Jeremiah 10:12, 16; 32:17; 51:15, 19
Amos 4:13
Malachi 2:10
Matthew 19:4; 25:34
Mark 10:6; 13:19
Luke 3:38
John 1:1-5, 9, 10
Acts 4:24; 14:15; 17:24
Romans 1:20, 25; 5:14; 8:19-22, 39
1 Corinthians 8:6; 11:9; 15:22, 45
2 Corinthians 4:6
Ephesians 3:9
Colossians 1:13-16
1 Timothy 2:13-14; 4:4
Hebrews 1:2; 11:3
1 Peter 1:20; 4:19
Revelation 4:11; 5:13; 10:6; 13:8.

One of the great themes in many of these references is that God's being creator provides the reason for us worshipping him. It provides the basis for the connection between creator and creature; embedded in acts which occured in the time and space that we occupy.

Symbolic Sin!

In my church's latest study group notes, the following question was posed:

5. Read Genesis 3.7-24. In these verses we see the consequences of human sin in the breakdown of relationships between people and people and God. In this highly symbolic section we see a reality that is still with us today. What area of brokenness troubles you the most?

As soon as a part of scripture is identified as symbolic, I get wary. To regard something as a symbol heralds its dereification, in this context. It makes it 'art' not 'life'. Art comments on life and relationship, it is replete with symbols and representations, but it is not, in itself real life; its a type of decorative communication about the real life to which it refers.

So when something in the Bible is declared to be symbolic, one first has to ask, symbolic of what? Of what concretely is it a symbol (and if we can't say, then its hard to declare it to be symbolic; maybe we should instead say that as modern Westerners we are just uncomfortable with it). Perhaps it is taken as symbolic of 'a reality that is still with us today'. But if it is our reality, why would we need a symbol? How does the 'symbol' participate in the connected reality of relationships over time and space?

What the passage does is give to us the source of the current shared reality (shared between us, and between us and God). Is the source a symbol of the source? How would we know? Has the current reality been always with us? In which case it doesn't need a source, but is inherent in the creation (as the problem only emerges when the face reading of Genesis 1-3 is denied, then the word 'creation' may be erroneous, and we should just say 'cosmos' or 'reality' as something that is unbound from God's creative acts that we've just denied and only can know from his word).

And if it is a symbol, what is the connection with our non-symbolic experience of the world as subjects? Where does symbol stop and the concrete or actual start?

I doubt that there is an independent epistemic basis for the declaration when our topic is a type of 'first philosophy' topic; that is, about the start of it all, so perhaps we are all just symbols of something else, our relationships are symbols of something else, and our concrete experience of death, pain, suffering and frustration is not due to actual estrangement from God, but is a mere symbol of some other actual thing.

No, it just doesn't wash.

So what is so symbolic about the passage? I think it is just that we have trouble with a talking snake (maybe all animals talked pre-fall...and how would we know they didn't...or did), and an actual tree being a reminder of a covenant. And what a simple gracious reminder. Nothing complicated to do, just remember the God-man relationship by your action of not taking the fruit. A fruit! Nothing to interfere with an enjoyable life, and itself demonstrating the mercy, graciousness and love of God; actually!

The words of C. S. Lewis are apposite here:

"These [critics] ask me to believe they can read between the lines of the old texts; the evidence is their obvious inability to read (in any sense worth discussing) the lines themselves. They claim to see fern-seeds and can't see an elephant ten yards away in broad daylight."

"The argument runs like this. All the details are derived from our present experience; but the reality transcends our experience; therefore all the details are wholly and equally symbolic....[However, you cannot know that everything in the representation of a thing is symbolic unless you have independent access to the thing and can compare it with the representation."

So, what is it, then?

In recent posts I've referred to some who claim that Genesis 1 is other than history. Typically these people will say that it's analogy, parable, metaphor, allegory, polemic or anything but an account of events that happened.

Proponents rarely declare the basis in reality, at the time of its writing, to which the text would refer analogically, metaphorically, parabolically, etc.

The scope of the problem these authors back themselves into can be illustrated if we look at the 'polemic' view of Genesis 1.

On the one hand, the Babylonians compose the Enuma Elish: so up come the Israelites with a counter story of origins (not that EE is really a cosmogony, its more a theogony). Your story vs. my story. But which story is right? If neither refers to what really occurred, then the polemic is empty and we still don't know what really happened, we just have a contest of tales that would descend instantly to a contest of preference, not truth; but surely the real should be accessible to the creator to tell us why he is the creator by telling us how he created, not how he didn't create as though this would persuade us of a fact that the claim cannot explicate! (if the creator can't present his credentials as creator in terms that make sense with reference to his actual creation, it becomes hard to discern the credential!)

This empty result is the end game of all non-literal interpretations of Genesis 1. They get us nowhere and leave the telling of what this cosmos really is to others. Some theologians support this project on the basis that we have the intelligence to examine the creation and determine its origin. However, scientific examination cannot be definitive of past singularities, it only uses the regular as its reference point. So we end up with a fundamentally religious (or at least historical) issue being divorced from the scope of God's revelation.

Separate the creation from the ability of the creator to communicate the connection between our world and his will, and we pretty quickly separate ourselves from God. This is why the idea of evolution is the mainstay of modern atheism. Atheists see the disconnection; what a betrayal of thought that so many theologians fail to.

Beasties

At the St Philip's Bible talk today (Thursday 23 June), in the series on Job, we reached God's rhetorical discourse to Job; the one where God mentions two particular beasts: behemoth and leviathan. Justin told us that they were most likely referring to the hippopotamus and elephant. Or perhaps mythical beasts: fairy story characters.

Justin, I don't think so; on any count.

Firstly, look at the descriptions: His tail sways like a cedar (Job 40:17); doesn't remind me of a hippo!

[Interesting to note Job 40:15b: "made along with you" made like I made you, or made at the time I made you? I'll check it out; but there appears to be an element of confluence in their creation.]

Then leviathan: his back has rows of shields (Job 41:15), his snorting throws out flashes of fire (Job 41:18)! Not like any elephant I've seen!

Both explanations are improbable, particularly when there are known animals that the descriptions to fit' only they are extinct. Of course, one does become perplexed by Job's references when the history in the Bible is set aside and the ear is bent to the arid world-story of materialism that starts from a completely different premise to the Bible, and naturally has different conclusion!.

But would the creatures be mythical? I think not. The detail is too fine and unelaborated for myth, and to naturally descriptive, and many parts of the descriptions are 'every day' observations. And if they were myth, then what sort of God is worshipped when he has to go to fairy tales to depict his works, and not to his own creation; which itself is set in the Bible as the basis for him being worshipped by us!

History, or not?

In the latest issue of Creation magazine there's an article by Andrew Kulikovsky "Common Errors". He refers to the errors usually made by people who attempt to read an evolutionary world view back into the Bible, specifically, Genesis 1, of course.

One of the errors he mentions, and a typical one (see this article on John Dickson of the Centre for Public Christianity for discussion of this type of error), is the assertion that Genesis 1 gives us a theological rather than an historical account. Bruce Waltke, Bernard Ramm and a few others are cited in this connection.

The trouble with this view is that it supposes that 'theological intent' can exist detached from the setting of theological interchange where meaning is made (the real world, and recursively, the world resulting from the creative work set out in Genesis 1). Thus theology is 'carried' by history, in the Bible; it does not exist in some other world detached from this one: a kind of theological upper storey (to use Francis Schaeffer's analogy) that doesn't have feet on the same ground that our feet are on.

Andrew makes this very point, quoting Graeme Goldsworthy (Preaching the Whole Bible as Christian Scripture), "The fact is that the whole Bible presents its message as theology within a framework of history".

Theology is connected through history (that is the recount of events in space and time) with the domain of life concerns that dominate our thoughts, feelings and hopes. It is in and makes sense in our world because it is us in our world who are subject of God's salvific communication. If this were not so, there would be no tangible congruence between theological statements and our possible apprehension of them. They would reduce to the nonsense of Zen koans.

A further question one would have to ask of this error, is its basis: how do its exponents know that certain parts of the Bible are 'theological' and not historical, when the explanation of the historical is typically the source of theological information, as God explains the significance of events (especially those set in historical narrative language, like Genesis 1). It is only history that makes theology meaningful. History is the domain of relationships between actors, people, agents; and God the creator in relation to us is on this plane: relationships that have actual reality do not exist outside of historical circumscription, because then they cease to be relationships and the very point of God's creating would evaporate. This is the great theological error that is made by those who want to think that theology and history exist in separate worlds.

Sun-Herald letter

I saw this letter in the Sydney 'Sun Herald' on Sunday last:

Jean Whittle (Letters June 5) begs the question that God is necessarily a created being like we are and thus stands in need of a prior causal creator. Theists will tell you that God is eternal and consequently has never come into existence. He just always is.

The dilemma facing Jean, indeed confronting all atheists, is whether their “god”, matter, is eternal or popped into existence from absolutely no-thing and from no cause. While the first alternative is purely religious, the second is metaphysical nonsense: from no-thing, nothing comes.

After deciding, maybe Jean can tell us theists how matter or no-thing produced the non-material biological information that underwrites life, and brought into being love, consciousness and morality.

The atheists' only explanation, evolution, fails badly, scientifically and philosophically, against theism. After all, a supremely intelligent and all-loving God certainly seems a more viable option to explain reality than, well, no-thing.

Sincerely yours

Marc Kay

Murder

At a recent lunch time Bible talk at St Philip's York Street, Justin observed (in the context of discussing Job 28)
If natural selection is true, then there would be nothing wrong with murder. It would be one means of the strong eliminating the weak.
And if the origin of humanity, let alone the cosmos, was as evolutionary dogma has it, this would be so; even if the dogma is bolted on to a theistic framework: as in theistic-evolution, it would remain true that murder to achieve success was built into the structure of reality, and moral questions were mere questions of convenience, and not having real moment.
Thus the dilemma of those who think that God 'used' evolution to create...they end up with a morally divided God, who's creation is different in type to him, where his glory is found (Roms 1:20), not in peace and joy and love, in the vanquishment of the weak.

What they say!

I've heard a lot of neo-evangelicals claim that the question of origins/the biblical doctrine of creation, is a rather unimportant issue in either a pastoral or evangelical context.

I think this clip from a recent Sydney Morning Herald contradicts that.

Plato

There’s a philosophical tendency in the West, following Plato, to conclude that if a theory isn’t working, there must be something wrong with reality

.
from Harvard Business Review May 2011: Nonaka, The Wise Leader

Reminds me a lot of neo-evangelicals who concluded that because the 'theory' that God created as he set out in Genesis is not like the popular theory of evolution, and is contrary to an implausibly ancient earth; that is, it doesn't 'work'; then there must be something wrong with the reality of his word...so, of course, much sweat and ink is spent on saying that Genesis 1, etc. doesn't mean what it clearly says!

Theistic evolution?

Termed by Al Mohler, an oxymoron, and I couldn't agree more, this web page on theistic evolution gives a good run down of the idea that Christian revelatory theism is somehow compatible with non-christian speculative materialism.

Cat and Dog Theology

Recently I attended an evening with Gerald Robison of Cat and Dog Theology: a surprisingly fun ministry.

After Gerald's talk question time started and a couple of questions dealt with the recurrent 'good God, world of evil' subject.

One of the questions went something like "does God like earthquakes and tsunamis?" because, I guess, the questioner thought that they were part of the 'very good' world that God created. This may have been indicative of a poorly taught or understood theology of creation and its place in the biblical (the 'real') history of the physical world; or a failure to integrate information about spiritual matters, with the covenantal relationship between the material world and our concourse with God.

Gerald's answer focused on Romans 8:22 ("For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now".); and given the time constraints, it appealed to me as a pretty good answer. He went on to affirm that despite the effects of sin on our world, 'God was still in control".

The answer, however, did not quite satisfy. There is a more fulsome response to deal with the why of natural 'evil' (earthquakes and the like), and the notion of God's being 'in control'; the latter being a particularly objectional piece of contemporary reflexive determinism.

That the world is not as God created is clear in scripture: the cosmos left God's hand as 'very good' (Gen 1:31). We are twice removed from this state: firstly by the fall, where God ceased his intimate relationship with his creation (Gen 3:9, for example), and secondly by the flood, and its aftermath.

In the contemporary Anglican church the question of natural evil arises, perhaps, because of the inroads made into the doctrine of creation by worldly admixes of 'theistic-evolution' or Christian Darwinism, and various other reconfigurations of the doctrine brought by metaphorical readings of Genesis 1, etc. Thus, I suspect, the world contorted by disruption is mistakenly 'read' as the very good world that left God's mind as revealed in the genesian account; and God is somehow identified with the blind, relentless, meaningless, cruelty and frustration that 'evolution' entails.

But, not so. God created 'very good' consistently with his goodness and love; he took pleasure in what he had done and gave to us; he also will restore the entire creation to joyful fellowship with him and peace; overturning any idea that this broken world represents, in its brokenness, God's nature. [Despite its broken state, Paul insists that it does still make representation of God]

'Control'

The notion of God being 'in control' comes up frequently, and appears to be used by Christians, in many cases, as the final support for their confidence in God's capability to finally save them. However, the glibness of its expression conjures up for me the image of God as puppeteer; which I don't find in the Scriptures.

Without grappling with the vast world of debate on this topic, and its many colours and flavours (canvassed in Christian Determinism, as one example served up at the top of a recent Google search); I will put down but a few notes.

God's being 'in control' strikes me as a god disengaged from his creation, and one who imposes on his creation or people (those in his image, and therefore not made to be 'controlled') the events and circumstances of their lives.

But God our creator represents himself differently to this. I think of Romans 8:28 where Paul tells us that God (actively) works all things together for good...so, God engaged, at work and, I think one can extend to him working in the world that we are working in, he to reliably bring about what he wills not necessarily over against us, but through and by us, even if we intend otherwise.

The way the teleological dimension of God's relationship with the cosmos is expressed in Job, is I think, what is largely in mind when people talk of him being 'in control'; but the biblical expression is far more helpful: Job 42:2, for instance, where God's ends will out: but reading this with the Romans passage, it is not, I suggest, by 'brute force' fiat, but by his working, by his Spirit in and with the minds and motivations of his creatures in all their circumstances.

I find myself discomforted by the absolutist terms that speak more of a Greek philosophical tradition ('in control' being of this ilk), and am more comfortable with God as represented in the Bible as living with us, and taking a part in the pattern of life, albeit a supreme part, by which his objectives are never thwarted and always achieved: so in these terms, he is not a puppet master, but the supreme moulder, leader, guide and 'captain' of the way of his creation; even his creation marred in rebellion and seeking to be against him.

We, though, in his church, are part of the new creation, seeking not to be against him, but to be entierly for him; but the new creation has intersected with the old, and God achieves his goal while we are wading still through the mess and sometimes horror of life in this now broken creation. We live, as it were, in two creations at once, and this living sustained in God's light by his indwelling Spirit and engaged by the life of prayer.

Just as an aside, I think that some confusion arises when people think of pre-destination, in this context, and perhaps think the Bible teaches that God has pre-destined 'you', the individual, to share eternity with him. I don't think this is so; rather, the destination of the 'train' of the church is eternity with him; but who is on the train is a different matter: not entirely different, but nevertheless, different, as God seeks and saves those who are lost, and would that all come to know him.

No longer part of eternity

From a recent article by Elizabeth Farrelly (touted as an architect on the Herald's website, but she isn't: not registered in NSW so cannot be one!)

It captures very nicely the wrong-headedness that parlously descends upon as by evolutionary fictions, and spreads through the church due to its faustian bargain in 'theistic evolution' reconfiguring Genesis 1 into a metaphor for something else!

For in big, fat, rich modernity, as you know, time is money. We may live twice as long as those mediaevals, but our time cannot be wasted on the merely beautiful or the merely worshipful. This is because we no longer see ourselves as part of eternity but simply as the poor, bare, forked animals that Darwinian modernism bequeathed us. Our allotted span is all we have, so it matters...

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/mystery-dies-when-we-dont-see-ourselves-as-part-of-eternity-20110427-1dwmy.html?posted=successful#ixzz1KlKuot6U

Facts from non-facts

There are a number of views of Genesis 1 that fall into a basic conceptual approach to the text. It is this: the information contained in the passage is not factual. It does not correspond to events in the real world in either sequence or substance. However, Genesis 1 does teach that God is creator, that he is (somehow) sovereign over creation and that he has created a cosmos that is consistently well ordered, predictable and is subject to uniform causal regularities.

What is not explained by this basic view is how all this fact is derived from something that is non factual on its face!

It seems that to hold that one can draw the factual from the non-factual; denying that the material on its face conveys facts, but that somehow underneath it reveals something that it does not do on the surface, in the direct meaning of the text, is not a mark of thought, but of conjuring!

What is pretty obvious to me, is that this program requires the material to be sorted into that which has objective meaning and that which does not, not on its own grounds, but by some criterion that is private to the interpreter.

But how would we know that interpreter A, in rejecting that the direct reading of the text is factual, is able to know that other matters in the text, not directly accessible to the direct reader, are where its facticity lies? Indeed, how would we know that interpreter A has anything of value to say against interpreter B who responds to the text on its face? Or is it just that one garners credentials from the occult act of finding something beneath the text (occult here referring to 'hidden')? What is the basis either in the text or by reference to something outside the text to say that a fact can be deduced from a text which itself contains no facts?

That doesn't sound like even a rational reading of a text, let alone a spiritually responsive one!

So, lets get it straight; most modern post/neo/quasi evangelicals would say that Genesis 1 teaches us that God is creator, but does not provide any factual material, any reliable content, which communicates that! So where does the idea that God is creator come from if that creator cannot communicate the basis of the attribution to those he created in language which is the medium presumably created for communication between persons, or, if the Bible is right, is ontologically basic?

This is a particularly pointed question when most such PNQ evangelicals fall into line with the idea of evolution being thoroughly (or not quite thoroughly) explanatory of origins; an idea which in itself seems to feel no epistemological deficiency; and actively denies that personhood is basically real, but rather, that material is; personhood being a mere outworking of an assembly of material.

John Dixon, who I mentioned in my previous post might be one of these non-facts teach facts chaps. I'd ask him: by what criterion do you draw from a text whose facticity you deny, conclusions which are only validly available by reference to the very text you deny can provide them.

The decision to claim that some facts are established in the face of the rejection of their medium is arbitrary; those who espouse it don't have any substantial ground to reject the contrary view, that the fact they claim is carried only by the facts that convey it. To deny this is more than perverse, it is crazy.

Why age?

Comment I posted on a recent article on John Dickson's teaching about earth and its age.

It is saddening to see Christian teachers like John Dickson wanting to support a conceptualisation of the world that separates it from God, indeed, wants to make it independent of God's revelation in a fashion that has more to do with paganism than Christianity. The pagan worldview typically sees the world either as 'given' or as independent of any intelligent cause or agency. Long ages abet this idea.

Further support for paganist ideas comes in denying that the Bible could or would want to include information about our physical cosmos or world; yet the physical setting is clearly significant in the scriptures: it shows us our very tangible connection with God, and God's direct connection with his creation, thus establishing who he is for us, and who we are before him.

In denying that the opening chapters of Genesis have anything concrete to say about these topics people like Dickson, etc. effectively say that the 'god' they conceive is very different from the God of the Bible, who sets out his program for relationship with us in terms parameterised in the terms by which we know the very world that he says that he created.

Moreover, the approach that severs the direct genetic connection between God and his creation, and ultimately us, de-personalises the connection God declares through Genesis 1:1 to 2:4; de-personalisation is precisely the fruit of pagan ideas. I wonder if this implication is seen by others?

The 5-fold formula

There have been a few schemes that apply a structure to Genesis 1; usually they are schemes to avoid the direct reading of the passage (e.g. the 'framework' hypothesis), but oddly, the authors of these schemes usually fail to deal with the passage's most obvious structuring scheme.

Joseph Pipa in his lecture on the doctrine of creation puts it this way:

Moses adopts a formula much more powerful and pervasive than the parallel between the days 1-3 and 4-6. It is a five-fold formula that is used fairly consistently with each of the six days, the work of each day is described by the five-fold formula:

1. the act of creation,
2. the declaration of fulfillment,
3. the statement of purpose,
4. the expression of delight and
5. the indication of time.

In each event the act of creation is described in a two-fold manner: firstly the word of creation, and that is complimented by the particular works of creation.

The word predominates as we read this chapter: "and God said", shaping the particular out of the initial 'mass' of creation.

Real Public Events

I've recently been listening to a lecture by Thomas, until recently, of Durham (Tom Wright: recently stepped down as bishop) 'Can a scientist believe in the resurrection?" In it he makes a couple of remarks that I'd like to use to consider how we might think about Genesis 1/the creation.

1. He says that the question of Jesus' resurrection was not a question about the internal state of his followers, but about something that happened in the real public world.

That is, the resurrection as an event was accessible to anyone who was there at the time, independently of that person's views, beliefs or prejudices.

2. He also said that the disciples' transformed world view was only explicable on the assumption that something really did happen (really = an event in material space-time which objectively occurred independently of any observers)

Here it is clear that people's approach to life and their thoughts about their own circumstances and personal trajectories through life were reoriented by something that really happened.

Christian faith is thus not some rarified 'faith in faith', but confidence in the actuality of events that have an affect upon us.

So, the creation, if not something that happened in the real public world in the terms in which God portrays it, is not something that happened meaningfully at all! If it was not accessible, in principle, to anyone who read the text, and could make sense of it, then it is not revealed, but obscured!

Then, the world view that the creation account sets out to create is one that depends on something really having happened. Not something that we are free to characterise ( and therefore characterise God) any way we please, but something that is bound to the context of the revelation; otherwise, it is not this creation that we are talking about, but some other source of the world, built on some other premise, and connected historically to some principle other than the God who has taken pains to tells us the basis for the connection between us and him from which flows the entirety of redemptive history.

Canards

In the most recent Southern Cross; the journal of our (Sydney) anglican diocese, a letter was published in reply to an earlier one on Genesis 1.

The earlier letter used Genesis 1 to be able to draw conclusions about life on earth; the latter letter denied this was possible, but that information could only come from outside the Bible.

Specifically, the author, one Stenning, asserted that Genesis was but poetry; and presumably could have no truth content in its own terms, and that armed with 'two books' to 'read the world' we could be content to relegate the Bible (Genesis 1) to other than concretely informative.

Both assertions are, in my view, erroneous.

Firstly, it is hard to understand how anyone could think that Genesis 1 is poetry. It is obviously not! So obvious, I'll not rehearse here what I've covered previously.

The second assertion is a little trickier, although I've touched on it previously too.

Are there two books? One of 'nature' (and that word gives the game away instantly: its not 'nature' but the 'creation' that should concern us), and the other of God's word? The so-called book of nature only becomes such, that is, nature is only 'en-booked' in the propositions formulated by people, with all the prejudices, errors and fabrication that people are prone to. Hardly something to use over against the Bible!

Reference to a second book in this context is almost invariably to off-set the biblical information about origins, and render it meaningless by comparison with modern 'majority' views. So the second book is not really the book of the creatures, to express God's power, as Francis Bacon put it, but the book of 'God cannot communicate his work of creation to us'; with us relying instead on constructions that start, not with God, but with asserting his irrelevance. This is canvassed in another recent post.

Second book reference also usually indicates a view that the Bible has no business talking about the material cosmos, and that any such talk is usually irrelevant to spiritual matters. But the Bible would have it otherwise. In the creation do we learn of the close connection and historical continuity of redeeming relationship between God and man, and that it is this world, this setting, in which we encounter God; not some other, less concrete, less do to with 'our' world, world. The pastoral implications of this can be quite dramatic, in my own experience.

Creation? Yes, but on my terms!

It is a popular line in much of the evangelical world that Genesis 1, etc. tells us that God is creator, and that creation was ex nihilo, but that the actual facts of creation do not line up with Genesis 1. So Genesis 1 is either pure polemic, or mere rhetoric.

Simply at the level of the pure logic of the claim, it seems to be a nonsensical position to hold: it denies the alignment with events of the only information that we have on which to base our acceptance of God's being creator. The claim is that 'God created, but not how he tells us'. The sceptic is well entitled to deny that our belief in God's being creator can be a serious one.

What is happening here amounts to denying the word of God, and maintaining that his creating was not on his terms, but has to be on our terms (and who are we to say?).

This was the mistake of the Pharisees: they wanted a messiah on their terms, not God's!

In making this move, we evacuate God's revelation of its direct verbal-grammatical meaning, and substitute our own thoughts as to what really must have happened, bending, in many cases to the materialist view of the world, and allowing its claims the ascendency over those of our God! This happens either by accepting the notion of Darwinian evolution, or materialist cosmogony and the accompanying history of the earth, or both; usually both.

I don't know of any other part of scripture where we deny that God can communicate what he wants, and we comfortably substitute our own views!

But this is not a denial without danger: as soon as we substitute our own content, we change the substance of God's information: we say not only that God created, but not how he says, but that the world is other than the Bible sets out.

Our relationship with God throughout the Bible, and its flow of history, is framed in terms of the creation: it sets out who he is, who we are, and grounds the covenant! Setting the details of the account aside means that we set this aside too, and we have to then be content that the world is not the world that God sets out for us, but some other world, where things happen differently, and to which God relates differently.

The theological ramifications are not trivial!

Dembski's Theodicy

When I first read Andrew Hodge’s review of Dembski’s “The End of Christianity” in the Journal of Creation, I regarded Dembski’s views as being arcane speculation. I did not expect them to become present in everyday Christian discourse. But subsequently to reading the review, I found that they had!

A Christian worker of my acquaintance used an approach similar to Dembski’s to answer a question as to how there could be death before the Fall. This was done in a group discussion, but did not itself evoke much comment, unfortunately. It certainly didn’t bring discussion of the logical circle that Hodge sets out in the review, which ends with God being the author of evil.

And here, I think we see the basic theological problem of theistic evolution: not that it puts death before the fall, which it does, and which is obviously a problem, it being at first counter-scriptural then making the evidence of the dissolution of relationship between God and creature come to effect before the actual dissolution; but that it makes the action of evil inherent in the creation. Thus it makes to be evil part of what God has done out of his nature, and termed ‘very good’. This is simply incoherent. It makes God the author of ‘not-God’ and therefore by nature to include his own inversion. Interestingly Barth does this very thing in this statement in his commentary on Romans 8:21, 22 “All things...observed by men are hidden in God...good and evil” (Oxford edition, p. 309). It ends up more Zoroastrian than Christian, to my mind.

The notion has a number of other effects as well.

It seems to ignore that temporal order was created by God as part of the organising structure of experience within his creation. To upend this and have his creation show the dislocation of the fall prior to the fall makes nonsense of sequence, justice and causality. Indeed, if this had been part of orthodox theology, I doubt if science and reason would have taken root as the temporal anti-causality of Dembski’s theology would remove their basis in the created world (that which God has created as Real). Such an outworking would be reminiscent of the anti-temporality of some contemporary philosophical discussion that pops up in both critical theory particularly, and some flavours of post-modernism (refer, for instance to Fredric Jamison and Jean-Francois Lyotard’s glee at the displacement of history’s ‘grand narratives’ by post-modern language games, notwithstanding the irony of their inevitable reliance on strict temporality for actual communication).

Dembski seems to have also set out to rather glibly solve a problem that his commitment to naturalist chronology creates; but glibness here leads to another theological error. The results of the fall in death and dissolution are because relationship with God is broken. God steps back from his creation, as it were (signified in his having to seek Adam, and not know him in confraternity: loss of loving intimacy and life sustaining involvement has occurred) within the temporal framework of that creation. Adam, as the steward of the creation has rejected and ejected God from fellowship in his life by particular action at a particular time (notwithstanding the interpretation of Calvinism that has God in relationship trampling over his own creation of temporality, sequence and his image in man): the creation thus cut loose from the author and source of life must experience death and decay, frustration and failure.

To have the creation simultaneously be in fellowship with God and out of fellowship with God, which is what Dembski’s theodicy requires, has to be explained, not just presented by an off-hand and illogical assertion.

The final consequence is that Dembski’s ‘effect of the fall before the event of the fall’ theology is, as I’ve touched on above, destroys the temporal structure the Bible, gives to interaction patterns. It forces the adoption of a cyclical indeterminacy that turns its back on temporality, makes chronology meaningless and runs against biblical thought. This, if it truly did emerge with any real grounds from the Bible, would align Christian (and Jewish) theology with the types of pagan anti-temporal structures that Eliade discusses in “The Myth of Eternal Return”, and would undermine revelatory historicity with dire implications for the incarnation. In these terms, Dembski’s adoption of the concept of kairology is interesting as it makes time subjective (which is quite workable in many day to day ways: 'eat when hungry' is an example), but risks melding this into a pagan package of impersonal spiritualist subjectivity, countering the highly involved personal spiritual objectivity of the scriptures.

Finally, it is simple to rebut Dembski’s parallel between the sufficiency of Christ for redemption across history, and applying the fall contrary to causality irrespective of the flow of history. The first case is an act of will: God decides, a-temporally, that Christ’s work will have trans-temporal effect, because in fact it makes life triumph over death, and so must swallow up death (irrespective of what would end up to be transient temporal effects); but the second case is a matter of an event sequence within the creation where God has provided time as the mechanism of experiential structure, causal sequence and consequential moral responsibility or, to adopt a quip: “to stop everything happening at once”, which is precisely what Dembski wants to have happened!

Related

The Bible is premised on the relationship of God and his creation, specifically God and mankind, where the relationship is personal: that is, as between persons.

For the relationship to substantiated as real, it has to have a real basis; a point of connection. For example, the marriage relationship for Christians, is given a basis in reality in the wedding ceremony, where a covenental connection between man and woman is made.

A parallel to this is the connection that God demonstrates with his creation in the creation account in Genesis 1-2 (and 3 for that matter, to give in a soteriological fulsomness). The link between the two is not just asserted, but shown. Shown in terms that are part of the fabric of reality between God and humanity (the fabric created by God, which is part of the substance of the account). In both participating in the shared fabric, we and God are shown to be sharing an ontological domain that makes sense of communion (relational concourse), expectations, relationship and covenant.

If the words of the account have no connection with the reality they assert to recount (that is the account means other than it specifically states, and sets out its propositional content only to infer a vaguely stated 'real' on the basis of a clearly stated non-real) then the intersection of our and God's being is not validly given and there is no indication of joint participation in a shared domain, or 'fabric'. That is, the parameters that would show the participation are invalid. If this were so, then the creation account would be meaningless, and convey no content that was propositionally fruitful: it would tell us nothing and undercut the notion that there was a basis for our connection with God.

If God could not tell us the basis in meaningful propositions, then it would be fair to think that there was no basis in the reality that would put God and us into relationship.

Enuma Elish

Many years ago I recall a discussion on the Anglican Media forum about the influence of Enuma Elish on Genesis chapter 1.

Kitchen, among others denies that there is a link, but this came back to mind when I was reading Creator and Creation by Simkins, where he says:

Certainly the Enuma Elish is the most elaborate Mesopotamian creation myth, but it is doubtful that it represents the predominant Mesopotamian view of creation. One prominent Assyriologist even characterized it as a sectarians and an aberrant combination of mythological threads that have been woven in to an unparalleled composition (Lambert, 1965). Although he perhaps depicted the myth too narrowly, he has rightly cautioned us against overemphasizing this myth in understanding the Mesopotamian view of creation. Some scholars have even argued that the Enuma Elish is a foreign import into Mesopotamia. The textual evidence suggests that there is no single tradition that made up the Mesopotamian view of creation.

Dinosaurs in Eden?

In an article in the current (Feb 11) Southern Cross, the Sydney diocesan newspaper, there is an article on 'dating' (romantic, not geological), quoting:

"My father always told me that the Bible tells us what we need to know, not what we want to know.

For a child who wanted to know if Dr Who was real and whether or not dinosaurs were running around in the Garden of Eden, this was a disappointing answer to my queries"

How interesting that the connection of the Bible with the real world, at its beginning, as it creates the framework for understanding that God's word and the real world converge in God's revelation (and thus the word making sense of the world), is (a) anticipated by a child, but rejected by an adult, and that information about the grounding of salvation history in the totality of the history of the creation is something we presumably don't need to know, although we might want to know it.

The Bible, however, does seem to think that we do need to know such things; the pity is that many today think that the Bible is wrong on this and the identity of the world created, the act of creation and our experience of God expressed in the Bible is not necessary to know! An extraordinary traducing of the Bible's 'view" of itself!

Now, were dinosaurs in the Garden of Eden; of course, it is logically possible, seeing that all creatures were made on day 6.

Two books

I commented on an article I saw that mentioned the 'two books' notion that is supposed to make the Bible and contemporary interpretations of the created world (note, not the created world itself, although this is hoped to be understood, but the interpretations, which are if not completely tendentious, then at least programatic).

I know it's popular in heterodoxy, but the 'two books' idea is nonsensically overdone, in my view. One book is clearly a book: the Bible, the other is a book only by metaphor. Yet, how often are books about the metaphor book used to interpret the Bible, and the possibility of the Bible: which is a real book full of propositions, doing some interpreting of the metaphorical book is rejected?

At root, I think this position entails a philosphy that at its start fails to be informed by the Bible, and has its roots in paganistic idealism, where a non-real world is the only one the Bible is allowed to occupy; its statements of connection with this world expressly denied to enable its rejection!

Genesis literary?

From Al Mohler's talk at last year's Ligonier Conference:

The idea that Genesis (1-11) is merely literary has to be rejected out of hand as in direct contradiction to our understanding of the Bible as the infallible word of God.

The framework theory is one of the least defensible positions when we understand that it is based upon the assumption that there not only may be a long period of time in Genesis 1 and the sequence of days, but actually that the sequence does not matter. It simply is not credible that God gave us this text with such rich detail and sequential development merely that we would infer from it his providential direction without any specific reference to all of the direct content he has given us within the text!

Even a commonsense reading of the text indicates that it is making historical and sequential claims.

As Pipa says, it contains so many time and sequence markers that it is as though the writer is going out of his way to drive the point that this text relates events that occur in time as we experience time, and with a tempo that we can make sense of given our own experience of the succession of days.

The unitary construction of the chiasm in Genesis one emphasises the point: this text sits as a unit, self contained, and understandable within its own terms.

Conflict on evolution

Al Mohler gets discussed in this Baptist article.

All the fluff that gets discussed in Christian circles about there being a non-issue between evolution and creation has to die on quite a number of verses in the Bible. For instance, Hebrews 11:3 tells us that "the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible" which is the very opposite of the evolutionionary claim that what is seen WAS made out of what is visible. QED, in my view!

I've posted on Mohler before, and will do so again.

Tom's midnight garden

From Tom's Midnight Garden (p. 169, the Oxford Edition) by Philipa Pearce:

After discussing theories of time, Tom says:

"I've heard a theory too...while his uncle paused to drink some tea, 'I know an angel--I know of an angel who said that, in the end, there would be time no longer'

"An angel!" His uncle's shout was so explosive that a great deal of tea slopped down his tie, ..."What on earth would an angel have to do with scientific theories?" Tom trembled and dared not explain that this was more than a theory, it was a blazing angelic certitude.

Interestingly, this related to the book's using Revelation 10:1-6, where the angel refers to "him that lives for ever and ever, who created heaven...and earth..." surely a secure credential for unifying thinking about the created order and the revelation of the one who created it!

Ironically, discussion on Michael Jensen's blog, treads the very same territory as the uncle: there is a separation between the creator (theology) and his creation ('science' and the world of theories), yet the Bible, in the account of creation, the tying of creation to the Son and by extension the incarnation, and our being in the creation as the place where we encounter God, and in which God covenants with us, brings them together!

Reading on Origins

Over recent months I've read a number of books to do with the question of origins. They are:

Eliade: The Myth of the Eternal Return
Bavinck: In the Beginning
Young: Studies in Genesis One
Thielicke: How the World Began
Moltmann: God and Creation
Sarfati: The Greatest Hoax on Earth?
DeRosa: Evolution's Fatal Fruit
Herbert: Charles Darwin's Religious Views
Crowe: Creation without Compromise
Sarfati: By Design
Kelly: Creation and Change
Wilder-Smith: God: To Be or Not To Be
Moreland: Creation Hypothesis
Lennox: God's Undertaker
Wells: Darwinism and Intelligent Design
Sandford: Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome
Sudera: One Small Speck to Man
Mortensen: The Great Turning Point
ReMine; The Biotic Message
Repcheck: The Man Who Found Time
Simkins: Creator and Creation
Pipa nd Hall: Did God Create in 6 Days?
Moberly: Theology of the Book of Genesis

I could well comment on all of them, but for the sake of brevity I'll only do so for 'By Design'. I was disappointed by this book as it didn't really get to the issue of what design is as opposed to the product of stochastic processes.

A quick think suggests that design is characterised by:

High entropy: so it's not likely to be like something produced by undirected processes;
Parsimony: efficient fit to purpose; to properly appraise this we'd need to understand the full purpose within the context of the system (and the system of systems, to coin a defence technology phrase). For example, some claim that the koala's pouch is the 'wrong' way, or the design of the retina is inefficient; both claims do not address the full functional set that the particular design meets.
Trans-systemic interfaces: where the inputs and outputs of one system or sub-system are parsimoniously coupled with the output and input requirements of a system that operates within a different, but functionally related domain (e.g. eye-brain; facial anatomy and musculature, muscle feed back systems, circulatory and secondary nervous systems all of which are coordinated to enable vision);
System of systems participation: where a system works with other systems to produce a result that is not directly required or produced by one individual component system.

When is a day...a day?

From a lecture by Dr Joseph Pipa on the meaning of "yom" in Genesis 1?

"...it is used 2304 times in the Old Testament with the great overwhelming majority of its uses referring either to the period of daylight or the normal 24 hour day. The theologian Berkhoff writes "in its primary meaning the word "yom" denotes a natural day".

It is a good rule in exegesis not to depart from the primary meaning unless this is required by the context. It is not only the primary meaning, it is the default meaning of the word... this is the overwhelming sense of the word and that your first reading is always to be then of a daylight period or a normal 24 hour day, unless there is something else in the text that will cause you to see that it is being used in a figurative fashion."

Critics will ask how can you have a standard day in days 1 through 3 without the sun to regulate the period? But clearly days 4-7 are regulated by sun and should be so taken, so the coherent reading of the text, if 4-6 are regulated by the sun, then the same meaning should apply to verses 1-3: that's what the text demands.

Another word in the Hebrew that could have been used to communicate long periods of time is "olam". 'Day' does not express an epoch, if one claims then, one has to demonstrate such a use in the Bible: is there any such use of day in the Bible? Even figurative uses rely on day indicating a 24 period, except where is it idiomatic. For instance "period of influence", when it still contemplates a set of natural days or 'when'.

576 times "yom" with a numbered prefix: always refers to a standard day; the only possible exception is Hosea 6:2, but here, still, it refers to not a long period, but of God's brief judgement. It is also a prophesy of the resurrection, and still refers basically to a day as a day.

Moreover, when an ordinal is used with "yom" it always means normal day in sequence.

[Pipa suggests that you check the usage of 'yom' in Bibleworks or Logos...my preference is for Bibleworks, FWIW]

Clods

Read in the SMH reprinting a Telegraph article:

The question is whether anthropogenic global warming is the exclusive or dominant fact that determines our climate, or whether Corbyn is also right to insist on the role of the Sun. Is it possible that everything we do is dwarfed by the moods of the star that gives life to the world? The Sun is incomparably vaster and more powerful than any work of man. We are forged from a few clods of solar dust. The Sun powers every plant and form of life, and one day the Sun will turn into a red giant and engulf us all. Then it will burn out. Then it will get very nippy indeed.

The dominating view of humanity as peddled by today's knowledge workers. From an evangelistic perspective, unseating this view of man has to be a first step to re-seating man as the creation of God, and in need of restored relationship.

Joshua Davidson

With the NT adopting the Greek-ized form of the saviour's name, the signficance of Joshua taking the people into the promised land is obscured: I prefer to think of the Messiah as Joshua of Nazareth: closer to the truth!

But if we were going to render our Lord's earthly name into contemporary style, it would be as the title of this post: Joshua Davidson! It doesn't quite work liturgically, but there you are!

Preaching on Genesis

I've heard a good number of sermons on Genesis 1, a few live, and a few via MP3s. The live ones include those that triggered this blog to start a few years ago: a series on Genesis at my local church.

But I've heard more since then, particularly at the sites linked from this blog.

The MP3 variety have, I must say, been better sermons. They have taken the hearer more to thinking about Christ than the live ones! Perversely, the local sermons, in a 'Bible-believing' evangelical church, did not so take up the challenge with the warmth, passion, logic and drama that the linked ones do.

Have a listen to:

Joseph Pipa on the Doctrine of Creation

Gary Hendrix also on the Doctrine of Creation

Rick Viz, of course, on the Fact of Biblical Creation

could have

Surprisingly, even some biblical creationists have claimed that God could have created in a different manner to that which he [told us that he] did. For instance, they say, he could have created in 6 seconds or 6 billion years, if he had wanted to (or instantly, as Augustine averred). This goes alongside the claim that God could have ‘used’ evolution as the means of his creation, which often prepares the way for accepting that he did use evolution (contrary to the direct reading of Genesis 1, and elucidated by Ps 33:9, John 1:3, Hebrews 1:2 and Hebrews 11:3, for instance)!

But, what are we saying here? Are we recognising that God doesn’t act arbitrarily, or capriciously, but that his actions reveal who he is, as Paul teaches in Romans 1:20. Does not the claim above attribute to God, not the glory of the one who is, but the inglory of who he is not, or worse, that of pagan ‘fates’ or ‘spirits’ who in the relevant literature are unpredictable, capricious and have no discernable selfhood or nature?

There are two answers to the question, I think:

Firstly, on the basis of the argument above, the answer is “No, God could not have created in any old way, because he is not a magician who does tricks, but is the almighty creator whose actions, will and nature are unified: he only does what is of him to do, what represents who he is". This is the import of my reference to Romans 1:20. If we say that God didn’t create as he has revealed, as is his nature, representing who he is, but we set that aside and say that he did, or could in principle, create in another way, then we are talking about another identity, not the God of the Bible, the creator of all that is. As Kurt Wise said in a conference address in about 2000, if we say that God created in a way other than he reveals to us, then we are talking about another god! This amounts to backing into blasphemy: not saying that something of the Holy Spirit is not of the Holy Spirit, but that the Holy Spirit could be other than he is!

The second answer is that to suppose alternative creative possibilities is idle speculation and doesn’t get us anywhere. One could also speculate that God could not have created at all; then where would we be? Not that creating was necessary, but that it was what God chose to do as an act in line with his will; entirely and thoroughly in line with his will, which is in line with his nature. The point is that the only information we have about his creating is what is in the Bible, to want to set this aside and claim that could be alternatives is completely pointless, unless, of course, one wants to open the way to set aside the revelation and claim that it is about something other than what it depicts. That then is a different story and relies on what is not said, not on what is said. This still gets us nowhere, because everything that is not said is available for reference: then why have words at all, if their meaning can be negated so easily?

The god who could have created differently is, I suggest, another god: he is not the one whose invisible attributes are revealed in his creation, but one who is otherwise: uninvolved, dis-related, not in relationship, or one who is by his nature love. So could God have created in a way different to that which he did? All I can say, is, 'not this God' you have to think up another god whose invisible attributes are different to the one who reveals  himself in the Bible and in creation.

Stick up for Atheists!

I overheard a coversation at a primary school concert this week: a chap was telling his friend that his daughter (in year 1) had told the teacher "those of us who are atheists don't feel happy singing this song". The song was a Christmas carol, of course.

The friend, who was a church goer, supported the child's independence, and may have made an opening to the fellow on the larger questions (no conversation had under God's hand is a lost conversation, IMO); but what could have been said as an alternative?

A reply might have gone along these lines:

That's a great comment: it takes Christmas to the next stage: you know that Christmas is the Christian work-over of a pagan cult; well that girl was giving the Christian festival another religous work-over; but her religion is 'I don't believe in God'. I don't know that there's a lot of romance in that religion though.

OR

Yeah, its not right that children are made to suppress religious questions: I hope she lets others question her religion!

OR

I wonder if she has explored the logical conclusion of a thorough-going materialist ontology: that there are no qualitative differences between any particular configurations of matter.

OR

Hey, really? Ironically, I reckon that [modern Western] atheism is a heresy of Christianity! It presupposes a rational world where human ideas have value! Which is inconsistent with atheism!

How come?

Atheists act as though will has value and ideas have significance but their belief does not provide a basis for either. But both are consistent with Christian theism. It has it that personhood is fundamental to what is real, and mind is prior to matter! Atheism must reduce to materialism and that provides no way of saying any arrangement of matter is any better than any other.

OR

How can you say that? I mean – any belief expressed by an arrangement of material can have no value over any other: they are all equally arbitrary results of arrangements of material which aren’t themselves differentiable as to value and so provide no basis for comparative valuation. In other words, arrangements of material are just that, and being simply material there is nothing in them to say one is better than the other and so there is nothing in them to say the results of any one are better than any other. So, if your atheism is the result of an arrangement of material, which on your grounds it must be, and if my theism is the result of an arrangement of material, then there’s nothing to tell them apart! Both are equally unimportant.

OR

That’s certainly a view, but how can it have any real-world validity, any substance, when it is the result of a mere arrangement of matter and when there is no basis in matter for preferring any one arrangement and its results over any other?

How can matter rise above itself and allow the creation of value judgements, or even basic value attributes when matter is the final reference point? You start with material arrangements and end with other material arrangements. Nothing is there that allows gradations of value to be established, or value criteria to be derived in any way that has real meaning; that is, meaning attached to what is basically real: value is completely arbitrary, as are arrangements of matter and therefore is without substance. What you are left with is force, which is what atheists use on everyone as soon as they come into power.

Genesis and Poetry

My comments on an article on Genesis and Poetry:

The narrative structure of Gen 1, while it contains a sort of rough parallelism, is more like a deliminted list, as we'd call it today. It has a list structure similar to the ordered lists used in computer databases, with regular structure of incremented counts, start and end markers and a content section.

Blocher calls it a list, and it is in general structural conformity with the many other narrative lists scattered throught the pentateuch and historical books of the OT (this would be worth a solid academic study by a Hebrew scholar). The point of a narrative list is that it makes communication both memorable and unambiguously efficient; its over-arching dual structures of the two groups of three days, and the rough chiasmatic structure also go toward improving its memorability.

Prior to the use of punctuation and typograpical hints to the interpretation of texts, I hazard the guess that the sophisticated structures of grouping and patterning of texts, such as chiasmis performed the role of demarking text units to draw understanding of what was being communicated.

Translating leadership

In the light of my recent posts on the misapplication of the notion of 'leadership' to church life, I recently came across some statements of a church's objectives which I thought I'd attempt to re-word in the light of those posts.

Original: to review the leadership structures and processes of church and evaluate our goals in the light of this.

My suggestion: to review the ministry structures and processes of church....

Original: To develop service/leadership teams for reach congregation.

My suggestion: to develop service teams for each congregation.

Original: For our children's ministry leaders; to establish regular meetings and care for our leaders.

My suggestion: For our children's ministry workers; to establish regular meetings and pastoral support.

Original: To further develop a culture of equipping leaders.

My suggestion: To further develop a culture of equipping and encouraging people to take part in ministry.

Original: To establish a leadership team to coordinate men's ministry.

My suggestion: To establish a committee to coordinate men's ministry.

The constant use of the word 'leadership' is not only cloying, not only uninteresting use of English, but it masks the range of ministries that people engage in within a church, it hides variety, interest and complexity behind one somewhat mechanical term which has become meaningless through (inaccurate) overuse.