What Did Jesus Know? And Why Should I Care?

I've had a significant bout of what might be best described as "theology disillusionment" lately (similar to this experience described by Stephen over at Undeception). But a recent post by Internet Monk is relevant to my last post, so I thought I'd comment.

In my last post, I discussed Jesus' (seemingly failed) prediction of his own imminent return, and briefly touched on the suggestion that Jesus may not have known when he would return. At the time I didn't even consider it a possibility, but after some thought have allowed it a spot next to the other possible solutions to the problem.

Anyone raising the question "What did Jesus know, and when?" is bound to receive a thousand different answers, some backed up by proof texts and others more emotionally derived. What is common in this discussion (at least among lay-Christians) is the general attitude that the subject of Jesus' knowledge (or lack of it) is interesting, but unimportant.

I'd like to suggest that the issue is more relevant than most would allow. If Jesus truly did not know when he would return, then the expectation of a future (to us) return of Christ is reasonable. But if Jesus' prediction of his own return is to be regarded as authoritative, then it seems more likely that this prophesy was fulfilled around 70AD during the siege and destruction of Jerusalem (and the temple) by the Roman army.

This, in turn, is relevant because it affects how we view the future. Can we look forward to Jesus returning and fixing all the ills of the world? Or are we responsible for affecting this change ourselves? Do we go out and win as many souls as possible, or do we work to end poverty and oppression? So in the end, the answer to these questions lies, in part, in our answer to the question that is the title of this post.

In my Baptist church, both of the options above are heretical to some degree, so again I ask myself: What did I just step in?

"The Most Embarrassing Verse in the Bible"

I recently came across the following quote by C.S. Lewis:

"Say what you like,” we shall be told, “the apocalyptic beliefs of the first Christians have been proved to be false. It is clear from the New Testament that they all expected the Second Coming in their own lifetime. And, worse still, they had a reason, and one which you will find very embarrassing. Their Master had told them so. He shared, and indeed created, their delusion. He said in so many words, ‘this generation shall not pass till all these things be done.’ And he was wrong. He clearly knew no more about the end of the world than anyone else.”

It is certainly the most embarrassing verse in the Bible.

C.S. Lewis, The World's Last Night: And Other Essays, p.97

C.S. Lewis is embarrassed of Jesus?  I was sure the quote was taken out of context, so I looked it up... No such luck.  Lewis goes on to explain how he solves the problem: With the assertion that Jesus probably really did not know how or when the "world would end". He continues:

"Yet how teasing, also, that within fourteen words of it should come the statement “But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.” The one exhibition of error and the one confession of ignorance grow side by side... The facts, then, are these: that Jesus professed himself (in some sense) ignorant, and within a moment showed that he really was so. To believe in the Incarnation, to believe that he is God, makes it hard to understand how he could be ignorant; but also makes it certain that, if he said he could be ignorant, then ignorant he could really be. For a God who can be ignorant is less baffling than a God who falsely professes ignorance."

Now, I'm not going to pretend that the mysteries of the Incarnation are fully comprehensible, but it really bothers me that a theologian as respectable as Lewis would suggest that Jesus was wrong about his own return.  What Lewis is suggesting is that Jesus really did not know when he would return, but he still saw fit to make several predictions regarding his return. Isn't that called a lie?

Jesus' "confession of ignorance" (if it really was one) surely didn't sink in with his followers.  Even Lewis notices that the expectation of Jesus' imminent return was widespread in the early Church.  The claim that Jesus taught his own ignorance of the end-times seems unlikely. It seems more likely to me that Jesus made predictions about his return because he actually knew what he was talking about, and that the events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70AD constituted the fulfillment of Jesus' prophesy.

It seems appropriate to me to be embarrassed about what C.S. Lewis said, not about what Jesus said.

Paul: A False Prophet? My Response to Mark...

This is my response to a continuing conversation I'm having with my friend Mark, who believes that the apostle Paul is a false prophet.  Here is my original post, and this is his response, which this this a reply to.

Mark,

I think you know that I totally agree with you that taking Paul’s words and then interpreting Jesus’ words in light of what we think Paul is saying – that is just wrong. That’s why we are in this conversation in the first place, right?

If I understand you correctly, you seem to be saying that Gamaliel (in Acts 5) is saying that if the apostles are set free, then the truthfulness of their teachings will be judged by the people: If the people follow them, what they are preaching is true, and if they are false teachers, the people will not follow them (and perhaps kill them).

But I ask: Is this what Gamaliel actually says? Look at Acts 5:38b-39:

“[I]f their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God."

Gamaliel is stating that the success or failure of the apostles’ message is in the hands of God, not the hands of men. God is involved in the fight, and if the message of the apostles succeeds, we are right to say that it is “from God”.

This leads to the question: Did the apostles succeed, or fail? I think the fact that the Bible you hold in your hands contains Paul’s epistles is a strong indication of the only viable answer: Yes, the apostles (including Paul) succeeded in their mission, the message was delivered, and now we can say that indeed, that message is from God. God fought the battle and He won. And now He continues to fight it in your heart and mind.
What would we expect if Paul really is a false teacher? Gamaliel gives us two examples of false teachers:

“Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered.” Acts 5:36-37

Sure, Paul may have died as a result of what he preached. But this was after a long, successful teaching career that resulted in thousands of followers, and ultimately formed today’s Church.

Yes, there are problems in the Church today. My statement about the “character of the Church” being evidence of the truthfulness of the message was overstated. But Gamaliels statement was about the “purpose or activity” of the apostles, and that purpose and activity was the spread of the Gospel, the proclamation that Jesus is Messiah and Lord of all. They spread that message in person and in letters, and those letters survive to this day in our Bible.

Sure, the message that Jesus is Messiah was not accepted by a huge number of Jews. But if that is your main objection, then I think you make a mistake in overlooking the huge number of human beings that do believe Jesus was the Messiah.

You also mention the “fruit” of Matthew 17:15-20 being the person’s character, not how well their message spreads. I totally agree, and my point was not in line with the true meaning of the text. But there is no reason to suggest that Paul’s character was anything but exemplary. And it still stands that based on Gamaliels statement (discussed above) and the fact that the message of the apostles did not die out, their message was truly from God.

Now I’ll move on to something else you mentioned in your reply. You say that Paul’s teachings go against Torah. This makes me wonder: What do you believe about Jesus? What did he accomplish? How does he factor in? What affect does he have on Torah?

It seems to me that your views on Jesus will determine whether Paul’s teachings are acceptable. But if Torah is completely unaffected by the life and status of Jesus (if you even accept that) then of course Paul if a false teacher. But I think I need to understand how you view Jesus to further understand your beliefs about Paul.

Paul: A False Prophet? Mark Responds...

In a previous post, I discussed how my friend Mark doesn't accept the writings of Paul as inspired, and considers him (Paul) a false prophet. Mark responded to me in an email that he has agreed to let me post here. Mark makes some interesting points, several of which I'll respond to in a seperate post.

Do I think that Paul is a false prophet? Yes, I do, however because of how we interpret his writings I come to this conclusion. If we can find a way to interpret his writings in a way that he is consistent and not contradictory to things in the Torah, and in Jesus' teaching, then I would have no problem with Paul. When I was talking with our pastor about this a few weeks ago, I told him that I believe that unless we can properly understand Paul, his writings are dangerous. Unfortunately Paul is not alive today to be able to explain what he meant in his letters, nor do we have all the information to understand who, what, when, where, and why he is writing what he does. If Paul meant to say, what most Protestants interpret him to mean, then under the Torah he would be sentenced to death, however there are things in the Torah that can only be done in an Israelite state that governs itself by the Torah, and that has not existed for thousands of years, and could be argued that it never existed, a country completely following God that is. So if Paul was alive today, and in agreement with Protestant interpretation, I would not call for his death, but that people should not follow him.

This is actually what Gamaliel had intended in his response, and is consistent with what we know of Gamaliel. His response is that if these men are preaching something they made up, people will figure it out and abandon them. However if it is from God, then you can not oppose God and what he wants to do, and Gamaliel could believe this is a test; "The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul." (Deut 13:3) Though there are legends that Gamaliel became a Christian, they are only legends, and Gamaliel is not in any way endorsing the apostles as being from God. This is also how Gamaliel would see Roman occupation of Israel, the rise of Christianity, of Islam, the LDS Church, and many other religions that test Israel's faithfulness to God.

God's intervening to fight for ideas that are true, and suppressing those that are not, does not reflect what Gamaliel believes, or how I think that God actually acts. Throughout the Bible there are multiple things that people could say "why didn't God just keep that from happening?" Why did he allow his people; to follow other gods, lose the Law, war against each other, become so evil in his eyes that he has them exiled. God even though he is completely sovereign over everything, he allows people great freedom to obey or to disobey him. They are even allowed to write new things and gain millions of followers, Islam and LDS are great examples of that.

I too am trying to figure out how Paul works, if he does, within Christianity. I just have not found a good way to do it. Even if I could, I am not sure I would be able to convince people to view Paul in a different manner. Currently, I don't know how to reconcile Paul. God, I believe is consistent in how he deals with people especially his people. Salvaging consistency, salvages my belief in God much in the same way your belief that God would protect the Bible salvages your belief in God.

When it comes to the "fruit" of Paul being judged by the size and character of the Church today it could be silly to say that Paul was not a false prophet. The history of the Church and it's present condition is in a miry, Joseph Smith has better fruit by that standing. But the "fruit" that Jesus speaks of, is a persons character, life and relationship to him, not of how well their message spreads. Like he says in Matthew 7:21-27:

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!' Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash."

I don't know if is Paul wrong, but our understanding, and following him over Jesus is wrong at the very least. Is he in line with Jesus or do we make Jesus line up with Paul in order to maintain a book that people put together? People that God allows to do evil things, and to disobey him.

Does God allowing people to choose to disobey him, make him unconcerned, uninvolved, or too weak that it is not worth pursuing a relationship with him? I think this is like the prodigal son, it is not the father that doesn't want the relationship, it was the son. The father wasn't unconcerned about his son, he saw him coming a long way off. He was not uninvolved, he gave his son everything he asked for, and made a feast when he came back. He was not too weak to go find his son and bring him back, but the son was the one that needed to come back, and see why he needed to come back. We both are prodigals, that need to get home. I for one am the one that is unconcerned, uninvolved, and too weak most of the time to find my way home. For me to find that way I need to start in the Torah and make my way from there.

-Mark

Quote of the Day - 9/23/2009

Quote of the day for September 23, 2009:

"I disagree with these experts.  Someone has got to stand up to experts."
-Don McLeroy, Texas State Board of Education chairman, during their debate over Texas state science education standards.  (You can see it here at 0:55)

Paul: A False Prophet?

I'm currently reading N.T. Wright's What Saint Paul Really Said with a couple of friends. One of those friends, Mark, doesn't accept the writings of the Apostle Paul as inspired (for various reasons), and instead views Paul as a false prophet who, if alive today, should be put to death.

As we began to read the book, he brought up these beliefs again, and I thought I would share my response to Mark that I sent during our email discussion: (This begins after a short discussion of Gamaliel's defense of the Apostles in Acts 5)

Incidentally, as I was reading those sections of Acts again, I read Gamaliel's words with a new perspective (no pun intended)... When he defends the apostles in Acts 5, he says:

"Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God."

Gamaliel seems to have the same idea of God that I do: If he does exist and he is a personal, non-deist type of God, than he has a stake in the course of history (especially in the development of the Bible). A god that doesn't protect his communication with his people is not a god I can believe in. In case it's not obvious what I'm getting at: I don't think I can believe in a God that allowed the writings of a "false apostle" to be accepted as inspired by the vast majority of his followers. For me, to believe in God is to believe in the God of the Bible as we have it. Not because I trust Paul for any particular reason, but because any god worth believing in should be trustworthy when it comes to "scripture". Gamaliel's statement in Acts 5 takes as it's presupposition the only god I'm prepared to believe in: a god that fights for ideas that are true and suppresses ideas that are not. (Please don't ask me to explain why Islam is so widespread; I can't.)

I know that doesn't address all your specific comments (attacks :) ) on Paul, but I think my comments above make it clear: I don't think a faith in a god that does not include Paul as a true apostle is a faith worth having. I think it is much more likely that God just does not exist. I'm reading this book to make sense of some parts of the Bible that puzzle me, but it is not an option (for the reasons above) to throw out parts in order to salvage consistency. In my mind, the Bible works (somehow) or God does not exist.

In addition to what I said in my email, it's also important to note the words of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount:

"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them." Matthew 17:15-20

I think that if we look at the "fruit" of the Apostle Paul as seen in the size and character of the Church today, it is almost silly to suggest that Paul is a false prophet.

To me, it seems like the god that Mark believes in is so unconcerned with his people, or so uninvolved in world events, or simply so weak, that it's not worth pursuing any kind of relationship with his God. If God isn't interested in protecting the Bible from false prophets, then would he really be interested in me at all?

Boyd's "Letters From a Skeptic"

This is my first post in two months. The reasons for this blogging silence are several. For one, it's summer and I have lots of other things to do . But I've also been taking a pretty deep dive into the NPP (by reading this book with a couple friends and also frequently sampling these three books.) I'm sure I'll blog on that later. Anyway, my apologies to all three of my loyal readers!

Another drain on my time has been my fledgling book business (the details of which shall remain a closely guarded secret). One side benefit of this enterprise has been the acquisition of some very interesting books at almost no cost. When I see something that piques my interest, or lines up with an already established interest, I get it. So today I acquired a book that I'm excited to read: Letters From a Skeptic - A Son Wrestles with His Father's Questions about Christianity by Gregory A. Boyd.

Although I've never read any of Boyd's books, I've heard plenty about him, and I've been meaning to grab one and page through it. Boyd intrigues me from two different perspectives:

On the one side, he has an approach to the Bible and to faith that really resonates with me. He believes in evolution, which shows me that he doesn't ignore the historical and literary contexts of the Hebrew Bible. His views on politics, (although I've not read The Myth of a Christian Nation and don't have much interest in politics) I agree with. His refusal to endorse Republican candidates from the pulpit and insistence that non-violence and love should be our national model (since that's what Jesus teaches) both ring true with me. Most interestingly, he is one of the leading proponents of open theism, a view of God's knowledge that suggests the partial openness of the future, where God's foreknowledge consists only of a realm of possibilities, since man, whom he created and endowed with the ability to choose, has not yet made these choices.

With that resume, one might expect him to be a pretty liberal Christian. But...

On the other side of the coin, he is a Baptist. [Gasp!] A member of the same Baptist affiliation (the BGC) as the uber-Calvinist John Piper, these two are sure to clash, (and have). Sure, as events at my church plainly show, the label "Baptist" doesn't mean much these days. But being a member of the BGC does mean something (as the scuffle between Boyd and Piper shows), it means Boyd isn't a liberal Christian. Boyd has also been an outspoken critic of liberal historical Jesus scholars, especially those of the Jesus Seminar.

In any case, the book is interesting to me for more reasons than it's authorship. First, although I'm true to my generation in that I shun labels, I think I would be hard-pressed to argue that I am not a skeptic. Second, the book is about a conversation between Boyd and his father where they discuss real, hard, honest questions about Christianity. My own relationship with my Dad has been similar, although more off-and-on and addressing different questions.

The most interesting thing about this book is that it addresses several (if not all) of what I've come to call THE BIG FIVE. In this recent post, I listed my top five "understandings I'm seeking;" issues with the Bible and faith that I don't understand and that often affect my faith. I was excited when I opened Boyd's book and immediately saw that at least three of the five were addressed directly, while the other two were likely discussed as peripheral issues in other chapters.

As I read the book (or at least the most relevant sections) I'll post on each of the BIG FIVE and how Boyd's thoughts in his book relate to each.

The god of liberal Christianity

In my last post, I wrote about what is probably the most difficult issue I have with my faith: The multiple voices in the Bible, and how we (conservative Christians in general) elevate certain passages to supreme status, and reinterpret all conflicting passages, effectively neutering them of their meaning. In particular, the voices of Jesus and Paul stand out in stark contrast, especially when asking the question "What must I do to be saved?".

In that post, I discussed this post by James McGrath over at the blog Exploring our Matrix. In it, he discusses this problem, stating that his transition to liberal Christianity is a result of just these types of problems. McGrath states:

My own Liberal Christian position is a result of struggling with these sorts of issues. It doesn't seem to me that there is a single voice in the Bible, and we can simply listen to it and do "what the Bible says"... And so whatever it means to be a Christian, it cannot mean "believing the Bible". Because part of the challenge of the Bible itself is that it presents us with conflicting voices, and in doing so forces us away from the easy path of simply picking texts and following them, making us instead recognize that we are part of a 2,000-year-old dialogue that requires us to figure out for ourselves what it means to be a Christian in our own particular time and context.

I tend to agree with McGrath, that the proof-text approach taken by fundamentalist Christianity doesn't do justice to the character of the Bible. Furthermore, I think that anyone that says "I just believe the Bible" doesn't read it very often. Or they don't read it and actually think about what it says. To those who say just that, I would ask (taking McGrath's example): When you read Matthew 28 and Luke 24, do you "believe" that the disciples first saw the resurrected Jesus in Jerusalem, or almost 70 miles away in Galilee?

For McGrath, the solution to the problem was liberal Christianity, the willingness to approach the Bible as one would any other historical document without any preconceived notion of inerrancy or divine inspiration. For liberal Christians, the Bible is seen as a record of man's experiences in interacting with God. It may seem that a similar destination is in store for me, but there is a problem with that: To me, it seems that it is much more likely that God simply does not exist, than for the god of liberal Christianity to be real.

If God does exist, and He is interested in communicating with us (As the Bible, read as a historical and divinely inspired document would suggest) than would He not act to communicate with humankind in some sort of transferable way? Would He not leave more of a mark than just the "experiences" of some people in history? To me it seems more likely that He isn't out there at all.

To be fair, it isn't quite true that the Bible is the only way God has provided for us to know Him. But the god of of liberal Christianity (to me) seems totally fuzzy and unknowable. I think that if these problems end up pushing me to something other than conservative Christianity, it will be to atheism (or more likely agnosticism) than to liberal Christianity.

Jesus didn't really mean that, did He?

So this is my first post in a while... I've kind of been on a break - a reading, writing, thinking break. Sometimes I get a little overwhelmed with things - with ideas - and just have to take a little break. So that's what that was.

So what's important enough to jerk me out of hiding? Well, it was this post by James McGrath over at the blog Exploring our Matrix. [Don't ask what I was doing reading a blog on a "reading break"] In it, McGrath is musing about what it would be like if fundamentalist Christians were to oversee a "final exam" that everyone must take before they were allowed to enter heaven. (He suggests two questions: Would you pass?)

This caught my attention because I recently had to complete a similar "exam": An application to participate in a local ministry contained the question:

If you died today and stood before God, and He ask you “Why should I let you into My heaven?” What would you say? This is not a testimony!

Now, I understand why the application included this question, and don't really have a problem with it. And that's not why I'm writing this post. I'm writing because the rest of McGrath's post hit a nerve. It perfectly describes the problems I'm having with my faith. In a nutshell:

It doesn't seem to me that there is a single voice in the Bible, and we can simply listen to it and do "what the Bible says"... And so whatever it means to be a Christian, it cannot mean "believing the Bible". Because part of the challenge of the Bible itself is that it presents us with conflicting voices, and in doing so forces us away from the easy path of simply picking texts and following them...

Yet this is exactly what "Biblical Christianity" (as it's often called in my context) does: It elevates certain passages to supreme status, and reinterprets all conflicting passages, effectively neutering them of their meaning.

Here's a good example: My pastor once gave a sermon on forgiveness, and at one point discussed Matthew 6:14-15 where Jesus makes the following statement:

[I]f you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

My pastor gave this as an example of why forgiveness is so important: because "God takes forgiveness seriously." He explained that this verse refers to "relational forgiveness": That our relationship with God is hindered if we do not forgive others.

I was puzzled at this interpretation because there is nothing in the context of Jesus' words that would indicate anything other than the obvious interpretation: That if we do not forgive, God will not forgive our sins. On the contrary, other statements of Jesus indicate that a lack of forgiveness will result in nothing less than hell: In Matthew 18:21-35, the unmerciful servant is sent to be tortured effectively forever for refusing to forgive.

When I questioned my pastor about this, he said that since we know (from Paul's writings) that we are saved by faith alone, we must interpret Jesus' words in light of this knowledge. Therefore, Jesus could not have meant that we will not be forgiven if we do not forgive.

This answer frustrates me to no end. In his post, McGrath addresses my pastor's answer:

[W]hile one might say "Scripture must be interpreted in light of Scripture", it still remains to be asked why one should start with the typical Evangelical prooftexts in Paul and John, and say that the others must be interpreted in light of them, rather than reversing the procedure and saying that the passages that seem to affirm "judgment" being on the basis of faith alone must mean something else.

I agree with McGrath. I would go one step further and ask: (as I have elsewhere) if God did become man, and that man is Jesus Christ, can't we expect Him to know what He is talking about?

I have more to say about this, but I'll put that in another post.

Too Busy

I'm constantly amazed by how much my role as a parent can illuminate my relationship with God.

This morning as I left for work, I peeked my head in my 2 year old daughter's room to say goodbye. After wishing her a great day, I asked if she would give me a hug.

"No, Daddy. I'm busy with this toy." She turned her head away and focused on the toy in her lap.

I was crushed. I told her goodbye and headed toward the door.

I was reminded of all the times I'm too busy with whatever I'm doing to spend a few minutes alone with God. How many times have I said the exact same thing to God: "No Daddy. I'm too busy with that project in the back yard." Or "No, Daddy. There's a really good TV show on in three minutes." I wonder if, in those times, God feels something like I felt this morning.

Although my daughter and I see each other throughout the day, and we interact and experience life together, it is the special moments (like my goodbye hug) that I really look forward to the most. I'm sure the same is true of our heavenly Father: Although He is with us throughout the day, and we experience our lives in His presence, it's the special moments (like our daily quiet time) where we really make a connection with Him. When I'm too busy to spend that time with Him, I bet it breaks His heart.

So I was feeling pretty low this morning. As I walked across the driveway to my car, I heard the front door open. It was my little girl.

"I'm sorry, Daddy." My heart leaped. I ran up to her and scooped her up in my arms. "I'm sorry for not giving you a hug, Daddy."

My broken heart was suddenly healed.

God, I'm sorry for skipping my quiet time with you last night (and so many other times). Please forgive me. I look forward to those times. Help me to remember that you look forward to them, too.

Understandings I'm Seeking

This is a post I’ve been meaning to write for a long time now, simply because it’s subject is really the reason this blog exists.  As I said in my newly-updated About This Blog post, this is where I put some of those thoughts about my faith (speaking very generally) that bounce around in my head, and just won’t go away.  It helps to have a place to organize my thoughts, and I can come back to a particular post if I forget where my thinking was on a particular topic.  Also, for those doubts or questions that don’t really have good answers, clicking that “Publish Post” button is like flushing the toilet. 

Several months ago, Cliff Martin over at Outside The Box (a blog that I used to read regularly) posted his list of Understandings I’m Seeking – A list of difficult issues he was interested in understanding better.  Ever since, I’ve kept a mental list of my own, to which I add as new issues become important to me, and subtract as I gain understanding on some issues.  

Lately, my “Understandings I’m Seeking” list has become stagnant.  The same issues have been at the top of the list for quite a while, which means that they have remained important to me, while simultaneously proving difficult to understand, at least for me.  It is for this reason I think it is time for my own “Understandings I’m Seeking” post.  

Understandings I’m Seeking 

1. The relationship between the teachings of Jesus and the Apostle Paul 

I'm seeking to understand how the teachings of Jesus are related to those of the Apostle Paul.  In particular, I want to understand why Jesus' teachings are so different from those of Paul, especially when it comes to the requirements for salvation.  

In my own Baptist tradition, the words of Jesus are constantly twisted to fit into a Paul-shaped mold, and to me, that just seems wrong.  I hope one might be able to assume that God-incarnate would be able to get it right!  But instead I constantly hear (in reference to Jesus' words) "Well.... You have to read that in light of ..."  - And then some passage from Romans or Hebrews.

I understand the desire to harmonize the Scriptures, and the belief that inspired Scripture must fit together.  But if God really did become man, and that man is Jesus Christ, than something is wrong.  I am seeking to understand what that is.

2. The second coming of Jesus and the New Testament expectation that it was immanent 

I’m seeking to better understand why the first Christians (and especially Jesus Himself) expected Jesus’ second coming to happen soon, as recorded in passages like Matt. 10:23, Matt. 16:27-28, Luke 21:5-36  1 Thess 4:14-15, Rev. 1:1, and many, many others.  This expectation is typically explained away by claiming that Jesus, when He said "this generation will not pass away" before He returns, did not mean "generation" but instead meant the nation of Israel or even the generation that is alive when Jesus returns. (How convenient!)  

I’m continually flabbergasted that the same people who insist on using the “plain reading” of Genesis 1-2 will put forth such flimsy explanations for the very plain statements of the expectation of the imminent return of Jesus.  Once again, if God did become man, and that man is Jesus Christ, can't we expect Him to know what He was talking about?

I've done a significant amount of reading about the eschatological belief called preterism, which claims that all of Jesus' end-times prophecies were fulfilled within the timeframe he predicted, specifically in 70AD during the siege and destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman army.  This is not the place for a discussion on eschatology, but I should say that neither futurism nor preterism have provided satisfactory explanations for Biblical end-times prophesy.

I am seeking to understand what Jesus really meant by his end-times prophecies, and how this fits in with the rest of Biblical teaching.  I especially am seeking to understand the implications of a successful eschatology on they way I view the world:  Is the world coming to an end, or is it getting better and better?  Is Jesus coming back, and will that be soon?

3. The dogma of Biblical inspiration and (secondarily) inerrancy 

I’m seeking to understand why some Christians believe in the doctrine of verbal, plenary inspiration. (The equal inspiration of every word of scripture)  Christians always give passages like 2 Peter 1:20-21 and 2 Timothy 3:16-17 as proof that the Bible (every single word of it) is equally inspired by God.  Why don't these Christians notice the blatant circularity of this claim?  A text within the New Testament that refers to "scripture" cannot be referring to the New Testament.  At best, these proof texts can only refer to the Hebrew Scriptures (The Old Testament), and any texts considered “scripture” at the time the proof-text was written, if any. 

I am seeking to understand the reality of Biblical inspiration as opposed to the dogma of Biblical inspiration.  I believe that the Bible is inspired, and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness, but I am unconvinced by any argument for verbal, plenary inspiration that takes the form: "The Bible is inspired because it says it is inspired."  I realize that any "proof" of inspiration that refuses to grant authority to any source other than the Bible will always be circular.  I just wish that this fact were not constantly ignored.  

Of secondary importance is my desire to understand why some Christians believe in the inerrancy of the Bible.  This is only of secondary importance because I have come to a settled belief that this position is entirely indefensible.  Still, I am seeking to understand the implications of this apparent fact; On how it affects the way I should read the Bible, and how it affects the task of biblical interpretation. 

4. The relationship between the Old and New Testaments

This issue has troubled me from the time I was a little kid:  I am seeking to understand why God is portrayed so differently in the Old and New Testaments.  The God of the Old Testament commands his people to kill rebellious teenagers, beat their slaves to within an inch of their death, to destroy entire cities, killing all men, women, children and babies, (including nursing babies and "ripping open" pregnant women) and actively participates in these slayings by chucking hailstones from heaven.  In contrast, the God of the New Testament commands us to be peaceful, merciful,  to love our enemies, turn the other cheek, return blessing for evil, and to live at peace with everyone.  Are we talking about the same God here?

I understand that all people are sinners and deserve death.  God can choose to do whatever he wants.  This is not the issue.  I am seeking to understand why God's message to His people, His communication to them about what is important, and His overal approach to justice is so startlingly different between the Old and New Testaments.

5. The soverignty of God and the problem of Theodicy (the problem of the existence of evil)

This issue is a little different:  It involves two seemingly seperate issues on which I have come to a general understanding (or acceptance), but my thinking on these two issues is incompatible.

It is evident to me that God (in many occasions, if not all) chooses those with whom he is going to form a relationship: God chose Adam, not vice-versa.  God chose Noah, not vice-versa. God chose Abraham, not vice-versa.  God chose Moses, not vice-versa.  God chose the 12 disciples, not vice-versa.  You get the point.  And it's hard to deny the reality of election with Bible passages like Mark 13:20, Romans 8:29-30, Romans 9:14-24, and on and on... The entire Bible shows God constantly choosing us, not the other way around.  

Now, this doesn't mean we don't have a choice in whether to love God.  A man can choose to romantically pursue a particular woman, but she will still have a choice of whether to reciprocate.  Excuse the imperfect analogy, but this may be the situation between God and us.  And God's power to woo surely surpasses even that of Giacoma Cassanova.  Still, it is obvious to me that in some way, my relationship with God is more dependent on He than on me.

The second issue involves theodicy; the problem of existence of evil in the world, and the general lack of evidence for God's existence.  I've written about this before: To me it seems the best explanation for this is that God created us to love, and love cannot be forced.  Ironically, pastor-turned-atheist Dan Barker says it best:

It is a counterfeit love that is contingent upon authority, punishment, or reward. True love is respect and admiration, compassion and kindness, freely given by a healthy, unafraid human being.  [source]

I agree with Dan, and this is why God doesn't loudly proclaim His existence, doesn't do much to fix our broken world, and doesn't prove to us that He exists; He wants to give us a chance to love Him, and to do that He must give us the freedom to choose.

The problem lies in the integration of the two issues above.  If God chooses those with whom He has a relationship, then why is there evil in the world?  Why is there a need?  (And please, don't say "The Fall" - The fall came as a result of God giving Man a choice)  Conversely, if God values our free will enough to accept all the things that go along with it (i.e. evil, suffering) then does he really choose his "elect"?  In order to answer theses two questions, I must talk out of both sides of my mouth, and that really bothers me.  The answer may be as simple as my Cassanova example (above) but that has so far been unsatisfying.

So there's my list.  If you can help on any of the above, by all means, email me.  Or better yet, leave a comment on this post and let everyone benefit.  I have fantasies of someday writing a single post on each of the above, but I know better than to commit.  I'll just take it one post at a time.

About This Blog

About this blog

This is a blog about my faith. If you know me well, you know that I'm constantly asking questions. As a result, my "spiritual journey" hasn't exactly been smooth sailing. This blog is part of that journey. It is my conversation with no one in particular (at least not yet). In a very real way it is part of my conversation with God.

What is the purpose of this blog?

This blog started by functioning as my "mental clearing house". Any time an "issue" arises with my faith, my natural tendency is to think and dwell and chew it over until my metaphorical jaw hurts. I have found that even if I don't come to a positive conclusion, (and I usually do not) writing out the issue often allows me to move on. Clicking that "Publish Post" button is like flushing the toilet. I still use this blog in that way, but now I use it in other ways as well.

For a while, I wrote quite extensively on my experience coming to grips with the theory of evolution.  This was a story that I had written in many pieces, and it was good to get it all down in one place.  Lately, this blog has served as a place for me to organize my thoughts, and it has been helpful to have you, my "imaginary friends" to hash this stuff out with.

Who am I?

My name is Joe. I am a 30 year old male, with two kids under three years old. I work as a research scientist in a technology company. I work in the area of Microelectromechanical Systems (MEMS), and my formal education includes an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering, and a master’s degree in materials science.  

I was raised in the very Dutch, very conservative, very Christian region of western Michigan. My parents were essentially Christian Reformed, and I grew up in a “Bible Church” that was basically Christian Reformed/Baptist in it’s theology. Growing up, I was taught that the earth is 6000-10,000 years old, and that the modern scientific description of the history of the universe was a false, deceptive idea, and was invented by Satan to help turn Christians into atheists.

I have retained many of the beliefs of my youth (albeit with many modifications): I go to a Baptist church and generally agree with most of the ideas expressed from the pulpit. However, I do believe that evolution (both animal and human) is undoubtedly the process by which we have come to be the way we are. I believe that God created us and the universe we live in, so I guess that makes me a theistic evolutionist, although I don’t really embrace the label. My switch from the young-earth beliefs of my youth to my current beliefs was a significant part of my spiritual journey, because it took me to the brink of atheism. The people in my church are mostly moderate Young Earth Creationists, so evolution is not generally accepted, but I have found that a vast majority of people (including some of the pastors) do not find my belief in a common ancestry troublesome. Actually, it doesn’t really come up much.

I have kept this blog semi-anonomous because it allows me to write in a very personal way, without worrying that someone who is only an acquaintance might wander upon it, and read something without knowing a lot about me. I’m not ashamed of any of this, but I can write more personally and transparently if I’m not worried about who might be watching.

Also, I've learned that anything that makes it into Google's "memory" can persist much longer than one might desire it to. Many years ago, as a geeky teenager, I posted a question to an online forum about some random geeky topic. When my name is "Googled", that post still shows up in the first page of results. How I wish I could give Google a lobotomy.

I don’t intend for my identity to be a secret to anyone who is sincerely interested in knowing more about me or what I write about. There are several people who know who I am and know about this blog, and that doesn’t bother me at all.  

If you have any questions, you can always email me.

Who are you?

When I write, I imagine that my audience is someone who is sincerely interested in the Truth. Someone who isn’t afraid to ask questions, and doesn’t accept things just because that’s what they’re told to believe. Someone who is willing to wrestle with their doubts, to admit them, address them, answer them, and move on. Someone who gains strength and faith and peace not by dismissing doubts or questions, but by looking them straight in the eye and seeing if they should be taken seriously.

Some of my posts can tend to be negative. This is because, as I said above, a major purpose of this blog is to acknowledge my doubts and move on. I don’t intend for these posts to spread doubt, but if I discuss something here it is because I think it is worth discussing. I’m reminded of a quote by Os Guinness:

We ourselves are called in question if we have no answer to doubt. If we constantly doubt what we believe and always believe-yet-doubt, we will be in danger of undermining our personal integrity, if not our stability. But if ours is an examined faith, we should be unafraid to doubt. If doubt is eventually justified, we were believing what clearly was not worth believing. But if doubt is answered, our faith grows stronger still. It knows God more certainly, and it can enjoy God more deeply. Faith is not doubt-free, but there is a genuine assurance of faith that is truly beyond a shadow of doubt. -Os Guinness, in God in the Dark: The Assurance of Faith Beyond a Shadow of Doubt  [pp.14]

The Duplicity of Me

I recently read Dallas Willard's book Renovation of the Heart: Putting on the Character of Christ.  Actually I read it several times.  It's an incredible book that I'm sure I'll write more about.  But for now there is one idea that I've been chewing on recently:

Willard describes what he calls "the duplicity of man" - This is our tendency to say we believe something, and want to act a certain way, and sometimes we do, but when it comes down to that knee-jerk response in the heat of the moment, our actions do not match up with our beliefs and convictions.  Of course, this is not a new idea.  Paul wrote about the problem in Romans 7:

When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God's law; but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. What a wretched man I am! Romans 7:21b-24

One of the main ideas of Willard's book is that this duplicity is not a required state of every believer; in fact, for a true disciple of Jesus it is not even a possible permanent state.  He suggests that a true disciple of Jesus will move beyond this duplicity into a "renovated character" where the desire of our heart (to look and act like Jesus) is what actually happens (most of the time).   

Building on this, Chapter 8 describes how, moment to moment, our actions are generally out of our control.  We are, to a significant degree, simply reacting to our circumstances in a way that is controlled by our thoughts and feelings at that moment.  This pattern of actions, over time, reveals our character.  Now, this doesn't mean that our actions are not our responsibility.  Our will enables us to make choices that affect our future thoughts and feelings, and this is why we are responsible for our character.

I've been chewing on these ideas for a while now, but they came to a poignant climax today.  In the last few days, I have experienced this duplicity in my own life with increasing awareness.  As I continue to strive to look and act more like Jesus, I have been making better choices, seeing fruit in my life.  But recently I have been placed in some situations where my actions were those "knee jerk" reactions that reveal my character.  And I was devastated.  

I guess I have always known this, but today I think I really saw for the first time what a horrible person I really am.  I want to be a good father but I am horribly impatient and get angry when my 2-year old acts like a 2-year old.  I want to be a good husband, and love my wife the way Christ loves his church, but when given the opportunity to serve her my gut reaction is to complain and be lazy and selfish.  I know that every person I meet is made in God's image, and I want to love them and treat them the way I want to be treated, but instead I am selfish, arrogant and disrespectful.  When someone takes something that I percieve to be mine, I want to react in love by giving them whatever else they need.  Instead I lash out in anger and self-righteousness.  Sadly I could go on and on.

This morning at church (today is Easter Sunday), our pastor talked about the life that we have access to through the death and resurrection of Jesus.  Not just life after death, but life now (he called it "life before death"), which includes freedom from the power of sin.  Once again, this is an old idea that is becomming newly significant to me. (It's also a huge component of another of Dallas Willard's books, The Divine Conspiracy)  As I listened to the sermon this morning, I was overcome by how little freedom I have from the power of sin.  I feel like sin has such a firm grasp on me that I am suffocating; The duplicity in my life is becoming unbearable.  

When I arrived home from this morning's Easter service, I was feeling pretty low.  All that talk and singing about Jesus giving us freedom from the power of sin was great, but simultaneously not feeling that freedom was excruciating.  But then something put me over the edge.  It was time for my daughter to take a nap, and she just wouldn't sleep. (She is so tired, why won't she just go to sleep!!)  Instead of patience and gentleness, my reaction to her defiance was outright anger and a desperate need for control, and then pride.  When naptime was over, I collapsed in a pile of frustration and tears.  If you have made it this far in this post, you deserve to know:  I thought the sobbing would not end.  We had a half-hour to make it to Easter dinner, so of course, it did end, but the experience had a lasting effect.

I don't know what the answer is; Why these sins seem like they will never ever leave... I know that in my life I have a thousand times told God that I want him to be Lord of my life, that I want Him to come in and remake me into someone that looks and acts like Jesus, and that there is nothing I can do to make our relationship right, short of my trust in Him.  And I will continue to tell Him that until I die.  So I wonder; why is this "life before death" not something that I am experiencing?  Or am I, and I am just expecting the wrong thing?  Or am I just a big lump of clay that desperately wants to be a pot, and thinks it is a pot, but really just needs to wait for the potter to continue His handiwork?  I think I'm willing to accept that this new-found hatred of my sin is a vital component to whatever He wants to do with me, if that is really the case.

But why am I so impatient!!!

I'll end with these lyrics from a Big Daddy Weave song titled Why.  It is my anthem for today.

Why do I do all the things that I do 

When I want to do what is right 

Change this wicked heart of mine 

Let me walk with you in the new life  

So what will ever put an end 

To my recurring bout with sin 

It seems I'm always at a loss for a way to win 

When what I really need to do 

Is to confront it with the truth 

And let Your words of life sink in and make my mind brand new  

A transformation that happens over time 

Is the product of a renewed mind  

Create in me a clean heart 

Place Your spirit deep inside 

Capture every thought 

'Till there's no place left to hide

Choosing to Believe

In my previous post, I talked about belief, and how our actions reveal what we truly believe.  One question that was left unanswered, however, is one posed by Richard Dawkins, among others:

Believing is not something you can decide to do as a matter of policy.  At least, it is not something I can decide to do as an act of will.  I can decide to go to church and I can decide to recite the Nicene Creed, and I can decide to swear on a stack of bibles that I believe every word inside them.  But none of that can make me actually believe it if I don't.  Pascal's Wager could only ever be an argument for feigning belief in God.  And the God that you claim to believe in had better not be of the omniscient kind or he'd see through the deception. [The God Delusion, p.104]

Dawkins makes a good point, one that  I struggled with it for a long time.  I didn't believe, and I knew it.  I really wanted to believe, but couldn't.  What advice would you give someone in this situation?  

For some, the issue really is that they don't want to believe.  For Dawkins, I suspect that he poses the question not out of a genuine desire to believe, but to simply point out that it is truly ridiculous to ask someone to "just believe".  He's right.  We can't just decide to change our beliefs. 

Like my last post, Dallas Willard's book, Renovation of the Heart can shed some light on this (at least it did for me).  Willard agrees with Dawkins:

We do not choose to believe (or not).  Our beliefs and feelings cannot be changed by choice.  We cannot just choose to have different beliefs and feelings...

But Willard continues:

 ...but we do have some liberty to take in different ideas and think about things in different ways. We can choose to take in the Word of God and when we do that beliefs and feelings will be steadily pulled in a Godly direction.

So if Dallas Willard is correct, (and I think he is) then we are not able, in the current moment, to change our beliefs by simply choosing to do so.  But this does not mean that belief is completely out of our control.  Our choices today can (and do) influence the things we believe tomorrow.  So if we choose to read and absorb the Bible and think in ways that will, over time, cause our beliefs to change.

Dawkins was correct when he wrote that:

I can decide to go to church and I can decide to recite the Nicene Creed...

True, he could decide to do that.  But he doesn't.  And of course, he doesn't believe.  I'm not saying that going to church or reciting a creed will help someone believe in God.  I am only saying (mostly from experience) that if one decides that he is going to live like God exists, his life will include things like going to church and reading the Bible.  And these activities, sincerely pursued, will slowly change his beliefs.

So we are responsible for our beliefs, but not in a direct way.  This has great implications for how we present the Gospel.  In Willards words:

One of the worst mistakes that can be made in practical ministry is to think that people can choose to believe and can feel differently.  Following that, we will mistakenly try to generate faith by going through the will, possibly trying to move the will by playing on emotion.  Rather, the will must be moved by insight into truth and reality.  Such insight will evoke emotion, appropriate to a new set of the will.  That is the order of real inward change.

My pastor frequently says things like: 

You're too busy to read your Bible? Well, you see, we make time for the things that are important to us.  So make time to read your Bible.

Is it just me, or does that not make sense at all?  How does that change whether I find it important to read my Bible?  And if what he says is true, I will not begin to read my Bible until I find it relevant to my life.  My will can do nothing (over the long run) to change my habits.  My Bible reading will come through a change in my inner character, which will in turn change my priorities.

 In the same way, no amount of willpower will enable me to believe something that I do not see adequate evidence for.  True belief will come through experience of the truth of God's existence.

Believe? Sounds pretty simple...

When I was dealing with the whole atheism thing, one of the things that always bugged me was the concept of belief.  We're always told (and we tell others) that we just need to "believe in Jesus" and we will inherit eternal life.  In the words of D.L. Moody:

Have faith in God! Take Him at His word! Believe what He says!

Is it really that simple?  What if someone really doesn't believe?  Richard Dawkins makes this point by asking the question: 

What if I don't believe? How can I just start believing something that I don't believe? Does God want a bunch of fakers?”  [a paraphrase from The God Delusion]

 Stephen Weinberg, in Dreams of a Final Theory says the same thing, but much more eloquently:

The decision to believe or not is not entirely in our hands. I might be happier if I thought I were descended from the emperors of China, but no effort of will on my part can make me believe it, any more than I can will my heart to stop beating.

So is belief something we have control over, or are we at it's mercy?  Does our will have any control over our beliefs, or are our beliefs completely inaccessible to us, as Dawkins would have us believe?

And what is faith?  Is that the same as belief? Can you have faith and not belief?  Belief and not faith? 

A second aspect to this problem is less semantic and more theological.  Ever since I started reading my Bible seriously, I have been struck by the differences between Jesus and Paul - Especially when they start talking about salvation.  Paul, of course, says over and over again that faith (or belief) alone is what saves us whereas Jesus repeatedly emphasizes that we will be judged based on how we lived our lives. Now, neither Jesus or Paul are completely on one end of the spectrum, and this disparity is not new; it is one of the main causes of the Protestant-Catholic divide.  But I am continually shocked by the efforts my fellow Christians will make to neuter Jesus' words in an effort to reconcile them with Paul's statements on salvation.  

I read something recently that helps make sense of all this.  In his book, Renovation of the Heart, Dallas Willard discusses what it means for a Christian to "believe":

Gandhi, who had looked closely at Christianity as practiced around him in Great Britain, remarked that if only Christians would live according to their belief in the teachings of Jesus, "we all would become Christians."  We know what he meant, and he was right in that.  But the dismaying truth is that the Christians were living according to their "belief" in the teachings of Jesus.  They didn't believe them!

Moreover, knowing the "right answers" - knowing which ones they are, being able to identify them - does not mean we believe them. To believe them, like believing anything else, means that we are set to act as if they (the right answers) are true and that we will do so in appropriate circumstances.  And acting as if the right answers are true means, in turn, that we intend to obey the example and teachings of Jesus the Anointed.  What else would we intend if we believed he is who his people through the ages have declared him to be?

Perhaps the hardest thing for sincere Christians to come to grips with is the level of real unbelief in their own life:  The unformulated skepticism about Jesus that permeates all dimensions of their being and undermines what efforts they do make toward Christlikeness.

The idea that you can trust Christ and not intend to obey him is an illusion generated by the prevalence of an unbelieving "Christian culture."  In fact, you can no more trust Jesus and not intend to obey him than you could trust you doctor and your auto mechanic and not intend to follow their advice.  If you don't intend to follow their advice, you simply don't trust them.  Period.  (Of course in this case you might well have good reason.)

  

I find that this helps greatly with the questions I pose above.  What is belief?  Belief is that which we are set to act upon.  In other words, we believe something is true if we act as if its true.

This helps answer the second question:  Who was right? Jesus or Paul?  Well, of course, both are right:

In Acts 16, when Paul and Silas were asked by their jailer "What must I do to be saved?" they replied:  "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved."  

This "belief" does not mean that the jailer should state that certain things are true about Jesus; that Jesus died for his sins, or say a special prayer, or even say that he is following Jesus with his life.  For the jailer (and likewise, us) to believe means that the jailer really believes; and real belief will necessarily lead to doing the things that Jesus told us to do.  If he doesn't go obey Jesus, he did not believe.

Likewise, In Matthew 25, Jesus tells the parable of the sheep and the goats, and describes how, in the end times, people will be separated based on their actions: "[The wicked] will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." (Matt. 10:46)  These actions are simply the kinds of things someone would naturally do if they believe.  We will be judged by our actions because our actions are a direct and necessary result of belief, (understood correctly).  

Unfortunately, this doesn't help answer the question:  What must I do to believe?  Richard Dawkins' question is still valid:  "What if I don't believe?"  

I think the answer to that question must have something to do with "faith".  But that is another post.

Something a little different

In the last few weeks, I've seen a couple really good blogs hang up their proverbial hats. Others have mentioned blogging fatigue, and I can totally relate to this. I have the next post in my series on my journey from creationist to evolutionist about 50% completed, and have absolutely zero motivation to finish.

It is for this reason (and more that I'll mention below) that I'm going to take a little break. Not from blogging, but from telling the story that I've been writing about for so long.

Another reason for this little change is that this blog is about my faith. While coming to grips with evolution was a very significant aspect of my faith, that whole struggle is in the past. The present state of my faith is much more interesting (to me) and my desire to write about other things has increased significantly. So that's what I'll do!

One final reason for the change: Up to this point, my blog has been quite formal, with pretty complete thoughts that I have worked on for a significant amount of time before posting. This is not really the kind of blog that I want to write. From this point on, I'll be much less formal; some of my posts will be incomplete thoughts, quotes from things I read or hear, or simply a question that I am thinking about at the time.

I think I am going to enjoy the change, and I hope my three readers will too.

11. Dealing with Genesis

This is the 11th in a series of posts describing my transition from young earth creationist to theistic evolutionist. In the first post, I described how Alan Roxburgh's 5-phase description of paradigm change describes this transition well, and I have been using his framework to shape this discussion. See the introduction for a list of all the posts in this series.

If you have been following this description of how I became a theistic evolutionist, you probably can see why it was necessary for me to come to a conclusion (even if it was tentative) about the meaning of Genesis: I had been indoctrinated as a child with the belief that Genesis was God's way of communicating to us the process by which he created the universe. This belief was now gone, but the first few chapters of Genesis still required explanation.

I have found it very difficult to write this post. (This is one of the reasons why it has been such a long time between the last post and this one.) It is difficult to write for two reasons. The first reason is that the results are quite inconsequential (in a scientific sense). Although one can glean great insight into the thinking of the original authors and audience of Genesis, the conclusion that the Genesis accounts are not scientific leaves us with a purely theological message.

The second reason this post is difficult for me to write is that there is such a wealth of contextual information about Genesis 1-11 that any attempt to summarize it feels inadequate. Others have done so with great success, and it is not worthwhile for me to repeat their efforts.

For these reasons, I am going to be quite brief in my description of how I dealt with the creation accounts. I'll start by pointing out what I see to be the most significant aspect of Genesis 1-2, the observation that there are actually two creation stories. Next I will briefly discuss these stories' relationship within the context of the ancient near east. I'll end this post by describing some of my conclusions, however tentative.

About My Motive

One note: I will not try to hide my motive. As I have described in previous posts, I had determined that science was correct in its determination of the age of creation, and this was in conflict with my childhood beliefs. Seeing problems with the way young earth creationists read the Bible, my mind was fertile ground for a new system of belief (and method of biblical interpretation) that allowed the coexistence of biblical and scientific knowledge. It is only in retrospect that I have analyzed these new beliefs, and in doing so have gained confidence that they are correct.

Interpretation and Humility

One final thought before I begin: When faced with the seeming conflict between Genesis and science, it is often said (by young earth creationists) that “I just choose to believe the Bible”. I appreciate the sentiment of this statement, but let me expand that statement a bit, so it is plain what it really means. Choosing to believe the earth is young (because that's what the Bible says), despite all the evidence to the contrary, is in a very real way making the following statement:

“I am so confident that my interpretation of Genesis is correct that am willing to disregard the conclusions of every major scientific discipline. I am sure that this ancient text was meant to communicate scientific and historical information, and as a result, I am willing to throw out the observations scientists (many of them Christians themselves) have made about this world.”

I suspect that anyone who, in reference to creation, says something like “I just believe the Bible” or “That's just what the Bible says” is not considering the fact that every word or idea taken from the Bible must be interpreted. We have an interpreted Bible. It seems to me that this should bring an incredible amount of humility to any discussion about what the Bible “says”.

The Biblical Creation Accounts

One of the most revealing aspects of the first two chapters of Genesis is that they contain what is almost certainly two different creation accounts. If you haven't noticed this before, read them yourself: Genesis 1:1 to 2:3 and Genesis 2:4-25. Below is a summary of each. Please keep in mind that my purpose for discussing this is not to present an irreconcilable “problem” with the Bible that forces us to seek alternate interpretations of Genesis. My purpose is simply to show that there are good reasons to suspect that the authors of the creation stories were concerned not with history, but with theology.

Creation Story #1: Genesis 1:1 to 2:3

The first creation story is highly structured and great emphasis is placed on the order of creation. In the beginning, there is nothing. God speaks the universe into existence with a series of commands, i.e. “let there be light.” Gods creative activity takes place over six days. In the first three days, God does a lot of “separating”, and the result of this separating is several “containers” (or structures) which are ready-made for his creatures. The structures created on the first three days are:

Day 1: Day / Night
Day 2: Sky / Sea
Day 3: Dry Land

On days 4-6, God fills these structures with creatures. Notice the parallels with days 1-3: The structures are filled in the same order they are created:

Day 4: Sun /Moon & Stars
Day 5: Birds / Fish
Day 6: Animals & Man

This first creation story ends with the seventh day of the creation week, where God “rests” from the work of creation.

Creation Story #2: Genesis 2:4-25

The second creation story is less structured: First the author describes the creation of Adam, followed by God's planting of the Garden of Eden. In contrast to the first story, the focus is on Adam. God commands Adam not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and then decides that Adam needs a helper/companion. To solve this problem, God creates “all the animals of the field and all the birds of the air” but none are suitable to be Adam's helper. Then God creates a woman, Eve, from Adam's rib, and what follows is the familiar story about Adam, Eve, the serpent and the apple.

Notice that in this second story, there is very little emphasis on the order of creation. It would seem that Adam is created before plants and before animals. To illustrate this, compare Genesis 2 in several different translations: The word “had” is inserted in Genesis 2:8 and 2:19 in several translations, making the order of events ambiguous. In any case, it seems that the author was not interested in giving a blow-by-blow account of how things came into being, but was instead addressing more important questions, like the origin of sin and death.

Different Authors, Different Purposes

These two creation stories clearly were written to communicate different ideas. This is supported by the mountain of evidence that suggests four different sources for the book of Genesis. (See the resources section at the end of this post for more information) The easiest and most compelling example of this is the names used for God: In the first story, God is exclusively called “Elohim” (translated “God” in the NIV). In the second story, God is exclusively called “Jahweh” (translated “LORD God” in the NIV). If you have never noticed this, I highly recommend re-reading Genesis, paying attention to the names of God. Identifying the switch between the various sources (indicated by a change in the name of God) can help in explaining some of the more awkward transitions.

Context of the Biblical Creation Accounts

The context of the creation accounts is that of the ancient near east (ANE). The religions of the surrounding cultures were predominantly polytheistic, with gods in charge of almost every aspect of nature and daily life.

Other creation/flood myths were already in circulation and were familiar to the original audience of the Genesis creation accounts. These myths include many elements common the the biblical creation accounts; two of these myths contain the most stark similarities: the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Enuma Elish.

The cosmology of the ANE was primitive; the earth was seen as a flat disk surrounded by an infinite sea. The sky was believed to be a metal dome, separating infinite water above from the disk of the earth. The stars were thought to be embedded in the dome, and the sun and moon traveled across the dome. It was thought that under the earth stood an infinite freshwater sea, which supplied the rivers and lakes.

These contexts become important when considering the purpose of the creation accounts; even without additional knowledge, it is easy to see the influence of these cultural elements. The cosmology of the ANE is clearly seen in the first creation account, and the religious contexts and creation myths provide a compelling backdrop which helps to understand the motivation of the original authors.

So What's It About?

If the first chapters of Genesis are not chronological descriptions of God's creative acts, then what are they?

Here we see two stories written at different times by different people for different reasons. The authors were concerned with explaining the universe and the state of humanity, and they used common imagery that was familiar to their readers at the time. Their stories use elements from Babylonian and Sumerian creation myths to communicate theological truths, not historical or scientific information. These stories were direct rebuttals to the opposing myths and religions of the time.

Here are a few theological messages that can be seen at a first glance:

There is a God.
There is a single, all powerful God. (Not many gods with various powers, like the surrounding Babylonian culture insists)
Man is created in the image of God
God takes an interest in mankind's well-being
Creation was originally goodWe are destined to fail to live up to our divinely appointed roles
We are fundamentally alienated from our creator

There are surely many more. I don't intend to suggest that the message of Genesis 1-2 can be summed up in a few bullet-points. My point is simply that there is a message, and this message is not scientific.

To me it seems like many Christians who place an incredible emphasis on the historicity of Genesis 1-2 are ignoring the real meanings of this text. They have substituted a counterfeit message, obtained through a short-sighted method of interpretation, in response to a perceived threat from science. As I continued to learn about the contexts of the creation stories, I saw that science posed no threat to my faith. The physical world is just another source of revelation from God, and along with the Bible, we can come to an agreement on the big questions in life. It is important however, to address these questions to the sources that are appropriate for answering each question; Genesis can answer the question “What is wrong with the world?” but was not intended to answer the question “How did the world come about?”

In my next post, I'll continue to describe my experiences in adjusting to a new world that includes evolution, an ancient earth, and an even older universe. I'll describe what happened when I “came out of the closet” and revealed these struggles and beliefs to some of my friends and family.

Let us never throw ourselves head over heels into the headstrong assertion of any one [opinion]. Perhaps the truth, emerging from a more thorough discussion of the point, may definitively overturn that opinion, and then we will find ourselves overthrown, championing what is not the cause of the divine scriptures but our own, in such a way that we want it to be that of the scriptures, when we should rather be wanting the cause of the scriptures to be our own.

-Augustine writing in The Literal Meaning of Genesis [400AD].