No Answers in Genesis

Lest the bold title of this post be over-read and lead to serious misunderstanding, this is about using the bible to make scientific assertions, not about denying the truth-value of Genesis.

Over at Thinking Christian, Tom Gilson posted (awhile ago) some very good thoughts on putting the creation-evolution debate in perspective with regard to its necessity for Orthodoxy (to loosely paraphrase).  In essence, it’s ok to say we don’t know when we don’t know and it’s important to recognize when we don’t know.  Concerning this debate, it’s important for Christians to realize that the debates involved in evolution are much more complex and involve much more sophisticated analysis that most people know/understand – perhaps especially among those who feel the need to voice strong opinion.  To this I say, “Well put”.

With that prelude, it was not too many decades ago that the creation-evolution debate was in full flame within the church.  Recently, it has rekindled due to some goings-on with Bruce Waltke and other high profile biblical, especially OT, scholars publicly admitting that evolutionary theory is not incompatible (note the logic of the negatives) with Genesis 1 (the incident is a little more complex but that seems to be the nub of it.)  This has recently created a flurry of re-affirmation of the “plain reading” of Genesis 1 in asserting a 6-day creation view as biblical (i.e. orthodox).

This is no small issue, often times creating considerable division between those who hold scripture as canonical for life, yet see little reason why science should be so wrong in their claims of origins (perhaps theistic evolution should be the answer), and those who plainly see that origins are clearly spelled out in scripture, are plainly contradicted by science, and therefore clearly denies God by denying Scripture.  These are by no means the extremes of the spectrum, but such disparity can often lead the first group to view the latter as perhaps somewhat fundamentalistic, and at least a little narrow minded in their approach to scripture.  Meanwhile the latter group often sees the former as compromising God’s word, as not truly or fully submitting to the authority of scripture, and perhaps being a bit too influenced by the liberal thought of academia.   Along the lines of Tom Gilson, I think this calls for checking both our judgmentalism and our too-small orthodoxy box at the door.  Of course some if not many fit the caricatures of each camp, but we suffer flawed thinking if we think that it’s necessarily the case.

At its best, what seems to be going on is a division between those who do not want the Christian faith compromised by assenting to a theory that really wants to explain away God and those who want to find some sort of allowance that science, though (generally) denying God, is objective enough to read some truth out of God’s “natural revelation”.  I think there is a way out of this dichotomy and room for parts of both.

First, some considerations towards the first group:

1) It almost invariably happens in the quest to understand Scripture that what Scripture asserts to be true and what’s incidental to the assertion (historical, cultural, etc.) are confused to some degree or another. Take as an example Job 38:4 and 6 which reflect the view common in its day picturing an actual foundation (pillars) holding up a flat disc called earth.  Now, it’s been well proven – not least by astronauts – that the earth is round and doesn’t have an actual foundation. I can’t help but chuckle picturing a conversation with someone back in the day explaining that the earth is not just round but actually just suspended in … hmmm … Nothingness? Blackness? Space? If you’ve seen The Emperor’s New Groove, in the words of Kronk: “Riiight.”   So, anyways, the understanding of the author used by the bible, picturing a flat earth or pillars holding up the earth, may be wrong but that doesn’t make the bible wrong in any real sense because the text isn’t asserting the fact but using the incidental cultural view to proclaim God’s sovereign majesty in creation. [Update: I changed this sentence slightly since my wife informed me that what I wrote isn’t quite what I meant.]    The earth still exists no matter what cultural viewpoint is standing on it … and God created it.

What’s happening is that the author is correctly proclaiming an attribute of God through an erroneous astrological viewpoint, which God didn’t see fit to correct.  The confusion between assertion and incident is natural when one simply doesn’t understand the world-view of the original author, something inevitable in finite and fallen humans.  This confusion is often decreased when considerable effort is made to understand the cultural-historical background(s) of the text, knowing that what the text means is more important than what the text means to me.  Likewise the confusion is increased when no care or thought is taken to understanding that there is an author before a reader.  When this happens, it’s easy to ask the wrong questions, questions foreign to the world of the author, and so get the wrong answers, making the bible affirm something it didn’t intend to affirm.  Examples of this abound throughout history. The peoples of the OT, for example, assumed slavery, so that if one tries one can find all sorts of Scripture references that “support” slavery. After all, even in the NT Paul in Ephesians 6:5 ff commands that slaves obey their masters, not run away, and masters are to treat their slave with goodwill, not threatening them.  If slavery is such a bad thing, why doesn’t Paul abolish it then and there? … Not too many would argue along these lines these days, but would probably sound quite ludicrous.  But cultural incidentals have been used also to affirm arranged marriages, inferiority of women, geocentrism, flat earth, etc., some of which were long standing dogmas of the church.  But the bible can, and often does, make profound theological assertions within a given cultural framework without asserting the cultural framework. Great care needs to be taken when using the bible to assert a cultural issue.

2) At the same time, when #1 above isn’t kept in view, it can be easy to take current cultural frameworks and agendas and transpose them back on the text.  The scientific inquiry of today is far removed from the cultural framework of Jesus’ day, let alone Genesis 1.  But when something comes along that threatens the theistic assertions of the church in the name of objective scientific inquiry, and there is little perspective of the actual cultural framework of, say, Genesis 1, then it can be easy to develop a counter-argument in the name of Scripture while being far from it.  The problem is that we’re still playing the scientific game and using non-scientific tools.  A new playing field is needed.

3) When someone comes along who doesn’t see the scientific explanation as satisfactory and tries to correct the understanding of the text (especially because he/she places high value on it), tensions can arise because the major weapon is being removed from the arsenal.  And it seems a better understanding has come along, defended by some highly respected biblical scholars.  Genesis 1 is using imagery/symbolism common in its day to portray God creating the cosmos, with the earth at its center, to be his temple/dwelling place from which he orders the cosmos.  Whether or not the 6 (or 7) days are literal is a question that already strains the text.  The symbolism and structure was common in its day and had something much different to assert than a precise literal accounting of the order of creation, a scientific journal log of sorts. 

Now, it would take a good post or two to really defend the whole of Genesis 1, but a fair survey of the parallel literature of Genesis would find, for example, that 7’s abound to a degree that transcends the literal.  Its usage seems to usually concern something like “A full or complete cycle of time or effort sufficient for its due significance.”  So, for example, we read in the Epic of Gilgamesh that Enkidu has sex with a harlot 6 days and 7 nights – sufficient to tame him from his feral ways.  Afterwards he drinks 7 jars of beer – sufficient to become a man.  Gilgamesh himself builds an ark with 7 decks and completes it in 7 days.  The ark ran aground in 6 days and he releases a dove on the 7^th.  When Enkidu dies, Gilgamesh weeps for 6 days and 7 nights.  There are numerous other examples in Ancient Near East (ANE) literature where 7^th day refers to the climax of a cataclysmic cosmic event or the completion of a temple dedication ritual.

It’s possible that the 7 days in Genesis are meant to be literal, but the above indicates that the point of the text lies far from the point.  That the text obviously means 7 days misses the point.  The author obviously speaks of 7 days in a literary sense inasmuch as he wants to portray his point.  What it appears the author wishes to portray is a vivid description of perfection and completeness with which God creates everything that exists.

In the end, perhaps it really is 7 literal days that Genesis 1 portrays. But the meaning intended to be conveyed lies so far from this that it’s hardly a point that should delineate orthodoxy.  One can be reasonably faithful to the text without taking 7 literal days.

All this hardly means things are dandy with the other perspective.  In my opinion science, though an important endeavor, is not all it’s cracked up to be.  I’ll leave this to another post.


[Update: Upon further reflection, I'd add that there's also no need to exclude a literal 7 days just because there is greater symbolism evident.It may very well be that a literal understanding actually establishes the symbolism. If God exists, then it's His world after all. We are hardly in a place to judge otherwise.]

More Global Warming Fiasco

Recently Dr. Hal Lewis, a prominent member of the American Physical Society (APS), resigned from his society membership.  You can read all about it here at the Telegraph.  Note his reason:

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.

Wow.  Those are strong words.  He goes on to explain that in the aftermath of ClimateGate, nothing was done by the APS.

The APS followed up with a response to his resignation letter here.

Dr. Lewis, and colleagues Dr. Roger Cohen and Dr. Will Happer, responded to/deconstructed their response here with an addendum by Dr. Cohen.

Now, the resignation of a high profile member, and support from a few colleagues, does not in and of itself indicate something wrong with the system they seek to separate from, though it is suggestive.  There are plenty of respectable quacks out there, let alone respectable people, who simply become disenchanted, causing an unjustifiable separation from something more flawed than previously realized.

However, the follow-up deconstruction by Dr. Lewis hints to me that here is a man who is acting fairly out of a relatively reasonable assessment of the situation and is reasonably justified in his criticism and denouncement.  I think this is just one of many instances of a pandemic in this country of corrupt political and economic entities who seek control and wealth by manipulation and scare tactics.  This calls for a mindset of critical realism instead of the naiveté so rampant in this country.

Amusing Ourselves to Death

Blogging time has been hard to come by in the last few weeks given holidays, sickness, tiredness, and busy prep for leading a bible study on Genesis.  I’m hoping soon to do a couple of posts on the creation-evolution debate but in the meantime I read a very incisive quote while reading John Walton’s commentary on Genesis.  He quotes Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death:

When a population becomes distracted by trivia, when cultural life is redefined as a perpetual round of entertainments, when serious public conversation becomes a form of baby-talk, when, in short, a people become an audience and their public business a vaudeville act, then a nation finds itself at risk; culture-death is a clear possibility.

Romans 1:28 comes to mind … God help us.

World Christians

D.A. Carson, in his book The Cross and Christian Ministry, in commenting on 1 Cor. 9:19-27, concerning many Christians, states:  

     

      Instead of feeling that their most important citizenship is in heaven, and that they are just passing through down here on their way “home” to the heavenly Jerusalem (Heb. 12:22-23, they become embroiled with petty priorities that constitute an implicit denial of the lordship of Christ.

      What we need, then, are world Christians—not simply American Christians or British Christians or Kenyan Christians, but world Christians. By “world Christians,” I am referring to Christians … of whom the following things are true:

      Their allegiance to Jesus Christ and his kingdom is self-consciously set above all national, cultural, linguistic, and racial allegiances.

      Their commitment to the church, Jesus’ messianic community, is to the church everywhere, wherever the church is truly manifest, and not only to its manifestation on home turf.

      The see themselves first and foremost as citizens of the heavenly kingdom and therefore consider all other citizenship a secondary matter.

      As a result, they are single-minded and sacrificial when it comes to the paramount mandate to evangelize and make disciples.

I don’t know much about Christians in the UK or Kenya, but a great many Christians here in the States, many political activists notwithstanding, would do well to consider these words.

A Little Christmas Perspective

Rachel Evans has an interesting post on her blog with some insightful thoughts on the misdirected fervor of many Christians this time of year.  Some of the points may be a little overstated, but I think they're worth some reflection.

Climate Change Fiasco

Over at Helm’s Deep, Paul Helm has a post containing a letter from a David Henderson to the Daily Telegraph on the Climate Change Fiasco, elsewhere called ClimateGate, that occurred last November (2009), in which emails from the Climate Research Unit were “released”, revealing an unusual glimpse into the politics of science.  They reveal, to quote the letter, “unprofessional conduct within the process.”  This conduct includes:

Over-reliance on in-group peer review procedures which do not serve as a guarantee of quality and do not ensure due disclosure.

Serious and continuing failures of disclosure and archiving in relation to peer-reviewed studies which the [International Panel on Climate Change] and member governments have drawn on.

Continuing resistance to disclosure of basic information which reputable journals in other subject areas insist on as a precondition for acceptance.

Basic errors in the handling of data, through failure to consult or involve trained statisticians.

Failure to take due account of relevant published work which documented the above lapses, while disregarding IPCC criteria for inclusion in the review process.

Failure to take due note of comments from dissenting critics who took part in the preparation of AR4.

Resisting the disclosure of professional exchanges within the AR4 drafting process, despite the formal instruction of governments that the IPCC’s proceedings should be ‘open and transparent’.

And last but far from least

Failure on the part of the IPCC and its directing circle to acknowledge and remedy the above deficiencies, a failure which results from chronic and pervasive bias.

Shortly after ClimateGate was an interview with Dr. Phil Jones, director of Climate Research Unit, by BBC News (also referenced here and here) in which he admits that the “two previous periods of global warming, 1860-80 and 1910-1940, were similar to the period 1975-1998,” making the most recent data statistically insignificant, Jones insists that global warming is caused by human activities (Anthropogenic Global Warming).

Along separate but similar lines, ClimateGate was followed a couple months later by the abrupt resignation of a Henk Tennekes, Director of Research Emeritus at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute.  His letter of resignation can be found here in which he criticizes the structure of “Hermetic Jargon” that has been built in the scientific community to safeguard against multi-disciplinary criticism and to buttress self-made claims to esoteric knowledge:

The net effect of hermetic jargon is that outsiders cannot argue with the high priests who wield the words. They can only accept the occult writings in awe….The claims of the mainstream physics community worldwide, for example, are outrageous. All science is Physics, period, is what these priests claim. All other disciplines, including chemistry, biology, engineering and the earth sciences, are mere derivatives. Physicists glorify their Nobel prizes without ever contemplating whether the Nobel prize system might be based on a nineteenth-century assessment of the world of science.

*****

Science has grown to have enormous clout and privilege in America and in the West in general.  A defining mark of the post-industrial revolution is the widespread presupposition that science’s self-claim that it stands objective and beyond criticism with regard to it’s own presuppositions and methodologies is true and without question.  Too many more incidences like ClimateGate and the curtain may be dropped.  And to some degree it seems that it already is losing some ground as next generations are becoming more and more skeptical (over-skeptical) of any claims to knowing.  But this doesn’t mean that there is no validity to scientific method, just that today’s primary manifestation of it is another tragic instance of man’s self-pride and thirst for power.

"All Israel" and Paul's Mission

I recently got the brand new commentary on 1 Corinthians by Roy Ciampa and Brian Rosner.  It is an excellent commentary for both layperson and scholar alike and I have found every page refreshing and enjoyable thus far.  Almost (but not quite) worth the price of the book is the excellent section in the introduction that sketches Paul’s socio-cultural and theological framework.  In it the authors note the ubiquitous OT theme of God’s glory and worship: “To glorify someone is to recognize their intrinsic worth and beauty, and to speak of that feature in a public way. To glorify God is to praise or to speak of Him openly and truthfully.” Parallel to this is the theme of the Gentiles turning from idolatry and drawn to come alongside Israel and worship God.  This reaches clearest expression in Isaiah and strikingly so at the end of the book, 66:18-24:

      ¹⁸ “And I, because of what they have planned and done, am about to come and gather the people of all nations and languages, and they will come and see my glory.  ¹⁹ I will set a sign among them, and I will send some of those who survive to the nations – to Tarshish, to the Libyans and Lydians (famous as archers), to Tubal and Greece, and to the distant islands that have not heard of my fame or seen my glory. They will proclaim my glory among the nations. ²⁰ And they will bring all your people, from all the nations, to my holy mountain in Jerusalem as an offering to the LORD – on horses, in chariots and wagons, and on mules and camels,” says the LORD. “They will bring them, as the Israelites bring their grain offerings, to the temples of the LORD in ceremonially clean vessels. ²¹ And I will select some of them also to be priests and Levites,” says the LORD.

      ²² “As the new heavens and the new earth that I make will endure before me,” declares the LORD, “so will your name and descendants endure.  ²³ From one New Moon to another and from one Sabbath to another, all people will come and bow down before me,” says the LORD.

      ²⁴ “And they will go out and look on the dead bodies of those who rebelled against me; their worm will not die, nor will their fire be quenched, and they will be loathsome to the whole human race.”

Verses 18-21 in particular stand behind Romans 15:16-24 (especially v. 16) where we glean particular insight into the aims of Paul’s missionary activities, making these verses of particular importance to Paul.  I was amazed by some exegetically important features of this passage.

Note:

Vs. 18 – God declares that he himself will gather the multitudes of the nations to come a see his glory.

Vs. 19 – “them” and “those who survive” of the first and second clause respectively are formally ambiguous.  While the antecedent of “them” would naturally be the nations, “those who survive” makes no sense speaking of the nations but rather, in context of the book refers to the Jews.  So, God will send out some of the Jews who survive to the nations; even to “distant islands”.

Vv. 20, 21 – Now the next pronoun you’d think also refers to the Jews.  But it most certainly refers to Gentiles because 1) that “they will bring all your people (Heb. brothers)” when it is God speaking to the Jews suggests otherwise. If “they” are Jews, then we have “some of those who survive” who are sent by God to the nations and yet end up bringing fellow Israelites back as if that’s the focus and weight of the text. 2) V. 21 has God then choosing “some of them” to be “priests and Levites”.  If “them” at begin of v. 20 are Jews then likewise at v. 21 making v. 21 trite and of little significance or sense.  Priests and Levites were of an established lineage and would hardly require God’s choosing.

Rather, it seems best that the ingathering of the nations brings with them the “remaining” of the exiles of Israel who have been scattered to the nations by God’s judgment and these Gentiles will offer the returned exiles of Israel to God.  The offering of God’s exiled people to God by the Gentiles is likened to offering grain offerings, the fruit of labor, in ceremonially clean vessels – shocking category for Gentiles!  These Jews-returned-from-exile-by-Gentiles are a pleasing offering to God precisely by “ceremonially clean” Gentiles.

Vv. 22-24 – Moreover, God promises that the enduring of the “name and descendants” of Israel will be as that of the new creation itself; and no less this than that the endurance of their “name and descendants” is realized in all people worshipping the God of Israel.  The book ends (v. 24) on a note of perpetual judgment on those who rebel – who, elsewhere, did not listen to his word.  To affirm promise of enduring life of those who worship entails affirming enduring death for those who don’t.  Thank goodness for God’s active grace (v. 18).

*****

After all this, I was struck by how much sense Romans 11 makes after reading this text, purported by Ciampa and Rosner as a central text for Paul, and the idea of “all Israel” being saved through the “fullness of the Gentiles”.  This wasn’t some special vision of the end times given to Paul.  Paul just read his bible and understood this oracle given more than 700 years prior; and he sees himself as one of “those who survive” (Isa. 66.19) sent out by God to the nations, saving Gentiles in order to save his fellow Jews.

Along other lines, the importance of this theme makes Romans chps 1, 11, and 15 have much more of a central place in the letter than traditionally understood.