Christianity 201

February 12, 2014

Where Our Story Begins…

I Cor. 13:12

  • For now we see through a glass, darkly… (KJV)
  • We don’t yet see things clearly. We’re squinting in a fog, peering through a mist… (Message)
  • Now we see only a dim likeness of things… (NIrV)
  • Now we see things imperfectly, like puzzling reflections in a mirror… (NLT)
  • Now it is like looking in a looking-glass which does not make things clear… (Weymouth)

Last night we listened to two very different podcasts, both discussing the question of origins, a topic which has been on many peoples’ minds much because of a debate that took place last week between a young-earth creationist and an evolutionist from the scientific community. The word Genesis means beginnings and the question of “how we got here” has intrigued humans throughout history.

Genesis 3:21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib  he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

23 The man said,

“This is now bone of my bones
    and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
    for she was taken out of man.”

The first podcast introduced the idea that Adam was somehow an intersex person. For some of you this may be a new word, but think of the word hermaphrodite  which is less commonly used, and you’ve got the idea. The speaker, a respected pastor teaching a course at a Bible college suggested that God basically removed the femininity from Adam and left him entirely masculine. Bet you never heard that before.

Genesis 4: 17 Cain made love to his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch. Cain was then building a city, and he named it after his son Enoch.

The second podcast has an idea you might have heard, namely that Adam was simply one among many and that this answers the question of how the earth became populated so quickly and how Cain would have built a city and who would live and work in that city. So far as that goes it makes sense, but it raises more theological problems than anthropological problems, the least of which is the introduction of sin and death into the world, especially in the way we understand this taught in Romans.

It can be bewildering to consider all these things, and given all the discussions that have been taking place online in the past 7 or 8 days, it’s possible you’ve found yourself in the middle of one.

So what is our Genesis? Where does the story begin for us if we’re “seeing through a glass darkly” when it comes to the big-picture origins of life?

I love how Mark opens his writing, and it’s significant because Mark is considered the earliest (first written) among the gospels:

  • The beginning of the good news about Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God (NIV)
  • The good news of Jesus Christ—the Message!—begins here (Message)
  • Here begins the wonderful story of Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God. (Living Bible)

We don’t know fully — and will never know — what happened in the days, years or eras that followed God’s proclamation “Let there be light;” but can know the author of creation personally, even if he doesn’t let us in on all his secrets, or help us unravel the vast number of theories that both believers and non-believers have concocted to attempt to explain things.

Here are two verses that should be part of your answer to people ask you (I Peter 3:15) about the origins of life; here’s where our story begins:

John3:19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world…

Col. 1:16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.

November 9, 2011

The Front of the Book

If we’re honest, most of the tensions and debate within some Christian circles are concerned with issues arising out of the front of the book (Genesis) and the back of the book (Revelation).  Not that the 64 books in-between don’t also present their share of challenges; such is the nature of ‘seeing through a glass darkly;’ the last word, darkly, surprisingly accepted by my spell-checker.

When it comes to the front of the book, much ink has been spilled and much fellowship has been fractured by division between young earth creationists and old earth creationists.   Websites like Answers in Genesis and Answers in Creation present the two sides to the debate; while bookstore shelves can be confusing since all the books sit — generally alphabetically — in a single section called “Creation Science” or as a subset of the apologetics section.  If your church wants to have an evening or a weekend where this issue is presented, it’s entirely possible to book a speaker or ministry team and overlook checking which side of the discussion they subscribe to.

Old earth creationism also allows for the possibility of what’s called theistic evolution; or the idea that evolution was the means God used to bring us to the point where we find ourselves now, or what we could term ‘the age of man.’  My personal belief is that I can accept the idea that the ‘days’ of Genesis 1 are not necessarily literal, I can accept the idea that much of Genesis 1 and 2 are somewhat poetic in nature, trying to explain something so far beyond our understanding, just as words can’t describe the vision John experienced described at the back of the book.  I just think there are too many flaws — both scientific and theological — in evolutionary theory to go down that road.

But not all old earth creationists believe in theistic evolution, which makes for a bit of a divide within their community.

Still, the idea of a 6,000 year-old earth with an apparent age — the view I long subscribed to — is equally tenuous when you go out in the evening and look at stars, the light from which may have originated more than 6,000 years ago.

Does it matter?

I think that believers who are trying to understand the nature of God — to really know him — should be asking themselves questions on this issue from time to time.   It should neither be an obsession nor should it be a concern if we can’t fathom all the nuances of creation; but it should be somewhere on our radar.  In fact, I believe our idea who God is will actually shape our opinion on some of the facets of this kind of discussion.

Why mention this today?

I was reminded that this discussion rages on while stopping by Internet Monk, one of the longest running Christian blogs, and certainly a very Christianity 201-ish (or 301-ish) place for deeper discussion.   A recent item there looked at the responses of Peter Enns to an interview that Albert Mohler — a young-earth, six-day creationist — did on National Public Radio; responses by Enns which included this one and this one.

Enns writes:

I am writing, rather, for the sake of those who are living with the consequences of what Mohler says they must believe–those who feel trapped in Mohler’s either/or rhetoric, that to question a literal interpretation of Scripture concerning creation puts one on the path to apostasy.

I find the phrase ‘path to apostasy’ particularly intriguing.  Does a ‘liberalization’ of our view on this subject put other doctrinal understanding at risk?  Does it change our doctrine of man, our doctrine of the nature of God, and perhaps even affect our doctrine of salvation? Or does this issue stand apart from other theological implications.