mennonite monk

I decided after starting to write a comment on my last post that it needed more than just a few lines to answer some of the questions that were raised in the comments.

My basic point is that I am willing to live not knowing exactly how God created the universe. Let me work through this in several ways:

Inerrancy of Scripture – I believe in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 – that Scripture is God-breathed or inspired. But notice the purpose for the inspired Scripture – to teach, rebuke, correct, train in righteousness. The purpose is to make us righteous and equipped for good work.

Interpretation of Scripture – Scripture is complete and will not lead us astray. It is inerrant – without error. The question for me becomes – how do we interpret it? Jesus was asked which is the greatest commandment. He responded with "How do you read it"? In other words, Jesus asks for someone’s interpretation of Scripture. Everyone has an interpretation of Scripture. Some are reasonable, some are most probably correct, some are just plain goofy (think David Koresh and the weird cults). Some even though they are contradictory with my views are well within a reasonable interpretation. That is why were are encouraged to "rightly divide the word of truth". It is not enough to have the Bible: we must rightly interpret it.

This of course leads me to the issues of Genesis 1 and 2. How do we interpret the creation account? There are several tools that we should use to understand this (and all Scripture):

• Genre – Is it a poem? Is it history? Is it philosophy? I read a book of fiction differently than a car repair manual. In fiction, truth is not about exact facts but about the ideas. A car repair manual is meant to be very practical and I would be very upset to be in the middle of my engine and find out that they were speaking fiction.
• Context – When was it written? Who wrote it? Why did they write it? What were the customs and traditions of the time? These questions are fair even if we are dealing with Scripture. Sure God said it, but why did He say it?
• Language difficulties – We have one word for love; the Greeks had many (I don’t remember how many but there are 3 main ones). We say we love our spouses, our dog, our parents, and ice cream. We mean a different love for each of them but it is all one word. Then there is the problem that a word in the Greek or Hebrew does not have an English equivalent or that there is more than one possible word.
• Cultural differences – How do we understand a woman’s head covering? Is it meant for all times in every situation or was it meant only for their society? A lot of the Bible deals with agricultural societies. If I never farmed (and I haven’t), a lot of the imagery of the Bible is lost on me. Do I know what it was like to live in Babylon during the exile?
• Reality – Does God’s Word contradict His creation? No. Somewhere, somehow they coincide. We have to be careful to not overinterpret/ misinterpret on this point but it does need to be dealt with.
• Reason – Jesus said that we should cut of our hand if it offends us. Yet very few of us take this literally. We use our reason to understand the Bible. Reason can be deceptive but it can be powerfully useful. Our ability to think enables us to fulfill the command to rightly divide the word of truth.
• Other things that I can’t think of right now

With Genesis 1 and 2, there are some issues that must be dealt with. I covered some of them in my first post but I will list some of them here:

• When were plants created? In Genesis 1, plants are created on the thrid day, animals on the fifth, man on the sixth. In Genesis 2, plants and animals are created after Adam but before Eve. I understand that there are ways to reconcile this textually but is the textual reconciliation correct? Are we forcing God’s Word into our understanding? If this was the only difficulty in the passage, it would be reasonable to assume that the verb should be translated differently. But with the other issues, perhaps we need to be open to other possibilities.
• The firmament – In Genesis 1:6, there is a reference to the firmament, the waters above. The concept of the firmament is that of a large body of water, like an ocean, suspended above the earth. Some feel that the firmament collapsed in the flood, thus we no longer have a firmament. Is it possible that there are other explanations for the firmament? Perhaps, it is a figure of speech like "four corners of the earth" which doesn’t mean that the earth is flat but it means "the entirety of the earth".
• When were Adam and Eve created? Again, Genesis 1 has Adam and Eve being created at the same time in the image of God. In Genesis 2, Adam is created by the breath of God and later Eve is created from man. Whole theories of sexuality and the subjection of women have occurred due to interpretations of these Scriptures.
• Who was Cain’s wife? I know that this is a little later but in Genesis 4:7, Cain marries a woman. Where did she come from? Was she a sister? Does the Bible condone incest? Would Adam and Eve allow a murderous brother to marry a daughter of theirs? If not a sister, who are her parents?
• Fossil record – What do we do with fossils that are dated to millions of years old? Perhaps the methodology is completely wrong. Perhaps scientists are forcing the results into their understanding. Perhaps they are really that old. If fossils are that old, how do the young earth creationists reconcile a 6000 year old earth with million year old fossils on that earth? If God put old fossils on a young earth, why did He do it? To me that would make God deceptive, and God is truth.
• Elohim vs. Yahweh – In Genesis 1 God is referred to with the word "Elohim". In chapter 2, He is "Yahweh Elohim". Why the different terms for God in the two chapters? It could be that the author was trying to stress different qualities of God in the two accounts. Or it could be that they were written by two authors. I don’t know which is right but both are reasonable.
• Genesis 2:4. "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens." Here in this verse, God created heavens and earth in one day. Wasn’t it 6? At best, Genesis 1 says that the heavens were created on day 2 and the earth on day 3.

Major views of how to understand the creation account:

1. Literal interpretation – God created the universe in 6 days about 6000 years ago.
2. Double creation – Genesis 1:1 speaks of a first creation that somehow ended (extinction of the dinosaurs?) then a second creation begins in verse 2. There is room for this in the Hebrew language. There is room for billions of years.
3. Days as eras – the word for "day" is "yome" in Hebrew. It can mean day, year, or age (as in era). I could be wrong but I believe that Genesis 1 and 2 are the only places that yome is translated day. Could the six days be six eras that lasted a long time? There is room for the Big Bang and evolution in this theory. Remember, one day is like a thousand years to the Lord.
4. A counter argument to other creation stories – Other ancient civilizations had creation stories that explain why the world is the way it is. I believe the Enuma Elish describes a very violent creation story where the gods are at war. The earth is seen as evil and humans are seen as corrupt offspring of the gods. The Genesis accounts could be a way of describing the world as God wanted it – the earth is good, humanity is very good but our sinful, prideful decisions have led to trouble in the world. It was a way to argue against the false stories that other societies were telling.
5. I’m sure there are other understandings of the creation account but I am not remembering them or I don’t know of them.

I find myself looking at all of these questions and finding it impossible to say that one interpretation is absolutely correct and all the others are false. Could God have created the earth in 6 days about 6000 years ago? Absolutely. Did He instead take billions of years? I can’t say. But instead of saying that it must be one way or the other, I leave it up to God. I don’t know how God intended Genesis 1 and 2 to be understood. Each interpretation has its strengths and weaknesses. None is a clear winner in my mind. This is what led to my conclusion that I must live in the mystery of creation – it remains unknown to me. However, I do believe that God is the Creator of all. It was not by accident or coincidence.

I haven’t gone into any depth on anything I said in this post. There is a lot more to consider but I hope this gives an overview of my faith. I don’t live knowing everything about God, but I trust in His goodness and mercy on a miserable little human, me.

Stephen Hebert has some good comments about the non-literal understanding of the Creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2. I have long had a hard time reconciling the two creation accounts. I definitely began my life as a 6 day creationist. In college, I was challenged to examine this belief but found a way to remain 6 day. But as I have continued to look at the Scriptures and various witnesses through the ages, my sure-mindedness has faded. Like Stephen mentioned, various early Christian writers, like Augustine, did not believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2. Contemporary writers offered various reasons to question my literal ways.

But most important in changing my mind were two sources: the Big Bang and the text itself. A Catholic priest was the first to suggest the Big Bang theory. I find this theory to be beautiful and compelling. Thinking of God creating out of nothing (ex nihilo) and setting the exact parameters needed for the creation of the universe, not to strong of a “Bang” or it dissolves into nothing, not to weak or it collapses in on itself, is exciting and inspiring. The Big Bang has the beauty of Scripture and the ring of truth.

Second, Genesis 1 and 2 do not support an easy interpretation. The six days of chapter 1 don’t allow for some of the chronology of chapter 2. It is clear that the two versions of the creation story came from different people, if not traditions. Were Adam and Eve created at the same time as in chapter 1 or at two different times like chapter 2? What is the character of woman? Part of the image of God as in chapter 1 or part of man as in chapter 2? Were only two humans created or is there the possibility of more than two? More and more the text seems to be some sort of metaphor or accomodation, as Mr. Hebert suggests.

Having said all of that, science is not absolute. I don’t take an infallible view of science. Science is just the best speculation based upon the best evidence available. It is very accurate for the things that it has figured out but it cannot tell us the meaning of life. Facts do not explain everything. And scientific facts change with new evidence.

Mystery no longer scares me. I do not need to understand the ways of God to trust Him. Science is not a god that spouts irrefutable truths. But somewhere in the mystery of God and the mutability of Science lies the truth about creation. It is not easily seen, nor do I believe that it is meant to be.

Recently I had a conversation about the nature of the Christian life. When we are saved do we continue to sin or are we completely free from sin? Here are some of my thoughts on the subject.

There are basically two thought processes:

I am a sinner. This viewpoint comes from Scriptures such as:

I John 1:8-9 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

I Timothy 1:15 The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost.

II Timothy 2:11-13 The saying is trustworthy, for: If we have died with him, we will also live with him; if we endure, we will also reign with him; if we deny him, he also will deny us; if we are faithless, he remains faithful— for he cannot deny himself.

Romans 7:17-20 So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.

I am a saint. Again this viewpoint has its basis in Scripture:

Romans 6:6-9 We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. For one who has died has been set free from sin. Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. We know that Christ being raised from the dead will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him.

Galatians 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

I John 2:1 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.

II Corinthians 5:17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.

Both sides have plenty of Scripture to back up their argument. And as such, I must somehow hold onto the truth of all Scripture, not just the ones I like or agree with.

Here are my concerns with each argument:

I am a sinner. Jesus did not die to leave us in our sins and just provide heaven for those who wishfully believe in Him. If we just believe we are a sinner, we can neglect the path of righteousness. Salvation becomes cheap grace. Believed enough, the church begins to look a whole lot like the world – in fact, it is just the world dressed in religious garb.

I am a saint. If we are to live sinless lives, there is an incredible pressure to act and be sinless. To me, this is a form of the law. We try to live perfectly because that is what we are supposed to be. It can be used as a guise for self-righteousness or a way to excuse sin. (If I am perfect then that nasty mean thing I just said must not be sin). We do a lot of rationalizing of sin so that we can appear to be perfect in Christ.

For me this leaves me one option: I must be both sinner and saint. But this definition does not add any clarity since it can sway to either end: sinner or saint. Am I mostly sinner and a little saint or the reverse? Personally, I haven’t completely worked this out theologically but somehow Scripture says both, I must believe both. But here is the best of how I understand it.

The children of Israel left the land of slavery and wandered in the desert for 40 years. After they entered the promised land, they conquered the people occupying the land. But they only conquered the major cities: there were other cities that were not destroyed. The Bible then says that God did it this way because the people were not strong or numerous enough to fully occupy the land. If they completely destroyed the occupying peoples, wild animals would overrun the land and kill the people.

I believe that we are spiritually like that in someways. When Christ saves us, He enacts all of the promises of God. We are a changed person. We are a new creation. There is sin that no longer has control of us. We die with Christ and are raised with Him to newness of life. I believe this type of new creation involves deliverance from every and all gross sin. There is a marked difference between the lives that the world lives and the saints live.

But there are still unconquered territories. There are areas where we are not in full conformity with the mind of Christ. This is the continual process of dying to self, the life of walking in the Spirit. As we grow and mature in Christ, He brings us to these unconquered areas and in His strength, His life, we conquer these areas. We grow more into the image of Christ. This is not our work but the work of the Spirit to continually prepare us to be the spotless bride of Christ. God works into us what Christ has won for us.

For the time, we must endure these unconquered territories. They in some ways are a sign of the grace of God in our lives – because perfection is not perfected in us, He still remains faithful to us. He loves us even while we are an unfinished work. We cannot be presumptuous and try to conquer territories in our own time or strength. We will meet with humiliating defeat. It must be according to the timing, guiding and power of the Holy Spirit. Life in the Spirit is both an act of Christ’s righteousness (saint) and grace (sinner). At the same time, we must remain in the Spirit and move when He wants us to.

Another aspect of the sinner/saint dichotomy is that of reality and potential. The reality is that I am saint of God because of the work of Jesus in my life, past and present. The potential is that I am a sinner if Jesus was not working in my life. This is where I was speaking in the sermon about the chief of sinners. We need to humbly recognize that the work of Christ in our lives is totally of God and not us. We should remember our potential for evil, apart from Christ, so that we do not become proud.

Sometimes we feel that we are not as bad as other people, forgetting that Christ has done the work. We spend our time looking at the sins of others. I believe the saying in 1 Timothy is meant to be a sign of humility, in that we spend more time looking on our past sinfulness and present potential sinfulness than at others’ sins. We need to consider ourselves as the chief of sinners, instead of pointing our fingers at others.

I can’t believe that Paul is speaking only about himself as someone uniquely sinful. I see Paul being humble enough to consider himself the most sinful for the sake not being overly critical of others. Paul realized that grace can be extended to all.

If saying that I am the worst of sinners is to deny the work of Christ in my life, then Paul was also denying the power of Christ in his life. When we say that sin is no more present in the Christian life, aren’t we saying that we are better than Paul (if the verse applies uniquely to him)? How can the man who said “I am crucified with Christ” also say “I am the worst of sinners”? I believe that it is because he lives his life in Christ but knows that he is still capable of sinning, still struggles with some sin and, apart from Christ, could again be the worst sinner.