His master said to him, Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master. Matthew 25:21 (ESV)

And the King will answer them, Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me. Matthew 25:40 (ESV)

Recently I read an article in the New York Times (also here and here) about Gandhi and how he wasn’t quite as saintly as he has been made to appear. He treated a great-niece horribly and had all kinds of moral failures. Not that I am perfect or even better than he was, but it made me ask some new questions.

If you do great things, does it matter if you are impossible to live with? If you win great prizes but cheat on your wife, does God care? From the verses above, I would say that God does care about those little things. Even if you do great things for God but don’t take care of the little things, God is not impressed. It seems that God wants us to be faithful in the minutiae before we go on to great things. God’s work is the tiny grindings (my brakes have been giving me trouble recently).

Is God OCD? Is God more concerned about the great-niece than the swarming masses who need justice? Do we limit the effectiveness of great men by requiring moral stability before action? Where is the grace of God in all of this?

I work for an Amish crew who install tile. Other crews in the company do trim work. Their work is meticulous and they do it impeccably. It is the small things: making sure the floor is level, your lines are straight, your measurements are accurate that determine how a large job looks when finished. It is the prep, the execution, the questioning, the constant re-evaluation that yields a superior product.

I wonder if the same is true of our Christian life. Other people will take shortcuts in doing the job of social change. The Christian is called to be meticulous, exacting, honest, integral. It takes longer to develop character, to learn to act in love and forgiveness than to slap together a social program. Yet in the end, the Christian’s work smells of integrity, quality, agape. We could finish our job quickly, do the work without thought. But our work will not last, it will fade and crumble. To build for eternity, we must be diligent in the small things.

I think, though, that we need to be careful about this type of thinking. It can lead to a morbid sense of worthlessness, a paralysis of the soul. We can spend all of our time thinking about how we are not worthy or capable of doing the work in the best way possible. We end up not doing it because we are afraid of getting it wrong. We must have the courage to try, and fail.

The criterion of truth is success. Even Christian apologetics is infected with it; it sometimes attempts to prove the power of Christianity by demonstrating its effectiveness, by the victories which it assures in life. This is a theology of success and not a theology of the Cross. All this is related to our Darwinian conception of nature, according to which the strong will always devour the weak and the truth will be destroyed if we are not strong enough to defend it.

Paul Tournier, The Whole Person in a Broken World

What I find so ironic is that those that rail hardest on evolution and Darwin seem to be the most succeptible to its philosophical underpinnings. What troubles me about evolutionists is not their belief that the world is old but their belief that human life is determined by the power of the strong. This fits well with Nietche’s will to power. Might makes right.

While Christians would be quick to point out that they disagree with such a belief system, they unwittingly fall into the same thought patterns. Christian leaders are judged by the size of their church or the number of bestsellers they have written. We listen more closely to the teachings of the rich leader than the humble servant. We revere such men of God as Oswald Chambers, A.W. Tozer and Dietrich Bonhoeffer but fail to realize that they were minimal successes in their day. Are we looking for such leaders today? Or are we satisfied with whoever can write the latest "Be a Christian Success Story"?

Chasing after power and influence are clearly seen in how we try to change our society. We look to politicians for the answers to our woes. Whether it is voting for the next great Tea Party candidate or the liberal agent of change, our hope is in the political system to save our society. What about the inner city missions, soup kitchens, halfway houses and all other kinds of grassroots social programs that are in the church? Do they not offer a more immediate and long-lasting solution to our society’s ills? Change will not come through powerful mandates (though they might be useful), but through humble service to our fellow humans.

Before I get too far off track in my socio-political ramblings, I see this will to power in my own life. When I become angry with my family, when I am dissatisfied with the growth of our church, when my career plans fail, when I track how many people view my blog, I see that I have bought into the power structure. I long to support the weak but too often power is more enticing. I want to help others but my own desires for comfort get in the way.

Lord save me from myself. Lord save us from ourselves.

The (state of) vacancy should be brought to the utmost degree, and that of stillness guarded with unwearying vigour.

All things alike go through their processes of activity, and (then) we see them return (to their original state).

When things (in the vegetable world) have displayed their luxuriant growth, we see each of them return to its root.

This returning to their root is what we call the state of stillness; and that stillness may be called a reporting that they have fulfilled their appointed end.

The report of that fulfilment is the regular, unchanging rule.

To know that unchanging rule is to be intelligent; not to know it leads to wild movements and evil issues.

The knowledge of that unchanging rule produces a (grand) capacity and forbearance, and that capacity and forbearance lead to a community (of feeling with all things).

From this community of feeling comes a kingliness of character; and he who is king-like goes on to be heaven-like.

In that likeness to heaven he possesses the Tao.

Possessed of the Tao, he endures long; and to the end of his bodily life, is exempt from all danger of decay. – Tao Te Ching, 16

I need to be careful in my pairings of Scripture and the Tao. It can lead to false senses of dichotomy or consensus. This passage leaves me with a feeling that I may get it wrong. The Tao seems to be saying here that life returns to a state of stillness, what I would call "dormancy" or possibly "death". After a time of wonderful growth, there is a time that things return to their root. This sense of stillness is then the source of intelligence (wisdom?). After this knowledge of the stillness of things, comes a sense of unity with all things. From this unity, comes a kingly character that matures into heavenliness. This heavenliness possesses the Tao (or Way).

I’m not sure if there is something in the Bible that is analogous to this. But here are some Scriptures that come to mind:

Be still, and know that I am God.

I will be exalted among the nations,

I will be exalted in the earth! Psalm 46:10 (ESV)

So teach us to number our days

that we may get a heart of wisdom. Psalm 90:12 (ESV)

The grass withers, the flower fades,

but the word of our God will stand forever. Isaiah 40:8 (ESV)

These Scriptures point to the same type of contemplation of the end of things: "Look at that flower and see how it dies." "Think about how short your life is." This contemplation of the end seems to lead to wisdom (Psalm 90) but also points beyond the natural world to the God who created it. The stillness is then in the knowledge of God (Psalm 46) and perhaps His word (Isaiah 40).

I don’t know if this passage from the Te Ching is anyway referring to reincarnation. The stillness refers to the period that roughly equates to winter. Is there an implication of the return of spring? If so, then it is not so much the end of things but perhaps the end of a cycle of things. If that is the case, perhaps a better comparison would be the Book of Ecclesiastes where our lives are seen in the bigger picture of the cycle of life and death.

Again, I think that both traditions would say that there is value in the contemplation of the end. Seeing our end as relating to the end of all things in nature helps to ground us in humility. Both would say that this contemplation yields a kind of wisdom. Again the Bible seems to suggest the union is not with the natural order but with God. I would say that as we are united with God, we live in union with His creation. So there is some union with nature in Christianity. The contemplation of the end of things in the Tao and the Bible seem to agree on the benefits though with some difference in what the benefits are and the object of such contemplation is.

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.

The Violence of Love, Oscar Romero

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.

DDH-anon.pdf

One of my favorite photos from our recent trip to Lake Erie.