I believe that, in the church, we are at an historic juncture. In the middle of a societal shift the vastness of which will not be appreciated for a hundred years, we must re-define what we see as truth. The church will lose its ability to communicate the Gospel effectively if we pastors do not help our people do this important work.
In my own context, I am teaching Genesis 1-11 as something other than historical prose narrative. These texts, by a few authors writing at various times, are commentaries on who we are as people, polemic against Babylonian religion, warnings and encouragements to human beings in all contexts. They are certainly not historical or scientific texts. Biblical studies has known this for many years. Evangelical Christians must be given this knowledge as well.
This knowledge frees us to do two things. First, we can lift the true meaning out of the text. Rather than asking why Eve wanted that apple so badly, we can ask ourselves why it is that the knowledge of good and evil hasn’t stopped us making evil choices. Rather than asking from whence Cain’s wife, we can ask what it is in us that makes us jealous of our brother, and we can reflect on the fact that jealousy kills and curses us.
Second, reading texts such as Genesis 1-11 and Revelation as something other than science or history allows Christian people to dialogue with science in a meaningful way. We no longer have to defend a young earth. Science tells us the earth is millions of years old, and nothing in the Bible tells us otherwise. The earth is certainly older than 5,000 years, and that is no threat to my faith if I know that the creation text is more parable than scientific history.
We must be careful, however. Genesis 1-11 is true. God created. A loving God, who called creation ‘very good.’ And we have been given stewardship of God’s creation, with all its rights and responsibilities. All these things are true. But these say nothing about the method of creation, nor should we. That is not for religion to discover. Science will do that work. The church must listen to science and psychology and other fields of knowledge while proclaiming the timeless truth that our creator-God comes to us always in Jesus and in all of creation.
In my small rural context, I have come across more than one person who has told me they would be Christian if they could only be allowed to believe that the Bible isn’t all historically and scientifically, and sometimes theologically, accurate. These are good people. God’s people. I teach Scripture as non-historical-prose-narrative for them and others like them.
However, the beauty of my experience is that as I have taught even Genesis 1-11, most in my rural evangelical church have been accepting of this ‘new’ way of viewing Scripture. Some have been shaken to their foundation, and I must love those people on their journey. We pastors are often told that if we share what we learned in seminary with our churches, they’ll have us out on our ears. That is a lie pushed on us by those who would have security over truth, a job over integrity.
If you are a pastor, be a pastor! May we not teach the Mayberry series to avoid facing the gritty work of change and truth. Love your people through this tough process. I am receiving the reward of hearts and minds transformed as I face this change in my own context. People stay after Bible study and discuss scripture rather than the football game or the crops! What a joy to watch Christians reflect on their faith in a meaningful way!
I may, in the end, ‘die’ at the hands of fundamentalist denominational officials who would preserve the status quo. If so, I have lived and died in this place for something that has meaning, and that is a life to be envied, not pitied.
Outstanding post, AB. I’m interested in reading some of your work on this series. Any place to read them, or will you be posting more periodically?
I could e-mail you a couple of the lessons for your perousal. It’s just notes and a handout, but you would have the general idea. Just e-mail me at psnaz@comcast.net and I’ll reply with an attachment.
It’s about time you publish another article!
I check about once a week to see if you’ve written anything, because I enjoy reading what you’ve written.
Wow. This is a lightning rod of a topic. I’ve been pondering issues related to Genesis 1-11 for about the last year and half. Before that time, I would have thought your point of view was heresy, but after doing research on the subject I find myself holding a similar opinion.
There any many questions that can be raised from Genesis 1-11 that can make Christians very uncomfortable.
When did sin and free-will really start? It had to start before Adam and Eve, since Satan was able to rebel against God.
From where did sin and evil originate? God had to have created it, otherwise something would exist outside of His creation. Sin cannot be defined as the absence of God, since we believe that God is omni-present.
In my studying of the “Literal 7 day creation vs. evolution vs. progressive creationism” debate, I have found that it is very hard to sift through all sides involved and get the truth. All sides put their spin on the truth. Literal creationists cite biblical authorities who say that the text must be taken literally. However, these biblical authorities have their own world-view which influences how they interpret the Bible. Other individuals mention the fact that Hebrew does not contain as many words as English, and that there are ambiguities in the original Hebrew.
Although I haven’t been to seminary, I remember sitting in a Bible I class at Olivet Nazarene University. We were studying the Exodus and the professor mentioned that portions of the Bible may have been misinterpreted because the Israelites may have cross the “Sea of Reeds”, instead of the Red Sea. I remember that thought shook me, because that was the first time I had heard that something in the Bible might be wrong.
When I was younger, I had many resources regarding the evidence against evolution. During my research, I also found that many of the arguments I used in my “Literal-7-Day-Creation” days have been disproved by science, and some of the arguments I had been taught were from creationists taking other scientists out of context in an attempt to prove the creationist point of view. The level of deception I found made me feel disenfranchised toward creationists and Christianity altogether. Here were Christians, who were using deception, in an attempt to prove their interpretation of Genesis.
After extensive research and much soul searching (and prayers from my parents), I came to a similar conclusion as you….it does not matter HOW God created, it only matters that He DID.
Looking back on my crisis-of-faith experience, I believe that having been taught a literal interpretation of Genesis caused my crisis of faith. I will probably teach my sons a more open version of Genesis.
Great to hear from you, Dan. Hope all’s well with you and yours out on the Hamlin compound.
I used Genesis as an example, but I think the future of the church is in seeing the entire Bible as inspired, but written by human beings. The Church of the Nazarene, in fact, teaches this view. And so, we can see in many places, including Leviticus, the Gospels and Romans, the influence of first-century culture on the authors. Then, we can decide, with our God-given intellect, what can be applied and what cannot. It sounds controversial, but really it can be traced back to John Wesley (the Wesleyan Quadrilateral) and before.
And the Genesis thing is anything but original or new. There was a second-century scholar who asked, ‘how is it that there were days in the Genesis 1 account BEFORE God created the sun and moon?’ Like you’ve implied, when we switch on our intellect and read Genesis, we discover not a history or science text, but a beautiful text about God, written by an inspired human being.
I completely agree with you, however, there are fundamentalists (of which I *was* one) who will bring up the slippery-slope argument. They state that one must believe the Bible (and Genesis in particular) literally. One particular ministry, Answers in Genesis, comes to mind. Of course, then one would ask “At what point do we stop reading it literally?” If we read it all literally, we’d have a number of people with their hands cut off and their eyes poked out (If your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off….etc).
For fundamentalists, changing their view of scripture can be a very scary exercise. Faith is such a deep part of what a person is, that when confronted with ideas, beliefs, and truth contrary to what you believe, it’s easier and safer to reject the new ideas than to change your world-view.
The ideas you’ve presented in this blog would certainly shake the fundamentalists.
Personally, I’d rather hear truth, no matter how uncomfortable, than try and maintain the status quo.
Hopefully you won’t “‘die’ at the hands of fundamentalist denominational officials”!
Mr. Hamlin referenced him, but what do you think of Ken Ham over at Answers in Genesis, and how does his interpretation of Genesis compare to what you are working on? I remember back in the day that he was an important source for many of the brethren concerning creationism, etc., so I was just wondering if you’d looked into any of his materials. Peace!
‘Answers in Genesis’ is an attempt to hold together a fundamentalist view of Genesis in the face of scientific evidence to the contrary. I think it leads to comfort for those who do not wish to challenge their view of scripture but who do wrestle with the problems scientific discovery poses to fundamentalism. In short, I think it’s a house of mirrors that has no real value to the thinking believer.
I came across your article on a google search. I’m a Trevecca grad, and I thought I’d leave a comment.
Your article is good, but it doesn’t ‘redefine truth’. It only suggests a particular way one should approach Scripture. Should ‘truth’ be reduced to a particular view of Scripture? I agree with your view of Scripture, that is wasn’t written for the purpose of science or history. Rather, it is merely the confession of a community of faith.
However, the Church is One not because it claims that a particular view of Scripture is true amidst the many, but it is One because it confesses that Christ is Lord. Since the Protestant Reformation, the Church has developed a tolerance level for difference in opinions. When it comes to Scripture, there are many views. The view that you and I share is not ‘redefining truth’. It’s just one way.
In your context, however, maybe people are longing for a deeper understanding. That’s a good thing.
Good to meet you, Brent.
Perhaps the difference is that we need to redefine what we see as truth rather than what really is truth.
very interesting. i’m adding in RSS Reader