Ken writes:
> But my questions really were trying to get
> at something else - not so much how Gen. 1-11 got into the Bible in the
> first place - but why is it there today? What is the meaning of Gen 1-11
> (esp. Gen 1-3) for 21st century Christians? I know how "literalists"
> understand these texts since I was raised in an environment that assumed
> the literalism of these chapters. But since a literal reading of these
> verses seems quite out of kilter with nearly everything science has
> taught us about earth's history, I am interested in finding out if these
> texts carry any message at all for Christians today, and if so what is
> it?
Some thoughts regarding what "message" there might be in Genesis 1-11 "to
all Christians today":
1. There is in Genesis 1-11, obviously, a valuable sample of how the Hebrews
of 3 or 4 millennia ago applied their experience of the divine presence to
their reflections on:
(a) the character of deity (God is One, not many, as believed by the
Babylonians; God is Creator, the Source of the being of all else; God is the
Source of moral standards and expects humans to live by those standards; and
similar fundamental concepts....)
(b) the character of humanity (we are creatures who owe their being to God;
we are morally responsible; we are God's "image bearers," which some take to
be God's "representatives" on earth, others to be the holder of "God-like
qualities"; we are, contrary to prevailing Babylonian belief, not mere
slaves of the lesser gods but creatures intended to be in communion with the
One God; and similar fundamental concepts....)
(c) the character of the world of our environment (it is not itself a
collection of capricious deities, but is a Creation that was given being by
the One Creator; it is not to be feared as the locus of powers that are
inherently evil; it deserve our best efforts of caring stewardship; it is
equipped to meet our physical needs; and similar fundamental concepts....)
2. The significance and boldness of these concepts can best be seen in the
way in which they contrast to the prevailing polytheism of Israel's cultural
& religious context. Without knowing something of that context, the agenda
of Genesis 1-11 will likely be misunderstood and our contemporary agenda put
in its place.
3. Are we called or required to adopt precisely those same concepts today as
we seek to articulate our concepts of God, humanity and the universe? Are we
required to "talk the same talk" (use the same conceptual vocabulary) as did
the Hebrews more than three millennia ago? Must our theologizing about God,
humanity and the universe be drawn exclusively from the ancient canon, even
though it was written in a radically different conceptual vocabulary and
with a very limited knowledge base? Many take this to be the path to the
higher moral ground.
4. Or are called to "do as the Hebrews did" as we apply our experience of
the divine presence to our reflections on the character of God, the
character of humanity, and the character of the world of our environment?
Would it be responsible on our part to limit the source of our theological
data to only what can be found in the ancient canon, or should we do as the
Hebrews did and employ the _whole_ of our experience of the divine presence
(which includes, but is not limited to, what the biblical text contains) as
we reflect on these profound and fundamental matters? Should we employ the
conceptual vocabulary and knowledge base of our own time and place in these
reflections?
5. I am of a mind to say that much of our argumentation arises when we
insist on "saying as they said" instead of having the courage and confidence
to "do as they did." A canon from the past can be a valuable asset, but
absolutizing it (perhaps as a once-and-for-all-time "message" directly from
God) to serve as the sole or final source of concepts to be memorized and
recited as the definitive answers to fundamental religious questions is, I
suggest, not taking the path to higher moral ground.
6. "Doing as they did" is a lot more work than "saying as they said," but I
think it has to be done. "Doing as they did" means that we must live with
far more uncertainty that is evident in the "saying as they said" approach,
but I think we must learn to live with that uncertainty, which means that we
have to practice a fair amount of epistemic humility.
Sincerely, but still in training for epistemic humility,
Howard Van Till
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 22 2001 - 11:50:57 EST