Re: Conflicts and confrontation

Ah, yes. There is that beginning business. But, it is but one
understanding that creation was ex nihilo, in part because that is the
apparent narrative of Genesis, and more so now because of the physical
evidence of the Big Bang pointing to a singularity that defies
description, let along full understanding. But even the conclusion that
this singularity poofed (what does that mean outside of time?) into
existence "from nothing" is tied to the mental space/time-constrained
model we have built of our universe. Yet we know little to nothing about
the nature of existence outside our domain of time/space.

Hence it may be a little venturesome to conclude that the beginning of
our existence started with nothing, when it is possible that the
creation act involved some sort of "state conversion" from a different
form of substance (for lack of better description) outside our sphere of
existence. In fact, it comes to mind that this might be more consistent
with the Hebrew image that Genesis 1 elicited in the minds of the
ancients (according, for example, to Dr. John Walton, OT scholar at
Wheaton) was one of God gathering up some portion of a formless,
nameless functionless "substance" of his domain, then giving it shape,
functionality, and a name, the process by which it becomes part of
Creation as we know it.

I also find the parable you mention unsettling, for a variety of
reasons. There are few thoughtful Christians who would deny that we know
so much more than we put into action with respect to our understanding
of what we are charged to do. A key perspective for me is that of
stewardship (essentially of everything - that "dominion" matter). That
makes for some interesting challenges in how to respond "to everything",
e.g., just to pick one, how to respond as an individual to the
ecology-related aspects of our charge (as I understand it), or for
another, to the grave injustices and needs in various parts of Africa.
Daunting. Quite a challenge to figure out how to stay on task (and my
understanding of what that task is has even itself evolved over time)
individually and collectively as required.

The thought for many is not only would God not hurt a flea, but also by
extension that in a perfect world, the workings of Creation would not be
hazardous either. My strong suspicion is that Creation is working just
as it was intended to function, and that is the context in which we are
to be and do. It makes the foundations for the resolute faithfulness of
Job all the more germane.

JimA

mrb22667@kansas.net wrote:

>Quoting Jim Armstrong <jarmstro@qwest.net>:
>
>
>
>>The same images of creation spoke to me in much the same way.
>>In our experiential realm, nothing "poofs" into existence or metamorphs
>>instantaneously at other than perhaps at subatomic levels.
>>
>>
>
>-- except the very beginning when something came from nothing.
>
>Do you all remember the parable about the servants who are given the talents,
>and one who fears the master goes out and buries his? That last servants
>explanation always intrigued me.
>
>"I knew that you are a hard man that reaps where he does not sow..." And the
>master never denies the servant's charges. In fact he seems to confirm them!
>"So you knew all this, did you? -- then why didn't you put it on deposit so I
>would at least have the interest?"
>
>And the servant is cast out, his meager holdings taken. I've wondered if this
>makes an apt analogy to those who have "peeked behind the curtain" with science
>to see more details of how God's creative hand has worked.
>
>"So you know that I didn't directly speak all species into being, but let my
>creation unfold with untold millions of generations of life and death, cruelty
>and beauty unfold into the present? So why didn't you put your knowledge to
>work to glorify my name?"
>
>Did the first servants not know their master as well as the last one? Given the
>outcome I would find that doubtful. But they didn't let any hangups they had
>about it compromise their mission for their master. This is one parable that
>causes me to question our insistence that God is always a kind of gentle and
>loving Grandpa who wouldn't hurt a flea. Ironically it was from the man who
>"wouldn't break a bent reed" that we have this story.
>
>--merv
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Tue Jun 6 17:24:54 2006