May 14, 2017 5th Sunday of Easter Genesis
2:14-25
Last Monday the
radio talk show by WXXI, Connections with Evan Dawson, featured a debate over
faith and science. Guests were Dan
Courtney, an atheist activist in Rochester and The Rev. Eric Thompson, pastor
of St. Peter’s Episcopal Church in Dansville.
Overall I felt the conversation went poorly, and it started off with the
question that to have faith, or to believe something without (or in spite of)
evidence, do we risk raising kids to be poor reasoners? Dan Courtney agreed whole heartedly. Rev. Thompson had a very articulate
defense. He made a number of points that
I found myself thinking, “I wish I could come up with stuff like that!” And yet when all was said and done I felt
like Rev. Thompson was apologizing for faith and the Bible in light of the
scientific method; essentially conceding that it is a product of the limited
world view of ancient people.
I say use the scientific method in the
natural sciences. And use the scientific
method in your faith, especially in Bible study. The Bible is a tough old book. It can take anything and everything you want
to throw at it. Please, I beg you,
please use the scientific method in your scripture studies, because along the
way you’re sure to uncover many profound truths.
In a few weeks we’ll get to the Noah’s
Ark story in Genesis. I think that will
be a good point to show a full behind the scenes view of the creation of the
book of Genesis. But for today, let’s
use some scientific thought processes to open this writing to something more
than its surface depth.
Last week we looked at Genesis 1. It is the famous creation in six days account
that sparks the evolution vs. creation debates.
Why people insist on Genesis 1 giving science is beyond me. It is written in a poetic form and it lacks
internal consistency, but people overlook those facts and insist on literal
interpretation. Then many people with
good intentions unknowingly compound those mistakes by thinking Genesis 2,
where we meet Adam and Eve, is a detailed continuation of Genesis 1. But it isn’t.
Genesis 2 is an entirely different account of creation.
If we open our minds we don’t have to
get far into it to pick up that we’re in a different story. Forget using fancy literary critical methods,
the text tells us straight off: How many
days does creation take in Genesis 2?
One day. Verse 4b reads, “In the
day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens…” Then there’s the fact that things are created
in a different order.
In Genesis 1 God creates land and
seas, then plants, animals, and finally humans.
What is the order of Genesis 2?
God forms man, “Adam”, which means of dust, or of earth. Perhaps we could call him Earthling or Earth
Dweller. Then God plants a garden in the
east, in Eden. Then God creates
animals. Finally, since this is Mother’s
Day I’ll say, “Saving the best for last,” God creates a woman, or Eve. Eve literally means “womb”.
So, the order of creation in Genesis 1
and its timeframe cannot be synchronized with Genesis 2. Many people look at this and come to a very
logical, but erroneous, conclusion.
Their logical, but erroneous, conclusion is that the author of Genesis
is an idiot.
This is where you need to employ your
critical thought processes rather than start apologizing for the Bible. When we get to the Noah’s Ark story we’re
going to see clear evidence that Genesis is not the work of one author. It is a composite work by at least three
authors.
When we read Matthew’s gospel I said
repeatedly that we were reading the work of someone trained in the teaching
techniques of the ancient Hebrews. We
discovered the ancient Hebrews often wrote with complex structures and
patterns. We also discovered that the
ancient Hebrews would use contradictions in order to teach a deeper truth.
It goes without saying that Genesis
comes from the ancient Hebrews. We
should expect to find the same techniques employed there too. Next week I’ll show you that the entire Garden
of Eden story is not a linear storyline but actually symmetrical; a collection
of nested parallels.
Make no mistake. The creator of Genesis was not an idiot! He was brilliant. And I believe God was inspiring him to share
God’s actions in creation. But how to do
it? He’s going to do it the way he knows
how. He clearly and deliberately put
Genesis 1 and 2 side by side. I know
full well they contradict each other.
The creator of Genesis knew that too!
But he knew we needed both if we’re going to grasp God’s creative work.
Take Genesis 1. You find that God is this majestic and
powerful creator. God speaks. Things happen on a cosmic scale. God is big.
God is bigger than big! Have you
ever stared up at the stars on a cloudless night and been in awe of how big it
all is? Does it make you feel tiny and
insignificant? Leave Genesis 1 as the
only account of God’s creative activity and we are left with a cold, distant,
and impersonal God. We are left seeing
God as imperious and demanding, and we are but a speck of insignificance.
Enter Genesis 2. Does God speak from a cosmic distance and
command? No. If you can, vividly picture Genesis 2:7. “Then the Lord God formed man from the dust
of the ground…” I imagine God kneeling
down in the dirt and with God’s own hands deliberately and caringly shaping a
man from the dirt. Verse 7 continues,
“…and [God] breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.”
Can you feel how close, personal and
intimate this portrayal of God is? God
might be big and vast and cosmic. But
God carefully and deliberately crafted you.
And God crafted the person sitting beside you too.
God does not leave this human in a
vast desolate earth. God plants a
garden. God puts the man in the
garden. God sees that man is lonely and
so God seeks to create a community for the man.
In partnership with the man God crafts all the creatures and names
them. None of them suffice for
partnership. So God also crafts another
human, a woman. And God, the man, and
the woman share community in the garden.
I love scientific thought and
exploring the origins of things. As I
said last week, don’t try to force Genesis to give you science. You’re asking it to give you nonsense. But it will give you truth that you need. Science can’t tell you that you’re
worthwhile. Science can’t tell you that
someone cares.
Genesis 1 teaches that God is majestic
and powerful. Genesis 2 teaches that God
is careful, personal and loving.
Other biblical authors knew of the
contrast between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.
What are the first words of Genesis?
You know them well: “In the beginning…”
What are the first words of the Gospel of John? “In the beginning…” And then John goes on to describe the God we
discover in Genesis 1: “In the beginning
was the Word, and the Word was God. He
was in the beginning with God.”
Now let’s swing to John’s account of
the resurrection, close to the end of the gospel. We read it as our gospel reading. What was the setting? A garden.
And we meet a man who is mistaken for the gardener. And we meet a woman, a woman with a dubious
past.
You know the story of Adam and
Eve. They mess up and God the gardener
chucks them out of the garden. It is no
mistake on John’s part that, as he describes the resurrection, the garden is
back. The gardener is back too. And this time, the woman with a messed up
past is not chucked out. Did she earn her way back into the
garden? Nope. The gardener earned the way back for her.
I feel like a broken record as I
repeat it, but the biblical authors aren’t idiots. They’re brilliant. Our problem is to let them speak on their
terms, rather than demanding they speak on our terms.
When left to speak on their terms
their voices are clear, powerful, and coherent.
And you are wise to use logic and rational thinking to meet them
there. God is big – Genesis 1. God is tender and caring – Genesis 2. God is forgiving – John 20. Our ancestors messed up. We mess up too. But by Christ we are invited back in the
garden anyway, only as a foretaste now, the fullness will come in the
resurrection. And along the way God’s
Spirit is always with us.
No comments:
Post a Comment