Saturday Night Theologian
22 May 2005

Genesis 1:1-2:4a

The Kansas Board of Education met last week for hearings on how science should be taught in the state. Their particular focus was on the theory of evolution, with a majority of the board objecting to its presentation in the classroom as the sole theory of the origin of life on earth. Two of the board members stated that they believed that the age of the earth may be as low as 5,000 years, far short of the 4.5 billion years that most scientists hold. Although evolution opponents are careful these days not to state their objections in religious terms, since the U.S. Supreme Court several years ago declared scientific creationism to be a religious belief rather than a scientific viewpoint, it is clear that what motivates most people who oppose the theory of evolution is their belief that the creation story in the first chapter of Genesis teaches the recent origin of life on earth and of the earth itself. Christianity long ago accepted that the earth was a sphere that revolved around the sun, so why do so many Christians refuse to accept the scientific evidence concerning the age of the earth and the process of evolution by natural selection? I think the problem rests in part on a faulty hermeneutical approach to the creation story that is the focus of our reading today. There are several different ways in which the first chapter of Genesis can be understood apart from the theory of evolution. First, it can be read more or less literally, so that the earth really is only about 6,000 years old. Second, the verb "was" in verse 2 can be translated as "became," positing a gap of millions or billions of years between the creation of the world described in verse 1 and the special creation described in the verses that follow. Third, the "days" of creation can be interpreted as geological ages rather than literal days. Fourth, the general progress apparent in the six days of creation can be attributed to special divine acts of creation interspersed with eons of a steady-state earth. There are of course several variants on these approaches to the text, but these are representative of the lot. The problems inherent in these approaches include the following. First, a multitude of scientific data, from carbon dating to thermoluminescence to potassium-argon dating to astronomical observations prove--prove--that the earth is much older than a few thousand years. Second, the reading "became" is not justifiable in the context, and at any rate the Gap Theory only supplies an old earth; it doesn't make sense of the fossil record. Third, the Age-Day Theory falters on one important clause, repeated throughout the creation account: "there was evening and there was morning, one (24-hour) day." Fourth, the fossil record indicates hundreds or thousands of transitions from one species to another, similar species. Besides, although the order of created items in Genesis 1 generally progresses from less complex to more complex, there are several discrepancies with the fossil record, such as fruit trees appearing before fish (they didn't) and birds appearing before land animals (they didn't). Most importantly, the sun isn't created until day 4, yet photosynthesis has been going on for at least a day (and the earth wasn't a frozen wasteland). If the first chapter of Genesis contradicts the findings of science, should we discard it from our Bibles? No! If we read the chapter from a literary-theological point of view, rather than a literal point of view, the creation story comes alive with meaning. A literary-theological reading teaches us that God is the author of the universe, giving it life and meaning. It teaches us that there is order in the world. It teaches us that human beings are created in God's image. It teaches that the world in its pristine state was very good. The scientific theory of evolution does not contradict a literary-theological reading of this passage, unless the notion of the nonexistence of God, which is not part of the theory, is added to it. Christians can argue over the precise connection between the divine and the universe while at the same time accepting the theory of evolution. Doesn't it take a powerful God to devise such a complex yet beautiful mechanism for bringing the diversity of life to this planet?

Psalm 8

Two men were executed this week by the state of Texas. In all, 344 people have been executed in Texas since 1982, more than all the other states put together. Meanwhile, more than a hundred death row prisoners have been released in the past few years after new evidence exonerated them. Juan Melendez, who spent 18 years on Florida's death row before being proved innocent, now travels the country advocating an end to capital punishment. Every other industrialized country in the world has stopped executing people, but the U.S. government recently pushed Iraq to re-adopt the death penalty, presumably so that it could execute Saddam Hussein. There are numerous reasons to oppose the death penalty. For one, the former death row prisoners who were exonerated demonstrate that the justice system does not always convict the guilty or free the innocent. Even among those who are guilty, it is disproportionately minorities, and even more disproportionately the poor, who are executed. From a Christian perspective, judicial execution is state-sponsored annihilation of the image of God. Psalm 8 says that human beings were created with just a little lower dignity than God. It is true that those on death row have desecrated that image; it is equally true that you and I have desecrated that image in our own lives as well. All have sinned, Paul reminds us, but all retain basic human worth. To snuff out a human life that is no threat to anyone (they are in maximum security, after all) cannot be justified. Revenge is no justification: "'Vengeance is mine; I will repay,' says the Lord." Bringing closure to the victim's family is no justification. How does ripping apart another family bring closure to a family that has suffered a great loss? Many 9/11 victims will testify that killing tens of thousands of Iraqis did not bring their loved ones back to them. The death penalty, like slavery, sexism, and classism, is a remnant of our pagan past that modern Christians must fight to throw off. Human dignity demands it.

For another discussion of this passage, click here.

2 Corinthians 13:11-13

The history of Christianity is littered with the corpses of those who believed the wrong thing. Donatists, Waldensians, Jan Hus, Michael Servetus, victims of the Spanish Inquisition, Salem's "witches"--all these and many more were the Christian victims of other Christians (this doesn't even count the innumerable Jews, Muslims, and pagans killed along the way). What is it about the narrow minded that they can't stand to have someone disagree with them? At the end of 2 Corinthians, Paul exhorts the congregation at Corinth to do four things. First, they should put things in order, perhaps an appeal to prepare or organize themselves for the work of Christ. Second, they should encourage one another. The alternate translation, "listen to my appeal," seems somewhat less likely in this context. Third, Paul urges them to agree with one another; literally, "be of the same mind." Does this mean that Christians should always agree with one another on matters of doctrine, aesthetics, or opinion? Hardly. It's been said that if you have two Baptists in a room you have three opinions (undoubtedly this is true of others as well, but since I'm Baptist, that's the way I've always heard it). Though there are many intolerant Christians who would disagree, I don't think differences of opinion are bad. No one has a corner on the market on truth, and no one knows all there is to know about the will of God. If a monolithic system of belief is not a proper application of Paul's exhortation, what is? A clue can be found in his next instruction: "Live in peace." Living in peace is incompatible with a rigid orthodoxy, but it is not at odds with a commitment to share the same basic set of practices. We can all care for the poor, live our lives with integrity, love our neighbors, and show compassion to others. When you think of the great figures in Christian history, are the first ones who come to mind those who developed ingenious ways of explaining doctrine, or do people like St. Francis of Assisi, Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Albert Schweitzer first spring to mind? If there is one thing church history teaches us, it is that Christians will never agree on doctrinal matters. In his book Why Christians Fight over the Bible, John Newport points to the numerous differences of perspective that Christians bring to the Bible that guarantee differences of interpretation on the other end. However, if we will put less stress on orthodoxy and more emphasis on orthopraxy, maybe Christians will be able to be of one mind after all.

Matthew 28:16-20

In September 1796, as George Washington prepared to leave the office of president of the United States to which he was elected twice, he delivered a farewell speech to the nation, and particularly to its elected representatives. He urged the people to think of themselves as one nation, united in liberty, and to avoid sectional, sectarian, and partisan rivalries. On a mountain in Galilee, Jesus offered farewell instructions to his followers as well. The disciples were fearful, nervous, and even doubtful, but Jesus encouraged them to continue the work that he had started. The Great Commission that Matthew records is a succinct overview of the Christian's mission. First, Jesus commanded them to go. The good news of Jesus Christ does not spread itself. It must be carried by those who believe in it to those who need to hear it. Second, Jesus commanded them to make disciples of all the nations. Getting people to casually assent to a set of beliefs is relatively meaningless. The gospel can progress only when it is promoted by people who have invested their lives in it. The last phrase, "of all nations," is also important, for the gospel is directed to all humanity, not just those who are from a certain geographical region or who hold a certain worldview. Third, Jesus commanded them to baptize. Baptism is an external sign of an internal change. It is a mysterious picture of the divine-human encounter. Some would even say that it is a sacrament that seals one's faith. Regardless of your precise view of baptism, its function as the symbol of unity in Christ--regardless of differences of opinion, social status, ethnic background, or nationality--is paramount. Fourth, Jesus commanded them to teach their new followers to obey the commands of Jesus. Christianity was first called "The Way," and it is indeed a way of life more than a set of beliefs. Medieval mystics like Bernard of Clairvaux rediscovered the value of studying and meditating on the life of Jesus, which offers guidance to us in every situation in life. Washington's farewell to his country has been preserved, reprinted, and read by numerous Americans over the past 200+ years. Jesus' words to his disciples have been preached, heard, read, and acted upon for almost 2000 years, and they continue to give us guidance today.