What Creationism Won’t Tell You
Oct 27th, 2007 by Micah Tillman | 11 Comments |
(Trying to whip up a little controversy with that title, eh Tillman?)
After listing the three kinds of Creationism, the three groups-of-issues surrounding Creationism, and the approach you have to take when reading Genesis’ Creation Story, I promised to say what reading Genesis 1-3 will show you (and how this might solve the debate with Science).
I was never taught the things I find in Genesis 1-3. And I think what I find there is actually there. So it seems to me that the Creationisms with which I was raised and which I have studied aren’t going to tell you what’s really in Genesis 1-3.
And that means that the debate between Creationism and Evolutionism has yet to actually be held. Till now, it’s been misreadings of Genesis 1-3 vs. Whatever Happens to Be the Latest Theory of Evolution.
(”Tillman, you sound really stuck-up.” “Yeah. But if I don’t claim to be onto something radically new, why listen to me? The debate is getting old and annoying, and I’ve gotta make it seem worth picking up again.”)
We discover three things in my commentary on Genesis 1-3 (they were completely new to me, at least, and so they were “discoveries” in that sense):
(1) The story is primarily an explanation of telos, not origin. (The story’s primary work is showing humanity its mission in making God present to the World through continuing God’s work of forming and filling.)
(2) The story is about forming and filling, not paradise. (That is, it is about a mission and growth, not about a state of being.)
(3) As part of (2), the story is about God as an informer (a Teacher) not an Experimenter.
Compare (1) to the Paul Bunyan and Babe “myths” whose purpose is to explain how things came to be the way they are now. Or compare (1) to the “How Rabbit Lost His Tale” stories of the Cherokees (who are my people, btw.) (I’m not criticizing those other stories, I’m just bringing out the differences to make things clearer.)
Compare (2) the the idea nowadays (in Christianity, in Environmentalism, in Philosophy, in Politics) that we should “get back to the beginning,” that a return to paradise is what we should be working for. Instead, what Genesis 1-3 describes is not a goal, not perfection, but nascence, potential, and guided growth.
Compare (3) with the usual view of God as Creator, Law-Giver, and Punisher in Genesis 1-3. In fact, I show in my book that the “Curses” on the Man and the Woman are no such thing. They are lessons God is teaching the humans in preparation for continuing the mission God had begun on Day 1. God doesn’t give up.
And the “punishment” of “death” for eating of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil isn’t arbitrary. It isn’t even imposed. It’s the logical consequence of what happens when an Image of God turns to something other than God to play God’s role of Teacher. (Finding out what in the world that last sentence means requires a phenomenology of images, which I can do at a later date).
That’s not nearly all I found, but that’s all I have space for here. After finding what I found, I’ve begun to ask myself: “Is arguing with Science over the origin of things really what I want to use Genesis for?” The story is so shockingly beautiful, and I could never see it until I left the battle to read it for itself. I’m not sure I want to get back in now that I’ve found what I’ve found.
We live in the World that Genesis 1-3 describes, whether or not Genesis 1-3’s purpose is to describe the origin of our World. I’d rather explore the beauty and learn what else it has to tell me about who I am, what the World is, and how I’m supposed to relate to that World and God.
This is especially the case when I look at the story that Scientists have to offer. No offense meant (or rather, every offense meant), but my story is better.
(Echoing last post’s appeal to a movie as the way to “get into the proper head-space,” I think you might have to first listen to what Uncle Hub has to say about “the things a man needs to believe in the most” before any of this will begin to click.)
Do think this is novel in the sense that each idea concerning Genesis 1-3 is new or that the paradigm as a whole is new? Or something else?
That depends. Much of this I think of as new because it was new to me. I can’t make much of a claim beyond that, since I haven’t heard everything that’s ever been said about Genesis.
But the fact that I’ve been pretty tuned in to the current Protestant Creationism debates, and still hadn’t heard most of what I found in Genesis 1-3, leads me to believe that what I have to say would be new to most of Protestant Christianity at least. (Doesn’t make it right, just makes it new)
On some specific points, I do think what I have to say is brand new “period”; but I hope I’m wrong, seeing as there’s nothing new under the sun and what Genesis 1-3 has to say is so important.
I don’t much care about newness in the absolute sense. What I want is for people to be able to experience Genesis 1-3 in a way that is new for them, seeing as I enjoyed doing it so much myself.
The people who actually wrote Genesis 1 would laugh at creationists taking it literally. They would consider biblical literalists to be simpletons unable to understand its theological meanings or the beauty of its plan.
See, for example, Conrad Hyers, “The Meaning of Creation: Genesis and Modern Science” (John Knox Press 1984). Hyers is a professor and chairman of religion at Gustavus Adolphus College.
Thanks Olorin! Though I would disagree that we can speak of the “people” who wrote Genesis 1, it is a fact that we do have to take authorial intent into account.
While we’re talking about authors we like, I like Duane Garrett on Genesis (he’s not dealing with the science side, just the theories of authorship and structure).
When I speak of the people who “wrote” Genesis, I’m referring mostly to the people who read it at the time it was written. But even if you consider God the direct author, why would He write something that no one at the time would understand?
Biblical authorship is a worthwhile subject. I think God intends that we should study Him. That applies both to His words and to the “natural” world.
Never thought of the readers of a text as its authors. That’s an intriguing approach. Makes your brain twist all around (which is fun).
Biblical authorship is a fascinating subject in no small part because of the doctrine(s) of inspiration. I don’t take God to be the direct author of Genesis (or anything else in the Bible beside the direct quotations of God), but in addition to the question of inspiration there are the ones of redaction and transmission and witnesses, and all that.
[...] first was discussed here and here, and the second was discussed [...]
Great post, Micah. May I call you Micah?
I think you are on to something good.
I want to let your ideas percolate a bit and re-read what you wrote here.
Sure! And thank you :-)
Hello Mr. Tillman
if you read it charter of the United Nations that was established in 1946 in San Francisco, California and you’ll find I did make a mistake by just saying states actually what it is called its member states if you wish to further pursue this you can go onto website of United Nations find a section of charters and it should be there for you
spacejunk39
Thanks!