Creation

Creation has been a topic that seems to be in abundance recently. We watched Louie Giglio videos in church. Mal has purchased a couple books that explain science and the Bible. A blog I read had a couple of entries about creation. While I am trying to focus on the cross (and church reformed history), creation and its relationship to science keeps becoming the topic of discussion. So here ya go. Linda Hamill on creation….

First, for you to understand my position you need to understand some of the experiences that have influenced the development of these thoughts. I grew up in the country and there developed a respect for the land and the people. Our land was between two Native American reservations, so I also developed an appreciation for people’s stories.

The native people traditionally told stories to teach relationships; relationships between family, elders, other tribes, the land, and even animals. In the tribe, time, the measure of it, or the dependence on it was not the same as I was taught. I found time to be similarly not measured in the Pacific Islands.

I am not an anthropologist and just barely a theologian but I reckon Genesis chapter 1 is a story, in the sense of a tribal story explaining important relationships. When I studied Hebrew, I found that there were cultural aspects to the language that resonated well with me because I had grown up in the country and watched a tribe.

I use a bit of liberty in translating the Hebrew; actually, I tried to translate it quite literally and not attempting to put the translation into good English grammar. I also, used a bit of liberty in describing the telling of the story so imagine if you will, a group of people sitting around a campfire. The storyteller is in the middle casting shadows opposite the flame. The gaze of the faces around the fire is transfixed on the storyteller.

The storyteller puts up one hand and begins, “In the beginning,” the teller raises both hands to the sky and says, “God created the heavens and the earth,” thenlowering his arms to point to the ground.

“And the earth vacant and void,” the storyteller announces with a sense of urgency and awe so that the listeners wonder what will happen next. The storyteller does not pause but continues the suspense saying, “And darkness upon the faces of deep.”

Drawing a deep breath and noisily breathing out, whispers, “And God breathed and it fluttered over the waters.” The storyteller’s fingers flutter as if they were over the water.

The storyteller continues telling the actions of God in loud booming voice. “And God said “Be light” and light was. And God saw the light was good,” is pronounced with pride.

“And God divided between the light and between the darkness.” Then as if calling out to someone or something, the storyteller acts as if he were God calling, “And God called to the light, ‘day’; and to the darkness called, ‘night’.”

Then the dramatic actions cease and the storyteller stands tall and still and quietly proclaims, “And it was evening and it was morning, day first.” (Gen1:1-5)

The storyteller pauses before he continues telling the events of the next six days. I will not continue the story here but it seems to me that this is not a scientific explanation of the creation event.

This story is designed to give God the credit for creation. It introduces the Spirit of God, in the introduction of the ‘breath that fluttered over the waters.’ It introduces the Word, when God “called’ and ‘it was’ as if it were the Word itself that creates. Yes, I interpret this through the lens of the New Testament.

I understand this first chapter of Genesis as introducing important aspects of the God that is worshiped by the tribe that tells the story. The debate whether or not this is a scientific 24 hour day or a day as measured by God that to humanity could span year, is not relevant. If God is indeed God he could have created in seven 24 hour period or in seven set of God days that spanned years, the choice was/is God’s.

To try to pin down the science of creation is an interesting endeavor. I enjoy the reading and believe that God does reveal himself to people including myself through science but to get bogged down in that when telling the story misses much of the mystery and awe the people had for their God. So my comment on creation, “WOW!!.”

Passion Play

On Saturday evening Mal and I went to Ashgrove Baptist Church to see their passion play, Jesus, Liar, Madman, God! and it was absolutely incredible. This play was presented at this church a couple years ago and we were unable to attend because of commitments to our own church but made the point of attending because my son-in-law John had a major part.

Written by one of their own, this drama was the story of Jesus condensed to 1.5 hours, was told in modern Australian language and characters were in modern clothes. I was totally caught up in the play. I think for me the best part (other than John's characters) was the Jesus character. He was a bit wild, free, and alot loving and caring, just how I believe Jesus to be. This Jesus was very much like the Jesus who Scot McKnight described in chapter 4 of his book The Story of the Christ.

Many of the actors had 2 or maybe even 3 parts. I was impressed how they changed clothes and character so easily. John was Caiaphas and Thomas and he switched between the two parts flawlessly. And so did all the actors. The band was just a professional as the acting. The lights and sound matched. Well done Ashgrove Baptist, way to bring glory to God by telling the story of the Son.

Tired

Well we are about 4 weeks into formation for this semester. Tomorrow, I will turn in my first assignment in the Church Reform 16& 17 century subject. What on? you ask. Just a bit about Luther comments on his Preface to Paul's Letter to the Romans. It is interesting. As for formation, well, I think I am just too tired. It seems to be a common song among the students in my formation group. "I am tired."

We are the group of students who are in field placement; that is we work in church for 30 hours per week plus one subject, which amounts to 7-10 per week and spend a day, 8 hours, in formation. This actually equals 48 hours which should not be too big a week. But I suspect most of us work more than 30 hours in our placements.

I also believe that some of the tiredness in formation is the fact that formation is on Monday. After a couple of worship services on Sundays, most ministers I know are tired. It is not always a physical tired, but often emotional and spiritual tiredness. Many ministers I know have Monday off. Others try to keep Monday a light work day. So if ministers know this, why does the field group have to reflect spiritually and emotionally on a Monday. Wouldn't it make more sense to do this some other day of the week? Just asking.