c. scott andreas

On Friday, I shared an article from Open Source Theology about different ways of reading Genesis 1. The article proposed five different ways of reading the chapter as a mythic creational narrative defining the relationship between God, humanity, and creation. If you haven’t yet, please read it as well as Friday’s post to catch up.

Part of the reason for initiating this dialogue is that I will be attending a conference about the role of the local church in a late-modern Western society called “Isn’t She Beautiful.” The conference is hosted by Mars Hill in Grand Rapids, MI. One of the sessions I’ll be attending is called “Narrative theology and how we read the Bible,” taught by Matt Krick.

I’m not sold on any particular reading, but I do think that a narrative/mythic reading can be helpful, and I do not believe that an enlightenment-era scientific/rationalist reading of the text is productive. What you’re reading here is an attempt to articulate a (somewhat primitive) perspective beforehand in order that I might be able to better engage the conference in a few weeks.

I promised to share with you some thoughts on the potential value and dangers of a narrative / mythological reading of the creation story. Here they are:

1) “Narrative” and “mythology” are separate categories. I use “narrative” to mean “story” and “mythology” to mean “a set of religious / cultural beliefs, often presented in a narrative frame.” Thus, it would be accurate to say that a mythological reading of Genesis 1 is a narrative reading, but it would be inaccurate to state that all narrative readings of Genesis 1 are necessarily mytholoical. The article seems to use these terms interchangeably.

2) It’s refreshing to read a discussion that engages the word “myth” in a complex way. We often attempt to divide our world neatly into “myths” and “facts,” which provides a useful albeit highly reductionist perspective of ideas and experiences that does violence to the particularity of situations.

3) It’s also refreshing to see a reading of the text that is attentive to temporal and cultural location. Doyle recognizes that formal scientific inquiry, journalism, and the discipline of history as we know them (inaugurated in Western culture by the Enlightenment[s]) did not exist at the time of Genesis’ writing, so it would be irresponsible to engage the text exclusively in such a manner.

4) It’s also interesting to note that a narrative reading of this text need not impugn (and must not impugn) the authority of scripture. In many ways, the importance of scripture is elevated as we come to understand that this is not merely a story of what has happened in the past, but rather one of which we ourselves are part. Much of the Bible (and especially the Old Testament) is a story describing the dynamic interaction between God and His people – yet while we’ve only a few short epistles in the New Testament, we tend to rely upon them far more than the rest of the book.

By locating ourselves within this narrative and engaging our culture according to it, we find that YHWH does indeed have a loud and booming voice for us and for our culture today. For more on narrative and the authority of scripture, see N.T. Wright’s essay, “How can the Bible be Authoritative?”

5) In understanding Genesis as myth or the story of Creation, Fall, Israel, Jesus, and new creation, we must not refer to scripture as “one of many ways of making sense of human experience.” Paul contended against this idea in his letter to the Colossians: “See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ” (2:8, NRSV). While Greco-Roman thought understood the universe as composed of “celestial powers that rule life” (HC/NRSV Commentary), Paul faithfully taught that “in [Jesus] all things in heaven and on earth were created” and that “in him all things hold together” (2:15,17). In all things, scripture must remain authoritative as YHWH is author of life itself.

6) In the same manner that I praised a complex engagement of the word “myth” in #2, I would propose a complex engagement of the five ways of reading Genesis proposed in the article. Further, I would certainly not limit a reading of Genesis to these interpretive possibilities; there’s a lot to be said for traditional readings of the text. I am giving the narrative perspective greater attention not because I regard it more valid, but because it is relatively new to me.

7) I’d love to hear a great storyteller recite Genesis 1 while sitting around a campfire on a cool, starry summer night. How might it sound then?

I hope that you’ve enjoyed engaging this mode of thought, and thank you if you have. As always, love to hear what’s on your mind!

Cheers,

Scott

I’ve begun reading N.T. Wright’s “Christian Origins and the Question of God” series, a three-volume behemoth weighing in at something like 1200 pages.  I don’t expect to finish any time soon, but my project of reading it is far less ambitious than his work in writing it!

The first 144 pages of “The New Testament and the People of God” is about how to study the New Testament, how to read it, authorial intent, and narrative.  I considered skipping past it in order to get to the “real stuff,” but my patience has been rewarded.

His treatment of story and narrative as a significant component of early/proto- Jewish — and indeed human — knowing is beautiful.  Wright suggests that narrative has an inherent transformative (even subversive) quality in that by entering into a conversation with someone whose life is deeply embedded in a story, we tend to walk away transformed by the encounter.  And what more true or more powerful story is there than that of the dynamic relationship between the Trinity, humanity, and creation?  Our story is one of paradise lost, community, new creation, and perfection through resurrection. 

Wright sums up his brief treatment of narrative with a simple cliché:  “the proof of the pudding is in the eating.”  Perhaps this could be true of life among the people of God as well.

powered by performancing firefox

On Thursday, ChurchReport listed the 50 most influential Christians in America. Most of them are the usual suspects, with a few surprises here and there. Joel Osteen takes the win, with Bills Graham and Hybels claiming place and show.

But we’ve got an unlikely trio finishing up the top ten!

Never thought I’d see the three of them next to each other!

You can check out the full list here.

(ht: Tim Challies)

There is an interesting discussion going on over at OST regarding different readings of Genesis 1. Check it out if you like. Please pause for a moment and read Genesis 1 before reading the OST article or this piece.

The central argument is that since Genesis 1 was not written in a post-enlightenment rational/scientific context, it would be irresponsible to read it as such.

Instead, Doyle proposes a mythological reading of the text that draws attention to the creational narrative rather than to what some refer to as “the bare facts of the matter.” The argument here is that the author was not writing as a historian or journalist to construct a time line of events so much as he, inspired by God, wrote to construct a mythological frame to explain the origins of the world with respect to the relationship between our Creator God and His creation.

Please understand, of course, that the author is not using “myth” to mean “false” or “untrue” in the manner that a few still speak of “the myth of global warming.” Instead, he’s using the word to describe an overarching story or metanarrative that we find ourselves in today just as the Israelites did as they wandered the ancient Near East. The authority of Genesis 1 is not validated by human rational/scientific attempts to “prove Creationism.” Instead, it is validated by God Himself, a truth accessible to us in the present in that we are able to locate ourselves in the account of creation and fall (and later Jesus, cross, and resurrection) today.

The author proposes five ways of reading Genesis in the character of creational mythology. I don’t believe that any of the five interpretations are valid by themselves or that any of them are without error to the extent that they are useful. However, I do regard this as a productive discussion to have, whatever the outcome.

Especially this quote:

The mythic truth receives its guarantee by the reality of the risen Christ, who in essence has absorbed the everyday world into his own mythic world.

I see a few good things happening here, and a few dangers that we must certainly watch out for as well. I’ll share my thoughts on Sunday.

Until then, if you would like to share your thoughts, I would encourage you to read the article at OST with a proper understanding of the word “myth” and with an open but critical mind and spirit. Then, read Genesis 1. Is this a book recording a scientific, empirically-verifiable, rational, historical account of the creation of a young earth? Or is there something more going on here? Is a faithful reading of Genesis 1 as authoritative mythical narrative possible, and if so, is it productive?

If you feel your blood pressure rising as you read this article, I’d encourage you to go for a walk and perhaps wait a day before sharing your thoughts. I embarrass myself far too often by reacting too quickly.

Cheers,

Scott

If you’re serious about the flavor of your coffee or feel like creating a blend of your own, roast it yourself! Organic SumScottra or KonAndreas, anyone?

All you need are “green beans” (unroasted coffee beans) and a hot-air popcorn popper. The beans start at $4.70 / pound for organic / fair trade-certified varieties from sites like BrewOrganic.com. You can probably find a suitable popcorn popper for $5 at Goodwill or even free through your local Freecycle group.

The process is dead simple and takes less than ten minutes, too. Why not give it a go?

Hyper-detailed instructions here; simpler info here.

(ht: LifeHacker)

By now, you all know that Steve Jobs brought the world tidings of great joy this morning when he announced the iPhone. iPhone is set to revolutionize human communication come June, and I’ll be drooling until then (though I may not get my hands on one for much longer, depending…). Seriously, the company has cornered genius.

Anyhow, check it out if you haven’t yet, and do watch the Macworld Keynote. Jobs knows how to give a presentation. Amusingly enough, the Cingular guy did not.

I hit my “idolatry” quota hours ago. I need to put that silver half-eaten fruit out of my mind for a bit.

When I meet new people in Christian circles, they often ask me if I like “Christian music,” and if so, which artists?

I’ll put on a smirk and reply, “Yeah - Depeche Mode, Coldplay, U2, and Death Cab are stellar! You?”

Everybody and their dog has written their piece on the Christian media industry; if you want to hear about that, just shout real loud. Someone nearby will be happy to opine.

This is a more Augustinian perspective on the issue. Rather than funding our own little media empire, what might happen if we started engaging “Christianish” themes in everything we find?

Take this excerpt from a song called “The Sinner in Me” by Depeche Mode:

If I could just hide
The sinner inside
And keep him denied
How sweet life would be
If I could be free
From the sinner in me

When I adopted a narrative worldview a year or two ago - that is, seeing “life as a stage,” and understanding every moment in terms of a story in which each of us carves a niche and plays a part - my perspective changed dramatically. N.T. Wright taught me to understand our role in the play today. Here’s the story:

• Act One: Creation
• Act Two: Fall
• Act Three: Israel
• Act Four: Jesus, Cross, and Resurrection
• Act Five (Scene One): [ Today ]
• Act Five (Scene Two): The return of our good King

Wright suggests that we already know the beginning, most of the middle, and the end. Today, we’re improvising in the direction of God’s justice and love, to be revealed fully on the day in which He will put the world to rights.

Often when making a decision, we struggle to understand whether a given course of action is “God’s will for my life.” I’d suggest that the mission of God in human history is direction enough – for God’s will is for His will to be done. We’ve got about 66 authoritative books telling us what that will is, and countless derivative works (some of which are better off unread).  With that in mind, perhaps it’s time to start improvising.
When I listen to Depeche’s dungeon beats, I hear a story of a human trying to make sense of captivity, pain, and oppression while yearning for redemption and the triumph of good. If you listen to the rest of the song, you might hear a story of people admitting their faults, helping each other up, and struggling toward something much greater in community. Oh, and some damn good music.

[ Depeche Mode: On iTunes ]

[ N.T. Wright:  How can the Bible be Authoritative? ]

[ N.T. Wright:  A quick summary of the "play" ]

Pat Robertson is certain that 2007 will be a year of tragedy and calamity for citizens of the United States. The following is a message from God via our former presidential candidate and living prophet:

“‘I’m not saying necessarily nuclear, the Lord didn’t say nuclear,’ Mr Robertson said on his television show The 700 Club. ‘It’ll be mass killing, possibly millions of people, major cities.

“‘The evil people will come after this country and there’s a possibility, not a possibility, a definite certainty, that chaos is going to rule.”

That’s quite a bomb to drop. Keep in mind that our prophet has been wrong before. In fact, he said nearly the same thing in 1980, which was largely not a year of “sorrow and bloodshed” (although Christina Aguilera was born on 12/18/1980).

So, be on guard come July 1; come what may. And get ready to combat the myth of redemptive violence with creative non-violence. Beat those swords and spears into plowshares and pruning hooks. But no matter what, make this year the first of many in service of the Kingdom of God.

Go build a well or something.

(ht: Boing Boing)