Promises

Revisiting the Creation & Evolution Debate

I had a conversation with a pastor in Christmas Valley in May that I have not forgotten, Evolution is a more important issue than we place on it. Sometime circa 1990 I spent a week at Michigan Technological University. One of my favourite couples was on staff there – Chris and Barb Anible. When I got home after the week Chris mailed me a letter to the editor of the MTU paper. The title said, “Speaker knew nothing,” referring to me. I kept that letter for a long time. I only wish the author of the letter had stayed to hear my talk because he argued the same things I argued in my talk, we just ended at different places.

If I remember that talk correctly (Dan Allender informed us that all memory is fiction), I tried to provoke everyone. I had nothing good to say about any position on the creation/evolution spectrum. I pointed out each position’s strengths and weaknesses, and argued that every “scientific origins theory” was “post-dictive.” We can only know what we see in the present and formulate ideas about the past, which we even call “pre-historic” (before history). The creationists weren’t happy because I pointed out that Genesis 1 was not about “how God created,” The gap theorists weren’t happy because I argued philosophically against the idea of macro-evolution. The naturalists weren’t happy because I pointed out that their position simply makes no sense whatsoever.

I’m revisiting this issue in 2014 some 25 years later because the pastor in Christmas Valley pointed out that nearly all the other debates we are having in the political spectrum stem back to how we view this one issue. I had not considered that. There is a lot of truth in what he says. If one holds an evolutionary view of the world, one believes that our view of everything from the Constitution of the USA to our view of sexuality is improving and, hence, we need to do away with our old way of thinking. This is a dangerous position to cling to, and, I believe is incorrect.

I end up a seven day creationist. There, I said it. I am not sure what it means to say it, and I don’t hold it tightly or theologically but rather philosophically (and that includes my epistomology) by faith because I see no other helpful or possibly true (small ‘t”) options.

Like I did so many years ago while I spoke at Michigan Technological Univeristy, I hold that evolution paved the way for Nietzsche and then subsequently Hitler and Stalin.  Once we accept it, either as a Theist or a Naturalist, our epistemology goes sideways. The theist becomes a Deist or a Baptist (whichever comes first) not allowing God to work in his world; its trajectory is set. The naturalist becomes tribalistic and a fundamentalist of his own secular theology. Some of my friends land here, and are unable to see their own naturalistic fundamentalism.

I don’t know how it all went down. I wasn’t there. I do know though, that if God made Adam, he did not make a freshly minted fetus. No, he made a full grown human. If God made a human who looked old, it follows that he would make the earth the same you’re Science’s carbon dating is not convincing to me. Neither is their study of rocks and fossils. If God created the way that creationists say he did. Creation would fool our science by taking on the appearance of age.  To my theistic (or even biblical) evolutionary friends, if there wasn’t a historical Adam, then we have a bunch of theological issues we have to address, because Paul’s ideas about Jesus being the new Adam can’t be correct. Some of us are already trying to do away with the idea of Trinity or gender roles because we want to disregard the text and read it with our new lenses. In so doing we are creating a greater harm long term. I can’t buy in. And I will love you, and break bread with you anyway. We don’t have to agree from my perspective.

I am a creationist. I don’t know how old the earth is. I’d venture a guess that you don’t either. I do know that if we think that everything is evolving we are in trouble. I am not interested in “Creation science” or scientific debates. I think nearly all of that from both sides is bullshit. See my thoughts above.

Lots of people smarter than me will disagree. And I could be wrong. As I said I don’t hold my position tightly. I voice it, because it does seem as if this one issue affects may others: war, sexuality, human freedom, human privacy, care for the poor and the outcast, stewardship of creation, justice issues, and the list goes on. So I stand where I stand. What about you?

“Covenant,” in the words of Indigo Montoya, “I do not think that word means what you think that word means.”

 

It is such a badly misused and misunderstood word. I’ve watched it be used to ostracize and abuse people. This is not what God intended

Dan Allender threw out an idea in his Marriage and Family Class offered at the Seattle School of Theology and Psychology. He talked about covenantal marriage, and headship hitting upon something most people miss. He challenged us to take fifteen minutes to look up Sumerian covenants. So I did.

Covenants were created by conquering kings as tools to help them rule. The conquering kings would severe animals in half and make the conquered king walk between them. Then the conquering king would say to the conquered king something along the lines of, “If your people cause me trouble you will be the first to be severed as these animals have been severed.” It was a sign of the conquered kings allegiance, and of his promise to the conquering king to be loyal.

God turned that idea on its head for he says to his creation, if you mess up, I will be the first to die. And then he followed through on his promise. He died for us. The old covenant is completely rebuilt around a new idea of the powerful (filled with the Spirit of the Living God, and given previously unknown freedom) giving up their freedom and, indeed, their lives for the powerless and the oppressed, even as Jesus did.

What it means for us as the church is that we too are called to be the first to die for the one that violates the covenant and sins. Doesn’t the apostle say, “Love covers a multitude of sins?” And aren’t we commanded by Paul to “carry one another’s burdens” without respect for whether they have let us down or not? We’ve missed it. We live under the old Sumerian system. If the parishioner (or member) screws up, we say, “They violated the covenant. Kick them out.” And when we do, we break the heart of the one who died for us, because we missed the point of his being the first to die.

According to Allender, and I think I agree, "headship means being willing to be the first to die." So,what would it look like for the church to walk as Jesus did, being willing to be the first to die? To come down to eat at the pig trough, to live with people and meet people in the place of brokenness and despair? What would it look like for us, the Church to carry the cost of the broken covenant for the covenant breaker, so they don’t have to? I’d like to find out.