Is Genesis History?

In early 2017 (February 23), a new documentary film came out that asks:  Is Genesis History?  (Here is the main website.)  The answer it gives is a resounding “yes!” Genesis, it says, was originally written as, and intended to be read as, history.  Not only so, (although these words are not used in the film) Genesis is God’s preamble to all science of all time and must be the basis of it.  Paleontologist Kurt Wise, in the film when speaking about scientific evidence for the Genesis flood, says it this way:

So you need to go to the Bible to find the necessary information to reconstruct [the flood].  And looking at it from the other way, if you start from the Bible, you only get the beginning of the story.  God has given us the ability to read the rocks and fill in the rest of the story.  To fully understand the flood, we start with the Bible.  But then we go to the rocks:  “Speak to the rocks and they shall tell what has happened in the past.”

To a whole lot of people, this sounds right.  It sounds like a “high view of Scripture,” a turning of the world right side up. But it simply is not any of these.  I’ll come back to this quote below.  But here is a heads-up for this review:

This movie is an approach consumed with a particular set of well-meaning agendas that co-opts an ancient collection of sacred documents for the sake of those agendas quite separate from the original purposes, designs, or goals of those early documents.

A Disclaimer:

  1. Since I’m not a scientist, I will not sit in judgment on the scientific pronouncements of this film.  Actually, I rather enjoy watching scientists wrestle with one another over what is science fact, science theory, or science fiction. If you want to see a short (apparently Christian) critique to the science in this movie, see places like A Geological Response to the Movie “Is Genesis History?”  where the movie is criticized for making “convoluted arguments and misrepresentations of the natural world.”
  2. Whatever the case with the science of the movie, and however interesting I find all of that, I’m going to come out of the closet and admit that I am by training, natural orientation, and practice  a biblical scholar and teacher, and as such I will focus my entire attention, here, on how this movie (ab)uses the Bible to promote its agendas.
  3. I don’t personally know any of the people in the movie, nor do I intend anything unkind about any of them (all of whom I take as sincere and intelligent people).  None of my comments is aimed at anyone’s character, and I have an appreciation for what they are trying to do.

A Preview:

From a technical standpoint, this movie is very high quality:  attractive, charming, appealing!  The trailer clearly shows this:

So, with all of that shown, and with all due respect paid:  This movie is all dressed up;  but with respect to the Bible, it goes to some very disappointing places.  Upon watching this movie numerous times, each time I became more thoroughly distressed than the time before with how easy it is for highly intelligent people to accept such a shallow view of the Bible as this movie does.  The movie is deeply disappointing in that respect, and the only way I want my kids to watch this movie, is if I’m with them to help point out why this is not on any level a worthy way to understand or apply the Bible.  I’m as serious about this as those who object to evolutionists teaching their kids.  The (ab)use of the Bible in this movie is consistently that bad.

The fact that some people will yawn at my objection and respond:  “Does it really make that much difference?” is exactly the problem.  Who really cares whether we handle the biblical text with integrity when so many are fighting the monstrous battle of “evolutionists in our schools”?  Well, I for one, do care.  It is way past time that Christians are held responsible for how they use or abuse that Bible to prop up their agendas.

To respond to every instance of “biblical abuse” in this movie would take a book:  so I will be quite selective.

1. The Biblical Scholars

Two biblical scholars are interviewed in this movie.

1. The second (Dr. Douglas Petrovich) is near the end and is identified as an “Archaeologist”. He spent most of his time reviewing archaeological evidence relating to the Ancient Near East and making generalized comments about how Genesis may reflect the movements of peoples at the end of the third millennium BCE. His belief that he has discovered the “Tower of Babel” would be strongly criticized and denied by the bulk of biblical scholarship. This does not, of course, prove him wrong–only that he is presenting a highly controversial hypothesis. I would like to have heard more from him.

2. The first biblical scholar interviewed was Dr. Stephen Boyd. This interview was more disappointing. (a) I did not like the way the movie introduced him;  it allows one to think that he was likely a professor at, or some kind of representative of, Hebrew Union College (a highly respected school in Jewish and biblical studies). Not till near the end of the closing credits is that clarified—like the small print retraction buried deep in the back of the newspaper.  (b) When, discussing Genesis 1, he says that the earth was created as “a water ball in space,” and he later uses the word “global.” Actually, that is an assumptive world-view foisted onto the text, since the Hebrew of Genesis makes no claim about a “ball-shape” or “globe-shape” of the earth, or for that matter that it is “in space.”  If one complains that “it is common sense!” the reply is “to whom?”  Would many hearers of a story like this 5,000 years ago (or 3,000 or 2,000 or 1,000 or even 500) have even thought of such things?  (Yes, yes, at least a few Greeks from the 6th century BCE figured out the earth was round, but they are hardly “most people.”)

(c) Narrative and History: I actually did a double-take (stopping the recording and backing it up several times) when I heard the claim that since (and I quote):

the world’s greatest Hebraists all affirm that [Genesis 1] is a narrative . . . [then] here [in the book of Genesis] we have narrative to indicate that this is historical. [my bold, gdc]

He is correct, of course, that Genesis is written in narrative form or style rather than poetic form or style. But as a highly trained biblical scholar, he knows better than to say the second half of that sentence: “we have narrative to indicate that this is historical.” Narrative form or style does not per se stand up and shout: “I am historical!” Lots of things can be in narrative form: actual or fictional events, stories of all kinds (like fables, legends, myths, etiologies, novels), sermons, speeches, Gospels, letters, treatises, and the list goes on.  Generally speaking, narrative form is simply a way of writing that is different from poetic form: but the form or style itself shows nothing about historicity. There is an entire field of study in literary and biblical studies called “narrative criticism” which focuses on how a writing is constructed with attention to plot, characterization, structure, dominant themes, point of view of the characters or speakers or narrator(s) in a text. And in fact, narrative criticism often goes out of its way to avoid questions of history or historicity because it does not use tools that evaluate such things.

The problem is, most people who are not in these fields of study don’t speak this language. Instead, in popular church culture today the questions most often boil down to (1) “did it happen or not?”–a demand made on a text that may not have been written to answer that question or demand; and to (2) a “pairing up“ of so-called bad and good categories. Just look below at the left column in contrast to the right:

poetry vs. narrative
fiction vs. fact
story vs. history
lie vs. truth

Now read down the whole left column, and down the right column: look at what gets associated. This kind of simplistic categorization for evaluating literature almost always causes problems.  These terms (and others like them) are now supercharged in current popular church conversations, so much so that it is nearly impossible to have intelligent conversation about them in some circles.

So then, “narrative” does not imply that something must be “historical”;  nor does “story” (as in “nation building story” or “tell me the story of Jesus”) necessarily imply a lie.  In fact, what we call “fiction” may be written in narrative form.  And “poetry” does not mean that it must be referring to “fiction” or that it is somehow inferior.  Many times it is just the opposite! All of these terms have technical definitions that go far beyond the shallow associations made in this movie. For example, just because other flood stories (which were written well before or during the time of Genesis) may have been written in epic poetry (as Dr. Boyd states) does not mean they were not believed as life-directing stories by the readers/hearers who received those stories or that literature. Also, Homer’s Odyssey is 5,000 lines of epic poetry;  but that does not mean that those who heard the bards sing those lines did not believe them or order their lives by them.  In fact, it was incredibly influential (very much like the Bible) for over a thousand years (and even to this day, in many ways; although, not quite the same as long ago).

The same is true of those who heard the stories of Genesis.  Genesis helped to build a nation and countless individual lives.  There is no evidence whatsoever that those who originally heard and repeatedly retold the Genesis stories sat around their campfires debating: “Now, did this happen exactly like it says?  Are these stories really historical?”  In fact, there is ample evidence that not everyone took the stories literally and that they read them for the life stories that they were intended to be. Just because we (people in churches today) have had it pounded into us that our desperate question “But, did it really happen?” is the one and only really big question of the universe–well, this only means that we have more problems as readers than we realize.

A major problem in this movie is that words like “history” and “science” are employed very loosely, mostly as they occur in popular speech, without any reference to their more studied usages.  The question that should be asked is not “does narrative prove that something is history?”, but rather,

does Genesis even claim to be either history or science
in the way we think of such things today?

Everyone reading this should be able to see how anachronistic that question is, reading our own agendas and worldviews into the past as if ancient peoples saw things like we do.  It is skirting the edges of hubris to think that our own concerns, sensitivities, and questions when reading ancient documents are the ones that really matter after all.  The whole question of the concept of “history in ancient historiography” is a huge and longstanding discussion (this is hardly new!)  And if nothing else, Christians today would do well to read even some basics on the matter. One might consult such resources as the 5 volume New Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible, or the somewhat more hefty 6 volume Anchor Bible Dictionary. However, be warned that these are not easy reading and are very fluent in the language of biblical scholarship.  Just look up the word “History.”

(d) Torah: And finally, what is most surprising to me is that a Hebrew scholar does not insist on describing Genesis in its own terms and context:  namely, as Torah, which means “instruction in the law,” most often embedded in collections of stories.  E.g., how the creation stories in Genesis 1-2 function in establishing (i) a divine creator in the face of a polytheistic world, (ii) the basis for the Jewish calendar year, (iii) the origins of the marriage covenant—and (iv) so very much more.  This should have been the starting place for “how do we read Genesis?”  I offer no challenge to the competency of the scholar—he knows all of this stuff!  But I do challenge the choice of presentation when asked:  “What is Genesis 1 about?  Walk us through this.”

2. The Scientists

Second, what about the scientists? When the scientists in this movie start quoting the Bible, it is obvious that they are completely out of their depth.

1. For example, going back to the quote I opened with, I call up now the last two sentences:

To fully understand the flood, we start with the Bible. But then we go to the rocks: “Speak to the rocks and they shall tell what has happened in the past.”

(a) Even granting that this very likable speaker speaks with exuberance and excitement (i.e., he is not making a legal statement), the notion that the biblical flood story cannot be “fully understood” on its own telling, within the context of Genesis, offers a strong hint about how the Bible will be used in this film: namely, as a resource book in which a few scientists can go rummaging through to find statements around which they can build theories, and then call them “God’s revelation of scientific facts.”

(b) Then we come to that last sentence: “Speak to the rocks!” What is that? It looks like it is supposed to be a quote from the Bible (which it is not, not in any English translation); or perhaps it is supposed to imply a biblical concept–maybe it is a poetic burst of his general impression of what biblical texts say. I’m not sure. But whatever it is supposed to be, in the context it is used, it functions (that is, it plays the role in the sentence) as the punch line of the whole comment, implying that this is a Bible concept that supports his notion that the Bible was written to provide keys for reconstructing the flood and other such events. The problem is, there is no such concept in the Bible. All of the poetic texts in the Bible which exhort us to observe or take in the natural world, do so for the purpose of drawing out praise to God as creator. That is their purpose.

2. Let’s go deeper down this rabbit hole:  To describe Genesis in terms of Epochs that range from 6 days long (!) to two or three thousand years long (and counting), or that Genesis was written for the express purpose to show that God actually changed how physical laws work between various Epochs–with a result that the speed of light changes, or that the dinosaurs had a wonderful purpose at creation, but that God then cursed them with big teeth, awful claws, and bad behavior, wiping them out in the flood; to say that “this is why the Bible was written, to tell us all of this” (these and similar explanations are offered multiple times)–well, I’m at a loss for how else to say this: this is all just silly, not to mention embarrassing.  Clearly, such things as this can easily be forced onto an ancient text, but Genesis itself has nothing to do with any of it.

3. And then, there is the wholly pretentious self-designation:  “The Historical Genesis Paradigm.” Throughout the movie, this title is contrasted with the “Conventional Paradigm” of modern science as though Genesis is written for the purpose of providing scientific principles that will thwart the excesses of modern conventional science. The apparent goal was to say it so often as to burn it indelibly into memory. For me it was like hearing someone scratch a blackboard over and over again, because Genesis does not present itself as a foil for anybody’s view of science. Genesis was not written to offer a historical paradigm in current-day usages of that term. It certainly does offer a God-focused preamble for the building a nation, but that is a bit different from wrestling with 21st century scientists over the speed of light. This unfortunate approach to Genesis might be science fiction, but it certainly is biblical fiction.  Claiming that Genesis itself, as an ancient document, has anything to do with any of this is absurd.

4. One of the most ghastly interpretations in the movie is of Genesis 1 by Astronomer Danny Faulkner, who appears to me to be a wonderfully delightful guy–again, very likable:  somebody I’d like to have coffee with!  That said, my hopes get dashed when he begins to describe the days of creation in terms of a time-lapsed movie (and so our movie helps out by presenting time-lapsed photography of plants growing–very nice pictures!) so that Genesis is said to show “collapsed time”, not only on day 3, but also day 4 in the creation of the stars.  I.e., even though the galaxies are light years away, the light hit the earth immediately–because Genesis says so.  So the Andromeda galaxy is pointed out and explained to be the most distant object we can see with the naked eye:  over 2,000,000 light years away.  Which means it takes light that long to reach us.  However, believing (as Faulkner does from Genesis) that the earth is only about 6,000 years old, Genesis also provides the key to understanding this dilemma. By extrapolating from the rapid growth of plants on day 3, Faulkner says:

Normal growth, abnormally fast. . . . Turning to day 4, not much information is given there, but I think God also rapidly made the stars and other astronomical bodies, and then in order for them to fulfill their function, to be seen, he had to rapidly bring forth that light just as he brought plants and matured them quickly, he had to bring that light here. I’m suggesting that when we actually look at these objects, the the Andromeda galaxy . . . we’re looking at light that actually left that object.  So I think there is a rapid maturing that took place. 

Based on this argument, which grew out of a particular kind of approach to Genesis 1 and then which cites Genesis 1 for support (a bit circular), I guess the speed of things on day 4 was a lot faster than day 3–it would have to be;  furthermore on day 4, the speed would vary, I guess, from one star to another, depending on how far away the stars are from the earth–because the light from all the stars would presumably need to reach here at the same time–or at least within a 24 hour period–so they could be seen. I guess.

OR . . . maybe we could realize that this way of reading Genesis simply does not work!  This is not why the book was written.  What if Dr. Faulkner had stopped with “not much information is given there”?  Bingo! Maybe not much information is given because Genesis is not talking about this kind of stuff at all.  Maybe the purpose of the sun, moon, and stars in Genesis 1 is to point out just what it says in v. 14.  Faulkner mentions this as a general thing, and then leaves it. But it is not a general reference; it is pointing to the basis for the Jewish calendar: “For signs and festival-seasons and for days and years” is not a scientific or generalized explanation;  day 4 rather is explaining why Jews do certain things at certain times of the year. Why they keep the Law.  This is why there is no concern over “let there be light” on day 1 without a sun or the stars, because that is not the point. To an ancient hearer or reader, not only is God (and not any other so-called god) responsible for the water, sky, earth, and vegetation–all of which surrounds us–but also for the sun, moon, and stars which are for the express purpose of regulating the Jewish Calendar year–the keeping of the Law!.

This is important. According to Genesis 1, it is not that the Jewish calendar happens to use the sun, moon, and stars to mark time; it is rather that the sun, moon, and stars were made for the express purpose of regulating the Jewish Calendar! This is NOT a scientific explanation! However, since the Jewish calendar means virtually nothing to Christians today (who are embroiled in battles over “science and the Bible”), this “stuff” I have just mentioned here is not even considered as relevant for this creation story, and so it literally gets pushed off the table. But I ask: how fortuitous is it (do we think it is accidental?) that the 4th day is the exact middle of the 7 days? Or stated more plainly: this creation story (now firmly embedded in the Pentateuch) tells Jews why they are Jews instead of somebody else, and why they keep the Torah of God. It has nothing at all to say about the speed of light or evolution or any other such thing.

As I have said before, when looking at Genesis 1 as a whole, not even all ancient Jews or Christians took this literally:   Philo argues against such a reading well before Paul wrote one word:

It is quite foolish to think that the whole world was created in six days or in a space of time at all.  

My point is not that Philo is either right or wrong, but that it is not true that all Jews understood the Genesis creation stories literally–and none of them took them “historically” or “scientifically” the way we now use these words. This is not a recent objection.  [I have written about this already.  Go here and scroll down to heading “3. Ancient Interpreters and Diversity“]

5. I could go on.  Numerous times the Bible is quoted by reading texts completely out of context in the greater service of protecting ourselves from the evils of “the Conventional Paradigm.” 2Peter 3, for example, mentions creation and flood, and this is called upon by one of the scientists as chiding early readers who doubt the historicity of such things, when that is hardly the point.  The Gospels are also dragged into this by asking why we see Genesis differently than we see the Gospels, since both are history?  But actually, the same problem plagues us for reading the Gospels;  Christians are notorious for insisting that the Gospels are modern “history” or “biography”  or even “legal briefs” (forever like four witnesses on a witness stand describing a car wreck!), rather than as “Gospels” which by design and purpose tell the story of Jesus in particular ways and for particular purposes.  And there is more. But I will stop with examples from this group.

6. NOTE:  However, on the subject of scientists in this movie, it should be noted that Dr. Paul Nelson, one of the scientists quoted in the movie, wrote a piece in Evolution News and Science Today on the very day the movie came out:  “New Film Is Genesis History? Presents a False Dichotomy: I Dissent from My Role in It.”  He does not object for the reasons I am bringing up, but on philosophical grounds which he explains.  And these are not the subject of my remarks here.

3. The Pastor

The final person interviewed is Dr. George Grant, listed as “Pastor.”  And I hasten to add once again:  this is not personal.  I intend no slights on his character, no slurs of his training or his intelligence.  I do not know the man.  But I do know the position he presses.  It is the same position I was taught in good conscience by my wonderful teachers (whom I still honor) from my childhood–a position that I have either greatly modified or abandoned on different levels, and that I encourage all others to rethink, modify, or abandon for better understandings as well.  There is so much wrong with what is stated in this section that it is not possible to quote or respond to it all. Again, I will be selective.

(a) Not distinguishing the difference between faith and history.  By the time the movie reaches this spot, it assumes that its point has been proven beyond doubt.  So now, the Adam and Eve story is asserted over and over again in the strongest language as “literal, historical, actual, real,” and other such terms.  Think about this: here is a wonderful and highly significant story told in only one document with no corroborating evidence from outside this story (except later documents in the same collection which quote or allude to it hundreds of years later).  Is that how we establish history?   If so, then how about this:

In 1830, a twenty-four year old writes in narrative form (!) The Book of Mormon: An Account Written by the Hand of Mormon upon Plates Taken from the Plates of Nephi.  In that book, he tells of a vision he had on September 21, 1823 (when he was 17 years old) of an angel who told him about golden tablets buried in a hill near where he lived in what is now Wayne County, New York.  He found the golden plates, translated them from a form of ancient Egyptian, and they are now the main contents of the Book of Mormon.  The golden plates later miraculously disappeared.

That story is believed by millions of people (in 2012, there were an estimated 14.8 million members of the Latter Day Saints, many of whom take it literally).  Is that story history?  How do you know?  If you say, “Well the first is in the Bible, so it is history!” An LDS group might respond, “Yes, and the second is in the Book of Mormon!  So it too is history!” The question is “how is history established?” If all it takes is for people who believe it to proclaim it as “history,” then “Adam and Eve” and “the Golden Plates” stand on equal footing. Just maybe that is not the best way to evaluate the two stories.

[And yes, I am quite aware that “inspiration” is the final trump card used to claim that the Bible is history in the sense used by this movie.  See below under “Unstated Assumption of this Movie.”]

(b) “Double-talk” on the importance of history;   and asserting that “meaning” cannot exist without history as assumed in this video:  In his words:

You cut things off from history, and you lose sight of the meaning of all of it. . . . 

By double-talk, I don’t imply intentional deception.  Certainly, the study of history and historiography (i.e., how sources and events are evaluated and established as history) is an important field of study.  And this is why this movie fails so colossally, because it “talks up” history, and then shows no interest in establishing a valid method for deciding history–it just asserts its own agendas as proving history.  And as to meaning:  if meaning is confined only to one view of what history is, the human race is in deep trouble!  This is too much to discuss here, but the relationship he draws between history and meaning does not actually describe how people determine meaning. For example: do the parables of Jesus all have to be historical events before they have any meaning? The point is, meaning does not require something to be history in the sense this movie uses it. Clearly, the study of history is important. But it is and has always been a serious mistake for Christians to base the “validity of Christianity” on their own particular view of how history must work.

(c) Easily dismissing the motivation of “the theologians”: This is a serious problem in all kinds of debates:  turning the “other sides” into straw men and simply dismissing them.  In his words:

We are constantly exhorted to not see [Genesis as history]. . . .The culture around us;  [and] from theologians!–modern theologians who are trying to somehow in their minds fit the truths of scripture with the so-called discoveries of science, which if you know anything about the history of science, you know it is an incredibly unreliable path!  So we are constantly bombarded with this message that we have to adjust our view. . . . We’ve been sold a bill of goods [that seeing Genesis as history is not important].  When you somehow make those chapters a different category altogether, and non-historical, what are you doing to all of the rest of the Bible?

Seriously?  The history of science shows an unreliable path? And the history of religion shows us what?   Is this the pot calling the kettle black?  First of all, if one learns how to read ancient documents in the context they were written, it frees those documents up from the straitjackets of such statements as just made above.  Second, the “bill of goods” is the very statement made.  And third, I don’t speak for all theologians;  but this kind of dismissal of position based on an attributed motive (a supposed moral and ethical weakness due to the lure of cultural assimilation) comes off as a shell game maneuver.  It distracts one from the real reasons (a) why the majority of all biblical scholars and theologians have taken the paths they have taken:  because they have been led there by the evidence in front of them;  and (b) why they reject the above perspective:  because it simply won’t hold up under scrutiny.

(d) “All or Nothing:”  Not understanding the principle of “the Gospel in jars of clay.”  The very notion that the Bible is “either all or nothing” is a long-held highly conservative belief that is asserted in this movie without any defense:  (i)  The biblical documents do not advocate such a view about themselves;  (ii) people cannot live their lives by such a principle;  (iii) it undercuts the “real-life” need for integrity among believers; and (iv) it plays right into the hands of atheistic arguments.  It also overlooks directly stated principles (by Paul for example) for the spirit and against the letter (2Corinthians 3), and especially in 2Cor 4:7:

But in jars of baked clay we have this treasure, 
it is God’s and not ours, this power beyond measure.  

The perfect Gospel of God in imperfect shells:  the imperfect shells are not confined to human beings. (This is fully developed in chapter 6: “Jars of Clay and Inspiration,” in Scripture, Canon, & Inspiration.)

4. Summary

So then, is Genesis history?  This movie often asserts it, but does it not establish it. History is a very important consideration for studying the Bible, but not in the way this movie does it.  This movie is not really about history, because it never lays out a cogent definition of history or a method for determining it. Instead of that, the movie advances its own view of science by using Genesis as a prop or resource book to support it. It then contrasts “The Conventional Paradigm” (i.e., current-day science which explains the world in terms of millions of years) with a simplistic view of Genesis that would be better called “An Unconventional Paradigm”, or perhaps, “A Young Earth Paradigm.”  Very unfortunately, it often comes off as “A Third Grade Reading of Genesis Paradigm.” It constantly talks about Genesis as if this way of reading it is the only way to do it. The movie never defends that assumption or explains its methodology; nor does it share with its listeners that its approach is strongly contested by the majority of highly qualified readers.  At the very least, the alternative should have been responsibly set forth. This is a huge gaff.

[On this point, it is very interesting that a group that makes so much public noise about having high school science classes offer a creationist alternative to evolution, does not itself set forward any responsible recognition that other views of reading Genesis offer serious challenge to the approach adopted in this movie.]

In the end, the movie offers only two choices.  Genesis vs. anti-Genesis.  Which should Christians choose?  How could Christians reject Genesis?

Well I don’t reject Genesis.  But I do reject this movie’s presentation of that book, and I reject that the movie’s way of reading it is in concert with that ancient book’s own agendas.  In fact, in this movie, the sacred texts themselves are badly handled in a grand confusion over the purposes of those ancient texts.

The Unstated Assumption of the Movie

Actually, what is underneath all of this type of reading is a particular view of inspiration of the Bible that thinks of itself as “the one and only biblical view of inspiration,” when actually it is just one not-very-well-thought-out-opinion about the subject.  Essentially, it demands that the Bible must be read “literally” (which means, “the way this movie reads it”), and it argues or assumes that God has encoded the Bible with correct views on every subject in the world—science, medicine, you name it—because if there is the tiniest thing discovered as incorrect in the Bible then all of it goes into the trash. This is a long-held but deeply flawed view, and I have addressed this at length elsewhere.

The end result is that (very unfortunately) this movie often comes off as if a deviant form of the original Planet of the Apes (1968) where the apes are explaining how science and the sacred scrolls fit perfectly together.  Yes, I know how offensive this could or will be taken, and that some will decide (no matter what I say) that I’m bashing or mocking otherwise good people. But that is not my point.  I simply offer this, as a warning that all people who read the Bible, with all good motives, can be just as manipulative of it as these in this clip:



No matter how sincere its speakers, the Genesis movie abuses biblical texts in the service of its agenda. Its arguments about Genesis, although passionate and single-minded, are neither cogent nor persuasive.  This movie does, unfortunately, help to show that it is a mistake to use the Bible to establish scientific presuppositions, approaches, or methods, as if biblical texts were written for that purpose.  I simply can not with integrity adopt or recommend the positions this movie assumes, models, and promotes about the Bible.

But . . . . did it happen?

And so now at the end of all of this, some will still want to know: “Did the events in Genesis really happen this way?” Well . . . whether I say “ yes” or “no”, you won’t believe me or like my answer. So let me ask you: That portrait of you on the wall with your family. Is that how you really look? You didn’t have your hair styled or put on makeup? You didn’t get a tan or buy new clothes or spruce up for the picture? Did you hold your stomach in and sit tall? Is this really the historical you?  Or are you presenting the best you, that you want others to see?

Yes, this is relevant.  Is it just possible that by judging everything through an impossible question–“Is Genesis History?”– that we set ourselves up for forced answers?  Personally, for me, the Bible is the most important collection of documents ever brought together in one volume.  Because of that, I want to respect its documents each for what they claim to be on their own terms.  This is worth defending.

I hope you have noticed that I have been much “harder” on the “Bible people” (who should know better, and with whom I consider myself a fellow) in this piece than on the scientists (with whom I am trying to be a fellow).  I am not anti-scientist.  So please allow me to ask you a serious question.  How do you feel when you see well-meaning Christians who do not have your training in science, your understanding of your field of study, your appreciation and awareness of the debates and intricacies of your field, or your experience, and they begin to demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the scientific issues you know so very well, and then they proceed to misinform others about those very things?  Would you simply pat them on the back and tell them to keep talking?  Or would you try to encourage them to do some due diligence in that field before speaking out in some authoritative manner?

Whatever your answer, you know what I’m talking about.  So I urge this message: you have a lot to offer us!  Please don’t fall into the trap presented in this movie.  Zeal for the truth is terrific.  But please treat the craft of understanding ancient sacred literature with as much respect as you did when learning the craft of your science.  Anybody can quote a Bible text.  But reading the Bible responsibly and contextually, especially in any professional space, takes as much work and care as it does to learn science.  So just as you rightly want people to speak intelligently about science, please learn something about the nature of ancient peoples and texts before you begin too easily appropriating and twisting those texts for current agendas;  because all that does is pull the rug out from everybody and makes monkeys of us all.

Conversations with God

A Friendly and Open Letter to Bob Beaudine:

There is little doubt that what passes as “social media” today is more often anti-social. Short quips pass for genuine interaction, and the art of conversation dies a little more every day. When we are genuinely interested in other people, and they in us, there is a give and take that blooms and thrives, color ablaze, in a context of patient time and of attentive listening.

Two Chairs by Bob Beaudine

Click on the book cover to see it at
Amazon.com

So it is for our time with God. Relationship with God does not happen by accident. It is—it must be—intentional. And so, Bob Beaudine has written a small, easy-to-read book: 2 Chairs: The Secret that Changes Everything (Worthy Media, 2016). This 170 page book (nearly double-spaced), is extremely “conversational” in tone, has many uplifting and inspiring stories, is well laid out, and is very inviting. On a scale of 1-10, I would rate this book an 8 or 9, a very high recommendation, especially for “real people” who struggle each day to make sense of life and the ever increasing onslaught of nonsense in the world. Academic types will need to be looking for inspiration and encouragement rather than anything technical. I don’t know the author personally, but I’ll call him Bob, in the spirit of conversation, and treat him as a newfound friend.

So then, Bob, thank you for this book. You encourage everyone to take for themselves a new and intimate look at prayer—to make it truly a personal, engaging, and interactive conversation with God. Throughout the book you help people to ask three simple but powerful questions: Does God know my situation? Is it too hard for him to handle it? Does he have a good plan for me? And even though I would quibble with exactly how you and many other Christians answer the third question, it is clear that these are simple, memorable, and “focusing” questions, and that they are easy to transfer to literally any situation in life—good or bad, exciting or challenging.

In addition to the three questions, the seven action steps you offer in the face of any situation are equally attractive: Discover the Secret, Call your WHO Friend, See the Field, Make the Change, Be Strong and Courageous, Order Yourself, and “Do the Done.” The stories you tell to illustrate your message are down to earth, inspiring, and relatable. You have a great sense of humor and easy writing style. “The great philosopher Mike Tyson once said, ‘Everyone has a plan till they get hit!’” is just one of numerous well-placed quotes from others, including also your dad’s comment before you had written anything, “. . . when you finish writing your fifth book, I believe you will have accomplished some things that will have a lasting effect on people.” Also your own quote: “All it takes is just one thought, one idea, or one great WHO friend and your world can change for the better in a moment’s flash.” A lot to admire, here. Thanks, Bob, for taking the time to write this down and for actively promoting this message!

I do have a couple of hesitations (“wishes”) about the book, which I will try to state positively as encouragements to you and all who might read this.

1. First, I wish you had given at least a little more voice to the importance of reading the ancient scriptures for any ongoing conversation with God. Otherwise, it is quite possible, that any desired “conversation” can very easily degenerate into self-talk in which one projects onto God one’s own thoughts and will. Clearly, you do not condone such a thing; clearly, Bible reading is not your main subject and is somewhat assumed by you; and clearly you make several references to the scriptures throughout your book. Believe me, I understand that you are passionate about getting people to talk with God one on one.

However (and I’m afraid you will misunderstand me here) when you place a “real conversation with God” as something “Bible reading, devotion, and study” cannot be, it perpetuates a very common and unfortunate misunderstanding among Christians. You say it this way:

Some will say, “I talk to God,” but then describe their talk time as more of a “quiet time” of reading, studying, and doing devotions. All of that is awesome! I hope you do it more. But that’s not really what I’m talking about here. That sounds more like something you’d do in a library, and if someone talked you’d hear Shh! What I’m asking you to consider is dedicating 2 Chairs in your house for real conversation with God. (p. 45)

The two chairs idea is (as you say several times) not new, and it is great! Bravo! Let’s get more people to do this. But presenting this so that, supposedly, real conversation is somehow a different species from spending time in the scriptures is very disappointing. Actually, let’s show how “conversational Bible reading” is just as important as “conversational praying.” So I’m with you on this! Just as you want to encourage people to pray (talk) conversationally with God, let us be just as vigilant in bringing Bible reading (and study and devotion) out of the dark-ages, as if “it belongs in a library” in some muffled corner. Actually, it belongs on the coffee table Between the 2 Chairs. (There is your next book title!) Yes, I realize that you are not wanting anything between the two chairs–you are wanting open conversation with God! I’m wanting that too. That is why we must emphasize that conversational praying and conversational Bible reading are not in competition with each other. The more I read the scriptures conversationally, the more my conversational praying will be enhanced, filled, and energized. And vice versa.

That is why since 2012 we at The Institute for the Art of Biblical Conversation (called early-on “Coffee with Paul and other biblical authors”) have utilized the empty chair concept to encourage among Christians the idea of “responsible, contextual, and conversational Bible reading.” And that is why we have produced an introductory set of books (Unrelenting Faith!) on reading the Bible conversationally. What you are talking about in 2Chairs is wonderful! But these two concepts are compatible, and they need to walk hand in hand. I am guessing that, actually, you will agree with my concern here.

2. My second wish is the quibble I mentioned earlier: the plan of God. This is, of course, a longstanding area of theological discussion. But I will simply say here that I do not need to believe that it matters to God which house I live in or which job I have or what sale I make. What matters is how I act in the process; and then how I act next in any and every given circumstance; that I know that no matter what happens next, God is there to help me take the next step. So no matter what the street is on which I buy my next bigger home, or whether I end up on the street, God is in both places and will help me take the next step. 1Th 4:3 says it best: “Here is God’s will: your holiness!” So I would always answer your third question (Does he have a good plan for me?) in this way: “Yes! Of course! And I know exactly what it is: that no matter what happens—even if my child dies (and she did)—God is right here with me to help me take the next step.

My quibble aside, I recommend this book to all who wish to be encouraged. May we have more faithful people write and read and follow such leading as this.

I thank you, Bob, for your continued life in the Lord. And I trust that you will take this as supportive engagement.

Sincerely,

Your friend and brother in the Lord,

Gary D. Collier, PhD
Institute for the Art of Biblical Conversation
http://BiblicalConversation.com

 

 

Supportive Engagement

“The Bible proves that I’m right and that you’re an idiot!”

When Christians Simply Yell

To call Christian conversation about the Bible “intelligent” is sometimes laughable–or maybe ludicrous.  Yet, that is one of our highest goals in both our live and online gatherings, and it is why we have taken the name The Institute for the Art of Biblical Conversation.   We pursue an incredible, lively, open, generous, electrifying, and thoughtful atmosphere in our discussion of biblical texts, concepts, and ideas.  This does not mean we always agree.  It does mean we try to live up to the name of Christ in the effort.

Far too often, “Christians” won’t sit down at the same table with each other–they just yell across it at each other. Instead of setting an example for the world, they follow the pattern of political radio talk show hosts or of presidential debates—–which in recent times are national scandals, disgraceful, and a sign of baby-rattling self-centeredness on the part of all involved. Unfortunately, Christians often end up either fighting or just refusing to talk about anything important at all, creating a culture of mindlessness that  is unworthy of the name Christian.

The inability or unwillingness of Christians (often even within their own churches!) to be able to talk to each other and to challenge each other with an open spirit of grace is both deeply entrenched and reprehensible.

What follows are the guidelines (not rules) we have in place for ourselves.  Not because we ourselves feel in any way superior to anyone else;  but only because we feel this is a far superior way.  We commend these kinds of guidelines for all kinds of Christian groups around the world.

What is “Supportive Engagement”?

“Conversation” for us implies a “give and take” among people of good conscience in an atmosphere that we call “supportive engagement.

Supportive Engagementhas two main elements which work together: (1) challenge, and (2) support.

  1. CHALLENGE: Many faith environments avoid “thinking” together because thinking promotes dissension!  However, in our groups we intentionally pursue a thinking environment in which we study together and engage each other for the sake of “iron sharpening iron.” In our group, you are free to advocate any belief or position you like; but you had better be ready to get challenged by someone. Challenge is not only acceptable, it is welcomed. Challenge does not imply being “argumentative” or “obnoxious.” Rather, “challenge” means the intelligent exploration of ideas with one another, especially when we disagree over one or more issues.
    __

    1. This implies that the challenger is mature enough so as to always try to show appropriate respect to the person he or she is challenging. It is never permissible for a challenger to attack, demean, or impugn the person whom the challenger is approaching. (This is not a presidential debate, and the disgraceful tactics used by childish candidates will not be tolerated here!) Any such attack will be stopped promptly in its tracks, and anyone who will not cooperate may be ushered out of the group altogether. Personal disputes do happen, and those disputes will need to be handled personally off the community discussion board–like two grown-up Christian people. This is a place for invigorating discussion. Mud slinging will not happen here. Following are some examples:
      __

      1. Appropriate: “I find your argument lacking coherence, especially at two points: (1) . . .”
      2. Inappropriate: “You are obviously incapable of thinking through a problem with any coherence . . .”
      3. Inappropriate: “You’re an idiot!” (Anything close to this will certainly get you called on the carpet, and it will possibly get you thrown out of the group.)
      4. Inappropriate: “You are trying to say . . .” or “You feel x . . . ” or “You think X . . .”  (Don’t tell people what they they think, feel, or are trying to do. Speak your own feelings and let others do that for themselves. This is good manners and it shows respect.”)
        __
    2. This also implies that the one being challenged is mature enough to know the difference between a personal attack and an appropriate challenge to a position or approach. Misunderstandings can occur, of course, even among mature participants, and sometimes confusion sets in. But being able to receive a challenge with grace is part of what we are about. As long as we keep in mind that we are challenging “issues” and not “people,” we will be able to resolve any misunderstandings and continue.
      __
    3. This also implies the acceptance of three basic principles of communication:
      __

      1. The sender always must take responsibility for what he or she says/writes. He or she must work to write/speak in such a way that deals with issues rather than personalities, always in an attempt to respect and NOT to offend another person. It is always appropriate if a sender chooses to reword a statement based on a perceived offense.
        __
      2. The receiver must take responsibility for how he or she decides to read/hear a statement. He or she must work to not “over-read” any received statement. The fact is, absolutely anything can be misunderstood and inadvertently twisted into something it was not intended to say (even this statement). There is clearly a point at which a sender is not responsible for how a reader may twist or distort a received message.E.g.: The statement: “Offensive comments are not allowed” can be interpreted: “You are accusing me of writing offensive comments!” But it does not even come close to saying that. To assume such a thing may be an aggressive and unwarranted reading on the reader’s part.
        __
      3. In all cases, it is legitimate for a receiver to ask a sender what is implied by a statement. In this environment, once the sender clarifies the intent, that is the end of the matter. Any response by anyone questioning the sincerity or honesty of a discussion partner will be regarded as a personal attack on that party (for calling that person a liar). This has no place in mature Christian discussion.
        __
  2. SUPPORT: No matter whether the sender and receiver end up agreeing, in this environment, they make a commitment to end up supporting each other for the sake of community harmony—–even if they disagree in good conscience. (And it is perfectly legitimate for them to state it as such.)
    __

    1. Appropriate: “Jo and I disagree with one another, yet I respect and laud her attempts to search the scriptures and to explain her position.”
      __
    2. At all times we resolve to interact with each other openly and honestly in a spirit always of Christian love. We offer support of each other despite particular disagreements over one matter or another.
      __
    3. We grant to each other that we are all doing the best we can do to understand the scriptures and be honest with ourselves. We grant that it is possible for intelligent people of good conscience to diligently study the Bible and then honestly arrive at different conclusions. We accept that it is NOT a requirement that everybody has to agree with each other in order to support each other.
      __

WHAT “SUPPORTIVE ENGAGEMENT” IS NOT:__

  1. It is not “agreeing to disagree.” The latter is where all tend to believe whatever we want without any need to discuss or support it.
    __
  2. It is not any kind of formal debate. (We are not a debating society!)
    __
  3. It is not a Sunday school class, a counseling session, or a feel-good session where participants tiptoe around each other so that no one will “feel any challenge.” This is honest discussion where we do not wear our feelings on our sleeves and where we support the other in challenging us. There is no promise, here, that you won’t get your feelings hurt! It depends on where you wear your feelings and what you decide to do about it that is important.
    __

SUMMARY: We advocate an incredible discussion environment! “Supportive Engagement” is just that: Engagement! It refers to an active and willing challenge to one another to sharpen each other. Such an approach is only possible among mature Christian adults who can and do distinguish between (1) intelligent, pointed, and direct challenge (as an actual goal), as opposed to (2) personal attacks, dismissals, or name calling (as is found in presidential debates, a thing of disgrace to everyone and which brings shame to a nation). Christians are to walk by a different set of principles.

Again, these are not rules, but guiding ideas that flow from a principle desire for something better than what the popular political arena offers. What we follow here is a kind of mindset that asks:  “What can we do to engender valuable conversation? How can we help create that and pursue that?”

I do not suggest that this is a perfect outline;  I do suggest that this kind of approach can work. As always, it depends on the people involved.

Gary D. Collier
On behalf of the Institute for the Art of Biblical Conversation (IABC)
The parent of Coffee With Paul  (CWP)

PS:  It is possible to read the above statement as an indication that members of our group are having trouble getting along.  But that would be a mistake.  Actually, this is an expansion of a statement made in 2012 in the book Scripture, Canon, & Inspiration, and it was based on numerous experiences within various churches across the US in which various church leaders would not recognize “Supportive Engagement” if it walked up and gave them a hug.

 

 

 

“Help Will Not Come from Elsewhere”

I just finished (yesterday) watching the new Cosmos series with Neil DeGrasse Tyson. I really like this entire series. I plan to watch it several more times. It does a good job of tying into the original series, done by Carl Sagan.

I watched that original series as it came out in 1980 on PBS on Sunday nights. (I was preaching at the time, and I would preach shorter sermons so I could get home in time to watch each new episode.)  Tyson is not the poet Sagan was, and by poet, I don’t mean rhyming schemes;  I mean that Sagan delivered meaningful messages, like the Pale Blue Dot which is still a stirring piece.

I realize that the Pale Blue Dot is old news.  But it is new every time I see it.  I’ve seen this many times and I come back to it often.  It is among my favorite messages of all time given by anyone.  It gives perspective and engenders sober responsibility.  Here the original version of the video portion with the original sound track by Sagan and original music.


As a believer in God, I recommend this video not despite the line, but because of it, when Sagan says

“In all this vastness,
there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere
to save us from ourselves.”

Whatever he intended by this line, I cannot say.  But Sagan was no atheist. He said so bluntly in an interview:

I am not an atheist. An atheist is someone who has compelling evidence that there is no Judeo-Christian-Islamic God. I am not that wise . . .

And in another:

“but neither do I consider there to be anything approaching adequate evidence for such a god. Why are you in such a hurry to make up your mind? Why not simply wait until there is compelling evidence?”

He was not an atheist (no matter how much some want him to have been).  Just as clearly, he was not a believer in God (everywhere he spoke, this was abundantly clear, including numerous YouTube videos).  So, his statement was not meant in any spiritual sense.

But I am not interested in pursuing that.  What I am interested in is his line “there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere.”  In the context of his message, he is speaking to the need for human responsibility.  And in that call, all can join–believer and nonbeliever alike.

It is true that—–as believers in God—–we could miss the point and begin trying to refute his statement by quoting texts about God as our help.   Let’s be clear, the scriptures laud that God exists, and that he is in control of all there is (Gen 1-2; Psa 8; 59:13; Dan 5:21;  and many, many more;  I am not disputing this here), and that God will help me or us (Exod 18:4; 2 Sam 23:5; Ps 22:19; 27:9; 33:20 35:2; 40:17; 42:5; 42:11; 43:5; 44:26 59:4; 63:7; 70:5; 94:17; 121:1; 121:2; 124:8 Sir 24:22).

But none of these (or other similar texts) are claims that God will save us in the clear physical sense Sagan was presenting.  As a matter of fact, the scriptures are full of the idea—and we all know this by mere experience—that God has always allowed human beings to get into all of the trouble they are intent on getting into.  The salvation we are promised through faith in Jesus Christ is not a promise that God will step in and make people responsible, or solve our viciousness against each other. Or keep us from going bankrupt. Or from losing our home. Or our jobs. Or our families. Nor is there any promise that he will stop all of our wars. Or corruption. Or destruction. Or crime. Or hatred.  Prayer, hope, trust, and faith are all extremely important concepts, but they do not somehow countermand justice (which is rightness)—i.e., responsibility.

Actually, Sagan was not stating anything in this respect that is not also supported in the scriptures.  As human beings, we need to be responsible!  Sagan’s point was about human responsibility in taking care of where we live. How can we not say “yes” to that?

Unlike Sagan, I am a believer in God and in the value of our ancient holy writings.  And yet, even according to those scriptures, God has always allowed people to be idiots, whether religious or not.  But God has called us, as human beings who follow God, not to be.

The new series (in my opinion) lacks that stirring voice and presence of Sagan. Even so, the new series with Tyson is still a must watch. Especially for Christians. I’ll say more about that next time.

Gary

 

“It Has No Handles”: How Do You See Yourself?

A verse I am drawn to in Isaiah 45 is verse 9.  The overall idea seems to be clear:  the clay should not try to tell the potter his job or sit in judgment about what he has produced.   (Anybody with kids understands this point.)   The context of Isaiah 40-54 helps here, where there is a constant refrain

“For I, I am God, and there is no other!  I am with you!  I have made all things, and I am doing a new thing! I will help you!

In chapter 45, maybe I like the fact that there is a kind of translation problem with verse 9c, not with the words, but that it is possibly an idiom, and so what does it mean?

The Hebrew is straightforward:  “What are you making?  It [or he] has no hands.”
The Greek Isaiah adds a phrase, and changes everything to “you”, but is no clearer:  ““What are you doing, since you are not working, nor do you have hands”?

The KJV and ASV are fairly literal:

KJV  Isaiah 45:9 Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth. Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy work, He hath no hands?

ASV  Isaiah 45:9 Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! a potsherd among the potsherds of the earth! Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy work, He hath no hands?

The NIV has the pot asking a question:

NIV  Isaiah 45:9 “Woe to those who quarrel with their Maker, those who are nothing but potsherds among the potsherds on the ground. Does the clay say to the potter, ‘What are you making?’ Does your work say, ‘The potter has no hands’?

The NET translates the idiom to “skill” and it makes perfect sense in context:

NET  Isaiah 45:9 One who argues with his creator is in grave danger, one who is like a mere shard among the other shards on the ground! The clay should not say to the potter, “What in the world are you doing? Your work lacks skill!”

I like the NET Bible on this.  However, for personal reasons, I also like the RSV, which I did not list above.

RSV  Isaiah 45:9 “Woe to him who strives with his Maker, an earthen vessel with the potter! Does the clay say to him who fashions it, `What are you making’? or `Your work has no handles’?

These are several different kinds of translations, and all are legitimate.  Slightly different, yet we get the point.

So why do I like the RSV?  Because it can be understood not only as criticism of God (“you did this wrong”), but a criticism of the self (“you made me wrong, and so your work is bad”).  “It has no handles.”  Here you are looking in the mirror and you know where all the flaws are:  Your bent nose, your lips too thick or thin, your teeth are not what they used to be, your receding hairline, midriff is too . . . well, you get it.  But worse, have you ever noticed how you can look in a mirror and see all of your internal flaws as well?  You are not this or that, not good enough, smart enough, focused enough, devoted enough. You look in the mirror and you say:  “It has no handles.”  (Ok, “love handles” maybe, but don’t ruin this;  stay with me here.)

Most of the time when we look at ourselves and say “It has no handles” we think we mean, “Look how I have let God (or others or both) down.”  But deep down we are criticizing God for not doing “enough” in my case to make me like I should be.

I think it is possible to get the point that “him” (45:9-10), the “rebels” (46:8), and “stubborn-hearted” (46:12) are God’s own people who are not looking in the right places.  But it is harder to see that in not looking in the right places, in not honoring God for his work in you, in looking down on yourself . . . it is like you spending a long time with great effort trying to prepare a great meal, or paint a special picture, or make a special item to give to someone, and when you do, the first thing the person says is, “Well . . . it has no handles, does it!”

“I am God, and there is no other” is what you should see when you look in a mirror.  God has given you life and opportunity.  And God is at work, right now, in you.  Handles and all.

Gary D. Collier

[All quotes are from BibleWorks 9]

 

Halloween: A Different Kind of Outrage

This is Halloween week so we get to hear from well-meaning Christians (once again) the outrage against and denouncement of this particular “holiday” that allows children to dress up as ghosts and goblins—or other horrible creatures (like Elsa of Frozen)—that will surely scar them for life. I’ve always been amused at the “Christian dress up” replacement events held at churches where children can dress up like a “biblical character”—except, of course, the witch at Endor, Jezebel, Rahab, Tamar, Bathsheba, Judas, Goliath, Herod, Pilate, Legion, or the Dragon (to mention only a few).

(Ah! But silly me, you can now buy a “Monsters of the Bible” lesson pack to teach your children all about God’s truths, with a proclamation in big bold red letters: “Don’t let God’s Truth Take a Backseat This Halloween!” Only monsters are included. So this leaves the door open for more marketing ideas, like “Despicable People of the Bible” lesson pack. Or, “All the Prostitutes of the Bible,” lesson pack, including the pornographic prostitute sisters—Oholah and Oholibah—of Ezek 23. You could even include patterns for making ancient prostitute clothing!)

Could we at least focus our outrage a bit?

I personally have many fond memories of Halloween as a child. In our town, it was acceptable to dress up and go trick-or-treating every night of the entire week of Halloween (except, only one visit to each house per goblin, please). Our parents didn’t even go with us! We just went out by ourselves at 8, 9, 10, 11 years old! We got in no trouble, we had a lot of fun.

I realize that times have changed and also all of the evil some people do with such a holiday; but if we are to abandon every activity because of how some people turn it into evil, then every church would shut down overnight never to open its doors again.

Oh, and speaking of doors and the evil in churches, this brings me to a different kind of outrage that I myself always associate with this time of year. For this week in 2014 marks year 497 since a monumental occurrence. On October 31, 1517—All Hallows’ Eve—Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the door of the Wittenberg church against the practice by the Catholic Church (at that time) of the sale of indulgences (a way of buying forgiveness of sins and not having to go to confession). The date (October 31) was not an accident but well chosen: for All Hallows’ Eve (or All Saints’ Eve) was the eve before a religious holiday influenced by pre-Christian practices dedicated to remembering the dead, including saints (hallows), martyrs, and all the faithful departed believers. (This is still celebrated in some countries.) The 95 theses railed against the sale of indulgences which granted forgiveness of sins and even release from purgatory—and this had everything to do with the dearly departed.

Look at this description, which comes right off of Wikipedia:

As part of a fund-raising campaign commissioned by Pope Leo X to finance the renovation of St Peter’s Basilica in Rome, Johann Tetzel, a Dominican priest, began the selling of indulgences in the German lands. Albert of Mainz, the Archbishop of Mainz in Germany, had borrowed heavily to pay for his high church rank and was deeply in debt. He agreed to allow the sale of the indulgences in his territory in exchange for a cut of the proceeds. Martin Luther was apparently not aware of this. Even though Luther’s prince, Frederick III, and the prince of the neighboring territory, George, Duke of Saxony, forbade the sale of indulgences in their respective lands, people in Wittenberg traveled to purchase them. When these people came to confession, they presented their plenary indulgences for which they paid, claiming they no longer had to repent of their sins, since the document promised to forgive all their sins. Luther was outraged that they had paid money for what was theirs by right as a free gift from God. He felt compelled to expose the fraud that was being sold to the people. This exposure was to take place in the form of a public scholarly debate at the University of Wittenberg. The Ninety-Five Theses outlined the items to be discussed and issued the challenge to any and all comers. (see full article)

For Luther, the monsters, despicable people, and whores were the church leaders who concocted and promoted this evil scheme.

Martin Luther's 95 ThesesYou can yourself read a translation of the 95 theses here. Among my favorite are #10 and 11:

10. Ignorant and wicked are the doings of those priests who, in the case of the dying, reserve canonical penances for purgatory.

11. This changing of the canonical penalty to the penalty of purgatory is quite evidently one of the tares that were sown while the bishops slept.

If you read these 95 Theses, you will likely be struck with how foreign the problem sounds from anything you deal with on a daily basis (although clearly, corruption is an ever present thing). It is a great example how we can become so wrapped up in our own interpretations of things and with things that have nothing to do with the Bible that we can no longer see the Bible itself or Jesus himself.

It is always good for us to be on guard. But let us be reasonable people in the process.

Gary

 

A Friendly Open Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson
on Science, the Bible, & Creationism

Heavily revised Saturday, January 16, 2016

Dr. Tyson,

First of all, I’m a big fan of your work.  I enjoy watching, listening to, and considering everything I have found where you are speaking.  So I begin with a “thank you” and appreciation.

Along with that, I am not a scientist and will not attempt to speak as though I am one. I am, however, a trained and experienced biblical scholar, and I’m writing to ask you a favor.  It would be helpful if you would show more nuance and awareness when you speak out of your field of expertise about biblical texts.  Frankly, when you speak about the Bible, you don’t sound any different than many conservative Christians who speak about science.  I.e., you sound just as ignorant.

In a previous post (as well as another), I evaluated some features of a popular fundamentalist approach to “The Bible and Science” by many Christians today. My concern was not so much science, but how Christians of all stripes approach, understand, interpret, and present the Bible. Here, I want to sharpen that concern and speak directly to you, Dr. Tyson, a leading scientist who continually makes comments about the Bible as though you have some right to do so.  Certainly, I would like a reply, although I will not hold my breath that you will do so.  Even so, I will still ask a couple of questions as though as though you might.

Context:  Moyers and Tyson

First, for others reading this open letter, I need to provide some context, so I will slip into 3rd person here:  In January (2014), Bill Moyers interviewed the well-spoken and entertaining astrophysicist, author, and science communicator Neil deGrasse Tyson, the Frederick P. Rose Director of the Hayden Planetarium at the Rose Center for Earth and Space and a research associate in the department of astrophysics at the American Museum of Natural History. This popular speaker reprised the Nova series, Cosmos (of Carl Sagan fame), and has appeared on many platforms speaking for the advancement of science in education.

As an advocate of intelligent and responsible handling of the Bible, I want to go on record, first of all, that the interview with Bill Moyers was engaging and worthy of discussion. I would urge every Christian everywhere who is interested in this topic to watch this interview in its entirety, maybe multiple times. You might or might not agree, but that is not the point.  I personally consider this a much better approach than the two previous approaches I evaluated above in the third paragraph. What follows is actually three interviews combined into one, and is 71 minutes long. Here it is in its entirety:

My Questions

Now, Dr. Tyson, having encouraged this with enthusiasm, I’m about to ask you a few questions.  However, I want to state clearly that I long ago (in my late teens) disavowed any association with the “young earth creationist” positions (so, I am not at all defending that position), nor am I defending any other so-called “biblical-scientific explanation” of Genesis chapters 1-2. (I’ve already stated elsewhere that Genesis is not talking about that and also that Genesis 1 and 2 present two different stories of creation, which means that not even the original authors/compilers of Genesis were concerned about presenting “the one right scientific view of beginnings”). Furthermore, I did not arrive at my positions about Genesis because of any scientific arguments against fundamentalist views of it.  I arrived where I am because of literary and historical understandings of how ancient texts of all kinds work.

So, I am not challenging your science.  I am asking you, though, why you don’t take the same care in how you characterize ancient biblical texts?  Not as a “believer”;  that is not the point.  But simply as someone who understands and respects the value of reading ancient literature contextually in light of the genres and historical realities they attempt to address. 

So now, to my questions. And to do this, I will highlight only one portion of your comments from the video above (not at all implying that they should be taken out of the context of the larger speech). Here’s a short clip from the above presentation:

Here are my questions.

First, do you think it is just possible that you are doing the very thing with the Bible that you are asking Christians not to do with science?  You later say (after this clip), that the science classroom should deal with scientific issues. That if just fine. But in this clip, you are giving opinions about the nature, purpose, early understanding, and proper interpretation of a biblical story, as though you are a qualified interpreter of these ancient texts.   On the one hand, you forbid others to speak in your classroom, but now you are quite willing to speak in theirs.  I find this hypocritical.

For example, when you say that not until science came along did Christians start reinterpreting the Bible as not being literal on the creation:   that is simply not correct. I’ve commented at length on this before, so I won’t repeat it here. Figurative and metaphorical interpretations of various parts of biblical literature are a part of the very fabric of that literature from its inception. There exist all kinds of figurative and theological applications of earlier biblical material even within the Bible. Even of the creation.  Using your criteria, if you want to speak about biblical texts, don’t you think you should do so with all proper regard for the contextual study of those texts, just as you are asking for the sake of the study of science?  I think this is a fair request.

Second, do you think perhaps you end up forcing a shallow and literalistic reading of the Bible as a straw man?  Whether you intend to or not, you are basically saying:  “Anybody reading this ancient story would say __X__.” I’ve heard biblical literalists say that kind of nonsense all my life, and it always irritates me.  So now, you’re doing the same thing.  Also, when you talk about the stars falling in Revelation you sound a great deal like biblical literalists (which atheistic scientists often do, since they are generally fighting a particular group or particular approach).  Rather than understanding the theological nature of apocalyptic literature, you have just adopted the approach of the literalists.   Actually, apocalyptic literature at its heart is less an attempt to describe the reality of nature than a use of the observable world to find meaning and hope in hopeless situations. You almost speak as if those poor dumb people writing the original material way back then had no deeper theological sensitivities or purpose than a spewing out of a shallow and mere literal view of the world.  The fact is, such texts were not written as scientific statements, and not even all of those readers took them literally  (e.g., Philo and Origen from my previous articles).

Is it possible that, just saying it the way you do shows that you don’t understand these texts and that you are unqualified to tell me how I would or should read them?  If it works that way for science, why not for biblical literature?

What about showing sensitivity and responsibility in handling ancient texts contextually according to their genre and nature—I’m sure you agree with this in principle. Biblical literalists are horribly guilty of this offense against their own literature; why must you fall into to the same trap? It does not serve anyone, let alone the discussion, if both sides of the debate are irresponsible with the “texts” to which they are referring.

I enjoy listening to you as a scientist, but as an interpreter of the Bible, you remind me of the ones you are fighting;  and I have no more interest in listening to you about the Bible that I do to Ken Ham (of the Creation Museum in Ohio) or any other fundamentalist “creation scientist” about either the Bible or science.  You both end up sounding the same.

Staying Religious

But finally, you make one comment at about the 45.55 mark:

If you’re going to stay religious at the end of the conversation, God has to be more to you than just where science has yet to tread.

Frankly, I want to say, with my teenage kids, “Well, duh!”  I’ve also heard a couple other of your speeches where you develop this “God of the gaps” stuff, and I just have to say that I have never believed that kind of nonsense my entire life, that “God is only God of things I can’t explain otherwise?”  Anybody who believes in God as an all powerful force believes in the God of everything, whether you think you can explain it or not.  This idea that God is somehow the God of the gaps, or the God of the ever-receding pocket at the edges of scientific ignorance is just silly.   As an illustration:  when I was growing up, just because I began to uncover the mysteries of how my dad operated, and I came to see him not as a worker of magic or with superhuman strength (which I saw as a child), but as one who loved me, this did not mean that my dad did not really exist or that the principles I was discovering were not reflective of his very character.  It just means that I understood more.

Certainly, I agree that if God is more than the edges of scientific ignorance, then he must truly be more.  In fact, God just might even be more than (and including) the sum total of scientific knowledge, despite its growing pockets of ignorance about God.  But when you or any other scientist starts claiming that “anything that we understand cannot be God,” that is beyond your ability to say.   God just might be more than what scientists are able to test, and more than some are willing to acknowledge.  In that case, one wonders whether such scientists have anything at all to say about God, or why they are even trying to.

I actually do know why:  because you want a more responsible, rational, and intelligent conversation to take place for the benefit of the human race.  Well I, for one, agree.   So why don’t we encourage the elevation of the entire conversation:  responsible science, responsible handling of ancient texts, and a refusal to lump all scientists or all Christians together.

I very much liked the Moyers interview. I enjoy hearing qualified scientists speak on their field of expertise, just like I enjoy hearing qualified biblical scholars in theirs. I just wish it would result in a more responsible handling of biblical texts from both groups.

Respectfully,
Gary D. Collier

Theological Tartar

This is more of a personal posting.  This morning I received an email from someone I’ve never met in reply to my recent post on aliens.  However, this letter then turns to a question of a more personal search for truth.  So, I want to share this letter verbatim without the name of the person who wrote it.  If he or she wishes to “own” the letter, that is up to that person.  The idea of “theological tartar” to describe traditional religious baggage will show up at the very end of my reply.

The Letter

—–Original Message—–
From:
Sent: Monday, August 4, 2014 10:01 AM
To: garydcollier@coffeewithpaul.com
Subject: RE: Did Jesus Die for Aliens, Too?

Good morning Gary,

Thanks so much for sharing this article. I have not seen the complete email from Mr. Ham. But I would venture to say that it possibly falls into the same category as many other so called Christian viewpoints (i.e. does more harm than good). It is very frustrating when someone tries to speak for all “Bible believing Christians”. Unfortunately it tends only to give more ammo against what I believe is the very logical argument for the truth of the Bible and the case for God & Jesus specifically. Once again, I appreciate you passing your thoughts along.

On a separate subject… I am curious where your thinking falls, with respect to many of the opinions of men such as Edward Fudge and Al Maxey? The more I read of their published writings (emails, etc..), the more I tend to lean towards their understanding and opinions on several subjects just as Hell, Grace, Diversity of the believers, etc…Unfortunately, the Independent Christian church where we attend, does not seem to have the same opinions on some of these subjects (Hell specifically). I was raised conservative church of Christ, and my spouse was raised southern Baptist. So we come from a very “works based”, law keeping, background. But once I started reading many of the writings of men such as Carl Ketcherside and Cecil Hook, I started questioning my stance on many topics.

All that said… I guess my main questions are… Do you have an opinion on these men and their writings? And, where do you worship (collectively) at on a regular basis?

Thanks so much for your time and help.

My reply:

Hi, I appreciate your email very much.

My background is also fairly conservative Church of Christ. My first college was Freed Hardeman, which was much more conservative then (late 60’s) than now. I’m actually very grateful for my conservative grounding even though my attitude, demeanor, and focus have changed quite a bit over the years. I am currently attending a local small community church (I live in a small town 50 miles west of Indianapolis), and the only Churches of Christ and Christian Churches are either hard line conservative and don’t want me there or too far for me to drive to economically. The funny thing is, the preacher of the church I attend is a young earther (!), but insists that I teach the Sunday school class and has me preach whenever he is away, and he never tries to put stipulations on anything I would say. I think he appreciates my focus on the scriptures, and certainly he is a good friend. Like any church this one has many good people of various backgrounds and leanings.

I consider Edward Fudge a personal friend, and also appreciate the work of such men as those you mention. I would not say I am a student of any of them (I’m simply not an avid reader of any of them, not that I’m opposed to them), but that is not due to any dissatisfaction so much as my attentions are simply in other places. I agree with Edward that traditional views of hell (prominent everywhere in evangelical circles) is overdone and problematic. I have actually never stated my own views on this topic anywhere, and will not do so here. But I will say that they (my views) are friendly to the efforts of Edward and others, even if they differ on some points as well.

What I love to this day about my upbringing is the emphasis I received on the love and respect for biblical text and about taking it above and beyond any attitude or teaching or tradition I have available to me. If I have a central “heartbeat,” this is it: the love and respect for the ancient scriptures above other forms of Christian focus. (Certainly, not in any Pharisaical sense.)  That is why in every single one of our Coffee With Paul activities (online or “live” or in writing) we emphasize responsible, contextual, and conversational readings of the scriptures. Now this sounds nice and friendly, but the truth is, when we actually do this, that kind of reading of the scriptures itself exposes all of the hardened tartar on our theological teeth.

Again, I thank you for your letter, and I hope I have addressed your questions.

Many blessings,

Gary

______________________

Gary D. Collier
CWP Classroom
http://CoffeeWithPaul.com

Did Jesus Die for Aliens, Too?

“Thus Bible-believing Christians don’t (or can’t) accept the belief there are aliens on other planets.”

Ken Ham, Creation Museum (email I received today)

I don’t know Ken Ham personally and would not make personal comments in any case.  My response, here, is purely about the position taken and the way it was presented.  And I couldn’t decide whether to speak softly, using the back door, or more directly.  So here goes.

The quote above, including the entire letter that was sent, is just embarrassing nonsense.  (I kinda decided against the back door).  What he believes about aliens, or what you believe, is a personal issue.  But look at the law that just got passed for all “Bible-believing Christians.”

. . . Christians don’t (or can’t) accept . . .

It is ludicrous and has nothing to do with Christianity or the Bible. Actually, all of the existing “Christian” Bibles (Protestant, Catholic, and more)  are collections of ancient documents which speak to an ancient faith:  a faith that is still valid and viable. It contains wisdom and direction and story and many other things.  But it is not a science book and Bible-believing Christians are free to think for themselves despite such narrow-minded pontifications.  Even on the off chance he meant that “some Christians feel compelled/are not personally able to accept,” it is horribly stated.

Believe in aliens, don’t believe.  Who cares!  But leave the Bible out of this conversation.  The Bible does not address this issue on any level.  This approach has skeptics howling.  And I don’t blame them.  It is nothing but farcical ignorance.

It sounds exactly like the end of the 19th century when preachers and some Greek teachers were claiming that NT Greek was “Holy Spirit” Greek, a special language made by God for writing the NT.  Uhh . . .  oh yes, well . . . then somebody found the Greek papyri proving conclusively that NT Greek was written in Koine (common) Greek, a form of Hellenistic Greek.  Imagine that.  Ancient Christian documents written in common, everyday language.

Truth is, I really like the following commercial.  It is not only a class act, it is far more truthful and appealing than anything (so far) that I’ve seen from the would-be spokesman for all of Christianity:

There is not one thing about this video that requires atheism (which is not mentioned until the final 2 seconds).  One could debate whether “knowledge” and “the power of  logic” are the pristine power for the salvation of the world that is rather naively presented.  Somehow, I think maybe love, and respect, and honor, and ethics, and morality, and guarded ambition, and intelligent conversation somehow belong in this mix:  but it is a 1 minute video and does a great job of stating itself.

As for me, I go one God further than either atheism or Hamite Christianity (which are curiously mirror images of each other).   I don’t rely on magic or mysticism or think that once we all get logical that our problems will all melt away.  And I sure don’t think that bending the Bible around to my beliefs is any more helpful than bending science, or logic, or knowledge around.   I don’t hide behind a made-up view of the Bible to protect me, and I absolutely don’t worry that some (Christians or Atheists) doubt me:  I just let ’em.  I think for myself while respecting the visions and strivings of many, many others in many, many disciplines.

All of this said, when the above video commercial is contrasted with the Ken Ham approach (which is then labeled “Bible-believing Christianity”), I’ll choose the video in a cold minute.

I’m a thinker, set free by Jesus Christ;  never was nor will be a descendant of Ham.

Gary D. Collier

[I repeat:  this is not a personal comment.  This is, however, a clear, focused, and intended rejection of the position that was offered.]

PROBE—–Conversation with the Bible

There are many ways or “systems” to help you read the Bible.  All can be useful if you actually use them.  Too often, Bible readers just skim the top and do what they’ve always done.

If you want to read through the Bible in a year or six months or three weeks, you can find schedules to do that. Far too often these have you jumping hopscotch style all over the place.  Frankly, this is madness.  In the long run, it destroys any contextual awareness of the documents being read.   There is nothing wrong with reading the Bible in a year;  but if that’s what you want to do, respect the documents as you read:  read them contextually, beginning to end, without jumping around.

A More Excellent Way

To be a good Bible reader, you don’t have to read the whole Bible every year. In fact, most of the time, it is better to slow down and focus on particular documents for that year—–to read deeply, carefully, and closely.

PROBE is an excellent way to do this.  It takes the best of the Bible reading concerns and puts them into an easy to remember, step-by-step (5 steps) approach so that you don’t forget anything.  It simply encourages good reading habits.  PROBE is an acronym (see below).

I’ll use an example to illustrate.  Jude is an excellent letter to practice PROBE.  Each day you read with a different agenda in mind:

Step 1: Monday:  Pre-read and Preview the text, surveying it.

You skim through it, trying to pick up some highlights.  You take a few notes.  And you pray about it all, of course (as with every reading).

Step 2: Tuesday:  Read and Recap the text in your own words:  just you and this text.

a. You read the whole text through, beginning to end.  As much as possible, in one sitting.  (For Jude, this is easy.)  This is where you read the text multiple times and in multiple translations.  At this point, you ALWAYS stay within this one document, not allowing your reading of it to be contaminated by other texts or ideas.

b. When you finish reading, you recap.  By recap I mean you actually try to provide a “summary” in your own words of what this text says.

Step 3: Wednesday:  Observe the text:  Turn your reading into a conversation with the author.

a. Taking notes, Asking questions, Challenging the Author, Going back and re-reading the text to find answers.

b. You might do word studies here, using resources like Young’s Analytical Concordance, or better, Bible Software (like BibleWorks, Logos, or Lumina) to help you examine the text. (Just stay away from commentaries.  That’s next step.)

c. Also, how is this text related to other texts outside of this one?  If it quotes other texts, read those too.  Not just single verses, but whole contexts.

Step 4:  Thursday:  Brainstorm:  Now, and only now, you’re ready to talk to others.

This is where you invite others to the table: Bible commentators, encyclopedias, and dictionaries;  or friends, or a preacher or teacher.  Just don’t start here! (That is one of the biggest mistakes Bible readers make, starting here.)   Now that you’ve done your own reading work, you can converse with others.   Only now, you invite them as conversation partners.

Step 5:  Friday:  Engage:  Here you focus on “what difference all of this makes for my life!”

What can I do today that will put into practice what I have learned from this document.

This might take hours, days, or weeks to do this.  And Jude is a very good document to practice this with because it is so short.  Even so, this is appropriate for every document (book, letter, Psalm, etc.) of the Bible.

Not New

This PROBE idea is not a new thing:  it is actually the best of Bible reading practices brought into one place—an easy, step-by-step approach that helps you cover all the bases in the most helpful order.  It is reading with a goal in mind:  to put into practice what you read in conversation.

Here is again. . .PROBE_2014_07-30