Book Review – “The Lost World of Genesis One” – John H. Walton

Those of you that know me through private or public correspondence will know that I struggle, as many other Christians, with the creation account in Genesis 1. So any time a new explanation rolls around, I’m all ears. To be clear, my struggles have nothing to do with the existence, omnipotence or creation abilities of God. Those are clear throughout Scripture, although I have been called a heretic because I expressed doubt in the YEC approach.

The author starting principle sounds fair enough: “In this book I have proposed a reading of Genesis 1 that I believe to be faithful to the context of the original audience and author, and one that preserves and enhances the theological vitality of this text.” In broad terms I find this opening statement, as far exegesis is concerned, not too far from the result.

The book consists of 18 propositions. Propositions 1 through 11 deal with the text, and the other 7 deals with the alternative explanations, including YEC, OEC, progressive creation, theistic evolution, Intelligent Design as well as the general interaction of material creation theories with the proposed interpretation. It is my opinion that Professor Walton holds his own in the first 11 propositions, but that the last 7 are significantly weaker, and display a bias towards popular liberal post-modernism. It is ironic, as Professor Walton, in several places in the book, assures us that his propositions do not conflict with the sustaining actions of God in His creation. I therefore fail to understand how he can dismiss some theories, and promote others.

Professor Walton makes a solid argument that the creation account of Genesis 1 is not an account of material creation, but one of functional creation. One may have to overcome initial resistance to the idea, since most of us are predisposed to think of creation in material terms. Professor Walton demonstrates from contemporary (with the Genesis account) writings that ancient near East mythologies, and in fact the whole worldview at the time, revolved around function, and not necessarily around material origins. Just like our worldview tends to be dominated by scientific reasoning and material explanations, the inhabitants of that region at the time that Genesis was written had a worldview that was dominated by how the cosmos functioned in relation to the gods and the people.

Against that backdrop, Professor Walton proceeds to show that Genesis 1 is consistent with ancient cosmology, and that that ancient cosmologies were, without exception, function oriented. This includes the fact that ANE mythologies never really distinguishes a “natural” world from a deistic or theistic world. The gods are involved in it all, not through micromanagement or miracles, but through the fact that God is intrinsic to the cosmos, and that should He withdraw from that, all would cease to exist instantly. Therefore, there is no “natural” or “supernatural” apparent in the Bible.

Professor Walton spends an entire chapter discussing the verb “bara”…to create. “Bara” appears around 50 times in the OT, and God is always the one, either directly or by implication, doing the creating. However, when it gets to the objects of creation, i.e. that which is being created, Professor Walton argues that those objects are not always easily identifiable as material objects, and in cases where they are, the context dictates that they are not materialistic objects. The author also spends some time speaking about how the modern assumption of creation meaning material creation has corrupted the context to mean ex-nihilo creation, since the materials out of which is being created is never mentioned.

The next three chapters deal with the different creation days, with days 1-3 establishing functions, and days 4-6 installing functionaries. There is simply too much material there to share, but I would encourage the reader to read the creation account from that perspective to see for himself how that holds mostly true.

The next few chapters move us to the conclusion that the creation account is that of how God created the cosmos as a temple for Him to live in, and that the 7 days of creation is nothing more than an account of how God arranged His temple, and inaugurates it and moves in on day 7. The temple needs to have certain functions before God could move in, and Genesis 1 is the account of how God made the temple functional as a residence for Him.

Should one accept the starting premise of functional creation, as opposed to material creation, then this interpretation is not disturbing nor unChristian. For my own purposes, it does need some further development in a more scholarly work, and I can recommend Professor Walton’s Commentary on Genesis as a partial fulfillment of that requirement.

As I mentioned earlier, as a veteran of many origins debates, and as a student of all the different accounts, material and otherwise, I was pretty disappointed with the rest of the book. It does not display the same academic diligence and level of scholarship as the first 11 chapters. For example, Professor Walton chooses to espouse the popular, but false, position on intelligent design. He also promises to explain more about the challenges that the YEC and OEC/progressive creation positions hold, but spends very little time on that, and one almost gets the idea that it was added in as an afterthought to expand the possible reading audience.

Overall, I am thankful to the Professor for writing the book. If nothing else, the first 11 chapters has given me some food for thought and further study, and I would suggest that it will do the same for any serious student of Scripture. It delivers on it’s promise of taking material creation out of the equation when discussing Genesis 1. It does not attempt to solve the question of material origins, and leaves that open to any number of explanations of how God could have done it.

I recommend the book for anyone who has questions on how we should read Genesis 1. It offers an interesting alternative to other interpretations.

I refuse to debate Richard Dawkins

Richard Dawkins was invited to debate Dr. Stephen Myer of the Discovery Institute on the evidence for intelligent design but refused.

Dawkins, whose recent publication about evolution being the “greatest show on earth” is one long attack on creationism, does not debate “creationists”, he merely chooses to attack them in book-length pieces of self-important drivel. It seems that our atheist friend took this advice:

“Some time in the 1980s when I was on a visit to the United States, a television station wanted to stage a debate between me and a prominent creationist called, I think, Duane P Gish. I telephoned Stephen Gould for advice. He was friendly and decisive: “Don’t do it.” The point is not, he said, whether or not you would ‘win’ the debate. Winning is not what the creationists realistically aspire to. For them, it is sufficient that the debate happens at all. They need the publicity. We don’t. To the gullible public which is their natural constituency, it is enough that their man is seen sharing a platform with a real scientist. “There must be something in creationism, or Dr So-and-So would not have agreed to debate it on equal terms.” Inevitably, when you turn down the invitation you will be accused of cowardice, or of inability to defend your own beliefs. But that is better than supplying the creationists with what they crave: the oxygen of respectability in the world of real science.“

For him to say that he refuses to debate creationists is just as well. He conveniently refuses, and the proceeds to declare himself the winner of a non-existent debate, and then, knowing that he will be called the coward that he is, establishes an alibi based on the word of Gould.

Well then.

On the same basis, I refuse to debate Dawkins on anything related to science, theology or philosophy, and so should any other Christian. Because, quite frankly, he made his name “refuting” the existence of God, and any debate with him on the topic actually means that one thinks there is  some merit in his arguments. The reality is that his “refutations” are laughable, as has been pointed out numerous times by many people. In fact, his arguments against the existence of God are so incredibly ineffective that he would be laughed off the stage in any debate (like he was in that very demanding debate in his appearance on the Colbert show).

One would think that anyone who spends so much energy and effort to debunk a position, and is so sure of his case, would jump at any opportunity to prove that his arguments stand up to some scrutiny. Isn’t that what science proposes? The hypocrisy is nothing more than what one would expect from an academic snob, and proves the point well, emperor Dawkins is not wearing any clothes.

If only Christians knew…

The refrain is getting tiresome. I read it again this week: “If only Christians knew what science was really about…”, then, I suppose, it follows that we will also accept the atheistic conclusions that those who normally utter that phrase want us to. Christians are regarded as scientific neanderthals, moronic and blinded from reality by some religious obsession and utterly incapable and/or unwilling to even try and understand “science”.

What a load of nonsense. Because what they really mean is that Christians should accept the atheistic preconditions for abusing science to reach predetermined naturalist conclusions. It has little to do with science, per se, but everything to do with premeditated conclusions hidden behind a flimsy curtain of weak philosophy and untenable empiricism.

The chances of a Christian being unfamiliar with science is extremely remote. From elementary school through college, we learn about science. I myself hold undergrads in physics and electronics engineering, and postgrad in systems engineering, and I know many other Christians with qualifications in science and applied science. Most Christians have a decent understanding of science, and many are qualified in scientific areas.

But how about if we turn this around? I know that Dawkins, for example, refuses to even acknowledge the existence of anything outside of his preconceived atheism, and so do many of his disciples. Ironic, since that is exactly the “head-in-the-sand” attitude that they are so fond of accusing Christians of.

So, what if Christians said “If only atheists knew what Christianity was really about…”  Theology does not have the benefit of being taught in school. And sad to say, is not addressed in most churches either. The unfortunate result is that most people, including many Christians, are unfamiliar with the richness of Christian study.

Most people think of Christianity only in terms of doctrine, and while doctrine makes up a decent part of what one studies in Christianity, there is so much more. There is archeology, textual integrity and criticism, cultural influence and then of course the incredibly richness of Christian philosophy, something which the majority of people are utterly unfamiliar with. In fact, it is painfully obvious just how illiterate people are about Christian philosophy when one reads not only the insipid screeds from Dawkins, Harris and the like, but also comments from the general public, even some Christians.

The responsibility falls on us as Christians to deliver and explain what Christianity is about. From my perspective there is too little of that in contemporary churches, and too much of  the shallow “what’s in it for me” preachin’. There are virtually no public academic avenues left, and mainstream media and entertainment is militantly anti-Christian.

If Christians do not educate themselves on the richness and depth of Christianity, and take that message to the public sphere, we will continue to hear this tired refrain from atheists, and continue to see little response.

3:22

In a nutshell, from 3:22 verses, the whole Gospel truth:

Rev 3:22  He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.

Gal 3:22  But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

Rom 3:22  the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction:
Rom 3:23  for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
Rom 3:24  and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,
Rom 3:25  whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.

It is a personal promise, action and outcome form a sovereign, omnipotent and personal God. Are you listening today?

Cultural Conflicts in the Church

Currently, only one of the traditional reformed denominations in South Africa is the last hold-out in appointing women as church officers. The other two that come from the Dutch Reformed tradition allows women to be ordained as pastors or ministers, elders and deacons.

Historically, most churches did not allow women to be office bearers. Not because women don’t have a role to play in church, or that they were viewed as inferior in the Bible, but because it was considered Biblical under regulative principles.

When culture changes, those changes often find their way into the church and church governance. In the past, women were discriminated against in many areas of society, and that has thankfully changed. There is no indication, Biblically or otherwise, that women are inferior to men in any way.

But this has brought about a conflict, as can be seen from the South African example, and also in discussions in the PCA and OPC in the United States. If women are not different, and if they have the same rights as men in all other areas of society, then why should they not be allowed to hold office in church?

The answer, apparently, is easy for some relatively conservative denominations, who concluded that women should hold office. But as always, when culture and Christianity is in conflict, the answer is not that easy. The key question is not as much about the role of women in the church (that is but one example of cultural intersection with the church), but more about the governance of churches.

By which principles should churches be governed? The answer historically has referred to the regulative principle, which in short states that worship and church governance are to be strictly Biblical. More clearly, those matters which can be clearly distinguished from the Bible as the will of Christ (jure divino) for His church must be part of how the church operates.

The question that has to be answered is how does the prevailing culture change our view of the regulative principle, if at all? On what basis do we determine which instructions for the church that Christ put forward in the NT are to be adhered to, and which are optional? Do we allow culture to have the last say, or do we stick with what Scripture says, even if it is in conflict with the prevailing culture.

Every church must decide that for themselves. But the Bible is replete with descriptions of what happened when culture was put before the Word of God, and the outcome was never good.

In the end, the Bible is quite clear, church officers are to be men only, and is mentioned in the same syntax and context as those verses that cover worship, for example. Many churches have chosen to ignore all or most of the NT instructions on church governance in deference to “what is needed to reach people in modern culture”. Many churches also claim that they want to make full use of the teaching gifts of women, which is why they allow ordination.

The role of women in the church is different to that of men, and that is clear throughout Biblical history. That is not to say that those roles are less important to God, even if it may appear so through the eyes of contemporary culture.

But the bigger question is how we govern our churches…Biblically or culturally? In my opinion, cultural governance is a slippery slope, and is to be avoided.

Pace High School…jailtime for prayer?

In Pensacola, Florida, two school officials, the principal and the athletic director, face possible jail time for the apparent disregard of a court order that forbids prayer during school functions. Of course, the ACLU, the instigators of the court order on behalf of two unnamed students, deny that it is about prayer. But it really is about the prayer, since that was the action that may cost these two gentleman their freedom, their jobs and their pensions.

The story can be read here: Florida High School Officials Face Criminal Charges Over Luncheon Prayer

This is exactly what happens when we start looking at culture from a human perspective. Yes, I know that there is separation of church and state, but how is praying in a school in any way establishing a state religion? But that is not even the most salient point.

The thing that most people seem to miss here is that if God exists, we are intentionally keeping children from knowing about the Creator, Savior and God of mankind. And for the court order, and all other orders that are similar to be valid, the complainants must prove beyond all doubt that it isn’t so. It becomes a core question about the existence of God, not about the equality of religions, or about whether we should live in a theocracy or not.

Many people object to that point of view by saying: Well, if the principal was a Muslim or Buddhist, would you still feel the same way? Of course I wouldn’t feel the same way, because I don’t believe those religions are true. And if they can offer better substantial and logical evidence for their truth, then that should be considered the ultimate truth. But they cannot, and to place them on an equal footing with Christianity is simply not a valid argument. They simply are not equal, it is a post-modernist assumption that has found it’s way into popular culture, and into our judicial system.

Others point to the establishment clause. Again, one has to look at a few aspects. Firstly, it is a very long and tenuous stretch to argue that school prayer leads to laws that establish a Christian theocracy. The opposite is more true, it leads to the establishment of an atheistic religion and the relativist culture which goes hand in hand with it, and leads to such asinine nonsense as criminally prosecuting people who pray in school.

Furthermore, the Florida Constitution leads with:

We, the people of the State of Florida, being grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty, in order to secure its benefits, perfect our government, insure domestic tranquility, maintain public order, and guarantee equal civil and political rights to all, do ordain and establish this constitution.

It makes little sense to declare thanks to God as the Giver of liberty, yet deny their people the right to thank God for a meal. It is hypocritical, and is pandering to anti-Christian activism. It is pure and simple unjustified discrimination based on their belief in Christ.

This fight is not about Christians, it is about God. And as much as organizations want to argue for the right of individuals to not hear about God in schools, they cannot justify that without justifying the 1. the non-existence of God, and 2. the equality of Christianity with other religions which do not worship the Christian God.

Good luck with all that.

Advice for the suffering

It’s been a tough year for many people. In addition to a desperate economy, diseases are more serious and scary, droughts are plaguing many places, and then one still has to deal with all the “normal” difficulties of life too.

Christians are not immune to the realities of the world around them, and experience the same emotions of despair, hopelessness, sadness, depression and worry. And too often even Christians forget where to turn in these hard times, and what it means to be a Christian, even in bad times:

1Pe 5:5  Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.”
1Pe 5:6  Humble yourselves, therefore, under the mighty hand of God so that at the proper time he may exalt you,
1Pe 5:7  casting all your anxieties on him, because he cares for you.
1Pe 5:8  Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.
1Pe 5:9  Resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same kinds of suffering are being experienced by your brotherhood throughout the world.
1Pe 5:10  And after you have suffered a little while, the God of all grace, who has called you to his eternal glory in Christ, will himself restore, confirm, strengthen, and establish

It starts with humility. We are all in the same boat, no-one better than any other. All are sinners in a sinful world, and therefore we should be humble. Once we can see that we have every reason to be humble and accept our own need for help, then God gives us the grace to get through these hard times. Those who don’t accept their need for help, and are not humble enough to see themselves as in just as much trouble as others are not in a position to accept the gracious help from God.

The key then, is to trust God to give you the power, the determination and the assurance to firstly remove your anxieties, and then also to sustain you through the hard times to emerge stronger. Doubting that is to give in to evil, who seeks to break down and destroy people. Hope in faith is what keeps you immune from that, and enables one to remain positive, hopeful and happy in the knowledge that God is in control, and He loves us.

God gives us the assurance that when we are humble, when we trust Him with our worries, if we rely on His plan for the greater good, then He will bless us with the best possible outcome. He will give us our strength, love and hope, and renew us in our faith in Him and our eternal future.

Three Choices…

Wow, one gets busy and when you look again you haven’t blogged in a month or so. There is so much I want to write about that has happened, things that I’ve seen and then the writings and debates that is turning Christianity more and more into a an unrecognizable liberal politically correct mess. But for today, there is this…

There is really only three choices when it comes to spirituality and religion: 1. Atheism, 2. Deism and 3. Theism. I know that is not an earth shattering revelation or insight, but it just hit me once again over the summer how such a seemingly simple matter can have incredible consequences. Even before we start any real spiritual discussion, there is the small matter of how we arrive at our belief.

In a recent article on the role of women in the church, the comments section was filled with the normal atheistic drivel of how there is no God, and how believing in God was the same as believing in Santa Claus or the tooth fairy. Of course, these “insights” were left with the normal lack of explanation as to how the writer arrived at that conclusion.

But that is not the topic, really. The topic really is this: If one is a deist or atheist, what deeper purpose does life hold? Why should one act in a specific way? What are the personal consequences of not acting in that way? It is not a matter of whether there is right or wrong, it is a matter of why does it matter if there is no God, or if there is some kind of god that is impersonal and removed?

People sure act as if it doesn’t matter how they behave. And that is the consequence of starting with ego, starting with the self, and using the self as the measuring stick for all that is. And to be honest, if there is no personal Creator and Sustainer God, then it doesn’t matter. Because whatever one person, or a group of people do or don’t do has effectively zero impact on the universe. A human life is so short that it wouldn’t even register as a quick flash, and over the billions of years of existence, the 80-odd years of a human lifespan is ridiculously invisible. So it doesn’t matter by orders of magnitude in the bigger scheme of things.

But why then do we bother to seek meaning at all? It’s not as if any meaning will matter, no matter how much we want it to. Love, beauty, happiness, sadness, anger, enthusiasm, seriousness all just don’t matter in the absence of something bigger. It is just a big game of bluffing oneself into believing that life matters. That making a difference means something. That love is a good feeling and anger is bad. It is irrelevant. So if one is fully convinced there is no personal God, he or she should stop acting as if anything really matters. Just stop it. Your miserable existence will soon dissolve into non-existence, and the universe will continue to slowly grind on in extreme heat and cold, spewing particles and expanding to destruction.

But if one wants to find meaning in life, true meaning, then one cannot do so without seeking it in the context of a personal God. And whether one wants to admit it or not, everyone looks for deeper meaning in life. Everyone desperately wants to have an opinion that counts and an audience to listen to it. Everyone wants to be loved, and if they cannot be loved, be hated then. An impersonal universe, or impersonal god, cannot bring forth personal feelings, just like life cannot come from non-life.

So the three choices comes down to two answers….life matters or it doesn’t. And since everyone to some extent believe that personal feelings and expectations exist, it follows that it needs to be in a bigger personal context. As our pastor is so fond of saying, one cannot hoist oneself up by ones own bootstraps, and therefore one cannot have this curiosity by creating it from the non-personal.

The Christian God is the ultimate personal God. He shows human emotions, like love and anger. He is interested in human lives, and interacts with humans in various ways. He also makes very clear in what context meaning should be seen, where it comes from and how we can find the true meaning of life, that which matters eternally.

In a broken world we all seek meaning. Just as one cannot see the real world through broken glasses, in the same way one cannot find real meaning in a world where meaning has been broken. One can only find meaning by seeing it as the unbroken One sees it, through what He has revealed to us.

If you have made your choice about the meaning of life, then so be it. But don’t be a hypocrite about it by feigning one way or the other. What I say does not matter if God does not exist. And what you say does not matter either.

But let me urge you, seek meaning in the right place, in the right context, from the One who gave us meaning, and a reason to exist. For if there is no God, then why do we exist at all?

Seek God, and find meaning.

The Purpose of Genesis

Thanks to my friend Puritan Lad, who let me know of the writings of John H. Walton, professor of Hebrew at Wheaton College, who offers an expanded framework perspective on Genesis. But he goes a step or two further than the traditional framework view, and explores the very purpose of Genesis.

While I don’t agree with all that he says, and find his reliance on other ancient near-East writings a little disturbing, it does offer some valuable insights that confused and helped me at the same time. Walton does not question ex-nihilo creation, but also asserts that the Genesis creation account is not it.

If we accept the exegetical and hermeneutical principle that we need to read the Biblical text in the same context and with the same intent as the original audience, then it gets pretty hard to differ from Dr. Walton on technical grounds. And maybe he is right, I am blinded by my modern presuppositions which I want to read into the text. I guess we are all a little guilty of that, especially when we are so keen to refute or confirm modern scientific hypothesis.

According to Dr. Walton then, Genesis is nit an ex-nihilo creation account, but the account whereby God brought order to a chaotic universe. He relies on both a comprehensive exegesis of ‘bara’ (create) and a cultural comparison to near-East contemporary religions. He concludes that the purpose of Genesis was to establish the Hebrew God as the lone personal God that organized the universe into its current form, and sustains it moment by moment.

Dr. Walton is also pretty blunt about the fact that despite many efforts to read many modern scientific principles (earth as sphere, for example) into the Scriptures, it is unjustified to do so. There simply is no correlation between Biblical accounts and modern science, nor should we try to find any, since the purpose of Scripture was to establish the covenant of the Hebrew God with His people as their God and Ruler.

In his commentary on Genesis, Dr. Walton offers his interpretation of the creation account, and concludes that it is about function, not the establishment of matter. He uses several analogies to demonstrate his point, saying that if we “create” a painting, it is about what ends up on the canvas, and not how the canvas, brushes and paint were made in the first place. In the same way Genesis is about how God used existing matter to create a functional universe, although Walton proposes that “design” might be a better translation of ‘bara’ in this context.

Personally, I still find it a bit challenging to accept all of the premises offered by Dr. Walton, and therefore also struggle to unreservedly agree with all of his conclusions. But it does offer an interesting alternative to the normal YEC/Old Earth/Evo/Design arguments, and I will therefore continue to explore it. Because if he is right, then all of those arguments are pretty much non-applicable to Genesis, and we will have to find other ways to reconcile Scripture with our modern scientific understanding.

Misunderstanding the Laws of God

The universe works in a certain way, scientifically speaking. We identify the consistent behavior of the natural order as the laws of nature. Those laws, in general, are irreducible. We are able to explain the observations that has lead us to formulate those laws, and are also pretty sure that those laws determine how objects behave. It is consistent, reliable and predictable. We can predict consequences.

There is no naturalistic, non-circular reason for that being so. It is so because that is the way God created the universe, and that is what He intended. The regularity and predictability of the universe is mentioned quite often in the Bible, and in the context of creation. We confirm this in Psalms:

Psa 104:19  He made the moon to mark the seasons; the sun knows its time for setting.

So what misunderstanding am I talking about? I recently came to understand that this consistency and regularity of God’s laws do not only apply to the natural laws that He created, but also the moral laws. Human actions have consequences. When God says that He does not want us to act in a certain way, He means that there will be consequences if we don’t. The Bible is equally as full of examples of that as it is of the regularity of the natural laws.

One can name the OT kings of Israel, and see how Saul, Solomon and David, all favored by God, and anointed as kings, yet who strayed from the direct instructions that God gave them, leading to the eventual destruction of the nation of Israel. They did not understand, or were just too stubborn, to realize that when one breaks the moral laws of God, there is certain to be consequences.

Many people are equally as naive or stubborn today, preferring to believe that living in unbroken sin will have no consequences. Yes, as Christians we are forgiven, and we will not face the one big consequence, eternal damnation. But even for Christians there are consequences when they disobey God. One only has to look at the divorce rate, or how many people are financially bankrupt because of greed to see how people continue to be naive. God’s moral law has a certain and specific consequence, just like God’s natural law dictates the movement of objects in the universe.

It is the way that God intended it to be, that there are certain causes and effects, also in His moral law. It is fixed and certain. One may object and say that many people get away with disregarding the effects of God’s moral laws. I don’t think so. Everyone will experience the heartbreak and torture that goes with the consequences of the moral law. No-one is perpetually happy, disease-free or euphoric.

So think about the way that you go through life. Even if you are a faithful and serious Christian, do you understand the effects of God’s laws? How do you walk through life, as someone who understands that, or as someone who taunts the very creation?

I would suggest one lives a much happier life if one understands the immutability of all of God’s laws.