The Lost World of Genesis One (23 page)

If the theory proposed in this book is on target, Genesis 1 does
not offer a descriptive model for material origins. In the absence
of such a model, Christians would be free to believe whatever
descriptive model for origins makes the most sense. The major
limitation is that any view eventually has to give God full control
of the mechanisms if it claims to be biblical. A biblical view of
God's role as Creator in the world does not require a mutually
exclusive dichotomy between "natural" and "supernatural," though
the reigning paradigms are built on that dichotomy. It does not
matter that there may be perfectly acceptable and definable empirical descriptions and explanations for observed phenomena and
aspects of origins. Such would not exclude divine activity because
without the natural/supernatural dichotomy, divine activity is not
ruled out by empirical explanation. I can affirm with the psalmist
that God "knit me together in my mother's womb" without denying the premises of embryology. Likewise those aspects of evolutionary mechanisms that hold up under scrutiny could be theoretically adopted as God's mechanisms.

TECHNICAL SUPPORT

Bube, Richard. Putting It All Together. Lanham, Md.: University
Press of America, 1995.

Collins, C. John. Science and Faith: Friends or Foes? Wheaton, Ill.:
Crossway, 2003.

Giberson, Karl. Saving Darwin: How to Be a Christian and Believe
in Evolution. New York: HarperOne, 2008.

Glover, Gordon. Beyond the Firmament. Chesapeake, Va.: Watertree Press, 2007.

Hayward, Alan. Creation and Evolution. Minneapolis: Bethany
House, 1985.

Lamoureux, Denis. Evolutionary Creation. Eugene, Ore.: Wipf
and Stock, 2008.

Van Till, H. J., et al. Science Held Hostage. Downers Grove, Ill.:
InterVarsity Press, 1988.

HAVING DISCUSSED WHAT EFFECT this interpretation of Genesis
1 has on thinking about science, we now ought to consider what
effect it has on our thinking about theology. What threats might
it pose or what strength or clarity might it offer?

The changes that this interpretation might suggest do nothing
to weaken the picture of God. Even if the account in Genesis 1 is
taken as an account of functional origins, it would not therefore
imply that God is not responsible for material origins. The biblical view is that whatever exists from any perspective is the work of
God. So this view does not reduce what God has done, it only
suggests a change of focus concerning what aspect of God's work
is represented in Genesis 1.

In the same fashion the suggestion that some of God's work of
creation may have taken place over a long period of time rather
than instantaneously does not reduce God's power.' God can create any way he sees fit, and it is no less an act of his sovereign
power if he chooses to do it over extended billions of years. It is
still accomplished by his word. Some would see the great span of
time as further indication of God's majesty. If nothing is taken away from God's works and his sovereignty is not reduced, then
there is no theological threat regarding God's person or deeds.

On the other side of the equation, there is much to be gained
theologically from this interpretation of Genesis 1. In fact we will
find that a more vital and robust theology of God as Creator
emerges when we adopt this interpretation and its implications.
Some of these have been pointed out in previous chapters, but
here they will be gathered together for consideration.

GOD'S ROLE IN EVERYTHING

Our scientific worldview has gradually worked God out of the
practical ways in which we think about our world. When science
can offer explanation for so much of what we see and experience,
it is easy for our awareness of God's role to drift to the periphery.
It is not that we believe any less that he is active, it is just that we
are not as conscious of his role. The result is a practical (if not
philosophical) deism in which God is removed from the arena of
operations.

In contrast, when God's work is fully integrated with our scientific worldview and science is seen to give definition to what God
is doing and how he is doing it, we regain a more biblical perspective of the work-a perspective that is theologically healthier.

CREATOR ROLE ONGOING

If God's work of creation is considered only a historical act that
took place in the past, it is easy to imagine how people might not
think in terms of God being active today. We have lost the view
that nature does not operate independently from God. He is still
creating with each baby that is born, with each plant that grows,
with each cell that divides, with each nebula that forms. We might
find it easy to look at some majestic view like a glorious sunset or
the grandeur of the mountains and ponder the magnificence of God's handiwork. But this sense needs to extend beyond the "wow"
moments to encompass all of our experience of his world. We have
the same problem when we only recognize God in some incredible
occurrence in our lives and forget that he provides for us, cares for
us and protects us moment by moment, day after day. God did not
just create at some time in the past; he is the Creator-past, present
and future.

GOD'S CONTROL OF FUNCTIONS

Although we are acutely aware of the physical world around us,
we live in a world of functions. Materialism sees the functions of
our world as the consequence of structures, that is, that objects or
phenomena in our world function the way that they do because of
their physical structures. In the biblical way of thinking, the objects and phenomena in the world function the way they do because of God's creative purposes. This gets back to the issue of
teleology that we have discussed in previous chapters. Materialism has no room for purpose, and so the operative equation concerns only structures and the resulting functions. The biblical way
of thinking counters materialism when it insists that the most
important part of the equation is God's purposes.

Our world tends to subordinate the functional to the material.
That is why ever since the Enlightenment (at least) we have generally believed that it is most important for us to think of creation
in terms of the material. Our world has taught us to give priority
to the material. In the view that we have presented of Genesis 1,
the material is subordinate to the functional. The Bible considers
it much more important to say that God has made everything
work rather than being content to say that God made the physical
stuff. The purpose, the teleology (which is the most important
part), is located and observed in the functional, not the material.

To think about the contrast between the material and the functional, and the illusionary nature of the material world, consider the following statements of one of the characters in Orson
Scott Card's novel Prentice Alvin:

"Everything's mostly empty. That anvil, it looks solid, don't
it? But I tell you it's mostly empty. Just little bits of ironstuff,
hanging a certain distance from each other, all patterned
there. But most of the anvil is the empty space between.
Don't you see? Those bits are acting just like the atoms I'm
talking about. So let's say the anvil is like a mountain, only
when you get real close you see it's made of gravel. And then
when you pick up the gravel, it crumbles in your hand, and
you see it's made of dust. And if you could pick up a single
fleck of dust you'd see that it was just like the mountain,
made of even tinier gravel all over again."

"You're saying that what we see as solid objects are really
nothing but illusion. Little nothings making tiny spheres
that are put together to make your bits, and pieces made
from bits, and the anvil made from pieces-"

"Everything is made out of living atoms, all obeying the
commands that God gave them. And just following those
commands, why, some of them get turned into light and
heat, and some of them become iron, and some water, and
some air, and some of them our own skin and bones. All
those things are real-and so those atoms are real."2

SACRED SPACE

Once we turn our thinking away from "natural world" to "cosmic
temple" our perspective about the world around us is revolutionized. It is difficult to think of the "natural world" as sacred (because we just designated it "natural"). When the cosmos is viewed
in secular terms, it is hard to persuade people to respect it unless they can be convinced that it is in their own best interests to do so.
If it is secular, it is easy to think of it only as a resource to be exploited. We even refer to "natural resources."

But when we adopt the biblical perspective of the cosmic temple, it is no longer possible to look at the world (or space) in secular
terms. It is not ours to exploit. We do not have natural resources,
we have sacred resources. Obviously this view is far removed from
a view that sees nature as divine: As sacred space the cosmos is his
place. It is therefore not his person. The cosmos is his place, and our
privileged place in it is his gift to us. The blessing he granted was
that he gave us the permission and the ability to subdue and rule.
We are stewards.

At the same time we recognize that the most important feature
of sacred space is found in what it is by definition: the place of
God's presence. The cosmic-temple idea recognizes that God is
here and that all of this is his. It is this theology that becomes the
basis for our respect of our world and the ecological sensitivity
that we ought to nurture.

SABBATH

The fourth commandment directs people to observe the sabbath
based on God's rest in Genesis 1.3 Throughout human history
interpreters of Scripture have struggled to work out the implications of this directive. What constitutes rest? What activities are
ruled out? Part of the difficulty is that the Bible offers little detail
as it tends more toward vague generalizations. Furthermore most
of the statements are negative (what one should not do) rather
than positive (approved or even mandated activities).

Given the view of Genesis 1 presented in this book, we get a
new way to think about the sabbath. If God's rest on the seventh
day involved him taking up his presence in his cosmic temple
which has been ordered and made functional so that he is now ready to run the cosmos, our sabbath rest can be seen in a different
light. Obviously, God is not asking us to imitate his Sabbath rest
by taking the functional controls. I would suggest that instead he
is asking us to recognize that he is at the controls, not us. When
we "rest" on the sabbath, we recognize him as the author of order
and the one who brings rest (stability) to our lives and world. We
take our hands off the controls of our lives and acknowledge him
as the one who is in control. Most importantly this calls on us to
step back from our workaday world-those means by which we
try to provide for ourselves and gain control of our circumstances.
Sabbath is for recognizing that it is God who provides for us
and who is the master of our lives and our world. We are not imitating him in sabbath observance, we are acknowledging him in
tangible ways.