Genre Awareness: They Key to the Creation/Evolution Debate?
Well, there are certainly no shortage of voices to be heard on the evolution vs. creationism debate. Interestingly enough, in the end, the conversation often focuses more on the issue of the age of the earth, as opposed to the broader issue of how life has developed over time. Even more specifically than that, the debate often seems to revolve around how we should read the Bible. Some people, such as I, do not take the Genesis creation account literally; that is to say, I do not read it like it is a science textbook. Others would counter that we should simply read the text - as it appears. In other words, if it appears to offer a timeline of real development, we should take it as such. And I can understand that argument, to a point. But I would want to point out that it’s only to our eyes that the text appears so cut and dry. And of course we, like all people, have a hard time (read: ultimately near impossible) seeing how our lens colors what we’re seeing/reading. We’re used to reading chronological descriptions like this under the genre of scientifically-based fact. But what if our basic (genre-based) interpretative assumption is wrong?
A friend of mine wrote in to say that, from his perception, both sides (young earthers and old earthers) have difficult questions to answer. But I’m not so sure what those difficult questions are for the old earth crowd. Again, I think people only run into conflicts if they read Genesis literally, like its a scientific description of actual events. If you don’t read it that way, and again, from the original context, I don’t think we’re supposed to, I don’t see the problem. So its only an assumption about interpretation that raises potential difficulties. Again, I know some people find it difficult to understand why one wouldn’t read the text literally, but again, based on the expectations of the original audience, that would be a very strange reading. And I think we have to begin by asking what the expectations of a text was for the original audience - not for us, thousands of years later.
Just to make the point a little clearer, in the Ancient Near East, people commonly believed in multiple gods - each responsible for various aspects of nature. The Hebrew vision, and what I think the Genesis creation passage is getting at, is that one God is responsible for ALL of creation, and that he looks on the creation with affection, not anger or ambivalence. In other words, when looking at the text, we should ask: “What would this have communicated to the original hearers?” and “What would have stood out for them?” In the 21st century we have inherited a very long history of mono-theism. But for these early believers, this was a new concept. And that’s what I think Genesis is getting at. It was crafted to invest a sense of mono-theistic order to the Cosmos.
And then there’s the issue around the integrity to which we approach the evidence. When confronted with the clear bias inherent in the young earth crowd, one commenter said that bias is just a function of human nature. And I want to agree, again - to a degree. But not all bias is equal. This commenter’s thought was that science’s bias is in not considering supernatural explanations. But the thing is, its not that scientists reject all supernatural phenomena, but rather that they stick to science when asking scientific questions. And scientific questions, by definition, are not about the supernatural. There is a distinct difference between testing a hypothesis and having an opinion about a matter beyond the reach of science.
Now, coming to the global flood issue, from a scientific perspective, geologists will look into the geological record and postulate as to shifts, movements, developments, in the history of the earth. If there were evidence of a global flood, as opposed to regional ones, then it would be in the data - and thus, the conversation. But it’s not there.
While all human beings are subjective in their viewpoint, not all ideas are born of the same degree of bias. When a YEC stakes his entire worldview on a particular point of view, he will seek to bend the evidence into that line of thought. Not because he’s evil, but because he’s human. There’s a big difference between observing the overwhelming evidence, making a theory, and then testing it, vs. starting with a preconceived belief (without evidence to do so, geologically speaking anyway), and proceeding to string together lose bits of data to support it; even when the vast majority of the evidence supports anything but. And that’s how young earthers are perceived, as trying to put together a puzzle while ignoring the vast majority of the actual puzzle pieces.
Over the last couple of days a large group has been engaging in an ongoing conversation about the ever-spicy topic of evolution vs. creationism/intelligent design, over at Scot McKnight’s Jesus Creed blog.
Personally I am amazed that the people arguing for a young earth perspective fail to see that it is only a hermeneutical assumption on their part that makes them read the Bible the way they do. Surely the question is not just: Does a reasoned belief in evolution, or an old earth, end up making the Bible seem deceptive? But more importantly: Does a reasoned belief in evolution and an old earth suggest my basic hermeneutical assumptions are flawed? Perhaps its the idea that the Bible should read like an historical account from a 20th or 21st century science text book that is at fault. And here I’m being coy. Of course this kind of idea is at fault. Why would people want to put the blame on God, or, more to the point, on the people who would believe such a thing about God, when it is clearly the young earth believer’s assumptions that create the conflict?
At one point in the discussion a commenter (I thought, rightly) made the point that this young-earth, anti-evolutionary stance is laughable to a younger, scientifically astute generation. His point was that many of these younger people won’t even approach Christianity – and thus, Jesus – because they’re already convinced we’re a bunch of quacks because of our fairly-tale take on the beginnings of the Cosmos.
Another gentleman thought this argument missed the point. He said the following:
Today a good friend and I had a lengthy, fascinating discussion about, among other things, evangelical vs. mainline takes on emergence. The conversation took us through tea and h a delicious Thai lunch at. We both agreed that, ultimately, the issues we see differently come down to our slightly different takes on authority; and specifically, biblical authority.
To Blog or Not to Blog? That is (No Longer) the Question
Before you read the following piece that addresses blogging vs. whatever-it-is-we-do-here-at-Precipice, you might want to make note that I’ve started a new blog, titled Leaning Into Meaning: The Purposeful Meanderings of Darren Brett King. Hope you check it out, add me to your blogroll, drop me a comment, or all of the above! I’m looking forward to connecting with people in real-time, via the blogosphere. Okay, enough of that, on with the piece:
So it’s been awhile since I’ve posted in Precipice. There are a couple of reasons for this:
1.) I’ve been busy and out of town recently (Sacramento, thanks for showing us such a great time!).
2.) I’ve been reconsidering how I want to divide my writing time/energy between issues pertinent to postmodern Christianity (the subject matter of Precipice), and more tangential topics about life in general.
For those of you who’ve been around these parts for awhile now, you’ll remember that soon after a Precipice re-design was launched last year, I mentioned that I was planning to use this very “Current” section for more blog-like pieces. When I say “bloglike” I suppose that begs the question: what exactly, and what exactly isn’t, blog material?
Good question. I’m not sure I, or anyone for that matter, really has a clear answer on that one yet. It’s still a relatively new and evolving medium. But I have jotted some thoughts down (jotting in itself sounds like a term particularly relevant to blogging) in my brand new blog: Leaning Into Meaning. Here’s the post on what blogging is – for me anyway, and why I'm now doing it.
I do know that when I first dreamed up the idea of Precipice, way back in 2001, blogging was not an option. I don’t really remember when it, it being web-logging, started. But it was certainly sometime after that.
When I started Precipice I wanted to create a space for articles discussing the interaction between Christianity and the postmodern turn in our western culture. That version of the website lasted a year or so. Then, in 2005, I resurrected the magazine from virtual oblivion and re-launched, this time with a focus on the postmodern turn as expressed in the Emerging Church movement.
Of course, a big difference between 2008 and 2001 is that there are now at least several other quality magazine-like sites that are carrying on a similar sense of mission. The Oooze, Jesus Manifesto, and Next-Wave, as well as the Emergent Village site, are just a few of these new kinds of Christian sites.
Does that mean there is less of a need for Precipice now than when I first launched it soon after the turn of the millennium? Maybe. But I still think more voices are better than fewer. And I still feel like I have plenty I want to say about postmodernism and Christianity in general. But, that said, it’s now more about chiseling out smaller details, less about engaging in a completely new transition.
All that is to say, in the end it felt wrong to turn this section into my own personal blog. It just didn’t seem to fit with the overall editorial thrust of Precipice. So, I’ve put that idea to rest. It has been resurrected in the blog I made mention of earlier. I plan on posting there at least several times a week. So far I’ve made four posts in about as many days. Not a bad start!
In the meantime, I hope you continue to check in to read and interact with new full-length feature articles here at Precipice. I plan on continuing to add articles of my own several times a month, as well as publishing the thoughts of others following a similar track. In fact, now that my new blog is in existence, I’ll probably open Precipice up to be more of the communal exploration of postmodern Christianity that I originally intended it to be. Hope you’ll be part of the experience. Got an article pertinent to the discussion? Feel free to submit it.
