Home    Starting all over again?

Area 8 of questioning

A Creator God. 

It is with great reluctance that I question the concept of a Creator God.  From birth, I have been brought up with this concept.  Where did the world, the universe, come from?  Where did I come from?  A Creator God of course.  I have given ‘unquestioned obedience’ to this belief nearly all my life.  It has given me a long-time convincing answer to the questions about ultimate origins, which is still widely accepted in my culture.  I am seduced to continue with this belief because so many of my friends and acquaintances, particularly those inside the church, hold to it.  To question this belief brings with it a feeling of isolation, for me.  In fact when I raise the issue, some of my church friends look at me in disbelief.  I find that difficult.  Has my questioning gone too far?

My questioning, as well as the answers I now embrace, in no way detract from my respect and reverence for the awesome cosmos and, in particular, the unparalleled beauty and the wondrous nature of my home planet, Earth.  In fact my presently held beliefs enhance this reverence and awe.  In my minute corner of the cosmos, I have a specific and personal responsibility to protect and contribute positively, in whatever way I can, to the mysterious progress of the evolutionary processes which are operative in this magnificent, dazzling environment in which I live.  I need to exercise this responsibility both individually as well as with other concerned members of my community.

Numerous people who are involved in protecting and caring for the environment pay no allegiance to religion or a Creator God.  In fact, in my experience, most of the people I know, who are involved in positive action regarding the environment, have no connection with the church nor have any traditional Christian motivations for their activities.  Many think the concept of a Creator God is irrelevant or even unhelpful.

Part of my problem with this issue, however, is that there seems to be the stance of most, if not all regular church-goers as well as the church institution as a whole, to an ‘unquestioning obedience’ to this Creator God concept.  Belief in a Creator God seems to be a basic, essential element of a Christian faith.  It is ever-present in our church service liturgies, in the hymns we are requested to sing, in church doctrine and in creedal statements of orthodox belief.  It seems, that to question a belief in a Creator God is nearly as serious as questioning a commitment to Jesus and his message.  You can’t be a Christian if you don’t believe in a Creator God.  But belief in a Creator God is not peculiarly Christian.  Other world religions ascribe to this Creator God belief.  What is peculiarly Christian, is Jesus and his story.

I believe now that a Creator God has little, if anything, to do with the core teachings of Jesus.  I can find only sparse reference in his teachings where he speaks of God as a Creator God.  It was probably a ‘given’ and didn’t need a specific mention.  For me now, such a belief, seemingly so important, nearly becomes a distraction to his message. 

All cultures have their myths and often they have to do with the activity of supernatural deities.  A creation myth is usually a story, saturated with symbolic images and language, which relates how the world began and how humans first came to inhabit it.  Western culture, with its close links to Christianity over the centuries, has, until recently at least, adopted the biblical creation myths in Genesis, not in detail but in broad principle. 

In my ‘faithful questioning’, I need to be fair to the Bible and its content.  As I have said a couple of times previously, the Bible was written thousands of years ago so I need to be as aware as I can, of the mind-set of a Hebrew person, living 2500 years ago.  How can I do this?  I need to ask the question, “Back then, what were the stories telling their hearers?”  I’m not sure that regular church-goers ask this question but if they do, they face a near impossible task, because most of us have only the Bible text in front of us.  To approach the Bible asking this question, needs a lot of wise instruction.

What is the historical and theological context of these Hebrew stories? 

Before I examine this question, a very short introduction to the evolution of the Torah, in which we find these Hebrew creation myths, is appropriate, to give some background as well as address the question,  Why are there two creation stories?

The Torah, the first five books of the Old Testament, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, has a long and complex history of evolution.  It is obvious from a detailed study of the material contained, that there are inconsistencies, contradictions, very different theological emphases, significantly different images of God developed and distinctly different styles of writing. 

A generally held theory, undisputed amongst reputable biblical scholars, is that the Torah took hundreds of years to evolve.  It began with laws and stories handed down from generation to generation by word of mouth from father to son; oral traditions.  This theory states that there were originally at least four separate traditions commonly known now as J, E, D and P.  These were gradually combined into what we now have in the Bible. 

There are variations of this theory.  Some have slightly different writing sequences and different combinations of the various traditions but there is wide consensus on the basics. 

The J, E, D and P theory.

The ‘J’ tradition is considered to be older than the other three, written down about 950 BCE  (Before the Common Era) and now called ‘J’ because of the word it uses for God, ‘Jahweh’, an alternative spelling for ‘Yahweh’, translated as ‘the Lord God’.  This ‘J’ tradition includes the older, second story of creation in Genesis chapter 2, the Garden of Eden story, the Cain and Abel story, the older story of Noah and many stories about Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Its content then stretches into the time of the invasion and conquering of the Promised Land under Joshua, and maybe even further. 

The ‘E’ tradition, considered to be older than the last two traditions, ‘D’ and ‘P’, was written down about 850 BCE and now called ‘E’ because it uses the Hebrew word ‘Elohim’ translated as ‘God’.  It has a shorter historical span than the ‘J’ tradition, from Abraham to Moses and not much more.  It has a priestly emphasis and goes well with the last tradition, ‘P’, when, in the evolution of the Torah, they were combined.

The ‘D’ tradition derives its name from the book of Deuteronomy.  This ‘D’ document, written down at about 650 BCE, has little reference to stories about times prior to Moses.  The ‘D’ document was probably a single unit and not as much a collection like the ‘J’ and ‘E’ traditions.  For a few scholars, Deuteronomy is understood to be Moses’ farewell address to the Hebrew people.  It is intensely nationalistic.  ‘D’s’ theological emphases were quite influential throughout the writing of the Old Testament.  The ‘D’ tradition’s emphasis on justice and responsibility played a significant role in the development of the Israelite religion. 

‘P’, the last tradition of the four, is so called because of its emphasis on a Priestly Code; priestly or religious laws.  Gathered together, edited and subsequently written down at about 500 - 450 BCE, it is very legalistic and systematic.  It had about 500 years of theologically interpreted Hebrew history, ecclesiastical, sociological, cultural and religious thought and reflection, above and beyond that which the earliest stories and traditions had.  It has the first story of creation in Genesis chapter 1, the second story of Noah, embedded in the older story, stories about Abraham and Jacob.  It also has most of the contents of the books of Leviticus and Numbers. 

This theory is built on the proposition that these four traditions were at some time written down but these original documents have been lost.  All we have now is the final combination of the four in the Torah.  One suggested possibility, I have heard, is that the priest Ezra had a hand in the Torah’s final compilation and editing. 

It is interesting to note the two different reasons for keeping the Sabbath Day holy and resting on it; one in Exodus 20:11 (‘P’) and the other in Deuteronomy 5:15 (‘D’).  The first follows the ideas of creation and God resting, giving rise to the Priestly Code of Sabbath rest.  The other, builds on the connection of the Hebrews to their slavery in Egypt.  It follows their well-known and cherished national history and states the responsibility of letting slaves rest, reminding them that they were once slaves before God liberated them.  This is just one example of the different theological emphases evident in the Torah. 

The evolution of the Torah is very complex and what has been stated is an extremely short introduction to a huge and much debated topic.  However, it is quite unhelpful and misleading that the Authorised King James Version, unfortunately repeated by the Revised Standard Version, has the titles, ‘The First Book of Moses commonly called Genesis’, ‘The Second Book of Moses commonly called Exodus’, etc.  This could encourage regular church-goers to think that Moses actually wrote the first five books of the Bible; an idea that is ill-informed.  I’m pleased to say the later versions I have of the Bible, do not have these misleading titles.  Most regular church-goers know nothing of these origins of the Torah.  They may not be very interested either, but not having been told, who would blame them thinking that Moses wrote all of the Torah? 

Having set the stage for my ‘faithful questioning’, I proceed.  What then is the historical and theological context of these Hebrew stories? 

This first myth of creation in Genesis chapter 1, encapsulated and enhanced some of the religious cosmological concepts from other ideas in the Old Testament and stories from the Hebrew culture, but I believe that was not its main purpose.  I think this myth is more about God than cosmology. 

Considering this myth in its historical context, if the dating scenario suggested previously is reasonably correct, by dating the ‘P’ document at about 500 BCE, many Jews had experienced exile.  This exile, in which portions of the population of the Kingdom of Judah were deported to Babylon, occurred in the early part of the 6th century, commencing at about 586 BCE.  It is often called ‘The Babylonian Captivity’. 

For a generation or more, these Jews, in captivity, had been exposed to the ancient Mesopotamian myth of creation. 

This Enuma Elish myth commences with water.  In the beginning there was only undifferentiated water swirling in chaos.  Out of this swirl, the waters divided into sweet, fresh water, known as the god Apsu, and salty bitter water, being the goddess Tiamat.  Once differentiated, the union of these two entities gave birth to younger gods.  In this myth, Apsu planned to kill these younger gods because they were too noisy, disturbing his sleep at night and distracting him from his work during the day.  Tiamat learnt of his plan and warned Enki, her eldest son, who then kills Apsu.  Tiamat, in revenge, made war on the younger gods, wishing to destroy her children by using many terrible monsters.  Victory alludes the younger gods until Marduk comes onto the scene.  He vows to kill Tiamat and does so by shooting an arrow at her, splitting her in two.  From her eyes flowed the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.  The Heavens and the Earth were formed from Tiamat’s spilt blood, bashed-in skull and her dismembered, stretched-out, split corpse.  Marduk then creates human beings from the remains of other dead gods.  He is rewarded for his victory and his creative prowess by becoming the main god, being praised by humans and gods alike. 

This Enuma Elish was read and recited widely throughout Mesopotamia and was especially important at the New Year Festival in Babylon.  All very violent.  The Jews, in captivity, would have been quite conversant with it. 

Some biblical historians tell us that the Hebrew myth is a revision of this Mesopotamian Enuma Elish myth.  These two Babylonian and Hebrew myths obviously have very significant differences but similarities seem to exist in that, both have one deity doing the creating, that order is created out of chaos and that the chaos is associated with water.  Other biblical historians suggest that the belief in only one God, a Creator God of the world and everything else, came with the experience of the Jewish people, when they realised they could worship their God even though they were living in Babylon and not in their homeland.  They started to believe in one God even though previously believing, like different surrounding cultures, that many gods existed.  Look at the first of the 10 commandments, with its recognition of other gods.

You shall have no other gods before me.  (Exodus 20:3.)  

In their very early history, their God was their local tribal God, but later they believed their God was the only one true almighty God.  There was no other.  After this Babylonian captivity, which lasted about 50 years, the creation story in Genesis 1, was adopted as the start of the Jewish sacred scripture; the Torah. 

In this Genesis 1 creation myth, God was in total control.  Good.  God had a purpose and the Hebrews were involved in it as God’s chosen people.  Good.  God brought them out of Egypt, liberating them from slavery.  Good.  God gave them food and drink, enabling them to survive in the wilderness for forty years.  Good.  God gave them the Promised Land as God had promised.  Good.  God delivered them from exile in Babylon and now they had rebuilt Jerusalem and the temple.  Good.  Behold, everything was very good, purposeful and God did it all.  I can imagine the Jewish priests and religious leaders could have thought about this, their theological history, when creating and telling their creation story.  God was in total control.  God had a purpose, God’s plan prevailed and it was good.  This had to be a theme of their creation story.  Also, it was not to be violent like the creation story they had been subjected to for years, during their exile. 

God did not need to show God’s power in violence.  God showed it in creation.  This was very different to the Babylonian Enuma Elish creation story.  The Hebrew creation story was of a God who was unchallenged in power, bringing God’s plan to completion but without interruption or conflict.  Such I believe, could have been some of the historical/theological context of Genesis 1.

One of the intriguing qualities of a myth is that there can be a ‘truth’ or ‘truths’ encased in it, sometimes hidden but assumed, and sometimes stated quite openly.  These ‘truths’ can be thought of as basic underlying principles or assumptions which lie behind the actual content of the myth.

Marcus Borg quotes a Native American tribal storyteller friend, stating, that when he introduces his tribe’s creation story, he says,

Now I don’t know if it actually happened this way or not, but I know this story is true. [1] 

The tribal storyteller releases me from thinking that his creation story has to be looked at literally, or as historically or factually accurate.  I find that helpful but I am prompted to raise the questions, “If your story is not factually correct, if your story is not about what actually happened, what then about it are you saying is ‘true’?  What ‘truth’ lies behind your story?  It may be ‘true’ for you but I need to ask, “Is it ‘true’ for me?” 

The storyteller was really saying, “My story has an underlying principle, a deep meaning, which is ‘true’.”  I can imagine some Christian preachers saying the same about the Genesis myth; “I don’t know if it actually happened this way but I know this story is true.”  But what principle or underlying ‘truth’ is being referred to? 

In deciding whether a ‘truth’ in a myth is ‘true’ for me, I need to make my response today with all my own personal history involved.  I live in the 21st century and not 500 years before the 1st.  I have certain beliefs about God, the universe and humanity.  In my secular education I have learned something about the cosmos and nature on Earth.  My personal history is important.  It is basic and crucial to my response. 

I believe the two Hebrew stories encourage me to go down this path, that of seeking meanings, seeking underlying ‘truths’, rather than pondering the correctness of the actual details of the myth.  What ‘truths’ are encased in these Genesis stories?  When I discern what these might be, I cannot give ‘unquestioning obedience’ to them without some scrutiny.   Simply because they are in the Bible does not make them ‘true’ for me.   I need to ‘faithfully question’ them. 

Maybe other people looking at the Genesis myths could find other, maybe more ‘truths’ than I.  However, I wish to discuss the ‘truths’, to which I think the myths might be pointing.  Some are obvious and others are somewhat hidden but, for me, they are there. 

Fortunately, I was never encouraged to understand the Hebrew creation stories literally, however the first, found in Genesis 1:1-2:3, has been a very significant part of the Bible in my past church instruction.  In Western culture it is probably one of the best known passages of the Bible, not in detail but in broad outline.  I quote it all from the Revised Standard Version.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.  The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters.

And God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.  And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness.  God called the light Day, and the darkness he called night.  And there was evening and there was morning, one day. 

And God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.”  And God made the firmament and separated the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament. And it was so.  God called the firmament Heaven.  And there was evening and there was morning, a second day. 

And God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so.  God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together, he called seas.  And God saw that it was good.  And God said, “Let the earth put forth vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, upon the earth.”  And it was so.  The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind.  And God saw that it was good.  And there was evening and there was morning, a third day. 

And God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, and let them be lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth.”  And it was so.  And God made the two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; he made the stars also.  And God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness.  And God saw that it was good.  And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day. 

And God said, “Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the firmament of the heavens.”  So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind.  And God saw that it was good.  And God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas and let birds multiply on the earth.” And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day. 

And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds; cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.”  And it was so.  And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds, and cattle according to their kinds, and everything that creeps upon the ground according to its kind.  And God saw that it was good. 

Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.”  So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.  And God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.”  And God said, “Behold I have given you every plant yielding seed which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food.  And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.”  And it was so.  And God saw everything that he had made, and behold it was very good.  And there was evening and there was morning, a sixth day. 

Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.  And on the seventh day God finished his work which he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had done.  So God blessed the seventh day and hallowed it, because on it God rested from all his work which he had done in creation.  (Genesis 1:1 - 2:3.)

There are 12 ‘truths’ that I discern in this first Genesis myth.  Some are far more important for me than others but they all need ‘faithful questioning’.  Many are not ‘true’ for me.

A.  Concerning the concept of creation.

1.  The creation is distinct and thus separate from the Creator God; not specifically stated, but there. 

2.  Each creative act is separate; not specifically stated, but there.

3.  Each creation is separate and distinct; not specifically stated, but there.

4.  Each creation is complete and creation as a whole is also complete; stated and obvious.

5.  Creation is all very good; stated and obvious.

6.  Creation happens peacefully and is strictly ordered; not specifically stated, but there.

B.  Concerning God.

7.  God is; stated and obvious.

8.  God is a separate being, a Creator God; not specifically stated, but there.

9.  God is in total control; not specifically stated, but there.

10.  God is depicted anthropomorphically; not specifically stated, but there.

C.  Concerning humanity.

11.  Made in God’s image; stated and obvious.

12.  Male and female are equal; not specifically stated, but there.

A.  Concerning the concept of creation. 

When dealing with this subject, it is difficult for me to separate the influences of both scientific and theological insights I have gained over the years, because both have a lot to say about it.  In making my 21st century response, I refer to both. 

In ordinary speech, when we talk of creation we necessarily assume there is a creator.  When something is created it is automatically understood that there must be a creator.  How can something be created if there is no creator?  The two are totally interdependent but separate.  The creator creates what is created, but the creation and the creator are separate and distinct.  For me, this is plain common sense.  We often talk about creators putting something of themselves into their creation but the two are still basically separate and distinct. 

When we talk about human creations we are not talking about creating something out of nothing; there is always a raw material which is used.  Creation presupposes separate, individual creative acts, giving rise to separate creations which are intended to be completed.  The creator usually wants to finish the act of creating and thus have the creation complete.  When we contemplate an unfished creation, we normally think there is more work that needs to be done to bring it to completion.  For me, these ideas are what the theory of creationism is built on.  They lead me down the path of separateness and away from interdependence and connectedness. 

In my past, I enjoyed the hobby of woodturning.  Using the commonly understood meaning of the word ‘create’, I am quite comfortable saying that I ‘created’ plates, bowls, candlestick holders, lampshade holders, goblets, etc., made out of wood that was available from a tree or bush.  I am not suggesting that I have ‘created’ something out of nothing.  I sometimes had to search for a particular type of wood to use as my raw material.  Each separate act of woodturning gave rise to a different product.  Sometimes I found the act of woodturning quite difficult, long and intricate.  At other times it was simple and easy. It depended on the wood I was using and the article I was trying to turn.  These acts, however, were separate and distinct.  I was sometimes pleased with what I had created and sometimes not.  Each separate product of my endeavours brought about a different response.  When I completed a woodturning, I could concentrate on my next creation until it was also finished.  I can remember being pleased when I had completed a woodturning because I could then give it away, display it or use it, but most importantly, I had actually completed it  It was finished.  I could then start on another, if I wished. 

This all works fine when I think about human creations, be they small of large; be they created by individuals, groups or big companies.  However, when contemplating the known universe, nature on Earth and humanity and how everything came into being and the way it works, this way of thinking – creationism - all falls apart for me. 

Beginning my 21st century response, I need to make comment about evolution. 

For the cosmos, life on Earth and humanity as a whole, following my secular education, I replace ‘Creation’ with ‘Evolution’.  I cannot embrace both concepts at the same time. 

The theory of evolution points me in the opposite direction to that which the concept of creation points.  Creation, as I have said, presumes a creator.  On the other hand, evolution, for me, is a self-projecting, self-promoting, self-propagating process.  For me, it is one of the underlying fundamental processes operative within the cosmos.  It is a process unto itself.  It just is, has been and always will be.  Creation involves a stop and start sequence of separate acts, giving rise to separate products.  On the other hand, evolution is a connected, integrated, continuous process. That which evolves is partly dependant on what existed before and that which exists now, determines to an extent, what evolves from it.  Everything is connected and part of a continuous process. 

I too, am involved. 

Numerous evolutionary processes needed to have happened in sequence and now be in place for human life to come into existence.  It took thousands of millions of years for little me to emerge from the combination of atoms and molecules all of which are thousands of millions of years old and products of the Big Bang and/or exploding stars.  They form me.  What an evolutionary marvel!  If all these thousands of processes did not happen in the sequence they did and how they did, I would not be here!  For me, this is a benevolent Mystery ‘par excellence’.  Not that it all happened because I was the end result being sought or the purpose for it all happening.  I think that might be arrogant.  Rather it is that I happen to be part of the end result, maybe the inevitable result of evolutionary processes. 

To realise that I am made up of billions of atoms, all of which are products of these evolutionary processes, blows my mind.  For a miniscule of a second in time, but of course for me it is more than 80 years in human time, these pre-existing atoms have come together in me.  The fact that the carbon atoms, of which there are millions in my body, originally came into being by a star exploding, also blows my mind.  Some of me is connected to and dependent on that event, and it occurred long, long ago.  I wonder which exploding star gave rise to the carbon atoms in me.  I wonder if there was more than one exploding star involved.  If I have the nerve, I can assert that I am made of this stuff - stardust!  We all are.  I am, you are connected to the stars.

Of the more recent evolutionary processes and their connectedness, Stephen Hawking, an eminent scientist, theorist, researcher of the 20th and 21st Century, is quoted as saying,

We are just an advanced breed of monkeys.  [2] 

Unlike creation, evolution does not seek completion.   It seeks and works its way towards that which is more complex, often in minute changes and usually over extremely long periods of time.  ‘Thresholds’ are said to be part of the process but it is continuous and never finished.  A very interesting question for me is, “What are we human beings evolving into?” 

I put under my umbrella of evolution all changes within the cosmos, biological changes in nature’s life on Earth as well as the changes in the cosmos beyond.  Modern science informs me that the cosmos is constantly changing, expanding at an ever-increasing rate.  Stars explode and new galaxies are being formed when cosmic dust and gas are squeezed together.  Stars collapse in on themselves at the end of their life cycle and Black Holes are expected to form when this happens.  Etc. Etc.  Mostly theoretical but based on observable and interpreted evidence, very mysterious and complex, but, in my understanding, the processes of evolution of never-ending change are operative. 

In our minutely tiny part of the universe, evolution and its numerous processes, have given birth to Earth’s nature in all its magnificent variety and interdependence.  But it took billions of years and it is continuing.  This time period is beyond my comprehension, outside the boundaries of my ordinary thinking.  Whether all evolutionary processes are similar or not, I have no idea, but modern science understands a great deal about the factors which apparently give rise to the huge variety of life forms on Earth.  I have heard the term, ‘natural selection’ and ‘survival of the fittest’ often used.  Some of the main factors at work in this evolutionary process, enunciated by Charles Darwin in the mid-19th century, can be summarized as follows: 

Life forms reproduce and therefore have a tendency to become more numerous. 

Factors such as competition and predatory behaviour work against the survival of individuals.

Each offspring differs from their parent(s) in minor, random ways. 

If these differences are beneficial, the offspring is more likely to survive and reproduce. 

This makes it likely that more offspring in the next generation will have beneficial differences and fewer will have detrimental differences. 

These differences accumulate over many generations, resulting in changes within some of the population. 

Over time, populations can split or branch off into new species. 

These processes continue indefinitely. 

Many different scenarios have been put forward regarding the history of life on the Earth.  I have picked one which has some scientific support. This timeline looks something like this. 

The Earth is about 4.6 billion years old and here are the accompanying evolutionary (obviously very approximate) datings:

3.8 billion years ago, evolution of  simple cells 

2 billion years ago, evolution into complex cells 

600 million years ago, evolution into simple animals,

570 million years ago, evolution into arthropods - ancestors of insects 

550 million years ago, evolution into complex animals, 

500 million years ago, evolution into fish

475 million years ago, evolution into land plants, 

400 million years ago, evolution into insects and seeds, 

300 million years ago, evolution into reptiles,

200 million years ago, evolution into mammals, 

150 million years ago, evolution into birds, 

130 million years ago, evolution into flowers, 

65 million years since the non-avian dinosaurs died out, 

200,000-300,000 years since humans started looking and acting basically something like they do today. 

No doubt these numbers will change in the future, maybe quite considerably, as new archaeological ‘finds’ are discovered and as ‘dating’ procedures improve.  Even some present theories have different datings and sequences.

The processes of evolution make a lot of sense to me regarding how, what we observe now, has come to be and is coming into being.  From what I understand, creationism does not flow from scientific and observable evidence. 

All is connected in evolutionary processes which never finishes.  Creation points me in the opposite direction, a direction I do not follow. 

All this information and much more forms part of the background for my 21st century response to the Genesis myths. 

So to the ‘truths’ in the first Genesis myth, as I perceive them.

1.  The creation is distinct and thus separate from the Creator God; not specifically stated, but there. 

This is quite obvious for me, right through this first creation myth.  The Creator God is there in the beginning but the creation is not.  The creation has to be created.  Creation is the result of the Creator God’s work.  The creation is not united with the Creator God.  Creation is distinct from the Creator God.  The creation is here and the Creator God is out there.  They are totally separate and distinct.  This, for me, is absolutely obvious in the myth.

So what for me now?  

Being a panentheist, my beliefs are the opposite to this.  I believe that the creation is in God and God is in the creation.  The two are united.  God is the divine dimension of creation.  My first perceived ‘truth’ within this Genesis myth is not ‘true’ for me.  This is of paramount importance for me.

2.  Each creative act is separate; not specifically stated, but there.

In this Genesis myth, the sequence, number and time-line of the creative acts are not to be taken literally but the creative acts are ordinarily understood as separate.  There are eight separate and individual acts of creation.  Each commences with, ‘And God said...’  The only departure from this in the text, is the making of the stars.  The text, in the style of an afterthought, has only, ‘He made the stars also.’  Separate acts of creation are inferred by the statement that each day had ended.  The next day with its new, distinct and separate act of creation is anticipated. 

3.  Each creation is separate and distinct; not specifically stated, but there. 

It is quite clear that in the Genesis myth, each creation is separate and distinct. 

Light, - day 1’s creation 

The firmament - Heaven, - day 2’s creation 

The gathering of the waters, - Seas and Earth, - part of day 3’s creation 

Vegetation, plants and fruit trees, - part of day 3’s creation

The sun, moon and stars, - day 4’s creation 

Living sea creatures and birds, - day 5’s creation

Cattle, beasts and creeping things, - part of day 6’s creation 

Man, male and female, - part of day 6’s creation - the final creation 

These creations have little to no connection to other creations.  Light and the firmament, vegetation and the sun moon and stars, sea creatures, cattle and humans - all distinct and separate in their origin. Many are quite unrelated.  Each creation does not give rise to the next.  No real connection. 

4.  Each creation is complete and creation as a whole is also complete; stated and obvious.  

All creations in this Genesis myth are considered to be complete.  Completion is quite explicit in this Genesis myth. 

Thus the Heavens and the Earth were finished, and all the host of them.  And on the seventh day God finished his work which he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had done.  So God blessed the seventh day and hallowed it, because on it God rested from all his work which he had done in creation.  (Genesis 2:1-3.)

God completed God’s work of creation and with that, all the creations were finished.  This states a completion. 

Thus the Heavens and the Earth were finished, and all the host of them,  (Genesis 2:1.)

All creation is complete.  ‘…he had done…’ confirms this. 

God rested from all his work which he had done in creation.  (Genesis 2:3.) 

So what for me now? 

Evolution is an unfinished process, always seeking more complexity.

These 3 previous, somewhat minor, for me, underlying principles, work for creationism but not with evolution.  Hence I find these ‘truths’ not ‘true’ for me. 

5.  Creation is all very good; stated and obvious. 

For me, this is a major complicating factor about this first Genesis creation myth in making my 21st century response.  My fifth perceived ‘truth’ is stated emphatically and is transparently obvious in Genesis and my current church teachings.  Six times this ‘goodness’ is mentioned in the text.

God saw that it was good.  (Genesis 1:4a, 10b, 12b, 18b, 21b and 25b.) 

Then everything is pronounced very good.

And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good.  (Genesis 1:31.)

The Good News Bible complicates the matter further for me, with its translation.

God looked at everything he had made, and he was very pleased.  (Genesis 1:31.)

Not only is the Genesis creation ‘all very good’ but God is also ‘very pleased’ with it. 

It is this ‘cover-all’ statement which I find unacceptable.  Could it have been that the redactors, those who brought the ancient stories to a presentable literary written form, just did not want to say that God could create something that was not good, or was not pleasing to God?  I can imagine that they did not want to write that God created something that was bad.  God is the Creator God and God is good so God could not create something that is bad.  Therefore all creation is very good.  This is the way biblical theism works.  Unfortunately, the church today often avoids the down-side when speaking of nature. 

Could it also have been that the story tellers wanted to counter the Babylonian myth, as stated previously?  They wanted to say the creation was good in keeping with what God had done in their earlier history. 

Walter Brueggemann, states, 

Throughout the narrative, God judges the results of his work ‘good’ and in verse 31 he pronounces the whole ‘very good.’  The ‘good’ used here does not primarily refer to a moral quality, but to an aesthetic quality.  It might be better translated lovely, pleasing, beautiful (cf Ecclesiastes 3:11).  The shift from the sixth day to the seventh is perhaps, then, not just that time has run its course, but that God knows satisfaction and delight in what he has wrought.  He rests not because the week ends, but because there is a satisfying, finished quality in his creation.  [3] 

I believe Brueggemann is being true to the text when he states that God knew 

...satisfaction and delight in what he has wrought. [4] 

However, I reject these implications of the text, and that, I think, means I must reject the text itself.  If the text is correct, and God did feel satisfaction and delight, then I submit that, in this myth, God didn’t look too deeply into the creation ‘God had wrought’. 

I am now continuing to make my 21st century response.  I make no apology for this because I think this is the only responsible response a 21st century regular church-goer can make.  I have the text in front of me, but I have to make my response in the context of my personal history and other information I now have. 

So, is it delightful that earthquakes, lightning strikes, cyclones and tsunamis occur, causing so much damage and human suffering?  Yet these phenomena naturally occur on Earth.  Are they not part of God’s creation and how it works?  Many people experience the forces of nature in a very destructive, ruinous way.  In Australia, when extreme drought is experienced, the number of animals that perish is innumerable.  Also, suicide, committed by farmers, male and female, and their children, is a common cause of death at such times.  Many natural occurrences can bring with them untold devastation and suffering and they are essential parts of the process of the Earth’s continued existence and evolution; shifting of tectonic plates within the Earth, changes in weather patterns, changing temperatures of oceans, etc.  They are some of the controlling processes of the universe.  We sometimes might say that a particular earthquake is ‘bad’, but in saying this, we are not making a moral judgement.  We are speaking about the extent of devastation it causes. 

Should all this please God, give God knowledge of a ‘satisfying, finished quality in his creation’ as Brueggemann, I think, correctly suggests, when interpreting the text as presented in the myth? 

Other questions arise.  When this other side of the universe, or at least of nature and how it works on our planet Earth, is confronted, I ask, “Is it good, does it please God, that most animals seem to live in fear all their lives, kill or be killed; that some mice eat their offspring; that certain bugs eat the eyes of humans; that germs cause so much human disease and suffering; that some insects and bugs prevent the healthy growth of plants, flowers and vegetables?”  And so on and on.  This darker side of nature is obvious.  Violence is part and parcel of nature.  Creatures fight each other to the death.  Creatures eat other creatures to survive.  The Genesis myth avoids this issue. 

And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food….  (Genesis 1:30.)

Some animals do not eat green plants.  They never have, and never will. 

One knows very clearly that in life on Earth, there is destruction, conflict, death, and struggle for survival everywhere.  It always has been the case.  Maybe the observation of all this could have helped give rise to the idea of ‘the survival of the fittest’.  I do not believe that death, suffering, struggle and conflict is/was caused by human/Adam’s sin.  That is quite absurd!  Recently, the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney, Australia, Dr Glenn Davies is quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald as saying,

Death is our enemy.  Death is not natural to this world… death is an intruder into our world and it is not the way God made the world when everything was good. [5] 

The article went on,

Dr Davies said that death was the result of sin and that Adam and Eve only faced the possibility of death once they sinned. [6]

I don’t know where Dr Davies lives but I am sure it is not on the same planet where I live.

Death has been part of the natural cycle on this Earth for billions of years.  There has never been a time when conflict, suffering and death were not part of the natural order of things on Earth, millions of years prior to the existence of humans.  For me, to postulate something different is to ignore common sense.  The Earth itself is given to changes which sometime cause untold human misery.  Many people have experienced total devastation because of the forces of nature and some of this, I submit, has nothing to do with human behaviour.  It just happens; it does and always will..

On the other hand, I can totally accept that many people, both inside and outside the church, speak glowingly about the peace and serenity they feel when walking in a forest, close to nature.  I hear people speak of the wonders of the universe when they look up at a starry night sky.  I share these experiences. I wish to emphatically affirm all this.  When looking out at the world around us, I believe most people think that it is beautiful beyond words.  These sentiments are reflected in many traditional hymns sung in church services today.  The lyrics of a well-loved traditional church hymn, ‘How great thou art’, state this.

When through the woods and forest glades I wander,

And hear the birds sing sweetly in the trees;

When I look down from lofty mountain grandeur,

And hear the brook, and feel the gentle breeze:

Then sings my soul, my Saviour God, to thee,

How great thou art, how great thou art. [7]

An older hymn was written back in 1800’s by Cecil Alexander.

All things bright and beautiful…

The Lord God made them all.. 

He gave us eyes to see them

And lips that we might tell

How great is God almighty

Who has made all things well. [8]

The biblical text and our good experiences of nature encourage these sorts of lyrics.

However, if our experience in life has been torturous and one of suffering at the hands of nature, people may say that if there is a Creator God of all things, then that Creator God has a warped sense of humour, intent on punishing and destroying and then sitting aloof to observe it all.  “Don’t ask me to worship such a Creator God!” some say, and then go on to ask, “Who created cancer cells?”  Comments and questions like this are serious and need to be addressed seriously.  They fly in the face of what is stated in the Genesis myth. 

God looked at everything he had made, and he was very pleased.   (Genesis 1:31a.) 

If God created all things and they were all pleasing to God, are we willing to sing, as an extra verse to the older lyrics quoted previously?

The typhoon and the earthquake

The cancer cells of death;

The predator, with violence

Kills what it needs for breath.

All things gross and horrible,

The Lord God made them all.

‘All things gross and horrible’ as far as humans are concerned, are there and are an obvious part of Earth’s nature.  I believe this cannot be sensibly disputed.  I’m not suggesting that this side of nature is morally bad or bad in any other way, but neither is it good morally or aesthetically.  If we thank a Creator God for creation, we need to think about ‘all’ things, not just the pleasant ones.  If we believe in a Creator God, I believe we need answer the question, “Who created cancer cells?” and a myriad of similar questions.  These questions cannot be avoided.  They must be addressed.  If we believe in a Creator God and the concept of creation, we need to include all creations because if we don’t; Where did the nasties come from?  Who created them?  Are we not then forced into a situation of postulating ‘a devil’ or some other Creator God of all that is bad?  I cannot go down that path. 

We cannot separate off the appearance of a creation from how it works.  A leopard or tiger can look elegant, quite grand and, when running, can look magnificent.  But when hungry its actions can be very violent and murderous.  So when this Genesis myth says that ‘God saw…’ it must have been speaking about more than just appearance.  To think only of appearance that is ‘seen’, is to treat the matter in a very shallow way.  How nature works and what it physically looks like must be considered together and at depth.

For me, this Genesis myth has it wrong with the use of the words ‘everything was very good’.  To accept this part of the text and its message, is to court ridicule.  I find that the text attributing a feeling of satisfaction to God is somewhat preposterous to me, yet that is what the text does. 

What follows from all this?  I believe that if regular church-goers pause and reflectively think about this subject at any depth, they will have many questions, some of which I have raised.  If they do not think deeply about this issue, when confronted with people who do think about it and criticise vehemently what Genesis teaches, saying it is absurd and should not be taught to children (in schools), these regular church-goers, with only the traditional teachings from the church, will often be at a loss as to what to say.  The instruction I have received from the church regarding this whole matter, has been quite inadequate and inappropriately skewed. 

So what for me now? 

I need to embrace a balanced view of nature and the universe.  I need to accept that our experience on Earth can be both terrifying and exhilarating. The processes by which everything has come into being are processes of cosmological forces and of evolution which are presently operating and still unfolding. Some of these continuing processes produce harmony and others cause conflict; some bring about beautiful outcomes and others cause what is ugly, some gentle and some brutally violent. But these processes are all amoral.   They just are.  That’s the way it is. 

Contemplating the positive side of the universe and Earth’s nature, all is beyond my imagination in its beauty and functioning.  It is pure magic.  I ‘faithfully affirm’ all this in many different lyrics I have written. 

From my lyrics,  No. 22: 

It is So Grand

Tune    Woodlands

It is so grand - the cosmos with its store

Of galaxies and stars; we stand in awe;

The constellations, nebulae and more,

So limitless, no human can explore. 

It is so grand - the beauty of the earth –

Abundant life; all species seek re-birth;

We look at nature; she responds with mirth;

And then we wonder at her dazzling worth.

I have written many more lyrics on this positive theme but all together, they are quite inadequate in expressing my imagining awe and wonderment at the cosmos.  I am constantly ‘god-smacked’.  However, I do not need a theistic separate Creator God to experience and enjoy this wonder.  This is my human, personal and I suggest, my natural reaction to my environment.  Thank goodness. 

In my experience, David Attenborough and his many TV series of nature documentaries, has done more than probably any other individual, to engender in ordinary people a feeling of total spellbound awe and reverence for nature.  Yet he has done it all without reference to a God or any Creator God.  In his series ‘Flying Monsters’, as with many others of his documentaries, he has used the word ‘evolve’ or ‘evolution’ many, many times.  He speaks of periods of time in the tens or hundreds of millions of years.  Also, he has not shied away from the unpleasant side of nature but has included it in a sensitive way, not wanting people to turn the television off because of scenes of ultra-violent killings, or of an orgy of feasting by animals on other killed animals.  He has not avoided the confrontation of natural drastic devastation.  I am very thankful to David for his wealth of information, his honesty and his wise insights.

I quote again from Stephen Hawking;

We are each free to believe what we want, and it’s my view that the simplest explanation is; there is no God. No one created the universe and no one directs our fate.…  We have this one life to appreciate the grand design of the universe, and for that I am extremely grateful. [9] 

I too, am extremely grateful.   Even saying that, is totally inadequate.  However, I also need to acknowledge that which is terrifying and violent, humanly speaking, in nature and the universe.  To avoid this is to make the church’s message deficient and open to ridicule.  It leads to being shallow about this extremely complex issue.   It is to leave unaddressed, issues which many 21st century people confront.  It is to trivialise the whole matter. 

From my lyrics,  No. 23:

Nature’s Moods

Tune    Moscow

Nature won’t be subdued.

Has more than just one mood;

Can cause us fear.

Earthquakes and violent storms,

Tempest in all its forms,

Tornado that deforms,

They’re so severe.

Some blame catastrophe

On God’s activity,

As if it’s planned.

But nature’s frantic deeds

Do not serve human needs;

Amoral nature heeds

No such demand.

Again I stress, I have made my 21st century response to a 2500 year old creation myth but I believe this is the situation of most regular church-goers. 

They have the biblical text and numerous TV shows which supply a tremendous amount of scientific information on this subject.  When they think about it seriously, questions must arise regarding a Creator God who is believed to have created everything good. 

This fifth ‘truth’ is not true for me, certainly not in its all-encompassing nature.

6.  Creation happens peacefully and is strictly ordered; not specifically stated, but there.  

Is my sixth perceived ‘truth’ ‘true’ for me?  Is it important?  This forces me back to look at ‘context’.  Back in the 2,500 years ago context, it could have been important and ‘true’, endeavouring to contradict the violent Mesopotamian myth, but it is somewhat irrelevant to me today. 

B.  Concerning God. 

7.  God is; stated and obvious. 

The first words in this myth are, ‘In the beginning God...’  ‘God is’, can be understood as the first, only and final statement on the matter.  God just is.  No question.  In this creation myth, God has a non-beginning, unquestioned ever-existence.  God just is.  

So what for me now? 

This is ‘true’ for me but I am not affirming an outside transcendent Being.  This seventh ‘truth’ is ‘true’ for me, but as in panentheism.  This distinction is crucial for me. 

8.  God is a separate Being, a Creator God; not specifically stated, but there. 

As with my 1st perceived ‘truth’, this first Genesis myth paints God as a Creator God being completely separate.  For me, this is absolutely obvious in the myth.  God, the Creator God, is totally and majestically distinct.  The Creator God is ‘out there’, creating by giving bold commands.  For me, this myth tells me that the Creator God is not the creation nor in the creation.  This Creator God observes the creation but this Creator God is not looking in a mirror. The Creator God is looking at something quite distinct; the Creator God’s creation.  In the myth they do not combine; they do not unite.  The Creator God is always separate, ‘other’. 

This first chapter of Genesis sets the stage for the whole Bible as well as for regular church-goers, with its bold emphasis on the Creator God being other, separate and distinct. 

So what for me now? 

I reject any separation of God from the universe because I am a panentheist.  I have mentioned this many times because it is so fundamental to my world view, my theology and my connection to Jesus.   For me, panentheism takes me in the opposite direction to the separateness, the distinctiveness between God and creation in this first Genesis myth.  I do not even like using the word ‘creation’ because, for me, it presupposes a separate creator.  Let me say, “God is in the universe and the universe is in God.” 

This is a significant departure from what I have been taught by the church.  I think that to believe that God is the Creator God is the initial step to believing that God is mystically but absolutely separate and outside the universe.  God can have relationships with the universe, with you and me, but God is still a separate Entity/Being, ‘out there’.  This, I think, is the church’s teaching that most regular church-goers have accepted for centuries.

I cannot hold to my panentheistic beliefs and also embrace the emphasis of separation that I understand is a fundamental ‘truth’ behind this Genesis myth.  My eighth perceived ‘truth’ from the myth is most emphatically not ‘true’ for me. 

9.  God is in total control; not specifically stated, but there. 

This separate Creator God is absolutely in control from start to finish and a set of creations is the result.  Nothing can or does go wrong.  It could be no other way. It would seem that everything that happens, goes to a pre-determined plan.  No interruptions occur.  Right through the myth, God makes bold pronouncements and things happen immediately. 

God said, “Let there be….”...and it was so.  (Genesis 1:6-7, 9, 11, 15, 24.) 

All that happens, happens in a strict and totally organised fashion. The repeated phrases in the text like ‘according to its kind’ and ‘It was so.’, lend emphasis to the orderly and controlled nature of the process.  However, the creations have no say at all in what happens.  They are just created.  God is the powerful one. 

God’s power seems to be one of the main themes in the Old Testament, begun in this Genesis myth.

Water was always seen as a very threatening thing to the Hebrews but God is mightier. 

Mightier than the thunders of many waters,

Mightier than the waves of the sea,

The Lord on high is mighty.   (Psalm 93:4.) 

Power seems to be paramount in biblical theism.  The power of God is constantly referred to in current church service liturgies.  There are many references to this power in the hymns we are requested to sing in church services. ‘Almighty’ is a word often used to describe God.  It is part of the climax of the Lord’s Prayer we say so often. 

For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory for ever and ever….

This question of God’s power can be, I believe, very confronting to many regular church-goers.  God must be in control.  It forms a major thrust of Christianity in my church experience today and I believe it has its seed in this first Genesis creation myth.  As previously suggested, I believe that the vast majority of regular church-goers no longer believe that God is an old bearded grandfather in the sky but most still hold onto a more sophisticated idea of the same basic concept, that of God being the one, separate, supernatural, almighty Creator.  The emphasis I experience in church services is that this God is involved in human affairs, caring for everybody and everything, but as an almighty Creator God. 

So what for me now? 

In my understanding of panentheism, control and power are irrelevant.  ‘Presence’ and not ‘power’ is what is important.  This ‘presence’ is not there because of intervention or a ‘visit’ but because of a unity of God and the cosmos, you and me.  Earlier I have spoken of control and power in the section on ‘The biblical presentation of God’.

The ‘truth’ of God being in total control, I believe is clearly present in this myth but I ignore it because it is irrelevant to me. 

10.  God is depicted anthropomorphically; not specifically stated, but there. 

God creates.  God speaks.  God looks and sees.  God rests.  This is what humans do.  In the myth God is certainly supremely more powerful and greater than any other human but God is still spoken of in human, anthropomorphic terms. 

So what for me now? 

I have got to grow beyond my Sunday School teachings.  This way of speaking about God is not helpful to me.   If this is a ‘truth’ within the myth, then I reject it.

C.  Concerning humanity. 

11.  Made in God’s image; stated and obvious. 

This is quite explicit in this myth.  It can be taken as a direct teaching. 

Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness;  (Genesis1:26a.) 

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.  (Genesis 1:27.) 

This phrase, ‘the image of God’, has been used down the centuries by many different interpreters but what does it mean?  In the text, this phrase seems to be linked with authority or ‘dominion’.  This ‘dominion’ over all other creatures is mentioned twice, apparently to give emphasis. 

..and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over all the Earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.  (Genesis 1:26.)

..and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over everything that moves upon the earth.  (Genesis 1:28.) 

Humans, both males and females seem to have a special place in the hierarchy of ‘creation’.  Humans are made in the image of God.  Plants and vegetation aren’t.  Neither are animals, birds or any other creatures.  Could this mean that, as God is to humans so humans are to be to other creatures?  This would certainly not entitle humans to be irresponsible regarding other creatures.  Their ‘dominion’ was to be exercised by those who were in the image of God.  It is not suggested anywhere in the text that God exploits humans so, I submit that humans should not understand the word in this way. 

So what for me now? 

If there is a ‘truth’ here concerning humanity, I have more questioning to do. In my experience, the image of God is usually thought of as good, but it has been interpreted in many different ways.  Terence E. Fretheim, Professor of Old Testament in the Lutheran Theological Seminary in Minnesota states, 

The ‘image’ refers to the entire human being, not just some part, such as reason or will….  The image functions to mirror God to the world, to be God as God would be to the non-human, to be an extension of God’s own dominion.  [10] 

To continue with this biblical way of talking, if humans have an extension of God’s dominion, then for me, it certainly imposes a big responsibility as well as privilege.  Is my eleventh perceived ‘truth’, ‘true’ for me?  Not sure because I’m still not quite sure how to interpret the phrase, ‘image of God’.  What about the ‘image of God’ in the Exodus story?  If I take the ‘image of God’ with what I believe Jesus taught about God, then my eleventh perceived ‘truth’ is ‘true’ for me.  What a responsibility!  However, there is no panentheistic unity of God and humanity, so I accept this ‘truth’ but with reservations.

12.  Male and female are equal; not specifically stated, but there. 

Little comment is made in this first Genesis myth about the relationship between male and female.  It is stated,

]

…male and female he created them. And God blessed them and God said to them… (Genesis 1:27-28.)

Is there equality between the sexes?  This can certainly be inferred.  God recognises both, blesses both and speaks to both.  God gives both ‘dominion’.  No distinction.  This is affirmed a bit later, continuing the ‘P’ tradition in a later part of Genesis. 

This is the book of the generations of Adam.  When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God.  Male and female he created them and he blessed them and named them Man when he created them.      (Genesis 5:1-2.)

So what for me now? 

In this first creation myth, my twelfth perceived ‘truth’ is ‘true’ for me.

There are some major difficulties for me in this myth because of the separate, theistic, almighty Creator God.  Mystery is still ever present but if this separate Creator God is no longer part of the scene, we no longer have to thank or blame this Creator God for the universe, what happens in it, how it happens and the consequences of what happens. 

I am in turmoil now because, although there are a few ‘truths’ that are ‘true’ for me in this myth, my total summation leaves this first Genesis myth in chapter 1, as a part of the Bible I now wish to ignore.  God as a separate, almighty Creator God of an all-good creation, forms no part of my set of beliefs any more, even though it seems to be a fundamental part of the church’s continuing proclamation.

What ‘truths’ I find in this myth that are ‘true’ for me, have to do with humanity; that humans are made in the image of God and that males and females are equal.  That’s about it.  Not enough for me to think this myth is important enough to retain as part of my journey with Jesus.  For me, this myth leads me in the wrong direction, not necessarily away from Jesus, but not towards him either.  However, it certainly leads away from what I have learned in secular education about evolution and the cosmos.  Most importantly it leads me in the opposite direction and away from my panentheistic beliefs.  This is fundamental. 

Overall, this myth is not ‘true’ for me and thus I make a very significant, but also somewhat reluctant ‘faithful rejection’ of it. 

I would not teach this story to children.  For children, I might include this myth along with other, ancient, different cultural creation myths, but in no way as superior to them. 

I think that the Genesis chapter 1 myth sets a solid foundation for orthodox Christian theology which most church-goers and nominal Christians take for granted.  However, it can lead non-Christians to think that, if Christianity is built on such ideas, it belongs to a pre-enlightenment religion and thus irrelevant to the 21st century.  Although not believed literally as the way things actually happened, I believe Genesis 1 is perceived to declare that ‘creationism’ is the way to view origins.  I cannot accept this. 

We need a new origins’ story.

I now have to look at creation and a Creator God, using the second Hebrew myth. 

I believe it encases some similar, but also some very different ‘truths’.  This second Hebrew myth of creation follows immediately after the first and is found in Genesis chapter 2:4 continuing to the end of that chapter. It is entwined with the myth of the Garden of Eden, and as I deal with that myth a little later, I have separated it out.  I quote again from the Revised Standard Version. 

These are the generations of the Heavens and the Earth when they were created. 

In the day that the Lord God made the Earth and the Heavens, when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up - for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground.  Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living creature.  The Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there he put the man whom he had formed.  And out of the ground the Lord God made to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food, the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.  ….

A river flowed out of Eden to water the garden, and there it divided and became four rivers. The name of the first was Pishon; it is the one which flows around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; and the gold of that land is good; bdellium and onyx stone is there.  The name of the second river is Gihon; it is the one which flows around the whole land of Cush.  And the name of the third river is Hiddekel, which flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates. 

The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to till it and keep it.  ….

Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make a helper fit for him.”  So out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.  The man gave names to all cattle and to birds of the air and every beast of the field; but for man there was not found a helper fit for him.  So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up the place with flesh; and the rib which the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.  Then he said  

“This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh;

she shall be call Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” 

Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife and they become one flesh. …..  (Genesis 2:4-15, 18-24.)

This second myth has nothing to do with cosmology or anything beyond the Earth but is located in a particular place on it, the Middle East.  The Lord God and the man are the two main characters.  Late in the myth, the woman also gets a place on the stage.

Again, I have itemised the underlying assumptions, the 11 ‘truths’ as I perceive them. 

A.  Concerning the concept of creation

1.  The Creator God usually uses existing materials; not specifically stated, but there.

2.  Different creations are connected; not specifically stated, but there.  

3.  Creation is localised; stated and obvious. 

B.  Concerning the Lord God

4.  The Lord God is; not specifically stated, but there. 

5.  The Lord God is an anthropomorphic Creator God; not specifically stated, but there.  

6.  The Lord God is present and concerned; stated and obvious. 

7.  The Lord God delegates responsibility; stated and obvious. 

8.  The Lord God seems to lack total control; not specifically stated, but there.  

C.  Concerning humanity

9.  Man is created from humble beginnings; stated and obvious. 

10. Man becomes a living creature by the Lord God’s in-dwelling; stated and obvious. 

11. Male and female are not equal; not specifically stated but there. 

This second myth gives me a very different picture of God and how God creates things.  Notice that, in the first myth, God is referred to as ‘God’ and in the second as ‘The Lord God’.  This is one of the clues which enabled biblical scholars to separate out the two myths from within the total text. 

In this second myth, the Lord God is still the Creator God and as such, not the same as the creation nor in the creation, but the Lord God is ‘present’ rather than ‘away’ as in the first myth.  The Lord God is, as it were, on stage but sharing it with the man and the woman.  The Lord God doesn’t seem all that well organised because things don’t always go to plan.  The order of creation is totally different.  In the first myth the male and female are created last and together, after the plants and animals, whereas in this second myth, the human male is created first, then the trees and plants, then the animals and lastly the female human.  The Lord God makes no grand pronouncements from afar. The Lord God is a present busy body, doing different things; things that humans do.  It all happens locally and there is no interest in things beyond the Earth.  There does not seem to be any cosmic ramifications resulting from what the Lord God is doing; no sun, moon or stars, etc.  I suppose they are taken as ‘given’. 

I can imagine children might listen quite enthralled as this story unfolds.  It is a tribal story for telling around a camp fire; not a cosmological religious pronouncement to begin a learned lecture about the origin of the universe. 

A.  Concerning the concept of creation 

1.  The Creator God usually uses existing materials; not specifically stated, but there.  

Many things seem to be in existence with which the Lord God begins work.  There was a mist that watered all the ground.  The Lord God uses the dust from the ground or the ground itself to make the beasts of the field, all the birds and the man.  The Lord God plants the garden and we can only presume that the Lord God had the seeds or seedlings before the Lord God planted them.  The Lord God had to plant something.  The Lord God uses one of the man’s ribs to make into a woman.  In all this activity, the Lord God is very human, similar to a wood-turner, using raw materials available to do the creating.  It is not suggested that the Lord God created things out of nothing.  Many things, not mentioned, are presumed to exist.  This is very different to the first myth. 

So what for me now? 

All this fits into this myth and maybe there is a ‘truth’ here.  A preacher could well expand this idea to the thought that God ‘uses’ what is available to perform God’s purposes now.  It could be said, “We are God’s hands and feet and we are essential to bring in the Kingdom of God.”  My first perceived ‘truth’ is ‘true’ for me.

2.  Different creations are connected; not specifically stated, but there.  

Rain is connected to the growth of herbs but there was none yet, however, a mist does the job.  It does the ‘watering’.  The man is connected to the dust of the Earth.  He was made from it.   So too, with the animals; they are also connected to the ground.  The garden the Lord God planted needed the man to look after it, to till it and keep it.  The man and the garden seem to have some mutual connection.  The woman is made to be the man’s ‘helper’ and to alleviate his alone-ness.  They are connected.  The man leaves his father and mother to become one flesh.  They become very connected. 

Again, all different to the first myth.  It is a very different myth. 

So what for me now? 

This very tentatively points me towards the ‘connectedness’ but not in terms of the theory of evolution.  It does not get even near to the interconnectedness of everything in that theory but at least points that way.  ‘True’ for me?  Nearly.

3.  Creation is localised; stated and obvious.

In verses 10-14 of this myth creation is localised in the Middle East.  We are given the names of rivers and different locations.  There are four rivers.  Their names are Pishon, Gihon, Hiddekel and Euphrates and the locations mentioned have the names of Havilah, Cush and Assyria.  Some of these are now unknown to us. 

So what for me now? 

This fits well for this tribal myth.  Is my third perceived ‘truth’, ‘true’ for me?  Maybe that the Lord God always works locally.  Maybe this is pushing the point a bit too hard, however, this is a ‘truth’ to which Jesus often points. 

B  Concerning the Lord God. 

4.  The Lord God is; not specifically stated, but there. 

Like the first myth, in this second myth, the Lord God is just there.  Beginning with 

In the day that the Lord God made…. (Genesis 2:4b.) 

There is no explanation as to how the Lord God came to be or came to be there.  This ‘truth’ of God’s ‘is-ness’ is assumed, not specifically stated.  Again, as with the first myth, the Lord God is a ‘given’, not as almighty, but the Lord God immediately gets busy. 

]So what for me now? 

A major difference when comparing the two myths is that God in the first myth is out-there and majestically, transcendentally separate, whereas the Lord God, in the second myth, is imminently present, on stage, there and ready to ‘do’.  The first myth, as I have said, does not have any ‘truth’ for me in this respect, but this second myth, even though the Lord God is still a separate character, a ‘truth’ hovers near.  It points tentatively in the direction of panentheism.  For me, it certainly doesn’t get there, so I am reluctant to speak of it as ‘true’ for me.  The Lord God is still separate but, for me, not nearly as separated as in the first myth. 

5.  The Lord God is an anthropomorphic Creator God; not specifically stated, but there.  

To say God is the Creator God, is to speak anthropomorphically.  To say God is the maker, is to speak anthropomorphically.  In this second creation myth, anthropomorphisms are multiplied.  Every verb used in this myth speaks of the Lord God doing human things.  The Lord God 

makes, verse 2:4, 9, 18.

causes, verse 2:5, 21.

forms, verse 2:7, 8, 19.

breathes, verse 2:7.

plants, verse 2:8.

puts, verse 2:8, 15.

makes to grow, verse 2:9.

takes, verse 2:15, 21.

says, verse 2:16, 18.

brings, verse 2:19, 22.

closes up, verse 2:21.

All anthropomorphisms, right through this myth.  The scene painted is a domestic one.  We might even imagine this happening just down the street.

So what for me now? 

For a tribal children’s story it’s OK, but my fifth perceived ‘truth’ is not ‘true’ for me.  I need to try to grow beyond my Sunday School images of God.

6.  The Lord God is present and concerned; stated and obvious.

The Lord God is very present to what is going on.  The Lord God plants a garden.  The Lord God is present.  With these mythical images presented, I can image the Lord God down on hands and knees pushing mounds of dust together, when creating man and the animals.   The Lord God is present.  The Lord God puts the man into a deep sleep and performs surgery.  The Lord God closes up the place from where the rib was removed.  The Lord God brings the woman to the man.  The Lord God is always present.

The Lord God shows concern for the garden because there is no-one to ‘till it and keep it’, so the Lord God gives the man that responsibility. 

…, and there was no man to till the ground. … The Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there he put the man whom he had formed.  … The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to till it and keep it. (Genesis 2:5, 8, 15.) 

The Lord God is concerned about the man’s alone-ness, so the Lord God creates the woman to be a helper, fit for the man. 

Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” So…  (Genesis 2:18-19.) 

A bit later in this ‘J’ myth, the Lord God is concerned that the man knows he is naked and thus embarrassed.  So the Lord God made for him and his wife garments to hide their nakedness. 

And the Lord God made for Adam and his wife garments of skin and clothed them.  (Genesis 3:21.)

So what for me  now? 

This points me to what Jesus teaches me about God.  If God is love then God is present and concerned. My sixth perceived ‘truth’ is ‘true’ for me.  However, God is still very anthropomorphic and a separate Being. 

7.  The Lord God delegates responsibility; stated and obvious. 

The Lord God brings the animals to the man for the man to give them their names.  And their names remain.  To give a name in the Hebrew culture was more than just naming.  It announced that the person doing the naming had some sort of authority over, and responsibility for the one named.  Without a name, the job of creation is not complete.  The man takes part in the creative process. 

So what for me now? 

For a tribal children’s story I think it is rather good.  It would be a great answer to a little child’s question, “Mummy, Daddy. How did the animals get their names?”  Together with a few previous comments, there could be a ‘truth’ here, in that I too, am involved in the creative process.  The Lord God relies on me to bring in God’s Kingdom.    This is not only a privilege but also a deep responsibility. 

I am reminded of the story about God and Jesus talking about his visit to Earth.  God says, “How did it go?”  Jesus replies, “Not too bad.  Quite hard at times but I did what I had to do.”  God asks, “So what now?”  Jesus replies, “Well, I have given responsibility to twelve friends to continue what I began.”  God continues, “What if they don’t do what you asked?”  Jesus says, “I don’t have any plan B.” 

Is my seventh perceived ‘truth’, ‘true’ for me?  I think so.

8.  The Lord God seems to lack total control; not specifically stated, but there. 

The Lord God has to try twice to make a ‘fit’ helper for the man.  The Lord God makes the animals and brings them to the man.

..but for the man there was not found a helper fit for him.  So the Lord God…  (Genesis 2:20-21.)

The Lord God needs to try again.  This second time the Lord God succeeds.  Those wishing to protect the Bible and the God of the Bible, would interpret this very differently.

So what for me now? 

In my perceived eighth ‘truth’ there is little ‘truth’ for me.  However, it certainly questions the Lord God’s almightiness.  Yet again the Lord God is very human here. 

C.  Concerning humanity. 

9.  Man is made from humble beginnings; stated and obvious. 

]Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground…  (Genesis 2:7.) 

So what for me now? 

I have no right to try to bully some other person.  I am made of ‘dust’ and that should give my super ego a good kick in the pants.  Who am I to try to dominate it over someone else?  I am dust.  I need to take this ‘truth’ on board but not to the extent of self-deprecation.  However, my super ego certainly needs a timely reminder quite often.  By the same token, from the first Genesis myth, you do not have the right to bully me either.  I am made ‘in the image of God’ so please treat me that way. 

]

My ninth perceived ‘truth’ in this myth, is ‘true’ for me. 

10.  Man becomes a living creature with the Lord God’s in-dwelling; stated and obvious.

]… and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living creature.  (Genesis 2:7.)

My breath is God’s breath and God’s breath is mine.

So what for me now? 

This is the main ‘truth’ for me in all this Genesis material.  The breath of the Lord God gives me life.  This, for me, is a magically poetic way of acknowledging that God is in me.  Every time I breathe in and out I can become aware of God within me.  Wow!  This ‘truth’ is about ‘presence’ and not ‘power’.  It is poetically and totally ‘true’ for me.  For me, this is the closest the Genesis myths get to panentheism.

11.  Male and female are not equal; not specifically stated but there. 

If this is a ‘truth’ imbedded in the myth here, then it is certainly not ‘true’ for me.  This myth paints man and woman as very unequal.  Sure, the Lord God is concerned about the alone-ness of the man and sure, man and woman need to be helpers for each other, fit for each other, but the way this myth works through these issues is quite unacceptable to me.  This makes this second creation myth quite dangerous. 

There are many ‘faithful questions’ I raise.

The woman was made from the man to meet a need of the man.  In the myth, the man is not actually consulted by the Lord God but the Lord God is obviously concerned about his aloneness.

Then the Lord said, “It is not good for that the man should be alone.”  (Genesis 2:18.) 

Apparently the intention of this new creation was to alleviate the man’s aloneness.  If the Lord God had not thought that the man felt alone, would the woman have been created?  In the myth, man’s alone-ness seems to be the same reason for creating the animals.  Man is the centre of the Lord God’s concern and woman is seen as a possible solution to the problem.  The animals didn’t work but the woman might.

Man and the animals were made from ‘dust’ and given life by the Lord God’s breath, but woman was made from a part of something that had already been created; man.  Does this not speak of a secondary creation?

Woman is made for the man and she has to be ‘fit’ for him. 

… I will make a helper/partner fit for him (Genesis 2:18.)

From the Lord God’s point of view, should the man be ‘fit’ for the woman?  No such issue is raised.  Man is the centre of the Lord God’s concern and the woman needs to ‘fit’ in. 

Like the animals before her, she was brought to the man. 

So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh, and the rib which the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.  (Genesis 2:21-22.) 

Did she have any choice in the matter  Why was she brought to the man?  Apparently for the man to give his opinion, approval or otherwise, about this creation.  Maybe also for the man to ‘name’ her.  The man approves this creation.  According to the man she is very acceptable.  However, not, as stated in the text, for herself, but because she was an extension of the man. 

This, at last, is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh.  (Genesis 2:23.)

Some might say, “Typical!”  I have heard some people say that all traditional marriage does, is create an ‘extension’ for the male. 

Man, made from the dust of the Earth, became a living creature by the Lord God breathing breath into his nostrils.  However, the woman was made from a piece of the man.  No breath of the Lord God is mentioned in the story, regarding the woman.  Should it be assumed that because the man had the breath of the Lord God in him that anything made from the man would automatically have the breath of the Lord God?  Good question.  We are not told in the text.

The man calls this new creation Woman. 

Then the man said…. She shall be called Woman because she was taken out of Man,  (Genesis 2:23.) 

Later in Genesis 3:20 the man called his wife’s name Eve.  For the Hebrews, as I have already said, if you knew the name of a person you had some sort of power over them.  The man gives the name to the woman as he did to the animals.  This is more than just knowing the name. 

This second Genesis myth plays no part or influence in my beliefs about the relationship between men and women.  In fact, it suggests to me, attitudes which I vehemently reject.  The whole priority and attention of this part of the story is given to the man.  Maybe I have got it wrong and scholars who know the finer points of the Hebrew language better than I, can instruct me regarding the translation which might give a different understanding to the one I hold.  All I can do is work with what I have gleaned from my study and what the text before me seems to say.  I think I am in the similar situation to most other regular church-goers. 

I also have to try to cope with how some New Testament writers use parts of this myth.  The writer of the books of Timothy says,

I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men; she is to keep silent.  For Adam was formed first, then Eve;…  (1 Timothy 2:12-13.) 

The writer of 1 Corinthians also comments about gender when referring to dress that is suitable for worship. 

For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.  (1 Corinthians 11:8.) 

I believe this second Hebrew creation myth has encouraged and exacerbated the whole practice of gender inequality.  But I am told, “It’s is in our sacred book.”  All the worse! 

I think we should dissociate ourselves from such statements and stories without being too hard on the authors.  As followers of Jesus, I believe we should disown and condemn inequality in all its forms, particularly concerning gender.  For me, this use of the myth, together with the New Testament interpretations stated above, constitute a classic example of how the Bible is so often used to authenticate bad ideas and how some stories in it are so unhelpful to me.  

Gender bias is a very serious problem for a growing number of members of the church, both men and women.  I am somewhat dismayed that inclusive language in the hymns we are requested to sing in church services, is still a matter of debate.  Continuing to speak of God as Father and using the personal pronoun, ‘He’, I find unhelpful.  I believe that inclusive language should be mandatory, even automatic, in all our church talk.  I’m sure we could get used to it. 

So what for me now? 

I find I still have to be careful about how I speak today.  I can easily lapse back into gender-bias talk in ordinary conversation.  Without becoming too dramatic about the matter, I think this sort of talk can become an initial entrance into psychological or even physical violence committed by men against women.  It has no place in the life of a disciple of Jesus!  If it is actually there, my eleventh perceived ‘truth’ in the myth is certainly not ‘true’ for me.  As I understand this myth, Man and Woman are certainly not equal.  This is crucial, and makes this myth dangerous and thus worthy of rejection. 

Significant messages of this second myth are not ‘true’ for me, so I wonder if I should make a ‘faithful rejection’ of it.  However, for me, there are some very important messages in this myth; that the Lord God is present and concerned, that the Lord God delegates responsibility, that I am made of dust and that I have the Lord God’s breath in me that gives me life.  I find these ‘truths’, ‘true’ for me.  They are significant.  However, the inequality of the Man and the Woman is quite obvious to me.  I cannot really understand interpreters who disagree with this.  The fact that this myth with its inequality has been quoted by New Testament writers is of great concern to me, as I have previously stated. 

This leaves this second Genesis myth in chapter 2 as a part of the Bible about which I need to be very careful, if I ever refer to it.  This male/female inequality issue seems to me to be an obvious thrust of the myth so I would not teach it to children.  I believe the ‘truths’ in the myth which I accept are evident in the teachings of Jesus and so if I reject the myth, it does not mean that I reject all of the ‘truths’ I perceive to be in it.  I feel quite ambivalent about this myth as a whole. 

This all means that I have ‘faithfully rejected’ one, the first of the Genesis myths, and am undecided about the second.  Both have been very important in my past church teachings.  But, I do not need a distinct Creator God in my journey with Jesus.   For me, such a belief goes against what I have learned as a 21st century person. 

However, with these two myths, God is majestically transcendent in the first myth and imminently ‘present’ in the second.  Together these myths can give regular church goers the biblical teaching that God is both transcendent and imminent, remote and present.  This, I believe is what much of church teaching and preaching endeavours to convey.  For me, this does not bring me close to panentheism.  In the first myth God is obviously other and a distinct Being/Person - out there.  In the second myth, the Lord God, even though ‘present’, is there in a side-by-side relationship.  The Lord God, Adam and Eve are separate persons; obviously in relationship, but separate.  Unity of God or the Lord God with the human players is never even hinted at. 

Thus, for me, even taking the two myths together, they do not point me towards panentheism so I find them unhelpful.