From the Mailbag: On Genesis
Dean
Quoted:
As an Orthdox Christian, I find your comments about Genesis to be quite accurate and fair. I think the problem is that many, on both sides, have an agenda to discredit each other. The Creation story of Genesis is not for scientific accuracy but to tell believers that ultimately God created evertything around us. Thus our existance ultimately depends on God. Also, that humans have a unique relationship with God totally unlike that of all other creatures. The main points are theologic not scientific, if one accepts we are created by God, then one needs to seek a deeper relationship with God. As you noted, God does not need for the story to "scientifically" accurate as we understand the idea for it convey his point.
Science, I am also a Chemist, is excellent at telling us the "nuts and bolts" of what (most likely) happened and make educated guesses of what could happen (thats all a hypothesis realy is). It can not tell us the Why of what happened, assuming there is a reason. Also, science can not tell one what is proper, moral, and ethical behavior; it is not equipped to answer such questions. The answers to these questions are more properly the realm of Philosophy, Ethics, and Religion (not just Christianity).
What I see happening is that so-called theologians try to push religion to answer scientific questions and so-called scientists try to use science to answer ethical questions. For example, human clonning can be done, its just another form of mammalian cloning, but should it be done? The first part is pure science and second part is pure ethics and morals. Obviously, there are numerous other areas, particularly in medicine, where we could develop the technical ability to do something but is it moral and ethical. Most of the time these questions are not white/black but some shade of gray.
For those who don't know, "Orthodox Christian" is a fairly specific description of churches that either sprang from the Oriental Orthodoxy which separated from other Christians in the 5th century, shortly after the First Nicean Council (they don't accept the second and third councils) or the Eastern Orthodoxy, which came into increasing conflict with the church in Rome in the 10th and 11th centuries, finally diverging from Rome in 1054. These churches are not and should not be considered "protestant" in any meaningful sense: they have nothing to do with Luther, Calvin, Wesley, or any of those western Europeans who schismed from the Catholic Church.
The Orthodox churches have always fascinated me. In practice, theology, and tradition, they are so very similar to the Roman Catholic church as to be difficult to distinguish. They are part of the "apostolic tradition," meaning they see their bishops as following in direct authority from the original apostles. The Orthodox simply do not accept that the Bishop of Rome has any greater authority than any other bishop, and diverge on a few finer points of theology declared by a few Popes. But even still they view the Roman Pope as "first among equals" in a historical sense (since the church was founded in Rome by Peter according to most Christian tradition). Over time these various churches have grown to have fairly friendly relations with Rome, and most of them consider themselves "in communion" with each other: Roman Catholics are free to take communion in most (I said most) Orthdox churches and vice-versa, for example.
I mention all that because Orthodox Christians are relatively rare in the United States, and most people here are unfamiliar with them. But if you've ever wondered what, for example, the Greek Orthodox or Russian Orthodox churches were all about, now you know.
If I were attracted to Christianity I would probably be most attracted to the Orthodox; unlike most American Protestants, they can genuinely claim (and verify) an unbroken line of tradition going back to the earliest days of Christianity. But, like Protestants, they question the notion of papal superiority or infallibility.
This is one reason why I often am mildly bemused by certain American Christians calling themselves "conservative" or "traditional." I wonder: conserving what? Whose tradition? Most "conservative Christians" in America throw out all sorts of church tradition, and actually follow a pretty radical theology from the viewpoint of Christianity as it was practiced for over a thousand years before Martin Luther or John Calvin ever showed up. Even of the mainline Protestants, the Presbyterians and the Methodists, are pretty radical next to the Orthodox.
Anyway, I found the email enlightening. Thanks for sending it!
From there, it obviously becomes more specific and much less accurate, and certainly the number of a week is off a bit.
Reminds me of an old Asimov short, where two characters are discussing how describe the creation of the universe, and the one tells the other "We don't have enough papyrus to describe 14 billion years."
"Well... how much papyrus do we have?"
"Enough for a week."
"One week, Aaron?"
"That's right Moses."
There is also the crucial question of how best to interpret the Commandment against making and worshipping graven images. The Eastern Orthodox churches interpret this more strictly, allowing icons (pictures) of Christ and Mary but not statues, while the Western Catholic church allowed and encouraged both pictures and statues of Christ and Mary in their cathedrals. Protestants generally eschew all such imagery. Many people today link the Protestant Reformation with the Renaissance (largely because of the alliteration and because both were departures from the Middle Ages). Actually, the Renaissance and the Reformation went in diametrically opposite directions. The Reformation was, in fact, a revolution against the Renaissance every bit as much as against the medieval order.
Today's fundamental Protestants are, as you say rightly, radical in their revolution against the Catholic tradition, but they are conservative in their reaction against those within the Protestant churches who would water down all the doctrines such as the Trinity or the Second Coming of the Christ (pre-millennialism) and preach instead the Socialist Gospel (post-millennialism).
Very good. I must add that the Big Bang theory was first proposed by a Catholic priest, George Lemaitre. Atheists resisted such a theory because it implied a beginning, a Creation, and hence the possibility of a Creator. Only when the evidence became overwhelming were they finally accept it as fact. This is, of course, why they are so hostile to the idea of Intelligent Design today.
Creationists are never going to prove scientifically that God created the universe, until someone develops a time machine and we can go back and document it. But that's why it's called "faith".
Scientists are never going to prove, entirely and conclusively, that evolution was sufficent to create living organisims until they can borrow that time machine from the creationists. But that's why we call them theories. There's ALWAYS the chance that something, later, will fail to confirm the hypothesis requiring a change in the theory.
In my opinion, we Christians should spend less time trying to prove the Bible is true through questionable logic, and spend more time demonstrating that it's true by our actions in the world around us.
Then again, I was once labeled the "token liberal" of a church group. (heh!)
How can there be any entity without some sort of prior cause or developmental mechanism?
And who in all human history has ever proven he had either a conversation or any other kind of relationship with any such entity?
By proof, I mean something more than second hand tales and conjecture passed along a multigenerational basis, in which everyone is expected to assume someone along the line actually checked out the facts.
If these are not reasonable questions, then why so?
Otherwise, this is beginning to sound like the problems with peer-review "science" discussed in another Dean's World thread on which I just commented.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
please point me to the scientific evidence supporting intelligent design.
Please point me to the scientific evidence proving that there is no Intelligent Designer, i.e., that there is no God. If you believe that everything, including your own mind, came about by accident, prove it. Show me those monkeys typing Shakespeare. If you believe that monkeys are equal to men, then show me them not only typing Shakespeare but understanding what they typed. Show me some monkeys building Chartres Cathedral or composing Handel's Messiah. For that matter, show me some evolutionists building Chartres Cathedral or composing Handel's Messiah.
. Constantine claims direct intervention/miracle, proclaims himself Pope (bypassing any silly technicalities, like Cardinals or even being Christian) as well as Emperor (resolving the problem of deciding what is Caesar's and what God's). Preferring the splendors of the Eastern Med, he establishes himself there for both offices.
. Some time later, long upset with doctrinal disputes (the praying-to-saints bit) and taxes, and perceiving a decline in Byzantine power, the Bishop of Rome decides to pull much the same stunt and proclaims himself Pope.
Since I judge folks more for their actions than for their beliefs or lack of them, I would put this particular group of Christians up on parade, salute them, and award them medals. I may not agree with their core beliefs, but I surely know quality when I see it in action.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
The Orthodox are quite interesting, and have a vital role to play in the Christian world. I actually wish they were a little more assertive in matters of faith than they are, since I think they have a lot of good perspectives for the rest of us to mull over.
As regards the modern usage of "tradition", I think that Catholics, conservative Protestants, and Orthodox are all on the same side. All three would be opposed to the weakening of traditional beliefs taking place in the "liberal" Protestant churches starting in the late 19th century, even if they don't agree on the exact content of those traditional beliefs.
Good summary, as long as you include the fact that there are still many of us in the "liberal" Protestant churches who are on the same side as Catholics, conservative Protestants, and Orthodox, when it comes to "tradition."