Intro

Prop 1

Prop 2

Prop 3

Prop 4

Prop 5

Prop 6

Prop 7

Prop 8

Prop 9

Prop 10

Prop 11

Prop 12

Prop 13

Prop 14

Prop 15

Prop 16

Prop 17

Prop 18

If Genesis 1 is about functional origins and not materials origins then there should be no problems with teaching whatever modern science proposes regarding the material development of the universe. For Walton those who propose Creationism or Intelligent Design should be taught in the classroom make the same mistake a metaphysical naturalist who teach dysteleology (that there is no purpose or goal to the universe). Walton proposes a plain and simple solution: avoid metaphysics and teleology in the classroom (pp. 151-157).

Walton argues that the following constitutes empirical science:

“1. It is based on material ontology and premised on methodological naturalism (this eliminates Genesis from the classroom).

“2. It is focused on scientifically valid descriptive mechanisms with their strengths and weaknesses acknowledged. So it should include critiques of Neo-Darwinism as well as other origins theories that are trying to offer better explanations of current observations.

“3. It must be teleologically neutral (this rules out Genesis, metaphysical naturalism and design).” (p. 158)

So the science classroom can speak of “how” things came to be, but not “why,” and not about the metaphysical possibilities involved. Maybe there is a deity involved, but that is not something science can affirm or deny. That is a philosophical/theological question. Science teachers should neither promote creationism, intelligent design, or metaphysical naturalism.

Some Christians neutralize this tension by appealing to our “dual-citizenship” and (for Americans) the relative “good” done by our military. Kevin DeYoung’s post “Remembering Memorial Day” is a good example. He argues that “being a solider is not a sub-Christian activity;” “love of country can be a good thing;” and “the United States military has been a force for good in the world.” It is hard to image alternative outcomes to World War II without affirming some of DeYoung’s argument. As one person wrote in my Facebook feed this morning, “Even pacifists should be thankful for troops who have stood in harms way for their right to not take up a weapon.” Touche, I cannot deny that even as I am convinced that as a Christian it would be a violation of my conscience to serve in our military I know that the decision of others to do so is often motivated by good intentions, sometimes by their Christian beliefs. All things considered, rather I would be a citizen of the United States than any other country in the world. I admit that.

Obviously there are some concerning implications to DeYoung’s post–first and foremost the reality that many other nations with a large Christian population have made a similar argument over the last fifteen hundred years. I have had to ask myself, “What good is a Gospel that calls me to submit to a Messiah whose anti-violence message I can ignore when it conflicts with the interest of my nation?” I read about the World Wars and I am awestruck at the reality that many of the nations involved–Germany, Austria, Italy, France, Belgium, Poland, and others–were places where apparently the same deity was worshiped every Sunday even as we slaughtered each other.

Daniel Kirk’s post “Memorial Day” is a very good, short one on this subject. He writes these very important lines about being a Christian citizen of a free and peaceful nation:

“As Christians in the United States, we should be careful not to take for granted our share in this freedom. None of us worries about being killed on Sunday morning for joining in public worship.

“But this gratitude has its own danger.

“We might begin to believe that true freedom is gained by the shedding of the blood of our fallen soldiers. We might forget that no, the freedom we enjoy has been gained by us making the other guy shed more of his blood than we have shed of our own.”

Kirk reminds us that this comes very close to be the antithesis of the Christian narrative where “freedom” comes from Messiah giving his life for us. The same Messiah that calls us to peaceful resistance. The same Messiah that invites us to share his suffering and shame. Remember, he was a Jew among Jews who anticipated a violent Messiah, yet he turned his “war” against Satan and not the Romans who occupied his homeland. This is the other side of the challenge.

I am a citizen of the United States, but that is secondary. As the Apostle said, “But out citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for our Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ (Philippians 3.20).” I pray for the day that he returns. I anticipate a time when we can have a peace far greater than the pax Americana, one from heaven–shalom.

Further reading:

- Rodney Thomas, On Memorial Day: Memory and Nonviolence

- Kurt Willems, Re-Membering Memorial Day

Pentecost by He Qi

When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tonguesas the Spirit enabled them. (Acts 2.1-4)

Worthwhile reads:

Craig Adams, Spirit Baptism: Wesleyanism and Pentecostalism

Daniel Kirk, The Spirit of Easter

Brian LePort, Pentecostal and not Pentecostal

Jack Levison, Pentecost for the Rest of Us

Bo Sanders, A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to Pentecost

Azusa Street, where Pentecostalism began to become a global movement.

It is inevitable that every year near Pentecost Sunday I revisit my Pentecostal roots. I came to Christianity through Oneness Pentecostalism, which is a sectarian branch identified by their rejection of the doctrine of the Trinity, their emphasis on the name “Jesus” being pronounced during baptism, their insistence that someone must speak in tongues to receive the Holy Spirit (which for some means to be “saved”), and their emphasis on particularities of appearance which they call “holiness standards.” Obviously, I am not this type of Pentecostal.

I don’t think I am the Assemblies of God (AOG) type either, especially since they retain the “tongues as initial physical evidence” doctrine. The AOG teaches that Christians must speak in tongues to have any “physical” evidence of the Holy Spirit’s infilling. I think this is misguided exegesis of the Book of Acts where particular groups of people are described as speaking in tongues as a way of depicting integration and catholicization, but never as a way of depicting what is necessary for every individual who becomes a Christian. There are other doctrinal peculiarities emphasized by the AOG that I deny, e.g. their understanding of the “rapture” and their outright denial of annihilationism as an eschatological possibility.

Yet I cannot deny that I am shaped by Pentecostalism. I know many Pentecostals would never label me a Pentecostal (like many Calvinist would never label me a Calvinist), even if I share much common ground with their views. I understand why they would be uncomfortable with including me in their ranks. Often I am uncomfortable with aligning with one group anyways since I fear I will be like those in Corinth who were “of Paul, of Peter, of Apollos.” I use the label “evangelical” (small “e”) because it means “of the Gospel” and I am comfortable with saying I am a Christian who finds my identity in the Gospel proclaimed to me and by me to others. Yet there is much about evangelical culture that concerns me–not only politically, but at times theologically (e.g. see Peter Enn’s “Would Paul Have Made a Good Evangelical”). I do not identify with Roman Catholicism or Orthodoxy (see Peter J. Leithart’s “Too Catholic to be Catholic”). As much as I appreciate N.T. Wright, Alister McGrath, and many other Anglican thinkers I don’t find Anglicanism all that appealing. I don’t connect to Lutheranism, Methodism, or many of the dozens of -isms of Protestantism.

I agree with Jonathan Martin that Pentecostalism tends to be a middle ground between Catholicism/Orthodoxy and Reformed/Protestantism (see Rachel Held Evan’s interview post “Ask a Pentecostal…”) because it provides a “third way” by being grounded in Pneumatology. But Pentecostalism proper is identified with particular views on glossolalia that I find problematic and I don’t know if Pentecostalism without those views on glossolalia remains Pentecostalism. If so, how? I’ve asked myself many times, “What is the center of Pentecostal theology?“

I affirm the Pentecostal ideas of Spirit empowerment and Spirit-centered ecclesiology. This Spirit-centered ecclesiology is why I am not “high church” (though I acknowledge that “high church” and Spirit-centered are not contradictory), why I affirm women having equal standing in the church, why I think we should be open to signs and wonders, why I am a continuationist, why I think a truly “high view of Scripture” opens the door for the guidance of the Spirit (I think the Apostle Paul’s view of the Spirit’s interaction with Scripture was much closer to Pentecostalism’s than evangelicalism’s). But I don’t think a liturgical or more reserved church has “less” of the Spirit (something many Pentecostals have argued). I don’t think the work of the Spirit is always (or even most often) seen in dramatic form. The fruits of the Spirit are far from dramatic. I don’t think every Christian has to function in one of the gifts listed by Paul in 1 Corinthians (because I think there is a broader, often evolving diversity of gifts that goes beyond what Paul mentioned). I don’t think the only “physical” sign of the Spirit is glossolalia (what about prophecy, healing, etc?) and that has been one of the main points of contention.

So as you can see there is a sense in which I am Pentecostal and not Pentecostal. Maybe it is the same as my evangelicalism? Maybe it depends on who’s asking?! Maybe some Pentecostals would accept me as one of their own? Maybe others would prefer to see me as a charismatic evangelical (who has not been in a “charismatic” church since moving to Oregon)?

I do know I am thankful for much of what I have received from Pentecostalism. I read Gordon D. Fee, and I realize someone can be a scholar who appreciates and participates in education while retaining some sort of Pentecostal identity. Then I remember the many times Pentecostals have rebuked me for seeking “the wisdom of the world.” I read books like Harvey Cox’s Fire From Heaven: The Rise of Pentecostal Spirituality and the Reshaping of Religion in the Twenty-First Century and I feel like my heritage and tradition is being explored. Then I see Benny Hinn or Ken Hagin and I run back to my evangelical friends. I am excited to hear that most of global Christianity has been “Pentecostalized,” but like many North American Pentecostals I have been “Evangelicalized.” It is as if I have ecclesiastical dissociative identity disorder!

Maybe this will always be so? Maybe I will always be a bit Pentecostal and a bit not Pentecostal?

Walton states that his interpretation of Genesis 1 results in a stronger theology, not a weaker one. Since Genesis 1 is about functional origins and not material origins he argues:

“…that some of God’s work may have taken place over a long period of time rather than instantaneously does not reduce God’s power. God can create any way he sees fit, and it is no less an act of his sovereign power if he chooses to do it over extended billions of years. It is still accomplished by his word.” (p. 141)

One should be able to read Genesis 1 and determine:

- God is involved in everything. We can accept whatever scientific paradigm is offered without feeling like it removes God from the picture. (p. 142)

- God’s role as Creator is ongoing: There is nothing “naturalistic” that functions without God. God is the source of all life, all human births, all plants growing. God is involved in everything. (pp. 142-143)

- God controls functions: It was God would dictated the function of everything. God gives purpose and telos. (pp. 143-144)

-  God’s creation is his sacred space: There is no natural/supernatural divide. God created the cosmos as his temple and he has chosen to dwell here. (pp. 144-145)

- God is glorified in Sabbath: If Sabbath is about God taking his place to rule then we don’t observe Sabbath legalistically, but in whatever we do we recognize God as the sovereign over the world. We rest in him and his Christ. (pp. 145-146)

- God provides order: If Genesis 1 is about functions it tells us that God orders everything. We find order in creation and it gives us the imperative to have wise, ordered lives. (p. 147)

- God has chosen humans to have an important role: God made creation for us. God made us in his image. We serve in his cosmic temple. (pp. 147-148)

- God made creation tov: When we speak of the “goodness” of creation in Genesis 1 this means function. God created everything to function as intended and it works. (pp. 148-149)

In summary Walton says his interpretation affirms the following:

1. The world operates by Yahweh’s design and under his supervision to accomplish his purposes.

2. The cosmos is his temple.

3. Everything in the cosmos was given its role and function by God.

4. Everything in the cosmos functions on behalf of people who are in his image. (p. 150)

Filed under: Book of Genesis, Book Reviews, Books (General), Creation, John H. Walton ]]> http://nearemmaus.com/2012/05/25/john-waltons-seventeenth-proposition-on-genesis-1/feed/ 1 bleport walton1 http://nearemmaus.com/2012/05/25/around-the-blogosphere/ http://nearemmaus.com/2012/05/25/around-the-blogosphere/#comments Fri, 25 May 2012 15:00:08 +0000 Brian LePort http://nearemmaus.com/?p=16334 ]]> I tested Tumblr for a few weeks, but it seemed a bit excessive. I have decided to post links back on the blog again and I will continue to update the After Emmaus page on Facebook. You can expect my weekly recommendations to appear on Fridays.

Marc Cortez, Can You Get to Athens from Jerusalem?

Peter Enns, What Biblical Scholars Do

Rachel Held Evans, Wright’s 5 Recommendations for Reading Scripture Today

Luke Geraty, Speaking in Tongues as Spiritual Warfare? 

Nijay Gupta, Pheme Perkins Commentary on 1 Corinthians (Review)

John Hobbins, The Desirability of Metaphor-for-Metaphor Translation

Michael Licona, Dan Wallace on the New Manuscript Finds

Andrew Perriman, Why are the nations in the new heaven and new earth?

Rodney Thomas, Zizek, Genre, and Narrative Biblical Interpretation

Joel Willits, Ancient Bethlehem Seal

- John Byron, A Bethlehem Seal from the First Temple Period

Craig A. Evans, ‘Matthew’ in the NCBC series.

I received Craig A. Evans Matthew from the New Cambridge Bible Commentary as a gift for my indexing work on the project. I knew from the digital version I viewed that it was going to be a useful volume. Now that I have spent some time with it in print I can say that it is worth adding to your library.

The New Cambridge Bible Commentary uniquely combined in-depth scholarship with readability and a user friendly structure. There are some commentaries that are so meticulous that they are difficult to read. There are others that are easy to read, but the content is too brief. This series seems to do a fine job at providing a middle ground. I have Bill T. Arnold’s Genesis from the same series.

The series is edited by Ben Witherington III and it appears to span the broad spectrum of New Testament scholarship including people like Arnold, Evans, Witherington, and others like Walter Brueggemann, Craig S. Keener, Amy-Jill Levine, and Duane F. Watson.

The introduction is simple and straightforward. The commentary flows nicely addressing manageable portions of text. There are occasional supplementary sections called “A Closer Look” that appear in gray boxes throughout the commentary providing an aside on subjected like “The Holy Spirit,” “Josephus on John the Baptist,”  ”Demons in the Desert,”  and “The Disciples in the Talmud.”

Evans does interact with other commentaries, but he is intentional about limiting the attention given to secondary literature. He prefaces that his primary conversation partners are the commentaries of John Nolland, R.T. France, Robert Gundry, and Craig S. Keener (p. xv). This doesn’t mean that there is a lack of sources cited (I know, I did the indexing), but that the commentary does a solid job of being selective when mentioning and interacting with secondary literature so that the text itself is primary.

This is the work of a confessional scholar. Evans affirms the historicity of Jesus, the virgin birth, and so forth, but he does serious historical-critical work as well. I don’t think I have to defend his reputation as a serious scholar of Christian origins and literature and Second Temple Judaism.

The commentary is 487 pages of content. If you have any questions about the book feel free to ask in the comments. Here are some pictures to provide a visual (click to enlarge):

Introduction

Text and Commentary

e.g. ‘A Closer Look’

Walton proposes that Genesis 1 is about function origins. He writes of Genesis 1:

“…it was intended as an account of functional origins in relation to people in the image of God coming to view the cosmos as a temple. Thought the Bible upholds the idea that God is  responsible for all origins (functional, material, or otherwise), if the Bible does not offer an account of material origins we are free to consider contemporary explanations of origins on their own merits, as long as God is seen as ultimately responsible.” (p. 131)

As I said of the last proposition, Walton denies that we can separate natural from supernatural, or naturalistic processes from the work of God. So if evolutionary biology is accurate we are free to find God in it because Genesis 1 doesn’t prevent an evolutionary account of material origins.

Walton is aware of the various theological objections to evolution, but he cites the story of Job to suggest that we must be careful not to tell God that he should have done something the way we would have done it. If God chose evolution he is God. “We can only ask what Scripture requires us to defend (pp. 132-133).”

Walton alludes to Psalm 139.13 which states, “You knit me together in my mother’s womb.” He says we can accept this message and embryology–that natural explanation of how an embryo develops. The same is true of God’s involvement in weather and meteorology or God’s involvement in history and historiography. In other words God works through these naturalistic processes (pp. 133-135).

Walton’s only concern seems to be Genesis 2 with the idea of human evolution. Of course, this is a present concern for many evangelicals and Walton sides with those who think we must retain a historical Adam and Eve as a special work of God. But Genesis 1 remains unaffected by evolutionary theory.

Since Walton argues that Genesis 1 is about functional origins and not material origins he doesn’t think it matters if God used various natural mechanisms and forms of evolution. How God created doesn’t determine whether or not God created.

As Christians Walton says we affirm,

“Nothing could be considered accidental. Nothing happens ‘by itself,’ and origins are not just found in the outworking of natural law. Nothing is really coincidence.’ (p. 124)

So God was involved in creation no matter how God did it.

When the debate arises between those who affirm Intelligent Design (ID) and those who affirm Neo-Darwinism Walton suggest that something it is misguided. ID advocates may be right to critique the idea of the universe blindly unfolding, but Walton says they don’t offer an alternative scientific paradigm. Scientist are right to avoid a “God-of-the-Gaps” approach because if the gave metaphysical solutions to all problems science would never progress, but ultimately that doesn’t give scientist the right to address the telos of creation.

So Walton seems comfortable with scientist seeking natural explanations for how things work, but he understands ID’s point that God is behind creation. What he doesn’t like about ID is that they would make a distinction between things that happened because of God and things that did not. When science explains “how” things work this will eventually squeeze God out of the picture. But if we assume that even when we can explain the naturalistic functions that God may be involved this creates a different discussion altogether.