jonathan stegall

For the past few days, the country has been abuzz with talk about Rick Warren’s forum that took place at Saddleback Church, in which Barack Obama and John McCain answered some of the questions of evangelicals.

During this event, I was on a flight from San Francisco to Atlanta, and thus was able to use AirTran’s in-flight XM radio to listen to some of it. I heard most of the questions asked of Obama, and a few of them asked of McCain. Interestingly, most of the flight aside from this was spent reading Jesus for President and discussing culture, Jesus, politics, Shane Claiborne, and theology with an artist/activist sitting next to me.

I have written occasionally about my support for Senator Obama, and still maintain this though I have not written about it recently. I have noticed the rise of the Matthew 25 network, and Brian McLaren’s support for this network and for Obama. Certainly I think this is a much more balanced approach, biblically and theologically, to an attempt at following Jesus with one’s politics compared to what we have seen from conservatives. But I’m still not planning to join this kind of thing.

In this faith forum, I thought Barack Obama gave some great answers to some great questions. I especially loved his answer to the problem of evil, especially in contrast to that of McCain. Obama’s, at face value, was much more centered on justice and help for the poor and oppressed, while McCain’s was, of course, entirely centered on bin Laden and the rest of the fight against terrorism. Terrorism, of course, is an idea. It can be defined, shaped, and twisted to fit the person who is speaking against it. Darfur cannot.

In addition to this, after he had given his response to evil, Obama stressed that it is not human responsibility to get rid of evil in the world: it is God’s. This is a refreshing statement. Most of America’s politicians believe that, not only is it humanity’s responsibility to get rid of evil, it is the specific responsibility of the blood-stained righteous hands of the United States to get rid of evil. McCain, of course, believes that it is the responsibility of the United States to kill bin Laden.

Do you see the contrast in this? I had hoped that many evangelicals would see this, and it may prove that they will. A quick view of many of the responding blogs and articles, though, would suggest that they don’t. Most conservative evangelicals were entirely won over by McCain’s unelaborated reference to prayer, his unquestioned description of himself as being pro-life, offshore drilling, and going after bin Laden. Wow.

Now. I mentioned that I was reading Jesus for President on this flight. I plan to write a couple of posts about my thoughts and experiences in reading this book, but at the moment when I was listening to all this there was a single thing that stuck out to me. Note that Shane Claiborne is not endorsing a candidate. In his book, he spends a lot of time talking about the honest call of Jesus to nonviolence, and how that works itself out in the life of a believer. It is a challenging, illuminating thing that I would encourage you to take seriously.

In the presidential faith forum, Dr. Warren asked Obama what justification would lead him to take the country to war. The response was reasonably consistent with Just War theory, which of course was constructed by the fourth century church to justify its allegiance with the State. One of the statements he made was related to the idea that it is necessary for us to consider what, as Americans, we are willing to die for.

Of course, the implied answer is that we are willing to die for liberty, freedom, justice, and so on. Fairly standard talk, and the question of what we will die for is incredibly relevant to the person who seeks to follow a man who died on a torture device to offer forgiveness to his killers. But the question that no one asked, or will ask, is what we are willing to kill for.

Evangelicals tend to dismiss the peace-promoting words of Jesus in the ways that we vote, the things we expect from our country, and in our own private hypothetical situations, illustrating Dallas Willard’s statement that we may like Jesus, but we don’t believe he is very smart. My hope is that things like Jesus for President will resonate with more people, like it did with my neighbor on my flight, and that we will have to devote the energy to learning how to live like Jesus rather than learning how to justify not living like him.

For 48 hours starting today (Monday) at noon, there is a premiere of a new video from Nooma, called “She.” I would encourage you to give this a look. Be prepared to watch for around 10 minutes.

It is described like this:

We didn’t have anything to do with our birth. We are all here because some woman somewhere gave us life. Her pain, her effort, for our life. And when a mother gives like that to a child, she is showing us what God is like. But sometimes this part of God’s nature is overlooked. A lot of us are comfortable with male imagery for God. But what about female imagery for God? Is God limited to a gender? Or does God transcend and yet include what we know as male and female? Maybe if we were more aware of the feminine imagery for God we would have a better understanding of who God is and what God is like.

Depending on what circles your theology fits in, this statement could be either very tame or very radical. Either way, I think it is worth watching and thinking about.

There is great beauty and wisdom in some of the writings of the feminist theologians, and it is often a beauty and wisdom that has been forged in spite of deep oppression. However, there is also often great anger, and sometimes this anger leads these theologians to turn the oppressions on the heads of those who oppress them.

The same issue exists in liberation theology. In both cases, it is entirely justified. It is just for the oppressed and ignored to want retribution and to attempt to get it.

But in these issues, as well as issues of violence and war and annoying bosses, justification is not enough for something to line up with the heart of God. Certainly, it was just for Peter, seeing the arrest of Jesus, to cut off an ear or two. Countless other examples, before and after Jesus put the ear back, have occurred and in general we as humans have responded in ways that seek the kind of justice that Jesus didn’t allow.

In light of all this, if I could encourage feminist and liberation theologians, I would encourage them to draw closer to the heart of God as they cry out for the world to remember the things that truly are on his heart. But they must remember the masculine qualities of God as well as the neglected feminine attributes. They must remember the peaceful subversion that is the kingdom of God as well as magnify the neglected cries of the poor and oppressed. It is hard to live like this. But it is essential.

In light of all this, watch the new Nooma video.

Before I moved to Atlanta, I spent the last period of my residence in Lakeland, Florida as part of a house church. I feel blessed and privileged to have been a part of that community.

The interesting thing is what kind of responses I got back then, if I told someone that I was part of a house church. Essentially, these responses varied from, “Oh, you go to a Sunday evening Bible study. That’s great for you.” (with a warning to ensure that I wasn’t part of a cult) to “Oh, that’s great. My church has those, too. We just call them Sunday Schools small groups cell groups life groups house churches. Then, the church meets together on Sunday mornings.”

I’m sure you can catch the implication that is in both of these responses. I don’t necessarily believe that the respondents were intentionally trying to either reduce the community to a Bible study, or assume that they already understood what was going on because it went on in their churches. But I do believe that this is an issue that is worthy of consideration.

The state of house churches

In the United States, there is a movement away from the building-based churches of the past 1,600+ years and toward smaller, less building-based churches that you could call house churches. George Barna believes that these churches (and their attendees), which are not housed in church buildings (whether they are cathedrals or shopping malls) will outnumber those that are housed in church buildings within just a decade or two.

Understand that we in the United States are behind the rest of the world in this trend, as the remnants of Christendom have stronger influence here than in other countries. As postmodernism and postcolonialism are two sides of the same coin, Christendom on the earth will hopefully have its days numbered.

You can read more about this in his book Revolution. These churches do not all necessarily meet in homes, as they might meet in bars, coffeeshops, nightclubs, or other neutral spaces. The main point is that they forgo the use of “religious spaces.”

A large percentage of these house churches, as my friend Brad Culver says, function in such a way that they try to transplant a traditional, building-based church into a home, or other space. So, this kind of church maintains an identical ecclesiology to the church on the corner. This is what we encounter when people believe that they already understand what a house church is, simply because their own church has small groups that meet in homes.

There is also a percentage, which I believe is probably growing, of house churches that function as a community of people that are angry with the traditional church. Many of these churches do have a genuine hunger to create something different for those who are angry, or hurt, or rejected by the traditional church, but because there is such a root of bitterness they will almost certainly be unsuccessful in truly finding the heart of God.

In alternative ministry, where my wife and I function, this is extremely common. You may be aware of the fact that alternative subcultures (punk, goth, metal, retro, etc.) are to a large extent rebellion against modern culture. They identified many of its shortcomings with incredible perception, and railed against them. In this sense, when they arose in the 60s and 70s, they were the first manifestation of postmodernism outside universities.

But because many of them, in their defining periods as subcultures, defined themselves by what they were against rather than what they were for, there is a potential for deep seeded anger and resentment (this is similar to the deep seeded anger and resentment that many Christians have for the secular world that they have railed against). Thus, when these subcultures are reached by the message of Jesus, they often retain their anger and resentment, and when the traditional church does not accept them in the way they function as a church or the way they function as people, this anger and resentment is turned against the traditional church as well.

Certainly, this kind of church, based on rebellion and bitterness, is not unique to alternative ministry or to the house church movement, and not all (or even most) alternative churches are characterized by this kind of foundation, but it is something against which these churches must intentionally guard themselves.

Finally, there are house churches that function as part of a genuine move of God that is happening in the earth. I want to again glean from the wisdom of Brad Culver, who calls his own community a “micro-missional faith community.” In this sense, he is able to define what his community is rather than having to defend what it is not.

In any case, these kind of communities have a beautiful potential for variety, and we can look at what they are like in another post.

From time to time, I recognize that God is attempting to speak to me about something. Typically, that something will appear in a lot of seemingly unrelated places, and from seemingly unrelated voices. He appears to be interested in telling me about community, as of late, and intensely so at Cornerstone.

Miroslav Volf is a Professor of Systematic Theology at Yale Divinity School, and is also the director of the Yale Center for Faith and Culture. He has written a number of books, including Exclusion and Embrace: A Theological Exploration of Identity, Otherness, and Reconciliation and Free of Charge: Giving and Forgiving in a Culture Stripped of Grace. I would highly recommend any of his books. He is a native of Croatia, and is in a unique position to speak on subjects of identity, otherness, reconciliation, and so on through his various experiences in his native country.

At Cornerstone, he did a seminar on Identity & Otherness. Otherness is an important philosophical concept, by which we, and by we I mean all of us, separate others who are different from ourselves. This happens on very high levels, from the idiocy of Freedom Fries to the constant fear of attack that is cultivated in our country, and it also happens on very low levels, in my relationship with my wife and your relationship with your dog (cat, fish, sibling, etc.). Otherness is very different from honest recognition of difference, in the way that I might recognize that my wife looks very different than I do (which is wonderful), or the way that you might recognize that certain Indian foods are very spicy (which is also wonderful).

In the seminar, we looked at many of these things, from a cultural perspective (including nationalism, racisim, sexism, and so on), all the way to a spiritual, theological perspective (essentially, the ways in which Christians tend to Other those who have different beliefs and lifestyles than our own). Otherness begins with our language: we refer to the Other as “them.”

One of the most damaging ways that we as Christians do this is in the terms “lost”, or “unsaved”, or “outsiders.” We are trying to express various theological views through these terms, but in our own minds and the minds of others we make ourselves look superior. We are found, we are saved, we are insiders, and so we must be better than those who are not. In light of the grace which we have been shown, there is no room for Otherness. Everyone is on a journey, and we are all moving toward God, or away from God. Our task is to move toward God, and help others to do so (raise a glass to our friend Brad Culver for this concept).

I cannot overestimate the significance of this kind of shift in our thinking and our language, and how important this shift is in creating authentic community. When we get this, we will treat and view everyone differently: from the spouse living in our house to those our country declares to be our enemies.

As we looked at these issues with Miroslav Volf, we continued to discuss New Monasticism and creating authentic, holistic communities of faith with Brad and Peter, and it became clear to me that a theme is developing for this season of my life. I believe it will manifest itself in my marriage, in my home, in our faith community, and in my interactions with journeyers of all kinds.

At Cornerstone Festival this year, the Jesus for President tour made a stop on July 4. As Shane Claiborne’s recent article says, we then had an alternative celebration.

I have only recently picked up the book Jesus for President, and have not yet had time to read it. Even so, the tour is amazing, and is more than worth going to even if you have not read the book. Dates are on the tour’s website, and the event is free.

Essentially, the tour presents the message of Jesus, put within its actual cultural and political context, which over the centuries has been forgotten at best and manipulated and hidden at worst. The fact that the message of Jesus is always anti-imperialistic, whether he stands in contrast to Roman emperors or American presidents, is not a popular thing to say, but it is essential.

For myself, I often struggle with the implications of my belief in pacifism. It is a complex issue, and it is further complicated by the fact that cases of effective pacifism in the face of extreme evil, like the atrocities of imperial Rome, Nazi Germany or communist Russia, can be difficult to find. They do exist, but the various cultural and political frameworks of our time do not view them favorably.

Nazi Germany is usually the example thrown in the face of a person in today’s Western world who professes pacifism. The idea is that if pacifists had had their way in the United States, or the United Kingdom, or Russia for that matter, Hitler would have taken over the world and there we would be to this day.

Further complicating the issue is the fact that Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who was a strong proponent of Christian pacifism for most of his life, was arrested, imprisoned and tortured, and finally executed for taking part in a plot to assassinate Hitler. At face value, then, it would seem that he finally gave in and saw the truth of Just War and Christian violence, and that we who resist the war in Iraq, or the saber rattling in Iran, or other military operations, should do the same and support our commander-in-chief ¹.

On the Jesus for President tour, a different stance is presented. Through studying the life of Jesus and the beliefs and practices of the church before the time of Constantine, the extent to which Jesus stands against nationalism, imperialism, and the kingdom of the sword is demonstrated.

In John 18, when Jesus is arrested, Peter cuts off the ear of one of the servants of those arresting Jesus. Jesus promptly puts it back. One of Shane Claiborne’s statements that stuck out to me the most was that the early church, in its writings and its way of life, viewed the incident in this way:

“When Jesus disarmed Peter, he disarmed all Christians.”

It is a beautiful thing to watch parts of the Church gradually wake up to the reality of entirely separate kingdom of Jesus, and what it really means to be a part of it.

¹ For further information, see the brief document, Bonhoeffer’s Pacifism by Ronald Osborn.

Interesting news. N. T. Wright will be on The Colbert Report tomorrow night, Thursday June 19. Full episodes are available the day after the show airs.

My wife and I have not had cable since we’ve been married. For years, I’ve wished that I could have Cartoon Network, Comedy Central, and Nickelodeon without having to buy other channels that I don’t need.

Now, though, the recent addition of full episodes of The Colbert Report and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart allows us to watch all of the shows we like online.

Before you do anything with this post, visit www.zoecarnate.com and bookmark it. For several years, it has been an amazing resource for anything outside mainstream Christendom, and it continues to improve.

Now. Mike Morrell is one of the founders, and blogs at zoecarnate.wordpress.com. Currently, as part of a wide-ranging conversation that is occurring among emergent bloggers related to Pentecostals and charismatics, he is hosting a dialogue with John Crowder, a prophetic evangelist who wants to be “wasted on Jesus.” The dialogue is respectful, insightful, and is really a blessing to read.

An aside on the “wasted on Jesus” part of John’s message. I have often described experiences with the Spirit with that term, depending on who I was speaking with. I think it really is a valid, powerful metaphor for intense, life-changing encounters with the Spirit, and I never want to discount, forget, or stop desiring those encounters. Being a Post-charismatic should never negate the desire for these encounters, and I hope we who look at that term as a valid term will always make that clear.

On another note, though, I believe that one should not expect one who follows the Spirit to always exist in a “wasted” state. There are times of wilderness and darkness and suffering, and those times do not negate the presence of God even though we may be gripping with our fingernails for evidence of it. I have spent time in the wilderness, both because of the leading of the Spirit (Hosea 2:14) and because of my own laziness and stubbornness, and I have learned wisdom and patience and peace from those times (not that I am always wise, patient, or peaceful, but more so than I would be otherwise).

Pentecostals and charismatics have often struggled in leading a balanced life in the Spirit. They have often sought to live in the clouds, wasted, above the messiness and pain of real life. Non-Pentecostals and non-charismatics have often resisted intoxicating experiences with the Spirit because of this (and other, less noble reasons). Both sides have lost, and both sides have much to learn.

Like some others, I do see a link between the worldwide pentecostal movement (counting Pentecostal denominations, and charismatic churches and movements, it now numbers more than 500 million people) and the emerging church. I believe that the emerging movement, as it develops around the world alongside postmodernism in the West and postcolonialism everywhere else, has the potential to be one of the steps that the Holy Spirit takes to resolve this tension and lack of balance that exists in the church.

Recently, I’ve been reading Brian McLaren’s Everything Must Change.

I have also read The Secret Message of Jesus, which is meant to be read as a companion volume. If you have not read The Secret Message of Jesus, feel encouraged to click the link and pick it up, as it is on sale for $6.99 at Amazon.

In any case, as I have been reading Everything Must Change, I have found much to be challenged by, to remember, to share with others, and to allow Jesus to shape my life by. Most of the things that he presents are at least familiar to me, if not things that I’ve thought, prayed, discussed, taught, been taught, and been convicted by. Often, though, he expresses these things in ways that I have thought but not expressed, or have forgotten, or particularly in ways that bring up new implications for my life.

As an aside, there is a review of this book that Jonny Baker wrote several months ago, and it is worth reading. Jonny Baker is one of the people that is most aware of what God is doing in Western culture, and he has a brilliant mind and spirit. The post indicates that much of the thinking is already established in the U.K., although it is certainly radical in the United States. Brian McLaren has an insightful comment on the post, as well.

The strength of this book lies in the insights that it presents into what powers the world, especially America and those who are impacted by the American Empire, and in the insights that it presents into what Jesus has to say to that power. The “framing story” that Jesus offers really can and should change everything, in my life and your life and in the ways we interact with the world around us.

There are countless examples and quotations (and misquotations) floating around on the internet, and a quick search will bring up many of them. But there are a few things that have really shaken me, and inspired my imagination.

Communism, [Rene Padilla] says, specialized in distribution but failed at production. As a result, it ended up doing a great job of distributing poverty evenly. Capitalism, he says, was excellent at production but weak at distribution. As a result, it ended up rewarding the wealthy with obscene amounts of wealth while the poor suffered on in horrible degradation and indignity…

The twenty-first century began in the aftermath of the defeat of Marxism. The story of the coming century will likely be the story of whether a sustainable form of capitalism can be saved from theocapitalism [the religion-like seeking of prosperity], or whether unrestrained theocapitalism will result in such gross inequity between rich and poor that violence and counterviolence will bring civilization to a standstill, or perhaps worse.

There is an amazing amount of depth in that paragraph. and it helps introduce the “suicide machine” and its systems that this book is attempting to deconstruct. Certainly it is not an optimistic statement, but the book is constantly balancing it with statements like this:

If we believe, the decadent and self-indulgent West can be converted from overconsumers to creative stewards, from empire builders to community builders, from sex-obsessed and self-indulgent couch potatoes to people like Graciela, Luiz, and Leticia and their family - who along the way through their life, discover a magnificent vision and a sacred mission that give their lives unimagined meaning.

And this is the kind of statement that challenges everything about the way I live, and inspires my visions about the way I want to live. This is the kind of thing that makes the book a valid challenge to those of us who claim the story of Jesus.

As I’ve said fairly often on this blog, I met Jesus in a Pentecostal church, and went to a Pentecostal college for one of the degrees I earned. One of the really common parts of the Pentecostal and charismatic movements is revival. Seeking revival, predicting revival, announcing revival, and any number of other things.

What is revival?

The interesting thing is that there are as many definitions of what revival is as there are ways of looking for and identifying it. The Old Testament sees (thematically and linguistically) revival as restoring something to life - whether it is a person’s physical life, spiritual life, or the relationship of Israel to Yahweh.

The New Testament uses a word that is often translated as stirring up, or kindling (like a fire), and can also be translated as revival. So, a follower of Jesus can stir up the Spirit within her, and she is revived in this way.

Interestingly, nowhere does Scripture refer to revival as an event. It doesn’t speak of evangelists, or crusades, or altar calls, or anything else that we typically associate with it in modern, Western Christianity. Evangelists and altar calls and nightly meetings are not necessarily excluded from what revival is, but neither are they necessary.

In church history, revival typically comes when the church is at a low point, and a person or group of people begins to stir up the flame, and seek life in the Spirit. In some way, usually a way that is entirely unexpected, God responds.

Examples of this include the various monastic movements (especially the life and effects of St. Francis), the Protestant Reformation (especially the Anabaptists), the Methodist movement, several Great Awakenings, the birth of the Pentecostal movement in Wales and Los Angeles in the early 20th century, and the charismatic movement (and alongside it, the Jesus Movement) across mainline and evangelical denominations in the mid 20th century.

All of these examples, at their beginning at least, had two parts: personal and social. Many of the followers of Jesus in these movements saw visions, dreams, and had powerful encounters with the Spirit. They also experienced a renewal of desire to share their experiences with others, and started innovative churches and ministries, helped the poor and the outcast, and especially in the case of Azusa Street in Los Angeles, they saw that “the color line was washed away in the blood.”

Current revival issues

In the mid to late 20th century up to the present, the term revival has come to mean a lot less, and also a lot more. Now, it refers to a series of meetings with a guest preacher. Nothing really has to change at all, either inwardly or outwardly. If something is expected to change, usually it is narrowed down to physical healing.

There are still people who talk about revival in a more biblical sense. Graham Cooke is one of these, and defines revival as the restoration of the church’s passion for people who are far from God. Then, he sees a stage of reformation, where the effect of that passion goes out into society and changes people. Changes society, and influences it with the kingdom of God. And this, of course, is that second part of social influence.

What’s going on in Lakeland?

Lately, there has been a lot of talk about revival in Lakeland, Florida. Todd Bentley is leading this, and it has moved to the local (regional) airport, where there is not enough space to hold all of the people who want to be there.

I spent just over five years living in Lakeland, long enough to earn a couple of degrees, and earn some extra money to get out of Florida. When I first moved there to attend college, a group of people formed in a small coffeeshop to pray for revival. We wanted to pray for revival among ourselves, in our school, and in Lakeland itself. We kept this up for at least three years, maybe four, and we saw very little effect outside ourselves.

It’s interesting to look at what is happening in Lakeland (people coming from the outside, reports of miraculous things, and renewed and new passion for Jesus) from a distant perspective, and ponder whether or not this is the answer to our prayers. I have come to extreme respect for the wisdom of Robby Mac, and he has a recent post that I think has a very balanced perspective. In essence, he believes that the Spirit is, in fact, at work in Lakeland, but that his work there does not necessitate his approval of the theology or the methodology that is at work there, and it does not mean that people who want to be part of the work of the Spirit need to ignore their own sense of discernment.

And that’s a beautiful thing that I’ve taught, and have observed in my education and in various experiences in pentecost (referring to Pentecostal and charismatic things). God is less interested in perfecting our theology and methodology before he uses us than he is in using us while he changes us. There is great power in grasping that statement.

So, I would love to join some of my friends who are still in Lakeland, and have been to these meetings to see what God is doing. It’s wonderful to see a prayer like that being answered, regardless of how weird the answer is.

Recently, I was shown the website for Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, which is a soon-to-be released documentary claiming that the “intelligent design” community is a persecuted part of the overall scientific community. In other words, Ben Stein believes that scientists are persecuted because they question Darwinism.

I was reminded of it when I saw AdSense put a link to it in the sidebar of my blog, and I want to look at the issues that are present in this kind of discussion.

The issue with this kind of thing reaches far beyond the useless debate of evolution vs intelligent design (news flash: evolution won). It reaches into how people in the scientific community, as well as the broader culture, view the intelligent design community. By association (for positive or negative), it also reaches into the ways that these communities view Christianity. Granted: not all members of the intelligent design community are Christians, and certainly not all Christians subscribe to the tenets of “intelligent design,” but the stereotype does exist.

It also reaches into how both sides of the issue view biblical theology. How one views the Bible dictates, at least to an extent, what one thinks of “intelligent design,” and of course, how one views “intelligent design” can influence how one views the Bible, and specifically how one perceives a theology of creation.

With all that said, I want to address these issues from my perspective.

Perception of the “Intelligent Design” community

I think it’s really important, when evaluating a claim like the one this movie is making, to honestly look at how the “intelligent design” community is perceived by the rest of the scientific community. On a large scale, the “intelligent design” community is seen as trying to bring religion into science. They are seen as trying to push religion onto children in schools, into the court systems, and further into the political structure of the country.

Whether this perception is correct or not for everyone who believes in this way of looking at the universe is really not relevant. It is certainly not the case for everyone in the community, but I think it certainly is the case for some. The scientific community as a whole, when it rejects the “intelligent design” community, may be employing prejudices of its own because of what it has witnessed, but because of vocal voices it is justifiable, even though it’s not desirable.

It is very similar to the perception many people have that American evangelicals are trying to combine the church and the state in a great big conservative, pro-war, pro-rich, pro-American Empire. There are vocal voices out there who make it seem that way. Until we prove, on a large scale, that evangelicalism is not a poster for the Republican Party, people will have a justifiable (though, horriby undesirable) case for thinking that we believe it is.

Biblical theology of creation

For many years, conservative and fundamentalist Christians have dug in their heels and fought a losing battle against most of the scientific world, trying to justify their interpretation of the biblical creation narrative: namely, that God created the world in six days. Often, the belief goes something like this: “If we give in to the liberals on literal creationism, it’s a slippery slope to denying the deity of Jesus.”

Certainly, if this was a valid statement we would have cause for concern. But the issue is, it’s not a valid concern at all. Scripture is not interested in being a science book. It is a theological statement, and it is not interested in explaining the details of creation.

Viewing the creation story in Genesis in this way takes the view that the author was not interested in a literal chronology of events, but in presenting the themes and issues that God was addressing, and who in fact God is, especially in contrast with other Near Eastern creation stories that have similar literary structures. Thus, the structure is very similar, but the means, and the reasons, for what is occurring are very different.

For more on this, consider the Genesis chapter of Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology, which goes into a good amount of depth on this issue, and others.

Effects of a biblical theology of creation

There is a lot of good in this view of creation, aside from the fact that it appears to be much more faithful to ancient Near Eastern culture. It is also much more faithful to postmodern Western culture. It allows for creativity, mystery, and a poetic structure to what is going on. Postmoderns are not opposed to this kind of thing, and are often able to find great beauty and truth there.

In addition to this, it allows us to get past the useless debates against the scientific world, and the horrible effects they have on how people view Christianity. Evolution is all but proven beyond doubt, and while it is not an exhaustive explanation of everything, in all likelihood it will only be proven more and more as science advances.

When we are faithful to the literary nature of scripture, we have not surrendered to any kind of slippery slope. We are being faithful to the people that, we believe, were used by God to record his interactions with the world. We can express his nature in a way that transcends the Enlightenment mindset, and this is a good thing.