It's Not Easy Being Me

I should tell you a little more about myself so you'll know where I'm coming from.

As I state in the very first post of this blog, I'm primarily a thinker.  My brain never shuts off during waking hours.  It's a blessing and a curse, really.

It's a blessing because I'm able to see and understand different perspectives.  It's a curse for the same reason.

I find it difficult to come down on one side of an issue in a world where that is demanded.  To most people, things are either black or white, this or that, hot or cold.

"TAKE A STAND, MOTHERF***ER!!"

Yeah, I hear that a lot.  But I can't.  I'm not wired to do that.  Most people don't understand.  And this is exactly where the pressure mounts for me.  I'm a misfit in this world and I know it, but I don't want to be a misfit.

This is why I get excited when someone offers a third (or fourth, or fifth) way of looking at something.  I thrive on different perspectives.  Problem is it doesn't happen very often.

Which brings me to my blog post prior to this one, which took a look at Genesis 1.  I know all of the old arguments, and they're usually pitted against each other.  One side insists on Mosaic authorship and a literal reading; the other insists on a non-Mosaic priestly author and a more polemical reading.  Conservative vs. Liberal.

What if it didn't really matter?  What if there's another way of looking at this issue?  Those kinds of questions excite me because they open the issue up to new possibilities and fresh perspectives

Issues don't always have to be either/or, do they?

Let's Talk About Genesis 1

The biblical book of Genesis has become a battleground, specifically the first chapter.  Duking it out are Young Earth Creationists (Literal interpretation, 6 days of Creation, 24 hours/day, ~6000 year old universe), Old Earth Creationists/Theistic Evolutionists (1 Day=Eons, simple to complex, 14 Billion year old universe), and Atheists/Agnostics (Genesis is all bullshit).  There might be others, but I think those are the top three.

All of them work on one basic assumption-- The Genesis 1 account is about material origins.

Question: What if the Genesis 1 account is not about material origins?

I think that question is worth exploring.  It might produce a gold mine of insights.  Or it might lead to more questions.  But first let me pose a couple of questions that might move the discussion along a bit.

Q1) How would our reading of Genesis 1 change if we defined the words "create" and "make" as bringing order out of chaos?

Q2) How would that interpretation of Genesis 1 fit within the overall narrative of Scripture?

Here's my two cents.

If I understand things correctly the order/chaos dichotomy was a powerful dynamic in Ancient Near Eastern religion.  Ancient temples gave concrete pictorial representation to this dynamic.  Temples represented order, where the god(s) came to rest; the outside world represented chaos.  The function of temple priesthoods was to take the order of the temple and bring it to the outside world.

In Genesis 1, the material universe is the temple after God brings it to order and rests within it.  Something must represent God upon the earth as priest of this temple and to bring order to the chaotic world.  People loved stone buildings in which to carry out this duty.  God didn't seem to be all that crazy about stone buildings.  God fills heaven and earth.  God does not live in houses made by human hands.  Perhaps God's temple representation on earth was the people themselves!  A kingdom of priests and a holy nation (ala Genesis 19).  It was unprecedented thinking.  Genesis 1 is truly unique in that aspect.

As Christians we understand that Jesus is portrayed by the New Testament as God's temple.  Flesh and blood, bone and sinew, order to chaos.  Death to life!  Those who are in Christ are living stones, members of Christ's body.  We are living embodiments, along with Jesus, of the order that God gives to creation.

That's my thinking in a nutshell.  What are some of your thoughts?