inspiration
I just got out of my Old Testament class - today's discussion was on Genesis. We were assigned three main extrabiblical readings to read in preparation for today's class, and I did them of course and wrote the requisite reflection paper.
When I got to class, though, I realized (through the course of the discussion) that I hadn't interpreted the readings very well at all. In fact, one came from a rather conservative stance, one from a liberal stance, and one from the middle of the two - and everyone else in the class (at least the vocal ones) picked up on the distinctions among the three. I, however, didn't.. I realized that the liberal one was saying some liberal things, but I didn't categorize them like they did.
Instead, in my paper I focused on the common theme in each of the writings - that the early writings of the nation of Israel are more about theology than they are about history. How God interacted with his creation is more important than how that creation came to be. The book is about God, not about us. That's the problem that I see in today's Christian discussions about the first eleven chapters of Genesis.
Anyway, I found myself feeling somehow inadequate or imperceptive... like I had missed the point of all the readings.
Can I really keep up with the thought patterns of seminary? Am I going to be able to make it, when I can't discern who's coming from which standpoint?
Inspiration - the vocal people in the class kept coming back to this point. If Genesis pulls its stories from common myths extant in that historical time period, then how can we say that our scripture is God-inspired? My response: I think we have to think carefully what we mean when we say that scripture is God-inspired. Does that mean that our stories are unique to our religious culture? That each word is placed exactly as God intended? Or, perhaps, that the theme of our scriptures is exactly what God wants it to be, so that we can find our way back to him? That our creation and flood stories differ significantly (in theological ways) from other such stories, and God designed this to happen so that we would know who he is?
I lean more towards the latter. And consequently I have no trouble acknowledging that the Israelites came about in a world that was already very, very old and rich with culture. It is no wonder that our stories reflect the stories of other cultures - the wonder is that the loving, judging, redeeming Creator of the universe has revealed himself undeniably through what we have come to call the book of Genesis.
"Genesis" represents the beginnings not of our universe but of our understanding of God. Remember, the book is about him, not about us.
When I got to class, though, I realized (through the course of the discussion) that I hadn't interpreted the readings very well at all. In fact, one came from a rather conservative stance, one from a liberal stance, and one from the middle of the two - and everyone else in the class (at least the vocal ones) picked up on the distinctions among the three. I, however, didn't.. I realized that the liberal one was saying some liberal things, but I didn't categorize them like they did.
Instead, in my paper I focused on the common theme in each of the writings - that the early writings of the nation of Israel are more about theology than they are about history. How God interacted with his creation is more important than how that creation came to be. The book is about God, not about us. That's the problem that I see in today's Christian discussions about the first eleven chapters of Genesis.
Anyway, I found myself feeling somehow inadequate or imperceptive... like I had missed the point of all the readings.
Can I really keep up with the thought patterns of seminary? Am I going to be able to make it, when I can't discern who's coming from which standpoint?
Inspiration - the vocal people in the class kept coming back to this point. If Genesis pulls its stories from common myths extant in that historical time period, then how can we say that our scripture is God-inspired? My response: I think we have to think carefully what we mean when we say that scripture is God-inspired. Does that mean that our stories are unique to our religious culture? That each word is placed exactly as God intended? Or, perhaps, that the theme of our scriptures is exactly what God wants it to be, so that we can find our way back to him? That our creation and flood stories differ significantly (in theological ways) from other such stories, and God designed this to happen so that we would know who he is?
I lean more towards the latter. And consequently I have no trouble acknowledging that the Israelites came about in a world that was already very, very old and rich with culture. It is no wonder that our stories reflect the stories of other cultures - the wonder is that the loving, judging, redeeming Creator of the universe has revealed himself undeniably through what we have come to call the book of Genesis.
"Genesis" represents the beginnings not of our universe but of our understanding of God. Remember, the book is about him, not about us.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home