Creation,
Again
Stephen
Terry
Commentary
for the March 30, 2013 Sabbath School Lesson
“I
brought you into a fertile land to eat its fruit and rich produce. But you came
and defiled my land and made my inheritance detestable.” Jeremiah 2:7, NIV
Perhaps some of you, who are older, remember as I do
that day in July, 1969 when we all gathered around our television sets to
witness the historic first step on the moon by astronaut, Neil Armstrong. Many
of us still had black and white television sets, but that didn’t matter since
the footage from the moon was in black and white anyway. The iconic image of
his footprint in the dust of the lunar surface is easily recognized around the
world. The epic journey of the Apollo 11 began an almost four year period of
Apollo missions to the moon. Ending in 1972, the moon landings stopped and mankind
has not returned since.
Maybe, like me, you also remember the sermons in 1969,
preached in many churches, proclaiming with assurance that God would never
allow a successful lunar landing because the rest of the universe was untainted
by sin and God would not allow that universe to be defiled by the presence of
sinful humans. Neil Armstrong’s footprint is mute evidence to the falseness of
those predictions. The Bible tells us that when a prediction fails to come true
we are not to believe the ones presumptuously making the prediction or to fear their
pronouncements.[1]
Sadly, those who make such pronouncements not only make
themselves look foolish, they also cause many to ridicule the church of God and
scorn anything else they might say. One would think that the church would learn
from such forays into the realm of science, but well-meaning Christian pundits continue
to insist that science is untrustworthy and only blind faith in the words of
some church leader is all the science one needs. History has not been kind to
these demagogues as they have famously been shown to be untrustworthy themselves
over time. So why do so many continue to trust these pseudo-scientists?
Perhaps it is best described as the Ruby Slipper
Syndrome. Like Dorothy in the “Wizard of Oz,” we want to be able to leave the
crazy world around us behind. We want to be able to close our eyes to the
evidence, click our ruby-slippered heels together and repeat “There’s no place
like home,” over and over again until it actually happens. Unfortunately, life
is not a fantasy novel. We cannot escape the data by pretending it doesn’t
exist and wishing ourselves away to another reality. We only end up looking
like the fabled image of the ostrich with its head in the sand – ridiculous and
completely exposed to the derision of those who would take advantage of our
presumption.
Does this mean there is no place for Christians in a
modern, scientific world? Far from it. There are many things science cannot
address. For instance, science has been unable to derive from observation an
ultimate source of all things. That certainly leaves room for a Creator as that
source. Science also is unable to resolve the problem of ongoing evil in the
world. This is a problem that Christians have grappled with for centuries and
for which the Bible has a perspective.
In that view, evil, just as everything else, had an
origin. It also has a life span and an end. What was in the beginning will be
again. A time without evil will return. This is an alternative to a viewpoint
that would posit that evil will always be with us. Such a view actually
encourages the spread of evil, for if it cannot be eradicated, why not simply
join in the evil and obtain what you can, when you can, without regard to right
or wrong moral action. Secularists might propose that this would be self-defeating
and therefore enlightened self-interest would prevail and bring about morality.
There are two problems with this, however.
First, what is the source of this “enlightenment?” Is
this nothing more than a religious argument in secular clothes? Who is to say
whether the flash of insight we call enlightenment is not of divine origin? Of
course the same argument could be made in reverse, but that only proves the
point. We might be “hoist by our own petard” when we so cavalierly toss about
words like “enlightenment” to explain a basis for morality.
A second problem is the uncertainness of life. This “enlightened
self-interest” is founded on the principle of delayed gratification. In other
words, I put off my own selfish greed to allow others to reach their own goals
in hopes of a greater reward for my unselfishness later. However, what if there
is no later? I have no foreknowledge from day to day of when I will draw my
last breath. Therefore, why should I delay gratification?[2] Wouldn’t it make more
sense to get what I can now, before it is too late?
Of course one might respond to this problem with
enforcement of a compliant, if limited, altruism through statute. However, the
poverty of this approach was demonstrated in Puritan New England where such measures
often fomented rebellion rather than conformity. We even have a state, Rhode
Island, which largely came into being because of those, like Roger Williams,
who eschewed such methods.[3] Americans, who sometimes
like to feel that they are the most moral nation in the world, demonstrate the
failures of legislated morality in modern times as well. While claiming to be
such a moral nation, we also have a higher percentage of our population in
prison than any other nation on earth.[4]
In spite of such a high incarceration rate, greedy self-interest
has not disappeared. To the contrary, those who are successful at it are often
able to bypass any regulatory restrictions on their behavior with the proceeds
from their enterprises. The process is not as effective at deterring selfishness
as it is at weeding out those who aren’t very good at it. This being the case,
recidivism rates would be expected to be high as those who fail to learn from
their failure at self-centered criminality would be doomed to continually be
swept up by enforcement unless they could find another career. This is indeed
the case as recidivism in the United States is about 60%.[5]
In view of some of these failures of enlightened self-interest
as a basis for morality, perhaps there is the possibility we might look at a biblical
perspective with more receptivity. The Bible proposes to bring about a moral
man in the absence of man’s ability to produce one.[6] It is on this basis that
the Bible can tell us of restoration of what once was. The entire biblical
narrative is bookended with two paradises: Eden, which literally means “paradise”
and the New Jerusalem. “Jerusalem” means to own or possess peace which could also
certainly be another definition of paradise.
Both of these paradises have the Tree of Life.
Allegorically we might contrast this with life as we know it today and find the
comparison somewhat lacking on our end. In fact, we might find our lives now to
simply be a parody of what life was intended to be. Instead of vitality, we
have chronic sickness and disability. Instead of eternal or even lengthy life
spans we are limited to a few short decades. Those who see a century are few in
number. Only 17 people out of 100,000 can hope to be 100 years old in the
United States.[7]
Small wonder if we find the promises of immortality proffered by the Scriptures
beguiling.
The problem for all of is the same reason that prevents
Christians from speaking authoritatively on science from a Christian viewpoint.
Christianity cannot provide evidence of these things as they are matters of
faith, not science. Also, while faith is uniquely personal and not dependent on
scientific methodology, it is experiential and highly individualized. While
this may be a problem for the scientist who looks for patterns of uniform data
streams, it does not seem to be a problem from a biblical perspective. Strangely
enough, in spite of our efforts to regulate for conformed behavior, the Bible
seems to prefer unity to uniformity. It appears to follow a musical model. In
music, uniformity does not produce harmony, but harmony is a result we might
expect from a unity founded in diversity.[8]
Something we can take away from the creation account in
Genesis is that God loves diversity. The world around us is filled with it, and
if we trace all things back to a Creator then we might find ourselves unable to
come to any other conclusion. We might also feel justified in projecting that
any future restoration would value it as well. Perhaps those closest to realizing
the reality of the River of Life in their own veins and coursing through their
own hearts will be those who can bring that into the present and value diversity
now. Maybe in that harmony, we can find an “enlightenment” we all can
appreciate.
[1] Deuteronomy 18:22
[2] Much of the book of Ecclesiastes is dedicated to exploration of this theme.
[3] “Rhode Island,” www.wikipedia.org
[4] “United States Incarceration Rate,” Ibid.
[5] “Recidivism,” Ibid.
[6] Jeremiah 13:23; Isaiah 64:6; Ibid., 1:18
[7] “Centenarians,” www.wikipedia.org
[8] Job 38:4-7
This Commentary is a Service of Still
Waters Ministry
If you wish to receive these weekly commentaries direct to your e-mail inbox for free, simply send an e-mail to:
commentaries-subscribe@visitstillwaters.com
If you
want a paperback copy of the current Sabbath School Bible
Study Quarterly, you may purchase one by clicking here and typing the word
"quarterly" into the search box.