What I have to say next will probably make me seem like a terrible Christian, but here it goes:
Reading Genesis has reminded me of why I have avoided it for years.
Don't get me wrong, it has great stories. As a kid, it was one of my favorite books, but -and at the risk of sounding disrespectful- I also loved reading Greek mythology and fairy tales at that age. As I got older, Genesis became harder and harder to deal with. Its cosmic and scientific implications became too confusing. It didn't help that I grew up in a fairly, though not militant, creationist milieu that took the words of Genesis at their literal meaning. I even tried to read books of pseudo-science that tried to legitimize it as a book of literal fact, but most of the time it seemed as if the authors (who were rarely scientists themselves) were trying too hard, building an apocryphal lore that seemed to have the intellectual legitimacy of doomsday prophecy in reverse.
Coming back to faith after years of wandering, I was able to apply my studies studies in Literature and critical theory to many of the Biblical texts that confounded me years before. The scriptures were empowered by poetry, allegory, symbolism and figurativeness. The "seven day creation" which had previously seemed pathetically absurd, was given new beauty and meaning (not stripped of it, as literalists would claim). Seeing the Bible through new eyes allowed me to return to faith as a whole person, without intellectual compromise.
And yet, here I am again, reading and struggling, wondering where the figurative stops and the literal begins, trying to join what God has revealed through Science to what God has revealed through text. Despite being trained to look for meaning and patterns in literary text, I keep getting sidetracked by questions of science and logic...
Nevertheless, as I wrote before, I am still impelled towards Christianity. My return to faith has provided more peace than I ever had without it. And so, I must trust that the Bible, as basis for that faith, is worth trusting. However, it doesn't change the fact that I don't really know what to do with much of what it offers in its first chapters.
Reading Genesis has reminded me of why I have avoided it for years.
Don't get me wrong, it has great stories. As a kid, it was one of my favorite books, but -and at the risk of sounding disrespectful- I also loved reading Greek mythology and fairy tales at that age. As I got older, Genesis became harder and harder to deal with. Its cosmic and scientific implications became too confusing. It didn't help that I grew up in a fairly, though not militant, creationist milieu that took the words of Genesis at their literal meaning. I even tried to read books of pseudo-science that tried to legitimize it as a book of literal fact, but most of the time it seemed as if the authors (who were rarely scientists themselves) were trying too hard, building an apocryphal lore that seemed to have the intellectual legitimacy of doomsday prophecy in reverse.
Coming back to faith after years of wandering, I was able to apply my studies studies in Literature and critical theory to many of the Biblical texts that confounded me years before. The scriptures were empowered by poetry, allegory, symbolism and figurativeness. The "seven day creation" which had previously seemed pathetically absurd, was given new beauty and meaning (not stripped of it, as literalists would claim). Seeing the Bible through new eyes allowed me to return to faith as a whole person, without intellectual compromise.
And yet, here I am again, reading and struggling, wondering where the figurative stops and the literal begins, trying to join what God has revealed through Science to what God has revealed through text. Despite being trained to look for meaning and patterns in literary text, I keep getting sidetracked by questions of science and logic...
Where does evolution (which I see as a beautiful, God-directed, creative process) fit into the story of Adam? Or "the soul?" If death entered the world through sin, how did evolution (which seems to require death) work? Or is "death" a spiritual idea here? What about the longevity of the early Biblical characters? The records seem too specific to demand figurative interpretation... What do I do with Noah? When it says "the whole earth" does it refer to the land known to its early readers? Obviously the number of animals doesn't correspond with the size of the boat... How much of these accounts is supposed to be viewed as a miraculous exception (like the speed at which the olive vegetation grew after the flood) and how much is supposed to be seen as the norm? etc...If I am honest, I have to admit that the reading process has yielded more confusion and embarrassment than joy so far. It doesn't help that I have avoided these kinds of questions in favor of more metaphysical ones. I feel sheepish because I know that these are the questions of a new-convert at best or a scoffing skeptic at worst. It makes me feel like a terrible Christian to keep thinking "this is ridiculous!" while I read the Bible, but the feeling is there, like an itch I can't quite reach.
Nevertheless, as I wrote before, I am still impelled towards Christianity. My return to faith has provided more peace than I ever had without it. And so, I must trust that the Bible, as basis for that faith, is worth trusting. However, it doesn't change the fact that I don't really know what to do with much of what it offers in its first chapters.
6 comments:
I love your honesty and feel very identified. Yesterday I heard a sermon from a church in Spain on Genesis that centered on proving how creationist Christians were more "logical" in their conclusions than others. It made me angry, because that kind of rhetoric was what made me think that Christianity was in opposition to a lot of science and philosophy. When I read the scientists and philosophers I concluded that the Church lost. Thank God that he is greater than that and that what is important in the Bible is crystal clear (like the proto-euangelion in 3:15 or the fact that God didn't allow men and women to eat form the tree of life to not live engulfed in sin forever (that would suck)). Still, other parts are tough and I don't always understand why it is so unclear.
Though I'm not as scientifically geared as you perhaps, I do find myself asking more "logic-based" questions since many things just don't make any sense or beg clarification at least. Even though it's more work, you can always do your own research and see what others have come up with solutions to resolve some of your unrest. At the very least, I find it comforting that others are asking the same questions.
Sometimes I also settle that the Bible and its contents are just altogether mysterious and no amount of explanation may ever satisfy us.
I think at the end of the day, I hold fast to what I learn about God's character and how He relates to His people as the truths that matter.
All my "why or how is this possible" questions can possibly be tackled in eternity over a delicious meal.
Also, there is no such thing as a "terrible/bad Christian." We are Christian b/c of Christ so there is no way that we can terrible, yes?
There's my corny encouragement for the day.
Happy weekend, ryonious!
Corny or not, Lannie, I like your reminder of what makes us Christian.
Yes, you are right, I am sure there are people out there that can clarify many of my questions. At this point, and with this kind of reading schedule, I just have to soldier on... But I am also comforted by the "mystery" of faith and the idea that there are other forces at work in my beliefs that help reconcile me to appreciating the scriptures.
Maybe another day I will come back to the beginning of Genesis and do a more systematic and in depth study of what the heck is going on in here though.
Ryan,
Have you ever ready any of Joseph Campbell's work? I know many Christians (if they know who he is) find him to be insulting but his explanation of myth has helped me to reconcile a lot of the Biblical stories. He talks about myth (not as in a lie, but as in an ancient story) as being a vehicle for imparting spiritual knowledge or truth. Its literal veracity is beside the point, since the purpose of the myth is to tell a greater truth. In that way, fitting all of the species on Noah's boat isn't really a problem. It's more an exaggeration of the story to get across the point, which is that Noah listened to God and obeyed, even when the task was monumental and seemingly ridiculous. Campbell's understanding of myth fits nicely with much of the Bible because myths can be completely fictitious (e.g. Zeus) or historically accurate (Jesus' existence). When facts clash with the story, that can be a place to look for the purpose behind the story.
Jenn, nicely said. The symbolical layers of the Bible fascinate me (I´ve been wanting to look into the numerological references). But having to deconstruct it all (after so much literal reading) is a mammoth task.
Ryan, I see what you mean about re-reading the Bible after doing literary studies. I've been wanting to get back to it and read it with my "lit.criticism glasses" on, but just haven't sat down to do it. I´ve resolved to read it through chronologically several times, and never made it past Leviticus, but I may give it another go.
Jen, I know what you mean. I have no problem with the idea that the bible works in myth sometimes because that doesn't mean it isn't true. Fact and truth aren't always the same. Is 'the boy who cried wolf' true? Well, in a sense, yes, though it isn't factual per se. Myth theory works quite the same way.
The problem is that applying myth theory to the Bible is not as simple as one would hope, as the scriptures have a blend of many types of truth, both literal and figurative, factual and poetic. Learning where one stops and the other begins, especially when both seem to be overlapping or at work at the same time, can be maddening.
Post a Comment