Sermon from January 9, 2005
Christianity and the natural sciences have long had an uneasy relationship. Christians have tried to tell scientists what conclusions they should reach. A famous example of that is the Church's condemnation of Galileo, because he published scientific statements that contradicted the teachings of the Church. That does not endear Christians to the scientific community.

On the other hand, scientists have drawn conclusions that contradict Christian faith but cannot be demonstrated by the methods of science. An example comes from Oxford professor, Richard Dawkins, who said that "faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate." (quoted in McGrath, The Reenchantment of Nature, 152). That does not endear scientists to the Christian community.

We can do better than that, and I propose to try. For four Sundays, I want to interact with some of the controversies between Christianity and the natural sciences. I want to model for you how to show respect for both science and Christianity without compromising the integrity of either of them. And I want to do it to praise the God who created what science discovers and who revealed Himself in Jesus Christ and Holy Scripture. Genesis one is the lightning rod for these controversies. So, we will consider that great text each Sunday.

The Achievement of Genesis
Genesis one says: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The first way to appreciate the uniqueness of Genesis is to read it in its original context of competing ideas. For example, in the Mesopotamian world from which Abraham emerged there was a story of creation that began like this:

"When on high the heaven had not been named,
Firm ground below had not been called by name,
Naught but primordial Apsu, their begetter,
(And) Mummu-Tiamat, she who bore them all" (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, 61).

It is not too much to say that the Mesopotamians understandably but mistakenly pictured the gods as sexual beings. Sexuality belonged to the life of the gods from the start. Apsu was male and Tiamat was female. Those gods were by no means immortal. By line 70 of the story Apsu has been killed by one of his offspring.

Then follow hundreds of lines that are full of betrayal, bloodshed and death among the gods. The original mother goddess, Tiamat, was finally killed by the greatest of the gods, Marduk, and at last we come to the creation of heaven and earth. Marduk looked down on the dead body of Tiamat, and "he split her like a shellfish into two parts: Half of her he (used as a ceiling to make the) sky" (ibid, 67).

Israel defied the entire ancient world's ideas of creation with the simple, elegant and beautiful confession: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. I want you to notice two things about Genesis 1:1.

First, the God who created is separate from the heavens and the earth. Neither heaven nor earth is the discarded remains of a slain god or goddess. The Creator is one reality, and His handiwork is distinct from Him as a painting is distinct from the artist. The Jewish theologians who confessed this Creator thus began the disenchantment of nature. They separated the idea of the divine from the physical world and thus unwittingly laid the groundwork for the later rise of the natural sciences.

Second, Genesis 1:1 begins to focus on one part of creation. The verse mentions the heavens briefly, and hardly mentions them again. Instead, it becomes very particular very fast when it says earth. Nearly everything else in chapter one has to do with the creation of earth. For the next few minutes I'd like us to perform an act of sympathetic imagination. Let's look closely at the picture Genesis one gives of the creation of the earth. This will help us get inside the mind of biblical writers, and it will illustrate the friction between Christianity and the natural sciences.

Creation as Watery Chaos
Verse two says: Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. What would hide the earth's form and make the earth empty? The middle and end of the verse suggest an obvious explanation: water covered the earth. The waters of the deep were formless in that oceans do not have a permanent shape. The waters made the earth empty in the sense that as far as the eye could see, there was nothing but water. You couldn't build a house there or plant a tree.

Verse one says that God created the heavens and the earth. Verse two then pictures the earth submerged in water, as you might take a soccer ball to the beach and submerge it under the waves.

What happened on Day Two of creation seems to confirm this. Verses 6-8 say: And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. God called the expanse "sky."

The picture seems to be that of dividing the waters that submerged the earth. How does Genesis say that God did that? Do you remember the pagan story of creation I read earlier? The god Marduk split the dead body of the goddess, Tiamat, "like a shellfish into two parts: Half of her he (used as a ceiling to make the) sky" (ibid, 67).

It may be that the ancient world, including Israel, thought of the sky as something solid. The word expanse in verse six translates a Hebrew word whose most natural meaning is something solid that has been hammered into a certain shape. The old KJV translation was firmament, which conveys the idea of something firm or solid.

So, what we call the sky the ancient Hebrews may have thought to be something solid keeping back some of the water that once covered the earth. And that is where the rain comes from.

Of course, that left the problem of an earth still covered with water, but now there was less of it; so on Day Three, according to verses 9-10, God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas."

As soon as dry land appeared, the earth was no longer formless. Its solid contours became visible, and that made it possible to deal with the earth's emptiness. God began to fill the earth with all kinds of flora and fauna, beginning on Day Three and continuing on to the end of chapter one.

What is the meaning of this strange picture of creation? I can answer the question in two parts. First, I need to talk about the biblical idea of chaos. Then, I need to talk about our scientific context.

Theological Issues
We find it difficult to talk about creation without talking about evolution. Ancient Israel found it difficult to talk about creation without talking about chaos. Verse two expresses the chaos when it says: Now the earth was formless and empty. There is another biblical passage that gives us insight into the importance of chaos in the mind of ancient Israel. Look at Jeremiah 4:23-26.

I looked at the earth, and it was formless and empty (it's the same expression as in Genesis 1:2 and the only other time that the Bible uses this expression). I looked at the earth, and it was formless and empty; and at the heavens, and their light was gone. I looked at the mountains, and they were quaking; all the hills were swaying. I looked, and there were no people; every bird in the sky had flown away. I looked, and the fruitful land was a desert; all its towns lay in ruins before the LORD, before his fierce anger.

Jeremiah saw the coming destruction of his nation by the Babylonians. The most powerful way he could express his horror was to compare it to an unmaking of the natural order. Jeremiah described the order of creation returning to chaos.

God revealed Himself to Israel is as a God who brings order out of chaos, and who in judgement returns order into chaos. That revelation about the nature of God helped to shape the way that Genesis tells the story of creation.

The Pastoral Center of Gravity
That brings us to the meaning of Genesis in our scientific context. Evangelical Christians are haunted by the possibility that Genesis and the natural sciences may contradict each other.

For example, I said that the word expanse in verse six translates a Hebrew word whose most natural meaning is something solid that has been hammered into a certain shape. There are responsible, conservative, Christian scholars who say that what we call the sky the ancient Hebrews may have thought of as something solid keeping back some of the water that once covered the earth.

Other equally responsible, equally conservative Christian scholars disagree with that, because the picture of the heavens as a solid dome is contrary to everything modern science tells us about the sky. That's why the NIV translates the Hebrew word in Genesis 1:6 as an expanse. It is consistent with what astronomy and space travel tell us about the heavens above us. Why are so many Bible translators, theologians and ordinary Christians concerned that the Bible and science agree?

They are concerned, because they think that if science contradicts the Bible, then the Bible will be discredited. There are at least three serious points of friction between Genesis one and the natural sciences: Genesis one may say that the sky is a solid dome, when we all know now that it isn't; it says the heavens and the earth were created in six 24-hour days, and the present understanding of science says the universe is 15 billion years old, and our earth took millions of years to reach its present form; and, finally, the theory of evolution presents the complexity of life forms as arising from a few simple life forms, while the Bible presents each life form as we know it as created by God.

Libraries of books, articles, and films have been written to remove these difficulties. For example, the six days of creation in Genesis one have been interpreted as six ages instead of 24 hour days. The NIV interprets verse six as expanse instead of firmament so as to avoid embarrassment. And evolutionary theory is rejected out of hand, and enormous efforts are expended to disprove it.

I say with genuine and deep respect that I find all these efforts unpersuasive. I believe we are fighting the wrong battles. I'd like to explain that. It will take me the rest of this sermon and the other sermons in January to offer my explanation.

Do Genesis and the natural sciences contradict each other? The short answer is no, if we'll stop treating the Bible as if it had to agree with modern science, (it doesn't!) and stop treating modern science as if it were in a position to judge the validity of the Christian faith (it isn't!). I say that, first, because of the complexity of God's creation.

Imagine a man who has suffered a debilitating back injury at work. First, he goes to a doctor for diagnosis and treatment. Second, there will be forms to fill out to get health coverage and disability income. In the meantime, he goes three times a week for physical therapy. As the weeks go by, this once active man gets depressed and irritable, and he and his wife become quarrelsome and unpleasant with each other. So, they decide to see a counselor. Then, a friend from work comes by to say that the accident could have been avoided. The company was in clear violation of OSHA regulations. He should consult an attorney.

Look at the layers in that man's situation as represented by five experts: doctor, claims adjustor, physical therapist, marriage counselor and lawyer. Each expert operates with knowledge and methods that differ from the others. All are valid, but none can use his knowledge to do the work of another. The marriage counselor does not diagnose the injury, nor does the lawyer do physical therapy. But all focus on issues rising from the patient's injury, and all are necessary, if he is going to address the issues.

Now, using this model of layered reality, let's think about nature. Physicists discover laws that govern electrons. Theologians talk about the ultimate meaning of nature. The EPA oversees the cleanup of toxic waste sites. Artists capture the beauty of nature. Hikers climb mountains or camp in the woods.

Physicist, theologian, environmentalist, artist and outdoorsman operate with knowledge and methods that differ from each other. All are valid, but none can use his knowledge to do the work of another. The artist will not clean up the toxic waste, and the laboratory methods of the scientist will not guide the theologian. But all focus on nature, and all are necessary for the full, human existence that God intends us to have.

Each has to be careful not to intrude inappropriately into the domain of another. For example, I don't want an astronomer pointing out to me that the sky is not a solid dome and then telling me that the Bible is an old wives' tale that we should discard. Now, this is tricky. Pointing out to me that the sky is not a dome is appropriate; he is speaking within his area of expertise. Telling me that the Bible is an old wives' tale that we should discard intrudes into my domain. He's the expert on the atmosphere; I'm the expert on the Bible.

One on hand, the natural sciences will always raise legitimate questions that challenge Christian faith. The apparent age of the universe and Darwin's theory of evolution pose such questions. Engaging those questions responsibly can deepen our understanding of faith. On the other hand, the Christian faith will always raise legitimate questions that challenge the natural sciences, especially the applications of the natural sciences. That is more possible today than it has been in 300 years. The challenge to an uncritical use of scientific technology in extending human life or in developing nuclear weapons poses such questions. Engaging those questions responsibly can deepen our understanding of science.

All human knowledge is partial. Neither natural science nor theology ever escapes ignorance altogether. Let each pursue reality according to the wisdom appropriate to its domain, and let each respect the other's knowledge and methods. Let the theologian not dismiss science as an enemy, and let the scientist not dismiss theology as an irrelevance. Both seek to explain God's creation, and humanity needs both so as to live the good life.

God created reality to be many-layered, requiring different methods, skills, and training. Loving our neighbor as ourselves calls for mutual respect, patient conversation, and the conviction that there is an underlying unity to all reality, because all reality originates in the unity of the mind of God.