Sermon from September 12, 2004

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth – Genesis 1:1. I would like to think about and celebrate with you the meaning of this opening sentence of the Bible for 15-20 Sundays. I will try never to be obscure or boring in what I say, but thinking will be on the Sunday agenda. The ten words that open the English Bible are so heavy with meaning that if they were pebbles in your pocket, you wouldn’t be able to stand up. Celebration will also be on the Sunday agenda. The God whom Genesis 1:1 reveals deserves our hearty praise. We will seek to render that praise through music, art, poetry, debate, discovery, prayer and sheer joy.

I must begin with a denial that may be a disappointment. I will have little to say about the biological theory of evolution. Three factors have led me to take a rain check on that debate. First, most of us are profoundly ignorant of the theory. Second, the theory is irrelevant to most Americans. Third, I am after a bigger prize.

First, most of us are profoundly ignorant of the biological theory of evolution. Ed Larson, Professor of History and Law at the University of Georgia, teaches a discussion-based course on science and religion. Late last year, in an article entitled “Don’t Know Much Biology” Larson said he had learned at least one lesson from teaching that class.

“Regardless of their stance on the issue, Americans (including honors students at a leading Southern state university) typically . . . know virtually nothing (except perhaps murky negative stereotypes) about any competing theories. In the words of Sam Cooke’s song from the Sixties, they ‘don’t know much about history; don’t know much biology; don’t know much about a science book.’ This goes for self-professed Darwinists as well as creationists’” (Edward J. Larson, “Don’t Know Much Biology, Books and Culture, November/December, 2003, 26).

Debates among the ignorant generate heat, not light and therefore take place in a deepening darkness. I don’t want to spend my Sundays with you in darkness. I don’t mean the debate doesn’t matter. Some of you are eminently qualified to engage in that debate, and I have nothing but admiration for your knowledge of the issues and your willingness to engage with others about them. I will leave that to you.

Second, the biological theory of evolution is oddly irrelevant to most Americans. Karl Giberson and Donald Yerka co-authored a book in 2002 called Species of Origins: America’s Search for a Creation Story. In it they say that “most of the (atheistic evolution) story is quite well understood (by scientists) and is supported by a wealth of scientific data. Even the more speculative parts are not without empirical support . . . And yet, when pollsters ask Americans if they believe the scientific creation story, they answer, in overwhelming numbers, with a resounding ‘NO!’” (quoted in ibid).

I think we give that answer for two reasons. First, when even brilliant scientists make atheistic pronouncements, most of us feel in our bones that they are no longer talking about science; they are expressing their personal opinions about God, which are no better than ours.

Second, we also reject the tone of their atheism. For example, Richard Dawkins, Professor of Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University, said the following in a speech, when he was honored as Humanist of the Year.

“It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, ‘mad cow’ disease, and many others, but I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world’s great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate. Faith, being belief that isn’t based on evidence, is the principal vice of any religion” (quoted in McGrath, The Reenchantment of Nature, 152).

To this American ear that sounds like a Bible-thumping Fundamentalist out to trash science, but in fact it is a world-class scientist with advanced degrees, teaching at one of the prestigious universities on the planet, bashing people of faith. We don’t like that, and, while respecting his scientific achievements, we dismiss his opinions about religious faith as the ranting of a bully.

That brings me to a third factor in my decision to say little about the biological theory of evolution. I am after a bigger prize. Evangelical Christianity’s long debate about evolution has diverted our attention from the many-splendored doctrine of creation. We are like the pussy cat that went to London to see the Queen, and, when asked upon his return by a reporter from The New York Times what he had done in the Queen’s presence, could only talk about the mouse beneath her chair.

In our preoccupation with evolution we have been obsessed with the mouse. I prefer that we dine with the Queen. That means that we begin with the biblical testimony about God’s creative achievement, and then we allow that testimony to interact with our experience in the laboratory, the environment, the bedroom, and in that most mysterious of all contexts, the human spirit.

The Only Way We Can Understand “Nature” Is by the Meaning We Give to It
I’d like to start by talking about a familiar subject: nature. Interestingly, the Old Testament does not have a word that is translated nature. The New Testament has such a word, but it never means the universe and everything in it. The word nature, as we understand it, came later. But how do we understand nature? Let me illustrate the problem we have with a familiar example.

Philadelphia is a handy label, but by itself it doesn’t tell strangers much about the city. But if you were to make a half dozen statements about Philadelphia, its name would begin to have many, conflicting meanings. For example, you might say that Philadelphia is “the city that loves you back”; or “the city that boos Santa Claus. Philadelphia is the fourth largest television market in the country, the home of Philly cheese steak and soft pretzels, the only metropolitan area in the country that has three hospitals that do heart transplants, the Broad Street Bullies, the birthplace of a nation.” Each of those statements begins to invest the name, Philadelphia, with meaning. Which meaning should govern the others and determine how people will think about Philadelphia?

The same thing happens with the word, nature. We make a variety of conflicting statements that invest nature with meaning. For example, when the guy comes to your door to solicit money to save the whales, he is presenting nature as the innocent victim of human technology and human greed. When Hurricane Charley floods basements and drowns neighbors, people demand more money and better technology to protect against the “ravages of nature.” Certain theologians have said that a divine being made the universe, and then left it to run by itself, like some giant machine. Some scientists liked the idea of nature as a machine, dropped the idea of a divine being, and began to tear the machine apart to see how it works. In a familiar image, people call nature a mother that suckles her children.

So, what is nature: a victim of human folly, a threat to human life, a machine or a mother? It all depends on what a person believes about the world. We can never again hear the word nature without asking what the person means by it. And which meaning should govern all the others?

Here’s the turning point I don’t want you to miss. All these points of view are welcome in public discussion, because our culture increasingly puts a high value on multiple points of view for any topic. It’s not so much a matter of seeking truth as it is a matter of being fair to every point of view.

In this pluralistic environment religious people in general and Christians in particular have a chance to make their point of view heard in the public square. So, what shall we Christians say about nature? What point of view do we bring to the conversation? Hear me well. It is simple but powerful. Christians view nature as God’s creation. Where other people say, “nature,” we say, “creation.” When we say, “nature,” we mean, “creation.” And we say that this meaning governs all the others.

Some will say, “But that’s a faith statement.” Yes, but so is the statement that nature is innocent, or nature is savage, or nature is a machine, or nature is a mother. They are all faith statements, all interpretations of nature. Why shouldn’t the Christian point of view have just as much right to be heard in public discourse as any other point of view?

You might be thinking, “Come on, pastor, your quibbling over semantics.” But don’t you think it influences how people treat nature, if they se nature as a machine that can be torn apart and manipulated any way that a certain group of people want to use it? Wouldn’t it make a difference if they saw it as the creation of God, who has ideas of His own about how it ought to be used? How we think and feel about nature will determine how we treat nature. A lot is at stake, as we shall see.

Creation which Comes from God Focuses in Scripture on Man in his Environment
So, how well can we express our Christian point of view that nature is God’s creation? I hope we will all do it better as a result of thinking about it and celebrating it together. Let’s begin with two statements. 1) The mind, will and power of God account for the existence of the universe and everything in it. 2) The heavens and the earth are the setting in which God seeks to be united in covenant love with mankind. Let’s look at both statements, beginning with Genesis 1:1.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The mind, will and power of God account for the existence of the universe and everything in it. He created because He could conceive such a thing. That is His mind. He created because He chose to do so. That is His will. He created because He had the power to do so. That is our bedrock faith about where nature came from. Brilliant scientists and most other humans believe this.

A few people (I can’t emphasize how very few) believe that what we call nature has always existed or that it came into existence spontaneously. That is their bedrock faith about where nature came from. Brilliant scientists and others believe this, but not because their science proves it. Their atheism arises from personal faith.

Now, we who believe that God accounts for the universe and everything in it must take the next step and answer a question that is urgent for us and was urgent for Genesis. For what purpose did God create the universe? The answer brings us to our second statement. The heavens and the earth are the setting in which God seeks to be united in covenant love with mankind.

This seems at first to be a delusional statement. We will talk more about it next Sunday. For today, let me show you three characteristics of the book of Genesis that lead me to that conclusion.

First, when you read Genesis 1:3-31, it doesn’t say much about anything else in creation besides the earth. Of course, it mentions the heavenly bodies, but most of the focus is on the earth, and on the earth the focus is on man.

Second, Genesis tells the story of creation a second time in Genesis 2. Again, the focus is on mankind. Verse 7 says, The Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being. In verse 15: The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. In verse 17 He places man under a test. “You must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.” Adam names the beasts, and God gives Adam a wife. The virgin earth and the starry heavens serve as background to the drama of man.

Third, Genesis devotes two chapters to the creation of everything. It devotes 39 chapters to the story of four men: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph with whom God entered into a covenant relationship that was intended to bless all the families of the earth. And that, says the Bible, is the purpose for which God created the heavens and the earth. He wants to be united in covenant love with mankind.

The Pastoral Center of Gravity
A Christian doctrine of creation builds on four foundational statements of. First, the mind, will and power of God account for the existence of the universe and everything in it. Second, the heavens and the earth are the setting in which God seeks to establish a covenant relationship with mankind. Third, Christians view nature as God’s creation. Others say, “Nature”; we say, “Creation.” When we say, “nature,” we mean, “creation.”

And really, Genesis contributes one more foundational statement to a Christian doctrine of creation. You will see it in Genesis 1:4: God saw that the light was good. Then in a continuing litany of gladness: verse 10: And God saw that it was good. Verse 12: And God saw that it was good. Verse 18: And God saw that it was good. Verse 21: And God saw that it was good. Verse 25: And God saw that it was good. And in a superlative climax, verse 31: God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. Our fourth foundational statement says that creation is good.

Whatever might mar the creation, it would not come from the hand of God. The natural forces that define physical existence and the mental and physical processes that define humanity all stand under the benediction of God: And God saw that it was good.

Glory be to God for dappled things –
For skies of couple-colour as a brinded cow;
For rose moles all in stipple upon trout that swim;
Fresh-firecoal chestnut falls; finches wings;
Landscape plotted and pieced – fold, fallow, and plough;
And all trades, their gear and tackle and trim.
All things counter, original, spare, strange;
Whatever is fickle, freckled (who knows how?)
With swift, slow; sweet, sour, adazzle, dim;
He fathers-forth whose beauty is past change:
Praise him.
-Gerard Manley Hopkins