|
How interesting that Presidential candidates now are fielding questions about their religious beliefs and their particular
brand of Biblical interpretation. Catholic Rudy Giuliani offers a pretty mainline view when he says, "I think there
are parts of the Bible that are interpretive; I think there are parts of the Bible that are allegorical; I think there are
parts of the Bible that are meant to be interpreted in a modern context. I don't believe every single thing in the literal
sense of Jonah being in the belly of the whale."
After saying that he doesn't believe in evolution, Baptist minister Mike Huckabee clarified his position, emphasizing,
"God did create... How did he do it and when did he do it and how long did he take? I don't honestly know." (A
nod to the mainline Christians.) But then in a quick retort he let it be known he doesn't care for the notion that we are
descendents of primates.
It's free country. We enjoy freedom of religion. Let people believe what they want to believe." I believe in that.
But I sure have a hard time understanding why some people believe what they believe.
I read and study the Bible. Every day. Rudy Giuliani is exactly right. There are parts that are allegorical and parts
that invite interpretation.
It seems perfectly obvious when I read Genesis 1 -- the seven days of creation story -- and Genesis 2-9 -- the story of
Adam through Noah -- we are reading myths. Myths are good. A myth is a story that teaches us the deepest truth about how
we understand the deepest things. We communicate meaning through myth.
The myths of Genesis 2-9 offer a communal understanding of important things like: Why is there death? What is the relationship
of man and woman, humanity and earth? Why do we struggle so to survive? Why is childbirth painful? Why are we separated
from God? In the Cain and Able story we see the cultural conflict between the animal grazers and the farmers, the significance
of blood and of revenge. There are waters of destruction and the waters of life; and what does the rainbow mean? These are
the issues of myth.
Very possibly the most lyrical myth in the Bible is the opening story of the six days of creation and the seventh day
of rest. It is exquisite. When asked about his beliefs, Mike Huckabee quoted the beautiful opening: "'In the beginning
when God created the heavens and the earth... I believe that." Good answer. Genesis 1 answers the question "who"
created the universe, and sings an imaginative hymn of praise to its creation and its creator. Genesis 1 says that creation
is good. Very good. It speaks of the relationship between earth and earthling, adam (man) and adama (ground). It pictures
humanity created in the image of God and of the earth, humanity in intimate relationship with all of the creatures, "everything
that has the breath of life." A good myth gives a people meaning and orientation. Genesis 1 is a good myth. Like science
it tells us that we came from the dirt and from the primates. I like being connected to the whole thing, divine and created.
Huckabee properly pled agnosticism when asked was it six days six thousand years ago. It's not that kind of story! We
look to science for that kind of story. Myth tells us who and why and what meaning is behind the great questions of life.
Science tells us the how and the what and the when of life.
Both the religious myth and the scientific story are somewhat settled and somewhat open.
We have a Biblical text; it is pretty settled. But its depth and meaning and interpretation are endlessly open to new
discovery and nuance.
We have a science, evolution; it is pretty settled. The fundamental principles of evolution are as proved and established
as any biological matters. But in the endless inquiry of science and its pursuit of truth, each generation offers its clarification
and nuance to the whole.
When religious people fail to see the separate genres of truth and try to treat the Bible as a scientific document, we
end up with needless confusion and conflict. A column in this paper a few weeks ago took it to its absurd extreme, counting
Charles Darwin as the most threatening cultist in world history. Amazing. And so unnecessary.
Let Genesis be Genesis and let science be science. They each have their category of truth. When they are confused, truth
is hijacked. We only end up with irrationally literal religion and junk science.
|
