God the Creator? A sermon text.

I have been asked to publish the text of last night's sermon on God as creator. Here it is but if you listen online you will find some slight differences. I also preached on the same subject in the morning at Trendlewood but missed out the bit about Dagon and added one or two pieces of local interest.




It should appear here later in the week. The Trendlewood one has already been uploaded here.




Holy Trinity, Nailsea

26/1/14

Genesis 2:4-18

God 3 - Creator




The idea of this year is that we do Son, Father and Spirit. Having covered Encounters with Jesus in the autumn of 2103, spring 2014 is to be Father. Summer 2014 will be Holy Spirit.




Spring is in two parts. In part one we look at some of God's eternal qualities. These will give us the bedrock from which we can move into the less comfortable ground. In Lent we we look at some of the struggles and balances we have in understanding God from our human perspective.




Part 1 (Epiphany - Lent)

God's eternal qualities. We establish who he IS. We have looked at:

1. Exists (Genesis 1:1 - first four words, Psalm 14:1)

2. Separate and yet personal (Colossians 1:15, Job 38ff)




Now:

3. Creator




In the environment of the 4th-7th century BC, when the four main editors of the biblical accounts were putting together their work, the world view was not that there was one god but that there were gods. And it had been revealed to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph and the prophets who followed that Yahweh, the Lord, was their God and they shall have no other gods but Yahweh.




This gradually became the great monotheistic religion (mono = 1 theos = god) of Judaism. But it was monotheistic in the face of other nations other gods.




In 1 Samuel 5 there is a great story. Philistines capture the ark. What shall we do with it?




They put it in the only place they can think of. In the temple of their God - Dagon. The Philistines think they have God in a box; subject to their god so they put it next to their God.




These Philistines knew of the reputation of the Hebrew God. 1 Samuel 4:5-9. Yet they won and captured the ark. The story goes on to explain, in amazing style, that the Philistines may have captured the ark but they don't, as they appear to think, have God in a box. We are created; God is not crated.




Their god Dagon keeps falling over. The ark is taken elsewhere but wherever it goes the people suffer tumours. Eventually they return the ark with gold rats and tumours (lovely) as an offering.




The OT is very anti-idol. Why?




Compare and contrast Genesis 1 and 2. So the creation stories in Genesis, of which there are two in parallel, (more in a bit) are written as what we call polemic. They are in opposition to other creation stories.




The other nations had gods of the sea, gods of the mountains, gods of the harvest, gods of fertility, gods of their country, gods of the town. A god for all seasons and a god for all reasons. Gods who did their best with the raw materials of human offering and, if appeased properly, made them prosper.




Theologians looked at the Genesis accounts which I am sure you know well. The first account is Genesis 1:1-2:3. The six day account ending with God creating human beings in his own image, male and female and then resting. The whole story is complete with god resting on the Sabbath. It gives us a clue that it is a lovely story to answer a child's question. 'Daddy why don't we work on the Sabbath?'




The second account has a change of style; the order of the first account is altered. There are streams before rain. Male and female are described as created separately. Plants are created for humans to give them food to eat. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil sits, majestic and separate, in the middle of all.




(If we look at the end the children's questions it answers are, amongst others, why is childbirth painful and why do snakes slither.)




Theologians looked at this account and said. Do you know what the God of the Israelites does that the other gods don't do?




And they called it, in Latin, creatio ex nihilo - creation out of nothing.




What sort of creative are we? Probably not ex nihilo. Most of our creativity is doing our best with pre-exisiting parts. Building with raw materials. Painting with oils, water-colours or mixed media. Writing with words. Even music, which comes close, is about arranging noises that already exist in a new order. But we often get reminded of one piece of music by another.




Films are described in language that explains a new movie in terms of the old. The most famous film pitch of all time was a screen-writer trying to get a producer to grasp the first film in the Alien franchise. The explanation he came up with: It's Jaws - in space.




We are not creative in the same way as God but we are made in the image of God. We are the idol.




As we talk about God as creator we find ourselves accused of being creationists - a word that has become an insult.




We believe in a creator God who made human beings as the pinnacle of his creation and who wants us to be his envoys. Jesus is (Colossians 1) the likeness of the invisible God; we are the image of the invisible God. Jesus clearly represents; we point.




My understanding of God as creator does not belong in science classes. The Bible is not, and has never been intended to be, a science text book. It is the developing story of God's relationship with his people, and theirs with him, and how they understood God.




For me there is nothing historical about Genesis 1-11. Not all truth is historical truth.




The blood-lusting, confused picture of God (in the OT) is the one anti-creationists such as Richard Dawkins and Alice Roberts say is wrong. I believe they are right.




A creator God, who creates humankind ex nihilo is bigger than any god the contemporary atheists have knocked down.




For me evolution, the belief that by millions of very minor step changes over huge swathes of time the pinnacle of creation arrives in the same way that all creatures adapt or die points to a much bigger god than one who literally makes people out of dust in an instant. To have a plan so grand that it encompasses evolution and the wait for that to work itself out. Now that's a big God.




So any idea that we can pin this God down in order to knock him down is laughable. It is he who knocks down, as Dagon followers discovered.




Our response to being created by a creator who wants us to represent him is to be a difference in our community.




I went to see the comedian Mark Thomas last night. He is a man who has devoted the whole of his comedy life to making the life of the poor and oppressed better. This foul-mouthed comedian has made a difference. Made in the image of God his 100 minor acts of dissent this year will have improved lives for those who are underpaid, those who are forced to see display pornography in newsagents, (those large firms who pay their tax offshore), those women in Saudi Arabia who wish to drive and homosexuals in Russia. Puts us to shame.




The God who began, will end and in the middle sustains wants us to make a difference. Or he wasted the breath he breathed into us.




Revelation 4:11




Silence to end.




I am not a scientist. I believe the way to act wisely is to follow and believe the current accepted norms of the majority of scientists. Thus my views.




I had a number of comments. I expected quite a lot because this is a church where the young earth creationism of Noah's Ark Zoo farm has a lot of supporters. I was surprised. One man told me it had been an articulation of exactly what he had been trying to say for years. Another felt it should be published in the Guardian. Still another said my left-wing credentials were fully on view.




A person who told me she agreed with everything I said then explained how she believed in evolution apart from of human beings. Man was created but everything else evolved, she said, in effect. Her evolutionary understanding is the species-only one - yes, the one Noah's Ark espouse. She is a teacher. I explained that evolution is not something you can pick and choose a bit of. It is either true or it isn't. Someone joined her and between them they mentioned the usual, well-rehearsed arguments:




Evolution is only a theory

Darwin didn't want to publish

There's no evidence that humans evolved from apes




To be honest I am bored of knocking down these points so discredited are they.




A man who is one of my best listeners - always has something to say - told me he had not followed my argument very well and wanted to listen again. I agreed I had been trying to cram a lot in. He suggested I might have been better to have been even briefer.

Creation Good - Creationism Bad?

I am preaching the third in a series tomorrow, on God as creator. It is a tougher subject than it used to be. And whose fault is that?

I want to set that up a bit this morning.

You see whenever those who are not members of the faith community, and in particular those who would not call themselves Jesus-followers, hear the word creation these days they hear 'creationist'. And when they hear 'creationist' they hear 'fruit-loops'.

So all of us who believe in a greater power, a higher force, an uncaused cause, a prime-mover, a logos (made flesh or otherwise) have to do a lot of explaining that 'what creationists think' and 'what many normal Christians think' are not the same thing. Even though I do believe in a creator he is bigger, by definition, than the creationists can possibly imagine. He is bigger than the knock-god-down opponents describe. For the god they usually knock down is too small.

I watched the last episode of Series 1 of Aaron Sorkin's 'The Newsroom' last night. In it news anchor Will McEvoy (Jeff Daniels), who is portrayed as a liberalish Republican (bless), unleashes an amazing anti-Tea Party rant. In short he says how dare anyone suggest that God might be on their political side. It is why the founding fathers left religion out of it. And from this he deduces that there is not a single 'Christian position' on a whole load of issues.

My understanding of God as creator does not belong in science classes. The Bible is not, and has never been intended to be, a science text book. It is the developing story of God's relationship with his people, and theirs with him, and how they understood God. In the Old Testament they thought he was a warrior God who gave battle victory in response to obedience. They were wrong. They thought he liked them setting animals on fire as a sacrifice. They were confused. They thought he wanted them to sacrifice their children. He didn't. How do we know? The don't-kill-your-children thing was revealed early (to Abraham on a mountain). Then Jesus, the likeness of the invisible God (Colossians 1), told us and showed us the rest.

If we take a literal approach to the Old Testament (and it occurs to me that those who do are still very selective) then we have to concoct all sorts of complex theories, unacceptable to the majority of the scientific community, to explain why the dates add up, why evolution is discredited and only a theory and why the search for the actual Garden of Eden, or Ark of Noah, is worth carrying out.

For me there is nothing historical about Genesis 1-11. Not all truth is historical truth.

The blood-lusting, confused picture of God is the one anti-creationists such as Richard Dawkins and Alice Roberts say is wrong. They are right.

So what picture of God as creator is right? Find out tomorrow. Trendlewood Church at 1015 or Holy Trinity, Nailsea at 1830.

Peripheral Vision

Shavings has discussed before how the evolutionary deck has dealt men better long-sight (spotting distant targets) and women superior near-sight (embracing family, keeping the children close). That is why the woman next to you smacks your knee when you pick your nose. You don't understand how she can possibly see, but she can. She can.

This ability means that a woman is probably better at seeing two things at the same time whilst men concentrate on one. Multi-tasking anyone?

On the football field an assistant referee is required to observe if anyone is in an offside position at the moment the ball is kicked to them. This involves focusing on two separate fields of activity at the same time.

Anyone like to take a wild guess as to which gender should, in theory, be better at this?

I didn't write this only to be able to use the labels 'football,' 'evolution' and 'sexism' on the same post but it does make me happy.

Worms and Defence Mechanisms

A news item on Radio 4's Today programme was interestingly reported just now. To summarise, a parasite which feeds on caterpillars has the effect of turning the host red. This appears, research shows, to deter predators from eating the caterpillar. Birds are suspicious of food that is the wrong colour. Aren't we all?

The thing I found interesting in the piece is that the reporter said something to the effect that this is the first time a parasite has been found to protect itself in such a way.

And that language is to endow a minuscule, parasitic worm with the power of self-defence as if it meant it, consciously. The rest of the report was full of similar language.

More likely is that evolution will have ensured that only those parasitic nematodes which caused the unexpected side-effect survived. The rest got eaten by birds.

How we anthropomorphise.

Alternative Worlds

I was interested in the discussion on Radio 4's The Museum of Curiosities about The Omega Point. This is the point to which all light will eventually converge and so, rather than being able to put it in a museum, the panel reached the conclusion that they should put the museum in it. It encompasses all possible alternatives and all possible worlds. Even if everything that can happen does happen The Omega Point still contains it.

It left me with the vaguely awkward feeling that somewhere there might be a world where Margaret Thatcher said something right but... No, it's too far fetched.

According to Wikipedia:

'In this (Omega Point) theory, the universe is constantly developing towards higher levels of material complexity and consciousness, a theory of evolution that Teilhard (de Chardin) called the Law of Complexity/Consciousness. For Teilhard, the universe can only move in the direction of more complexity and consciousness if it is being drawn by a supreme point of complexity and consciousness.

'Thus Teilhard postulates the Omega Point as the supreme point of complexity and consciousness, which is not only as the term of the evolutionary process, but is also the actual cause for the universe to grow in complexity and consciousness. In other words, the Omega Point exists as supremely complex and conscious, independent of the evolving universe. I.e., the Omega Point is transcendent. In interpreting the universe this way, Teilhard kept the Omega Point within the orthodox views of the Christian God, who is transcendent (independent) of his creation.

'Teilhard argued that the Omega Point resembles the Christian Logos, namely Christ, who draws all things into himself, who in the words of the Nicene Creed, is 'God from God', 'Light from Light', 'True God from true God,' and 'through him all things were made...'

Make what you wish of this theory but it does give a rather cunning answer to evolutionary scientists such as Richard Dawkins who insist that God cannot be a prime cause of life because life develops from the simple to the complex. Mr D. You're looking for God in the wrong direction.

In case anyone isn't aware, The Museum of Curiosities is a comedy programme.

Autumn Watch

I was an avid devotee of BBC's Springwatch and so now try and watch Autumnwatch whenever I can. It's a brilliant programme but mainly for observation of John Ruskin's '...nature red in tooth and bloody in claw' than for the beauty of creation all around. It's a different type of beauty this. Take, the rut, for instance.

This time of year the stags start to round up the females and try and keep them on the 'rutting slopes' so that they are ready for that brief moment when they become 'in season.' (When the moment does come it is all over rather quickly).

Whilst waiting for this time the males wander around covering their antlers deliberately in grass, roaring (which is what the word rut means in latin) and having head to heads with challengers. I wonder if this is where the expression 'feeling horny' comes from?

These head to heads are vicious, ending with broken antlers and bloody faces. The losers look worse. All this ensures that only the fittest males get to mate.

Down on the beach the male seals have similar problems. Only they have no antlers so they compete by biting chunks out of each others necks. When the winners - the biggest, fattest, toughest, blubberiest males - get to mate it is once again time for neck-biting, which has to be sore by then.

And all this ensures that each species continues because only those deer and seals which can produce young with a top chance of survival get to bonk. Respect to one, particularly ugly stag with only one antler, who nipped in and tried to score while the tough guys weren't looking. It's a technique I was proud of in my teens.

'But why are people important to you?
Why do you take care of human beings?'
(Psalm 8:4 New Century Bible)

The psalmist asked great questions.

Evolution

Did anyone else see the piece in the Independent on Monday about suggested necessary alterations to the human evolution project in the light of current culture? They included:

• Smaller finger tips to operate Palm Pilots etc
• A rutting season rather than seeking sex all year round
• Genitals separated from excretory organs; perhaps by being placed under the armpit
• Two hearts to cope with change in diet from fruit/berries to pasties/pies
• Two livers to cope with alcohol (A German cafe owner was saying on the radio he sold 120 beers to 9 England fans before breakfast one day)
• Remove sinuses, tonsils and appendixes (help, what's the Latin plural?)
• Strengthen neck muscles
• Strengthen hip and knee joints

Forgetting for a moment the misunderstandings about evolution inherent in expecting that more than a couple of these will give a long-term, survival advantage, what would you like to evolve?

Bindweed

If you pull up the green shoots they break off.

If you dig out the roots, and accidentally drop more than an inch of the stuff back into the ground it takes root again.

So there is little alternative but to use chemicals unless you really want to avoid having chemicals in your garden in which case you need to dig down to get it all out and sort through the earth pile too. So we did.

After fifteen inches I experienced the bone-shuddering impact of my fork against something concrete. Excavating away I discovered a paving slab. Widening the search I found the paving slab was laid perfectly next to another and eventually I exposed a flat, paved area underneath the bed which may once have been the base for a shed, or simply a small slabbed area for a table and chairs.

The bindweed grew up through a couple of cracks in this, extending into the compost heap (see previous posts) which I had to move, sorry about the smell.

So, do we use dynamite?

All respect to bindweed. It survives. If bindweed man existed he'd take all the other super-heroes single handed.

Richard Dawkins

Watched the second of Dawkins' two programmes about religion last night. I missed the first but had heard it wasn't as good as we might have expected from a professor charged with the advancement of science. He did continue his attack on paper tigers - most intelligent Christians I know would have felt the three particular enemies he picked on - separatist Jewish communities, extreme Christian faith schools teaching intelligent design and US hellfire preaching were worth having a go at.

He was also constrained by the fact that he would have been in danger if he'd said, 'The Prophet was barking mad' but was quite happy to state that Jesus was. Christians are genuinely, by and large, slow to take offence.

More interesting, and I wished it had gone on for longer, was the interview with Richard Harries.

I think there was a good TV programme and an intelligent debate trying to get out of the screen last night but it stayed stuck in. Is it really only a faith position that makes people oppose abortion? For someone who insists that truths are only truths if verifiable scientifically I wanted to see better research into this statement. Likewise, '...only religion can make good people bad.' Dawkins seems to have decided what is bad in a very unscientific way.

Anyway, as Nick Pollard says in this brilliant Damaris article, where is the scientific backing for a statement such as , 'You should only believe what is verifiable by science?' It is as daft a statement as 'I don't know a word of English' or 'I am absolutely convinced there are no absolute truths.'

I long for Christians to engage their brains in this debate but the way Dawkins does his work he is too easy to ignore. If we and he are shooting at the same targets where's the battle?

Those who want their thinking about science and creation stretched a bit might read this from last Saturday's Guardian.

The Evolution of the Eye

In the swamp were blind creatures. Blind because they were eyeless. If they swam too near the surface, birds would pick them off and eat them.

Due to a lack of nutrients one year some of the creatures developed thinner skin than the others. They didn't last long. Apart from the ones that developed thinner skin over the cerebral cortex. These were able to react, just about, to light. They swam away from it, not liking its unusual nature. They preferred the dark.

And those who swam deeper, away from the surface, away from the light, survived. Soon all the survivors had thinner skin over the cerebral cortex because these were the only ones left alive to breed.

Every now and again, in the cycle of nutrient rich/bad nutrient seasons, some creatures developed which had very thin skin over the cerebral cortex. Not only could they react to light but they could respond to the shadows on the surface of the swamp when a bird swooped. These creatures lived, bred and soon all the surviving creatures had very thin skin near their brains which reacted to light. The thinner the skin, the more eye-like it looked and the more eye-like it was the greater the chances of the creature's survival.

Over a period of time all the creatures in the swamp that lived and bred could 'see' in much the same way as we can.

Sadly a nearly-human tribe came along which found these 'eyes' a delicacy and soon the seeing swamp creatures were completely extinct. Life's a bitch. But if anyone ever uses that illustration again about the unlikeliness of watches having designers yet eyes falling together by accident I swear I'll poke their eyes out. Evolution takes a huge amount of time. Eye poking is instantaneous.