Looking for more openness - and absentee ballots!

Here's a comment from someone looking for more openness in our discussion of issues at La Casa. I've added my observations as well.

Anonymous said ...
The word of God is infallible but human interpretation is not. Women do not wear scarves in church etc, etc,. we know that some of scripture is culturally bound and we do not give it the weight that we might others. The idea that somehow our "society" is what causes these issues in the church is a tad ludicrous.

 The differences with interpretation have been with the church for over 50 years. And certainly the Nazi regime was supported by good Christians that thought they understood scripture and were well meaning. That is not the response of society but actually happened.

Your interpretation of scripture may in fact be as off target as the Lutheran church's was in Germany. The point of this blog, it seems to me, is to point out that to avoid those same mistakes we need to have more open discussion.


 So if the word of god is infallible could you give me a short explanation as to why we have two creation stories? and, by all means please let me know which one is infallible. I've never understood which one actually took place.

Thank you for your post.  I believe that you have hit on the very questions that we deal with every day in our attempts to walk with Christ.  Humankind is flawed. Members of humankind have been inspired by God to create the scriptures from events and revelation in the form of oral stories that have been handed down generation to generation perhaps for thousands of years. 

As Reverend Watkins points out in his article below, there are certain differences contained within scripture that cannot be ignored, this being one of them.  To say that the scripture can be flawed is common sense.  It was written down by scribes who were human.  To say that the Word of God is flawed is just not so.  So how then, are we as humankind, to know which path is the correct one?   We associate ourselves with a spiritual leader and follow his educated lead.  However, as we progress in our stewardship to the Lord, we evolve and ask questions and our faith constantly grows to encompass more and more information.

In the situation in which we find ourselves now, we are being forced down a path by leadership and although that little voice in each of us is screaming out to take another look and discuss and learn more, we are not being allowed the privilege of doing so. We have not been given adequate tools, both pro and con, to discern for ourselves which interpretation to follow. To answer your question directly, I submit the following interpretation by Rev. James W. Watkins.

WHICH CREATION STORY?
The Rev. James W. Watkins

Creationists call us to believe the Biblical creation story as a literal account of historical events. However, Genesis contains two distinctly different creation accounts. Which creation story are they calling us to "literally" believe?

For generations, serious students of Scripture have noted stark divisions and variations in the age of the Hebrew, its style and language within Genesis. As we have it now, Genesis is actually a composite of three written primary sources, each with its own character, favorite words and distinctly different names for God. Such differences all but evaporate when translated into English, but they are clear in the ancient Hebrew text.

The first creation account, Genesis. 1:1 to Genesis. 2:4a, was written during or after the Jews' Babylonian captivity. This fully developed story explains creation in terms of the ancient near eastern world view of its time. A watery chaos is divided by the dome (firmament) of the sky. The waters under the dome are gathered and land appears. Lights are affixed in the dome. All living things are created. The story pictures God building the cosmos as a supporting ecosystem for humanity. Finally, humanity, both male and female, is created, and God rests.

The second Creation story, Genesis 2:4b to 2:25, found its written form several centuries before the Genesis. 1:1 story. This text is a less developed and much older story. It was probably passed down for generations around the camp fires of desert dwellers before being written. It begins by describing a desert landscape, no plants or herbs, no rain; only a mist arises out of the earth. Then the Lord God forms man of the dust of the ground, creates an oasis-like Garden of Eden to support the "man whom he had formed." In this story, God creates animal life while trying to provide the man "a helper fit for him." None being found, God takes a rib from the man's side and creates the first woman. These two creation stories clearly arise out of different histories and reflect different concerns with different sequences of events. Can they either or both be literal history? Obviously not.

Many serious students of Scripture consider the first eleven chapters of Genesis as non-literal, pre-history type literature, with Abram in Genesis. 12:1 being the first literal historical figure in the Bible. This understanding of Genesis causes an uproar in some quarters. In most church communities, little of this textual study has filtered down to the pew. But, in their professional training, vast numbers of clergy have been exposed to this type of literary scriptural analysis.

In my over 28 years as a pastor, I have encountered many people who are unnecessarily conflicted because they have been made to believe that, to be faithfully religious, one must take a literal view of the Genesis creation accounts. Faced with their scientific understandings going one direction and their spiritual search another, many have felt compelled to give up their spiritual search altogether. This all too common reaction is an unnecessary shame!

So, the next time someone asks you if you believe the Biblical story of creation, just remember the correct reply: "To which Biblical creation story do you refer?"

Rev. James W. Watkins has been pastor of Old South Church, United Church of Christ, Kirtland, OH, since November of 1993. Over a 28-year ministerial career, Rev. Watkins has been pastor of six churches. In addition to his pastoral work, Rev. Watkins is an author, educator, and community activist.

Anonymous said ...
We should be allowed absentee ballots. This process has been controlled and managed and biased from the beginning.

I agree most wholeheartedly!  A previous poster maintains that this is unmanageable.  It seems to work just fine for Government to have absentee or early voting.  I would argue that that assumption is simply not true.  It can be and would be a most useful tool in this and other events regarding congregational direction.  However, I am forced to agree with your final statement.  What are we so afraid of that we can’t submit ourselves and scriptural interpretations to closer scrutiny?