Cracks in the pavement: an emerging story of new creation
|
This essay was originally written for Restoring Eden, a Christian environmental network, as an attempt to ‘outline a narrative eschatology… that would validate a positive creational theology’. In the interests of cross-pollination they have kindly allowed me to post it here in advance of its publication on www.restoringeden.org. So please buzz over there and sprinkle the pollen of Open Source Theology on the sexy anthers of Restoring Eden. And vice versa. The essay is written from inside the emerging church conversation. It does not presume to represent an emerging church consensus, but it shares two key concerns: that the ‘mission’ of the church should in some way embrace the whole of creation, and that our theology should be constructed in the first place as narrative. It attempts, therefore, to explain the relation between the church and creation simply by means of a retelling of the biblical story. A world-within-a-worldThe call of Abram was a call to restart creation. Humanity was not working properly. When people first began to multiply on the face of the land (so the story goes), God saw the extent of human wickedness and the violence that filled the earth and decided to sweep away in a cataclysmic flood the life that had been created. After the flood people began again to multiply and spread across the earth, but when they came to a plain in the land of Shinar, they settled and began to build a city for themselves and a tower that would reach the heavens. Fearing that humanity would over-reach itself, the Lord again acted in judgment, scattering the people across the face of the earth and confusing their speech. So we have a humanity with a strong propensity for violence, with ambitions to make a name for itself by means of its technological ingenuity, dispersed throughout the world in isolated linguistic groups. At this point God intervenes again, not to judge this time but to initiate something new. He promises Abram that he will make him a great nation. He will bless him and make his name great; he will make him fruitful, he will multiply his descendants so that they will be like the dust of the earth, as the stars of heaven; and most importantly he will give to those descendants the land of Canaan, in which they will prosper. The language is, of course, familiar. The promise that they will be blessed, that they will be fruitful and be multiplied and fill the land clearly invokes the creational paradigm of Genesis 1:28: ‘And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth….”’ With one significant difference this is a renewal of humanity – the difference being that the whole earth has been replaced by the small but fecund land of Canaan. Humanity has failed to carry out the original mandate on a global scale, so a people is brought into existence to be that creation in microcosm, in the midst of the nations of the earth. When Israel eventually gains possession of the land, the covenant with Moses sets out the conditions under which they will enjoy the goodness of their creation-within-a-creation, their Eden in the world. Deuteronomy 28 is especially important here. If they obey the voice of the Lord their God and keep his commandments and statutes, all will be well; they will be blessed and will be a blessing to others. If they fail to obey the voice of God, both they and their environment will be cursed, just as creation was originally cursed by Adam’s disobedience. They will suffer sickness and drought; their livestock will be barren; their crops will fail; they will be defeated and killed by their enemies; ultimately, they will be driven from the land and exiled among the nations. The call to be an authentic creation in microcosm, humanity in prosperous harmony with its environment, almost gets drowned out in the noisy progress of Israel’s history. But not quite. The psalmists never forget that the earth and its fulness belong to the Lord, that the created order declares the glory of God, that the trees of the forest will sing for joy before the Lord when he comes to judge the earth. This is undoubtedly poetic language but it at least reminds the worshipping community that we approach the Lord of heaven and earth as creatures in an ecosystem. Spinning into night The prophets also understand that Israel’s story is mirrored in its environment. When Israel sins, the earth suffers with it: ‘The earth mourns and withers; the world languishes and withers…. The earth lies defiled under its inhabitants; for they have transgressed the laws, violated the statutes, broken the everlasting covenant. Therefore a curse devours the earth, and its inhabitants suffer for their guilt… (Isaiah 24:3-6). And when the hope of forgiveness and restoration breaks through the clouds, creation rejoices and will be renewed: ‘For you shall go out in joy and be led forth in peace; the mountains and the hills before you shall break forth into singing, and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands. Instead of the thorn shall come up the cypress; instead of the brier shall come up the myrtle; and it shall make a name for the LORD, an everlasting sign that shall not be cut off’ (Isaiah 55:13). But now we come to an important question. What happens to this hope? For we are at a point in the story when the lights are beginning to go out. Israel’s small, troubled world-within-a-world is spinning into night. The people are torn apart by injustice and sectarianism, misruled by their kings and priests, bullied by their various pagan overlords; the sanctity of the temple and Jerusalem is repeatedly threatened by the presence of Gentiles. It’s all moving towards a dramatic, indeed horrifying, climax. The final collapse of the microcosm is announced emphatically by Jesus. Invading armies will devastate the land; the city of the great king, the house of the living God, will be destroyed; the people will be slaughtered or once again scattered in confusion across the earth. It has all become a house built on sand that will not escape being swept away when the floods come. In the beginning was the wordBut there would not be nothing left. A new creational microcosm would emerge from the ruins of the old, a new world-within-a-world would be born. This, I would argue, is fundamentally what is saved by Jesus – to cut a long story much too short. He is the Word that brings a new creation into existence; he is the life of this new world; he is the light that dispels the darkness of ignorance and folly; he is the tabernacle, the place of God’s dwelling in its midst; he is Jacob, the beginning of a new people, called to demonstrate to the world what it means to be authentic humanity. How that renewal comes about takes us to the heart of the New Testament story. Jesus gathers a community around himself that must survive the violent disintegration of the old age and the traumatic birth of the new. It is a community that will have to share his trust in the Father, that will have to walk the same narrow path that he walked, carrying the cross that he carried – rejection, humiliation, harrassment, ill-treatment, and quite possibly death. It is a community that must be prepared to suffer the birthpains of the coming age for the sake of God’s reign over this emerging humanity, for the sake of God’s presence in the midst of this world-within-a-world. My argument in The Coming of the Son of Man is that what made sense of these circumstances and gave hope to the church as it faced the hostility of Roman imperialism was the story that Jesus and others told about one like a son of man who would be seen – just as Daniel ‘saw’ him – coming on the clouds of heaven to the throne of the Ancient of Days to receive ‘dominion and glory and a kingdom’. This human figure is not simply an individual. He is also the suffering community of the righteous, the saints of the Most High, against whom an arrogant and blasphemous pagan power makes war. It is a frightening vision, but it carries the profound assurance that God will defeat his enemies and vindicate those who trust in him. The vindication of the persecuted church, both the living and the dead, marks the end of the long eschatological night. The microcosm is spinning into the light again, but with a new king, a new lord, and the Spirit of God possessing the hearts of its people. The perennial hope of a renewed humanity is not to be with God in heaven – that is at most an anomaly, a digression, a subplot in the story of God’s world-within-a-world. The hope is that God will make all things new (Revelation 21:5). There will be a new heaven and a new earth, in which there will be no more suffering, no more pain, no more injustice and violence, no more decay and death; and the dwelling of God will be with humanity. That is the vision that defines the scope of our vocation. If at first you don’t succeed…When the early church eventually emerged battered but vindicated from its long struggle with Rome, it set about the task of being new humanity. Ironically, but perhaps not surprisingly, the model of human society it adopted was the imperial one: a highly structured, hierarchically governed polity that aspired to bring the whole earth under its control. The creational microcosm of Christendom lasted in one form or another for 1500 years – a mixed blessing to the world. But the paradigm has now collapsed under the weight of history, and we are again having to ask what it means to be an authentic humanity on display in the world. The challenge that we face, then, is both practical and prophetic. We always have to be the new creation, which means three things: that we make the creative God central to our life as community; that we demonstrate a commitment to justice and love amongst ourselves that heals the deep divisions and hurts of the old world; and that we respect the ‘land’ that has been given to us – we cannot be a world-within-the-world without taking the created environment into account. But in pursuing this agenda we should also be a sign to the world that things could be different; we make an alternative way of being human visible. That is a prophetic function, and it calls for a collective imagination that will dramatize, publicize, inflate, amplify the story of a God who makes all things new – just as the prophet from Nazareth transformed a simple journey into Jerusalem into a powerful and subversive story about the coming of God as king to defeat his enemies and deliver his people from oppression. In this post-modern, post-Christendom age the world-within-a-world that we are called to be is bound to exist marginally, in the cracks in our societies – like grass and weeds growing through cracks in the pavement. But we exist prophetically – and that is a powerful way to be. |
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this page
Comments
Re: Cracks in the pavement: an emerging story of new creation
A great retelling, Andrew. Particularly good in tracing the ‘recovery of Eden’ motif through Abraham and Israel’s history. It has never gone away, and is still relevant today.
Like a crack in the record though, my response is as it always has been, that the “the vindication of the persecuted church - - - mark(ing) the end of the long eschatological night” happened at Pentecost (before its coming persecution, actually) rather than in the church emerging unscathed albeit persecuted through the judgements of (when? AD 70? Rome’s fall?).
‘Vindication’ was primarily the vindication of Jesus through his resurrection/ascension, the proof of which was the outpouring of the eschatological Spirit on his vindicated believers (not mentioned in your account, which follows by a line of eschatolological logic from the death of Jesus, through the resurrection and ascension). That outpouring was of relevance to this earth, because God’s plans have always been for this earth. Jesus’s resurrection was the beginning of the new creation in place of the end of the old creation - even though the two must live in overlap until the completion of the new creation.
Also I’m not sure it’s fair to say that the ‘old paradigms’ can be lumped together with 1500 years of imperial Christianity, which are also related to an idea that Christianity is primarily about what happens when you die, and is not ‘this earthly’ focused, and that these paradigms are like heavy paving slabs through which the weeds of the new theology must grow (as embodied in the new theologians/emergent communities).
Anyway, where was this meant to be posted - on this site, or on Restoring Eden?
- Login or register to post comments
- view as page
The relation of "Cracks in the pavement" to the scriptures
This comment has been moved here.
- Login or register to post comments
- view as page
Re: Cracks in the pavement: an emerging story of new creation
Again awesome storytelling andrew! Very prophetic and accessible to amateurs like me! It has been a while since I read such a good sum up of the story!
- Login or register to post comments
- view as page
Re: Cracks in the pavement: an emerging story of new creation
In reading your narrative I (no doubt mistakenly) infer that you see God as having intended a proper “creational” humanity apart from the Christ of the gospels. The implication is that Adam and Eve were intended to be fruitful and multiply in a sin-free manner, not eating of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (they weren’t, so were expelled and cursed), that their descendants were intended to live in close fellowship with God and the land (they weren’t so God drowned them all), that Noah’s descendants were intended to live in harmony with creation and with God (they weren’t so God confused their speech), that Israel was intended to make up in part for Adam’s failure by being fruitful and multiplying in the land of Canaan, a model of harmonious living (she failed, and thus was destroyed), all requiring God’s Plan E—the church.
But wasn’t the church God’s Plan A all along? Before Adam was created and placed in Eden, God already planned Abraham, Israel, and Christ. A biblical narrative, then, should see what God planned and actually accomplished in Adam, Noah, Abraham, and Israel—not as imperfect plans that failed and were set aside, but as necessary steps leading to a single destination.
Adam and his descendants and Israel were not expected to fulfill a single creational mandate, but the fulfillment of that mandate was designed to incorporate successive stages. The new did not come because the old was found wanting, but rather the new came because the old had accomplished its purpose and the stage was set for the new. The old is found wanting only when it is considered as an end in itself.
Consider this narrative: I wanted a place to keep warm and to sleep at nights. I dug a hole, but the hole didn’t keep me warm. It was an uncomfortable place to sleep. I filled it in with concrete, formed to a pleasing geometric shape. But the concrete didn’t have any place for me to take shelter against the wind and rain. I used poles and built a scaffold around the concrete block. Though I used many poles, and attached them well, there were too many gaps for the scaffolding to serve as an adequate shelter; it failed to fulfill my dreams of a place to call home. Finally, I put together some walls and a roof. I covered over the hole and the concrete slab and destroyed the scaffolding; the walls and roof remain, finally succeeding in being the shelter I wanted all along. Vindication!
- Login or register to post comments
- view as page
pavement in paradise?
Andrew -
Your essay clearly states a position that’s consistent with Scripture as I understand it. Can you clarify a couple points, neither of which affects the thrust of what you’ve written in the article?
First, you note that God set Israel apart as His people among the nations, promising them Canaan as a world within the world. The Jewish microcosm collapses, but Jesus gathers to himself a remnant from which a new creation would arise. You continue to use the world-within-a-world language with respect to God’s new people. Do you propose that, like Israel, the new people are promised a land of their own that’s a microcosm of the physical earth? Is it the same place that the Jews were promised?
When in Romans 9-11 Paul talks about grafting new branches into the olive tree that is a type for Israel, he refers to “the Gentiles,” or ethnos in Greek. Ethnos is a collective term referring to a tribe, a nation, or a people. The term is usually reserved for nations other than the Jews, which is clearly Paul’s intent. By implication, Christ assembles a new people through the ingrafting not heathen individuals but entire heathen nations. Presumably this is in fulfillment of God’s promise to make Abraham “the father of many nations” in Genesis 17:5 (Paul translates “nations” as ethnos when quoting this promise in Romans 4:17).Other nations have lands other than the land promised to Israel. So if the new people of God are promised a new world-within-a-world, where is it? Wouldn’t it the cumulative territory of all ingrafted nations; i.e., the microcosm = the macrocosm? However, the new people are a remnant, a subset of every ethnos, including Israel. Are the remnant expected to gather themselves into physical communities that constitute microcosms, separating themselves physically from territories controlled by those portions of the ethnoi that have not been grafted in? Or is the physical inheritance a promise to be fulfilled “in that day,” when the whole world comes under Christ’s dominion?
Second, you speak of the world-within-a-world as occupying the margins of our societies, “like grass and weeds growing through cracks in the pavement.” I appreciate the cogency of a green metaphor for your article’s target audience. I wonder, though, whether there is any sanctified and redeemed pavement in the new creation as you imagine it. You cite Babel as the kind of creation that fallen man tends to construct – a creation that God would chose to destroy rather than remodel. On the other hand, Genesis 1 says that man collectively is made in the image of God, which as I read the text means that man, like God, is capable of creating. God saw that the creation was good – which presumably included man’s creatorliness.
Man has certainly been a busy creator over the millennia. Art, architecture, science, technology, economics, agriculture, language, mathematics – the entire apparatus of human culture constitutes an ongoing collective human creation. Will all of it be swept away like Babel, or is at least some of it redeemable in the new/renewed creation? Can God use all of it for good for those who love Him and who are called according to his purpose? I don’t think there’s a definitive Scriptural position on this issue, which leaves plenty of room for speculation. Or does it?
- Login or register to post comments
- view as page
For whose sake?
Just a thought which came from your closing sentance there:
“So we might ask: How can the church exploit or subvert the macrocosm for the sake of the micrcosm?”
Which led me to re-read the whole thing and question a basic assumption which I think (sorry if I am mistaken) I found in your explanation of the narrative. Everytime God destroys the old creation and starts afresh, does he do this in order to establish the ideal within the microcosm? Or in order to establish this ideal, in order that the microcosm would inspire, and lead the rest of creation (the environment, those outside of it etc) towards this ideal?
- Login or register to post comments
- view as page
Re: From before the foundation of the world?
Reacting to my response, you say you don’t see overruling purpose in the Genesis narrative; yet your narrative implied it did have man-and-creation purpose. You say your essay is a retelling of the biblical story, yet criticize my response as not being exegetical within the confines of isolated texts. You object, perhaps, to my retelling of Abram’s narrative as a necessary step leading to Christ on the basis that this interpretation is not good exegesis, yet your retelling of Abram’s narrative casts it in terms of “a call to restart creation,” presumably better exegesis? You say your essay is part of a Christian conversation (“written from inside the emerging church conversation”), yet object to me adopting a new covenant perspective on Old Testament texts.
Was man intended or expected to disobey? Well, every man from Adam on has in fact disobeyed; if God was not expecting that, it was a notable oversight. I believe the new covenant perspective is that not even Adam was meant to be righteous before God apart from Christ, while even Judas was expected to seek God. I have four children; I never expected them to be perfect, but I have intended since before they were born to raise them to know Christ, to not offend by their manners, and to be in good relationship with their mother and me. I fully expected them to misbehave, although I never wanted them to, and I have exercised various forms of discipline—negative and positive—in my relationship with them.
From my new covenant perspective, I do find foreshadowing of Christ in these narratives. For example, in Gen. 3:15, the serpent is told that the seed of the woman would crush his head. The new covenant perspective (Gal. 4:4) is that this seed in the Eden narrative was Christ. From the perspective of Genesis alone, was this meant to foreshadow that one of Eve’s children was to kill the serpent? If so, it is not followed up. (There is also little concern expressed for the possibility of the global extinction of serpents.)
Again, in Genesis 22:18 God promises Abraham that through his offspring, all nations on earth will be blessed. From the perspective of Genesis alone, to what does this refer? From my new covenant perspective, this obviously speaks not only to God’s plan including all peoples (not simply a people-within-the earth’s population), but also to Jesus as the specific offspring who would bless all peoples.
God promised David that his dynasty would be established forever (2 Sam. 7:12-16). We have evidence that ancient Jews came to interpret this in messianic terms, and the new covenant perspective is that Jesus is the fulfillment of that expectation.
Jeremiah proclaimed that a new covenant was coming (Jer. 31:31-33). Isaiah spoke of one who would not only restore Israel but also be a light for the Gentiles and bring God’s salvation to the ends of the earth (Isa. 49:1-7); you and I both join with ancient Jews in re-telling this not from an exegetical perspective but from a Messianic one—Jesus for us in the new covenant (so to Daniel’s vision of the Son of Man in Dan. 7:13-14).
Certainly my retelling of the biblical metanarrative is a new covenant perspective; Jesus put a face and body on the expectations of many living before the New Testament who were already expecting something similar but different.
While I would not expect a narrow exegesis of Genesis or Exodus or Psalms or Samuel or Isaiah or Daniel to result in a Christian retelling of the narrative of the Bible as a whole, I think it is appropriate for a Christian retelling the narrative of the Bible as a whole to make some of these connections.
Regarding my parable, its very point was that we should look at Eden as a hole in the ground: the first step in an unfolding progression of events culminating in the New Jerusalem. In Eden we find a couple of people living in a world unmarked by human creativity. In Eden we find a serpent and we find people listening to the serpent rather than to God and nobody to crush the serpent’s head. In the New Jerusalem the serpent is crushed and everybody is gathered around God’s throne. In the New Jerusalem we find a city (not a garden) full of people from every tribe and language. Rather than seeing Eden as what God wanted and the New Jerusalem as what he’ll have to settle for, we should see the New Jerusalem as God’s aim and Eden as what he started with.
As emergents, we will probably end up embracing many more than two Christian retellings of the biblical story, recognizing that each of them captures some important element of the truth, and fearing to stomp down with the iron heel of authoritative hierarchy. You put your narrative out there and invited comment, and I admit mine was passionate.
- Login or register to post comments
- view as page
Re: From before the foundation of the world?
I did indeed note your recognition that your “new creation” hermeneutic was as totalizing as my “new covenant” one; I just didn’t know what to do with it. Likewise for several other important qualifiers seasoning your comments.
I see a similar issue here to that of interpreting the Bible in general. Is the question of whether God revealed in part a long-term plan to people such as Adam or Abraham or Isaiah at issue? If we close it to inquiry, then we can’t entertain any idea of predictive prophecy in the Old Testament. But if it’s an open issue, then why not posit totalizing narratives that do allow for premature glimpses of Christ?
Or, given that we have hindsight, why must we put blinders back on in retelling a totalizing biblical story? Is it simply impossible for later events or revelation to clarify the earlier? Just because we might see that people in the past could imagine different ways Abraham’s seed might bless all peoples, are we restrained from shedding light on how in fact he is blessing the nations?
As Christians, we are not “outside the narrative.” We’re part of the story. How could we justify, for example, retelling the narrative in such a way that Jesus came and set up a political kingdom in the ancient near east—even if we know that’s what many were expecting earlier in the story?
- Login or register to post comments
- view as page
Are we animals or civilized? What are we missing in the Bible?
It is interesting, the subtext that you talk about, Andrew.
It describes humans’ difficulty in getting a handle of ‘who’ they are in this reality.
At first they were acting like violent ‘animals’ in Noah’s time. This caters to our prejudice against the ‘wilderness,’ Nature. We are better than that. So the divide between human and nature began. How can we be better than Nature, more like God?
We have interpreted the Bible narrative as a focusing of ‘who we are’ as special spirits in the sight of God. Over time, we began to exclude everything but God, dismissing Creation and spawning our present quandry. After millennia of fighting against Creation to be more like God, we now have to think better of it.
This was evolutionary, but modern society is about disconnection from Nature. We call it the ‘environment’ now, a concept that we can control. But it reveals a false assumption about man’s relationship with Creation founded in the oldest books of the Bible.
We got here honestly enough. God wiped out the first version of humanity with The Flood, and we started again. To further get us focused on ‘who’ we are and our place in Creation, God commanded that we have no other God but He. Our religion, because of circumstance being surrounded by polytheistic pagan enemies, gradually wiped out all spiritual knowledge of Creation, until we have modern society that considers Creation objective matter, material for our use.
Then Christ got us further focused on being human-centered, by reinforcing that humans were the greatest expression of God on Earth, if we only tried.
Instead of incorporating, or keeping, a spiritual understanding of Creation, Biblical and Church history points toward a narrowing of civilized man’s focus away from Creation, toward a self-centered, narrow problem of defining ‘who’ we are a souls incarnate in dust, trying to get out of the surrounding dust and back into the Garden of Wisdom.
Having to finally face Creation now as something of God that we imperil, the metanarrative comes full circle. Christian theology has always used outside thought processes in its search for new revelations and justifications in the Biblical texts, from Plato and Aristotle to the modern use of sceintific inquiry.
Christianity redefined reality as being only God, humans and the equivalent of inert matter. The Church was focused on the former two. Science developed because the Church was not as concerned about the lesser of the three, Creation. It was a further weaning away from Creation, further defining our relationship opposed to Nature. Today, with our scientific perspective, we are at the endpoint of that historical process of defining ourselves as spirits of God, separate from acting like wild, uncontrolled animals. We have removed ourselves from contact with Nature in our artificial urban environment, and now must re-imagine Nature and Creation from this psychically removed position, without daily ‘engorgement’ in the natural world. So Nature, Creation, remains a concept, and we struggle to figure out how we can make it sacred again, when our daily survival is dependent on grocery stores, money, cars and the comforts of our manufactured homes.
Having wiped out both a practical and spiritual connection with Creation, all we have is the Bible to re-imagine what Nature and Creation must be like, from a bias that Creation is not spirit, but objective matter that we must impose human respect upon from our intellectual efforts. That is all we have. Christianity re-defined reality into the trinity of God, humans and inert matter. Science is merely the reaction and off-shoot of this, helping the Church to wipe out traditional spiritual connection with the Earth.
We are clearly at a disadvantage because of this distillation of spirituality into merely the God-human relationship. We do not have spiritual ‘devices,’ let alone kinesthetic ones, to conquer our prejudice that humans are special, because we are closest to God in all Creation. A spiritual equality with Nature, conceiving it as spiritual, as Creation parallel in spiritual reality with humans, must be established once more. Original Sin begins with error. Living from pride and knowledge instead of love and wisdom. The pendulum has swung us to the opposite extreme of Noah’s contemporaries. We are not part of savage Nature, we are completely removed from it. We are completely domesticated, socialized, controlled by our artificial human environment that we have created.
There is a wealth of ‘Creation as live spirit’ in the Bible. The Church must, once again, start to incorporate thought processes from outside of the religion to tackle this modern dilemma. It has used ancient pagan philosophy and scientific method to help penetrate deeply into the condition of man, alone in an inanimate universe, with only God/Jesus as the only other conscious entity to help us.
Secure in our monotheism and perception of a loving God, it will take some imagination and courage to take what remains of ‘earth religions’ to re-awaken our understanding of Creation as spirit.
Jesus was the most bizarre human to ever walk in civilization. He is not so bizarre to indigenous peoples. While we struggle with our faith interpretations of Biblical narrative being either symbollism or actual fact, the gulf can be filled with only slight influence from the spirituality that Christianity has conquered.
It is all in the Bible. Jesus cursed an inanimate object, a tree. Metaphor or reality? Fantastic or symbollism? If it was true, did the tree shrivel instantly or gradually? Why was Jesus relating to a tree as if it was spirit, alive? Was it command over Creation by man, or a recognition of the spiritual nature and intent in all things?
The same with re-incarnation. Jesus ministry involved three instances. We are biased, interpreting it as something fantastic. Yet we bring the dead back to life on the operating table all the time now. We believe we have only one life to live, one chance to get into heaven. Where did that hidden assumption come from? Why does civilization have such a problem integrating spirituality with objective matter?
‘Oneness’ with Creation is a fundamental Christian issue. We must control our human desires, we must control Nature, we must Save ourselves from ourselves.
Andrew’s perspective from traditional orthodoxy does not confront these fundamental issues. It is an old narrative after centuries of refinement using classical philosophy and scientific method. How does the triad of God, humans and inert matter become One? Separate but the same? If Jesus looked at Creation as pure spirit, what is holding us back from doing the same? How do we make Creation-as-spirit real outside of our sanctuaries and office cubicles, outside of an imaginative theology? How do we make the experience of the spiritual reality of Christ extend beyond merely the human?
That is the challenge of the ‘environment’ for the Church mind. The heart is willing, but the mind resists. Why? What we are seeking is all there in the Bible. Unexplored assumptions from tradition is holding us back. A new interpretation of the narrative involving the Christ-as-spiritually one-with-Creation, ignoring the laws of inert matter, needs to be re-examined. We feel we need to control life to align us with the real nature of the Creator. We don’t want to be out-of-control savage animals, but tamed, thoughtful souls of God.
Re-imagining Nature as the loving spiritual equivalent of Christ and God already exists. We don’t have to abandon the Bible narrative. Only realize how we have chosen to remove ourselves from reality through Biblical interpretation and Church history, focused exclusively on the human animal living in inert matter, dust. The pride and knowledge of control over the meaning and reality of the material.
Is Creation simply objective matter? Or was Christ showing us something different that our knowledge has not let us accept? Bible stories are the gradual disconnection from the Earth. No wonder Christ seemed so fantastic. He showed us our limits, and those limits have brought us to our limited perception of reality today. We keep digging in the hole of orthodox interpretation. We need to fill it in with some ‘earth’ if we wish to get out of it. That’s a tall order in the psychological structure that now envelops world civilization.
What is a renewed Creation? Simply rediscovering what has always confused us. We are not special spirits. God was just taking care of some of His children. We need to come out of our self-centered adolescence of human-centerdness and realize there is more to spiritual reality than just God, humans and inert matter. Inert matter does not exist. We need to mature to this realization to become spiritual adults.
- Login or register to post comments
- view as page


A non-believer's lament...
The Lost World of Genesis One - John H. Walton