Questions in Genesis

/in /by

questions in genesis

God created ha’adam in his image;

In the image of God He created him. 

Male and female he created them.  (Genesis 1:26-28)

 

I was chatting with a former EFCC pastor recently and he was bemoaning the fact that the majority of young people raised in the church have nearly identical beliefs about sex, gender, sin and other moral issues as their unchurched friends (for a statistical study on this see Kinnamon & Matlock, Faith for Exiles).  My immediate response to him was, “we need to help our people understand God’s beautiful plan for human flourishing (Genesis 1-2) and then see the world’s counterfeits to God’s plan in the context of Genesis 3 and the fall.  Sadly, we have only taught our people what we are against – not what God is for.”

I am entitling this post “Questions in Genesis” because I think we would be well served by asking better questions regarding Genesis 1-2, rather than the “Answers in Genesis” approach.  That approach assumes that the essential theological issues worth fighting over have to do with answers regarding science and the mechanics of creation.  I believe that using Genesis 1-2 primarily as an apologetic against modern science has led to two problems.  First, we often overlook Genesis 1-2 in our gospel presentations.  We start with “you are a sinner” (Genesis 3).  The we skip the OT and go straight to the cross.  The upshot of this “sin management gospel” is accept Jesus, be forgiven and then be good.  This misses out on the richness of God’s redemptive narrative throughout the rest of the Bible.  The second problem with reading Genesis 1-2 this way is we miss out on what the author is really focusing on.  Genesis 1-2 is essential reading for understanding the good/beautiful character of the Hebrew God (versus the pagan gods of the land).  It is also one of our most powerful passages for understanding God’s beautiful plan for His creation (and for humans in particular).

I believe that historically we have brought tons of cultural assumptions into the text of the Bible.  This can lead us to miss the point of what the Spirit wants us to know and live out when we do it to passages like Genesis 1-2.  In this blog I simply want to surface several questions that help to expose some of the cultural assumptions we impose on this text.

  1. How would OT Jews have read this text?  Would they have looked for answers regarding the science and mechanics of creation?  Or would they have seen the Spirit presenting an apologetic regarding how good/moral/beautiful Yahweh is compared to the gods of the land?  Would they have marveled at how a good God initiated a beautiful plan for human flourishing?
  2. Do the English translations feed into some of our cultural assumptions about men and women?  For instance, the Hebrew word for “Adam” (quoted above) is not used as a name for the first man until chapter 4!  Adam and Eve are both “Ha’Adam” = human.  “Ezer”, translated “helper” or “helpmate” makes it sounds like Eve is a second-rate servant, created only to wait on Adam.  Yet “ezer” is a strong military term that denotes protecting someone from danger.  Yahweh is the “Ebenezer”, the “Rock of help”.
  3. What does it mean for both men and women to be made in the image of God? What would Jewish followers of Yahweh have understood about humans bearing the imprint of the King?  How does that speak to the dignity of humans?
  4. What does it mean for those made in the image of God to “be fruitful and multiply”? Could this have great utility in encouraging followers of Jesus to flourishing and bearing shalom in creation?
  5. Does God really set up an eternal hierarchy in Genesis 1-2? Or do we read this in because of our cultural biases?  Are there clear structures and commands for hierarchy in these chapters or do we have to work hard to infer them into the text?

In the coming months, I want to ponder each of these questions a bit more fully.  Not only do I think that the questions help us better understand what the Spirit wants us to understand but they also provide powerful context and direction for dealing with many of the critical issues of our day!

Bill Taylor
EFCC Executive Director

The Goal of Theology

/in /by

theology blog

I think of theology as the middle step of a three-step process. I find this helpful as it moves me past theology that is a collection of beliefs or field of study and begs the question – how does this area of theology transform my life?

Here’s how I see this three-step process:

  1. Revelation – It starts here. God reveals a glimpse of Himself to us. Much like Moses, who only got to see a fraction of the glory of God, we only get a glimpse of God. We see what God has chosen to reveal in the Word – both living and written. We see what God has chosen to reveal about his plan for all of creation. And we see what God has chosen to reveal about what part we play in that incredible plan.
  2. Theology – Making sense of revelation is what I believe we do in theology. Finding our way through all God has revealed takes time, study, and the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit. In doing this, we as finite humans, employ methods that help us make sense of our observations of revelation. Let me mention two here (these are clearly my names, no theologian would call them this):

Pull-it-apart method

As a young guy, I loved to tear things apart, see how they worked, then put them back together. This usually worked okay. Although I did cause my parents concern somedays. In the process of pulling everything apart, I learned how a lot of household gadgets worked. We do the same thing in theology. We pull the revelation of God apart, determine key categories, place the pieces in those categories, so we can see how it works.

Let-it-live method

I once heard Leonard Sweet talk about the difference between a toaster and a cat. To repair a toaster, you use the previously mentioned pull it apart method. You don’t do that to a cat, well at least if you want it to live. To figure out a cat (is there really any figuring out a cat?) you need to see its personality, how it behaves, etc. Akin to this, is treating God’s revelation as a unified story and observing the themes and storylines that run through it. Doing this lets it live, intact. Visit the https://bibleproject.com/ if you want to view some examples of this method.

I think both methods (and others) can be helpful, but they don’t guarantee we get it all right, and they certainly are not the end goal.

  1. Praxis – Praxis is the living out of an idea or belief. This is the reason we do theology. God reveals, we attempt to make sense of it, so we can live in accordance with it. The goal of theology is not just right belief, it’s life with God, and life with other’s done God’s way. The end of theology is the worship of God and the Holy Spirit’s transformative work in us.

In doing theology, I hope we never stop at the second step. To move beyond mere belief to lived out action, we need to ask our theology questions like:

– How does this inflame my passion for God again?

– How does this lead me to fall to my knees in worship?

– What does this call me to obey?

– How is this shaping me to be more like Jesus? How does this help me relate in Christ-like ways to others?

Neil Bassignthwaighte
EFCC National Mission Director & Interim Prayer Catalyst

 

Mission, Theology and the Bible

/in /by

mission

If we ask about the biblical basis for mission, many will answer and direct us to the words of the “Great Commission” (Matthew 28:16-20).

But for Paul, the biblical basis for missions went much further back. The “Great Commission” in its present Scriptural form did not yet exist. In Paul’s missiology, he defended both his mission practice and mission theology based on the Old Testament scriptures. In the Old Testament Paul found a rich and deep theology of the mission of God for the nations, and he built his mission theology on that foundation.

Paul sees the mission of God as bringing the whole of the created order to liberation along with the sons and daughters of God (Romans 8:18-27). He proclaims the Messiah’s resurrection as the first fruits of that new creation and can affirm that a new person is already a new creation when a person is in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17).

Paul also goes back to Abraham. He sees the mission of Israel as being called into existence as the covenant people of God and to be the agent of God in blessing all the nations (Galatians 3:6-8). This understanding is Paul’s foundational block of his theology that he calls “the gospel in advance” – that is, the good news that God intends to bless the nations from the call of Abraham.

For Paul, the mission of God through Israel for the salvation of the nations was the message of the scriptures. Paul’s mission as the apostle to the Gentiles was grounded in the Bible of the time. His biblical theology was a theology of mission – the mission of God.

Our Lord Jesus did the same thing. He fully understood his mission in light of the Old Testament, and He taught His disciples to see mission in the same light and on the same foundation.

44 Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all the things that are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” 45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46 and He said to them, “So it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47 and that repentance for the forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things.

(Luke 24:44-48)

Jesus says that this passage is the whole point and thrust of the scriptures: the Law of Moses, the Psalms and the Prophets. The message of the Old Testament is the death and resurrection of the Messiah and the preaching of the gospel to the nations.

The Old Testament then is as much about mission as it was about Jesus. These two are an inseparable part of the same reality – the saving mission of God. If you truly know who Jesus is from the Scriptures, then to confess Jesus as the Messiah is to commit yourself to His mission to the nations.

With the New Testament, the biblical basis for mission is the whole bible – from Genesis to Revelation. God revealed Himself in the scripture as a missionary God. Biblically, mission is the mission of God (Missio Dei), and the Church is God’s agent in fulfilling God’s mission. God’s mission is to redeem all the nations (people groups) of the earth, and He is carrying this out through His redeemed people, the Church. Mission is not an optional ministry of the Church. The mandate of the church is to be on mission with God. “As the Father has sent Me, even so, I am sending you” (John 20:21). The Missio Dei is God the Father sending the Son, and God the Father and the Son sending the Spirit. The Father, Son and the Holy Spirit send the Church into the world.

Ike Agawin
EFCCM International Director

 

Is “Leading Like Jesus” the right goal?

/in /by

leadership

I expect for some that question seems rhetorical at best and irreverent at worst. Of course, I don’t mean to be irreverent, and I recognize that “leading like Jesus” is the right goal for anyone Christian in leadership! It is a great goal – so good and pure and high that we will never reach it. It is worthy. It is righteous even. But I am beginning to wonder if it is not the right one – at least, not without any postscripts. Allow me to explain.

As I have given more consideration to the implication of the essential doctrine of the Triune nature of our living God, I am finding myself placing the Trinity into conversations, thoughts, and processes where I did not previously or explicitly do so. Leadership is one of those such places. My questions in leadership were always about Jesus, God the Son. And there lie great questions. What does Jesus teach us about leadership? What does Jesus model in leadership? What does Jesus expect of us in leadership? All essential questions. But I am beginning to try to understand what the implications are when my leadership pictures are all framed around God the Son, but with the postscript that forces me to consider that God the Son is an integrated part of God the Father and God the Spirit. So much so that they cannot be separated. While I have not intentionally separated the Trinity, I have failed to at least ask some key questions.

What does the nature and work of God the Spirit have to say about my leadership, or leadership overall?

What does the character of God the Father have to say about leadership?

What does the very nature of the Trinity, three in one, perfect union of wills, perfect sharing of all things, mean when it comes to leadership? There are many more such questions.

To answer these questions goes beyond the intent of this blog. Here my hope is simply to encourage you to wrestle with those same questions. Please do not ignore the lessons of leadership given to us through God the Son, but don’t stop there. Ask the bigger questions coming out of the ontological reality of the Godhead. What does the fullness of God – Father, Son, and Spirit in perfect union – teach me about leading among His people and in His name? To me, that is a much more adequate, appropriate, and robust question for a calling that is intended to reflect God in His fullness.

If you have not ever asked those extra questions can I invite you to join me in starting to do so? Let’s see what God has for us to learn.

Terry Kaufman
EFCC Leadership Catalyst