The Lost World of Genesis One (20 page)

One form of this practical deism is particularly noticeable in
some permutations of "theistic evolution" in which God is seen as
responsible for "jump-starting" the evolutionary process and then
letting it unwind through the eons. Alternatively God is sometimes viewed as involved more regularly at critical junctures to
accomplish major jumps in evolution. The problem is that these
approaches not only potentially remove God from ongoing operations in nature, but they even write God out of most of the origins
story. The deism view gives too much to the ongoing functions of
creation as well as rendering them too independent from God.
The interventionist view treats the functionality of natural processes too lightly, as being inadequate to accomplish God's purposes. Potentially, the processes left to run on their own might
very well fail to achieve God's purposes, but this possibility reveals the all-or-nothing assumption behind these two viewsthat what happens in natural history is either all due to natural
processes running on their own or is due to direct divine intervention in the natural operations. That God might be working alongside or through physical and biological processes in a way that
science cannot detect is one possibility that this either-or assumption ignores.1

But in all fairness the young-earth creationists are not immune
from distancing God from the operations of nature. Even though
they view God as totally responsible for origins, his Creator work
is considered finished after those first six days. The "natural"
world has been put in place, and it runs (on its own? vaguely sustained?) by those principles God put in place. For those who see it
that way (admittedly not all in this camp), creation is over, and a
practical deism looms over the ongoing operations of the world.

A second extreme, rather than adopting the sharp discontinu ity between creation and operations as just described, considers
there to be such continuity that it virtually eliminates beginning
and end. Here creation is a constantly recurring process,2 and
God never ceases creating. One immediate objection to this view
is found in the idea of teleology that was presented in the last
chapter. For there to be a goal and purpose (telos), there must be
a beginning and an end.' But beyond this important distinction,
we need to explore the nature of continuity and discontinuity between the creative acts in Genesis 1 and what might be considered
continuing creative activity.

The Bible to some extent offers the idea that creation is ongoing and dynamic. So theologian Jurgen Moltmann believes that
God's creative work is not just the static work of the past, but that
it is dynamic as it continues in the present and into the future.4
This suggestion merits consideration, but key to the discussion is
the extent to which what happens after the beginning could still
be called creation, or if it is something else (e.g., "sustaining").5
The answer to this question may be determined by how we understand the nature of creative activity in the Bible, and particularly,
the view of origins underlying Genesis 1.

In the position of this book, the idea that Genesis 1 deals with
functional origins opens up a new possibility for seeing both continuity and a dynamic aspect in God's work as Creator, because
he continues to sustain the functions moment by moment (for
example, see Neh 9:6; Job 9:4-10; Job 38; Ps 104; Ps 148; Amos
4:13; Mt 6:26-30; Acts 17:24-28; Col 1:16-17; Heb 1:3).6 Creation language is used more in the Bible for God's sustaining
work (i.e., his ongoing work as Creator) than it is for his originating work. As we reduce the distinction between creating and
sustaining, we take a departure from Moltmann, whose idea of
dynamic creation considers all of covenant, redemption and eschatology as creative acts.8

I contend that there is a line between the seven days of Genesis
1 and the rest of history, making Genesis 1 a distinct beginning
that is located in the past. If we see this as an account of functional origins, the line between is dotted rather than solid, as the
narrative of Genesis 1 puts God in place to perpetuate the functions after they are established in the six days. In this way, day
seven, God taking up his rest in the center of operations of the
cosmos, positions him to run it. This continuing activity is not the
same as the activity of the six days, but it is the reason why the six
days took place. John Stek summarizes it well as he states that "in
the speech of the Old Testament authors, whatever exists now and
whatever will come into existence in the creaturely realm has been
or will have been `created' by God. He is not only the Creator of
the original state of affairs but of all present and future realities."9
As noted several times already, this does not result in a view of
God as a micromanager, but it insists that he cannot be removed
from the ongoing operations. The paradox of intimate involvement without micromanagement defies definition.

Returning to the college analogy that we introduced earlier,
the origin of the college was intentional, with purpose in mindall of the courses were designed, faculty and staff hired, students
enrolled so that the college could exist. Those functions must
continue to be sustained for the college to remain in existence,
and it is the ongoing work to keep the college running that constitutes its dynamic aspect. Once the college (or cosmos) is brought
into existence, that functional existence must be continually sustained. The physical campus must be maintained (cleaned, kept
up, repaired, etc.), but the functional college must be sustained
(courses offered again and again, new students enrolled, new employees hired, etc.). Maintaining relates to the material and the
physical existence. Sustaining relates to the functional and operational. Consequently, when we take the functional approach to origins and the theological position of God's continual sustaining
work, both originating and sustaining can be seen as variations of
the work of the Creator, even though they do not entirely merge
together. Genesis 1 is in the past, but the continuing activities of
the Creator in the future and present are very much a continuation of that past work. In contrast to the first extreme, creation is
not over and done with. In contrast to the second extreme, origins
is rightfully distinguished from God's sustaining work, but both
could be considered in the larger category of creation.

As we are going to discuss in the remainder of the book, it is
precisely this pervasive role of God as Creator in all aspects of
originating and sustaining that serves as the main dispute that
Christians have with a purely materialistic view of origins. This
materialistic view is often interwoven with biological evolution
and at times is referred to as "evolutionism."10 The existence of
biological processes is not a major concern, whereas the denial of
any role to God in relation to those biological processes-whatever they are-are theologically and biblically unacceptable. But
that discussion is for another chapter.

The relationship between creation and other aspects of God's
work such as covenant, redemption and eschatology is that each of
these also involves God in the process of bringing order to disorder. He also did this for the cosmos in his creating work and continues to do it in sustaining the cosmos. But these-covenantmaking, redemption and so on-are more related to his role in
progressive revelation than to his Creator role.

In conclusion I suggest that God initiated the functions in
Genesis 1 so that they are seen to originate in him. As a result of
taking up his residence in the cosmic temple, he sustains the functions moment by moment, as the very existence of the cosmos
depends on him entirely. Both initiating and sustaining are the
acts of the Creator God. We recognize his role of Creator God by our observance of the sabbath, in which we consciously take our
hands off the controls of our lives and recognize that he is in
charge. His place in the temple and his role as Creator may have
been ritually reenacted annually in temple liturgies. It would be a
commendable sacred holiday for the church to reinstate. For even
though God does not reside in geographical sacred space any longer, he is still in his cosmic temple, and he now resides in the
temple that is his church (1 Cor 3:16; 6:19).

TECHNICAL SUPPORT

Fretheim, Terence E. God and World in the Old Testament.•A Relational Theology of Creation. Nashville: Abingdon, 2005.

HAVING NOW COVERED THE BIBLICAL and theological issues,
we are ready to move into the discussion of contemporary issues.
Specifically the next several chapters explore the impact of this
view of Genesis 1 on our understanding of evolution, Intelligent
Design and public education.

As we begin, it is most important to keep in mind that the view
presented in the preceding chapters is what philosophers would
label as "teleological"-by which they mean that the view involves
God working with intention, purpose and a goal in every aspect
of his role as Creator (which includes originating and sustaining).
The obvious result of this is that all of creation is, by this definition, intelligent, and likewise, all of it is designed. Nothing could
be considered accidental. Nothing happens "by itself," and origins
are not just found in the outworking of natural laws. Nothing is
really coincidence. In one of Orson Scott Card's novels one character quips, "Coincidence is just the word we use when we have
not yet discovered the cause.... It's an illusion of the human
mind, a way of saying, `I don't know why this happened this way, and I have no intention of finding out.." 1

Likewise, the fact that we believe that God did X does not
mean that it is no longer subject to scientific investigation. Everything that exists and everything that happens is, in Christian
thinking, ultimately an act of God. Yet in the layer cake model we
have presented, that does not mean that scientific or historical
inquiry should be cut off-they still have the potential of leading
to understanding at a different level.

In recent decades a movement referred to as Intelligent Design
has become prominent. Throughout the ages scientists have always admired the cosmos as evidencing design, though in more
modern times, many scientists are more likely to talk about the
"appearance" of design. The Intelligent Design movement (ID)
insists that this appearance of design is not illusive, but is the result of an unidentified intelligent designer.