Eutychus and His Kin: September 24, 1965

Is creation a “relationship” or an “event”?… Reflections on science and faith.

CONSCIENCE CONSERVATIVE

After a lifetime of enthusiastic effort, I still have some serious flaws in my infield technique. At third base I move very badly to the left because I cross my right foot over instead of starting out with the left. At shortstop I have a tendency to back up on my heels instead of charging forward on my toes (it’s safer that way). I have a bad pivot at second base on double plays, and at first I am always catching low balls with the palm of my hand instead of in the pocket.

It must be this sort of thing that keeps me from being an expert on shaving. Kubek trots in from shortstop, and first thing you know he is shaving. Callison takes one off the wall with his bare hand, and the first thing you know he is shaving. It must be because I play ball so badly that I never quite get the hang of putting that shaving soap on and taking so much off with the first stroke of the razor. The other thing that puzzles me about ball players is that they always have two days’ growth of beard every day. The manly type, no doubt.

Would you believe that I am still using a shaving mug with a brush? This isn’t because I don’t like to squirt the cream out of the end of a can, although sometimes this can be confusing, and it isn’t because I am not in favor of the new over the old. It just so happens that the shaving brush and mug have all kinds of advantages over the shaver. Even after all my conditioning by television hucksters, I still think it’s nice to rattle the shaving brush around the mug (a nice homey sound, like that of our college cook scraping toast before breakfast), while other men are running out in front with the latest gadget.

Well, that’s the way I am, even in theology. I get the impression that we throw away some awfully good things because we are overly impressed by the new ones.

THE WORDS OF CREATION

As reported in the August 27 issue (News), the Research Scientists’ Christian Fellowship at a recent meeting reached a consensus that “creation” is to be thought of as “a relationship rather than a past event.” This overlooks the data of the biblical terminology. The noun “creation” is formed from the verb “create,” which in turn is a translation of the Hebrew verb bara. To affirm that this means a relationship rather than an event is both linguistically and theologically incorrect—linguistically because it misses the meaning of bara, and theologically because it confounds creation and providence.

The verb bara occurs only fifty-five times in the Hebrew Old Testament. It designates an act of God which originates that which is truly new—new as to form, new as to matter, or new as to both form and matter. The ordinary word for “make” in the Old Testament is asah, which occurs over 2,600 times, and describes God’s providential working which operates through second causes or forces of nature and produces changes without originating anything truly new. Bara, accordingly, is used for God’s creative acts in distinction from his providential working.

The Bible in Genesis 1 and 2 marks off creation from providence by a clear line (2:3). In later times, it is true, the creative power of God was sometimes exerted in miracles. The verb asah occurs ten times in Genesis 1 and 2, where it is used either to describe a providential dealing of God with that which had already been created, or in connection with bara, which qualifies the meaning and renders it specific in the sense of origination of the truly new.

To say that creation is a relationship, not an event, is to assume that the origin of nature can be understood in terms of the functioning of nature—really, it is to beg the question of origins. The origin of the universe, of life, and of mankind must be conceived in terms of event, not merely in terms of relationship. Otherwise the relationship is left without a beginning, and must have been eternal. And this drives us straight to philosophical pantheism.

“Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear” (Heb. 11:3). Can this verse really be speaking of a relationship instead of an event? Does this verse not effectively affirm that the functioning of nature can never explain the origin of nature? Are we really ready to degrade God’s work of creation to a form of his work of providence?

Geneva College

Beaver Falls, Pa.

The very issue of your magazine (Aug. 27) which contains numerous articles lamenting the failure of Christianity to speak to and be accepted by our contemporary world contains numerous examples of why this is so. I refer, for instance, to the almost incredible remarks of Dr. Robert Cameron on how Christ gives the up-to-date answers to our problems. “He is the answer to the population explosion—‘Man does not live by bread alone,’ and ‘Behold, I come quickly.’ ”

Is this what Christianity says to the starving billions?—“Remember, my hungry fellow, your spirit is the important thing, and anyway Christ will return soon to put you out of your misery.” Or on sex, “… in Christ there is neither … male nor female.…” That’s very fine, but we still have males and females most other places, and I doubt if we are ready to ignore the difference.

Nonsense in Jesus’ name is still nonsense.

First Presybterian

Pitman, N. J.

The issue dated August 27 was one of the best ones that has ever come off the press.

The article, “Science and Faith,” and related items have thrilled me very much and increased my faith not only in God but also in mankind and in Jesus Christ, our Lord and Saviour, to whom we owe our very existence in the spiritual world and our material possessions.…

[The articles] are something that has not been in print and are written in such a way that the average layman can understand them.…

Dothan, Ala.

A. F. POWLEDGE, SR.

LOS ANGELES

We have a significant new symbol for understanding our differences within Christendom … in the recent Los Angeles riot. Commenting on the riots, the Rev. Dr. Billy Graham said we could be rather sure their meaning was in their being Communist-inspired and directed: such were his broadcasted remarks. The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., drew a different meaning from the riots: namely, that they point to our society’s failure to draw the Negro minority into the mainstream of our cultural and economic life.

We have another symbol, then, to help us decide what will motivate us as Christians in 1965: fear of the spread of Communism, or a united determination to eliminate the diseases of prejudice and discrimination that infect our society.

Trinity Church

Boston, Mass.

CREED HOMEWORK

Addision Leitch in the August 27 issue is certainly right. Even had we been doing our homework on creeds and their place in the Reformed tradition (which we have not) we scarcely have time to give proper consideration to the Confession of 1967, though I believe we must venture such.…

We just have not been doing our homework in the parishes. But the answer is not to say that Westminster is good enough in all respects for us to confess a living faith. That has yet to be shown. And to do so means to interpret it for today in such a way that all that we have learned of biblical theology and the Church and mission can be said using the same formulas.

Until someone does this who is against any contemporary statement, I can only attribute to them laziness or cowardice.

Saint Andrew Presbyterian Church

Iowa City, Iowa

SIN OF MISSION OMISSION?

In the August 27 issue (“Mission or Omission?”) you presented a very glib, off-the-cuff summary of the current study of many churches in this country.

May I suggest that you do not dismiss this study as “slogans” and “clichés” without a little deeper research. I refer you to the Study/Action Manual by Edward Adkins, specifically the introduction and explanation of the differing emphases from those which have produced little real growth among Christians in the past twenty years, and to a statement on page 14: “A church member can better understand the church’s mission in the world when he recognizes his own share in it.” There has been no diminution in the study of missions but a shift in emphasis to the relevant; if Christianity makes no difference to a man “where he lives,” it will make no witness to anyone, even from the man in the pulpit.

Denton, Tex.

OBEDIENCE IN GERMANY

With great interest and joyous agreement I read the article “Faith with Obedience” by L. Nelson Bell (July 30 issue). It seems to me that Christianity in Germany is lacking personal initiative and dedication, because obedience has not been stressed in the pulpit for decades in fear of minimizing God’s grace. The endeavor to emphasize the importance of obedience in a Christian’s relationship to Christ is not seldom branded as “perfectionism” in this country.

The Apostle Paul considered it his main mission “to bring about the obedience of faith among all … for his name’s sake” (Romans 1:5; 16:26). Christianity today needs the combination of faith and obedience, if it is to fulfill its God-given mission.

Gemeinde Christi

(Church of Christ)

Munich-Laim, Germany

THE GAMUT

Your magazine is still the best in its field. You fill it with material that runs the gamut from deep theology to everyday thinking—and all with a clear, evangelical approach.

First Southern Baptist Church

Ontario, Calif.

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.