How Should we Approach Genesis?

Part One of Genesis: History According to God

Jan 30, 2007 Brian Tubbs

The biblical book of Genesis is perhaps the most controversial book of the Bible. This first article in our series "History According to God" explores why.

There are several schools of thought concerning the Bible, and these schools seem to especially emerge when considering the Genesis record of early human civilization. For the sake of simplicity, we are going to group these into three general categories: the traditional monotheistic approach, the metaphoric-spiritualist approach, and the agnostic approach. Obviously, these broad categories themselves each contain a myriad of spin-offs and variations.

The traditional monotheistic approach is that the Bible is essentially accurate, that it was written by prophets, apostles, and scribes inspired by God to do so. Evangelicals and fundamentalists are squarely in this camp. Obviously, proponents of this school of thought acknowledge that parts of the Bible are literary or metaphoric, but they nevertheless treat it and approach it as authentic and accurate. According to them, when the Bible claims to represent actual, historical events, it is doing so accurately.

The agnostic approach is self-explanatory. These critics put very little stock in the Bible, seeing it as merely a collection of superstitions, religious laws, ancient myths, and fictional stories.

The metaphoric-spiritualist approach is sort of a middle ground between these opposing camps. It is the broadest school of thought as well and the hardest to define. Essentially, this camp believes that the Bible contains much in the way of factual history, but that it also contains metaphor and symbolism. That we, in the twenty-first century, won’t always be able to see the difference, and that’s okay. What matters isn’t whether Jonah was, in fact, swallowed by the whale or that Noah really did survive a global flood. No. What matters is what these stories mean. What do they teach us?

Is Genesis a book of history or is it a spiritual allegory? How should we treat it? Protestant Christians are divided on those answers. The more conservative Protestant denominations gravitate naturally to the traditional view of Genesis, whereas the more liberal, mainline denominations have embraced the metaphoric or spiritualist approach to Genesis.

Our next few articles will explore this controversy in greater depth and look at some modern debates in its context.

The copyright of the article How Should we Approach Genesis? in Protestantism is owned by Brian Tubbs. Permission to republish How Should we Approach Genesis? in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.

Comments

Jan 29, 2007 8:19 AM

Pink :

.
History according to God.
.
We have heard that the Bible is the accurate depiction of history for all of our life.
.
It would be great to be able to rise up above history in such a way so that we could see how that sense of truth came into being.
.
From my resources, the 1800s were the times when science was beginning to move into the forefront in so far as things like the biblical flood and the physical reality of the solar system are concerned. I still have a shirt tail relative who claims the landing on the moon was a fantasy produced by Hollywood type filmographers. According to "Uncle Bill", Jesus will come in the Eastern Sky at dawn one day soon.
.
Here are some names the interested reader can check out; Arthur Tappan Pierson, Charles Hodge, Archibald A. Hodge, Benjamin Warfield, and even, Obidiah Holmes. If you put them in your search engine, you can couple them with these groups of words: New Light Presbyterian seminary at Princeton; scientific protestantism; Baptist beliefs; Many Infallible Proofs; and Biblical theology.
.
The ninteenth century saw many of the religious ideas more or less being tossed aside by men of reason. There was a fear that all of Christianity would be lost if something wasn't done to save it from growing disrespect. That, is seems, was at the roots of the movement to turn the Bible into a resource of scientific thinking about literal truths.
.

Jan 29, 2007 4:23 PM

Brian Tubbs :

Much of what you write is true. I know of some of the folks that you describe - the moon landing, Jesus coming tomorrow, etc. We had an evangelist come through our old church preaching a message entitled "Why 1992 Will be the Last Presidential Election." That was in 1989.
There are quite a few interesting people in fundamentalist circles.

BUT....

You're incorrect in your implication that Christians who believe in a literal Bible are close to the quacks and ignorant folks we agree need help. Moreover, you're wrong to imply the fundamentalist reaction as a rebellion against "scientific thinking."

William Jennings Bryan, for example, was not a 24-hour a day literalist. He believed the "days" represented periods of time, and yet he was described as a "fundamentalist." Bryan's speeches and writings also reveal that he was much more learned and intelligent than HL Mencken and the rest of Bryan's vicious detractors gave him credit for.

Jan 30, 2007 6:53 AM

Pink :

.
:)
.
William Jennings Bryan died in 1925, just about the time that Fundamentalism was beginning to form into a force of reckoning.
.
Fundamentalism was the outgrowth of earlier movements of millenialism and dispensationalism. I've done quite a study on it and have a packet of notes as at one time I was going to write a pamphlet on it. But, the ideas that the Bible was an accurate protrayal of history and a resource for scientific understandings and as an authority over all others came into popular religious thinking while Bryan was in full swing of his middle age. Someone of those Iron War Horses of God had it that the Bible was Baby Talk--that it was truth written so that common people could understand it. And, of course, that idea comes out of the Bible itself. Isaiah 28.
.
In any event, my points about the Bible were out of my source which is, Karen Armstrong's, <b>The Battle For GOD</b>; Ballantine Books, New York; 2000. She's a pretty reliable source. I have another source, The Roots of Dispensationalism, Ernest Sandeen. And, he's pretty well accepted.
.
.

Jan 31, 2007 8:26 AM

Brian Tubbs :

A great book on Bryan is <i>A Godly Hero</i> - recently came out. I highly recommend it. Very balanced and fair treatment of the Great Commoner.

Jan 31, 2007 3:07 PM

Pink :

.
I believe he was instrumental in bringing about a major change in the American media. Certainly the 1896 Democratic Convention is credited with changing America and he was a big mover at that event.
.
He was such a dynamic speaker during a time when men really thought they were <i>he--men</i>. He was very progressive in his thinking--a good Democrat with strong socialist ideas.
.

Feb 2, 2007 10:25 AM

Simon Davies :

I think Brian has done a good job in summarising the viewpoints on Genesis and the interpretation of the Bible in general in three viewpoints. He has clearly stated that the middle ground is broad and it seems that pink101 comes in that ground.
I do think that many fundamentalists have given the "historical truth" a bad name and I would urge you to listen to more moderate evangelicals who are not simply reacting in fear to the theories of modern science but are trying to seriously understand and interpret the Bible in the light of modern science and culture.

Feb 2, 2007 11:34 AM

Pink :

.
Yupper. I do.
.
:)
.

7 Comments