Creation, Science, and the New World Order

Introduction

This essay was published in the local newspaper, The Manhattan Mercury, of Manhattan, Kansas, in 1996. At that time there were a number of articles appearing in the paper having to do with creation, the argument between creationism and evolution. In these arguments, no one ever set forth what God might be saying to us in the creation accounts of Genesis one and two, and that in the context of globalism and the presidential election. To that end, I wrote the following essay.

One claim made in this essay might seem exaggerated to those who live in North America -- the idea that global capitalism might not be the best for all concerned. I reached that conclusion after living in Central America for nearly five years, and from studying the economic history of the region as a while. Capitalism is unparalleled in its ability to produce wealth, but it does a wretched job of distributing the wealth. In many countries, this is terribly obvious. Honduras, for example, has been a capitalist country for well over a century, and still. the vast majority of its people are wretchedly poor. There are many such countries.

In addition to Scripture, some of the books that lay behind this essay are the following: Christianity and Classical Culture by Charles N. Cochrane, Religion and the Rise of Capitalism by R. H. Tawney, The Tribes of Yahweh by Norman Gottwald, Before Philosophy by Frankfort et. al., and National Socialism and the Religion of Nature by Robert A. Pois.

The Essay

At times, articles have appeared in this column concerning a possible conflict between Genesis and a scientific understanding of creation. I will address that question and draw some implications. The Genesis creation narratives can be understood in light of Israel's history and the creation stories of other nations.

After the Hebrews escaped from Egypt, they entered Canaan and established a new social and economic order. Its primary principle was equality in the distribution of resources and limits on the use of power. Land was distributed to all families and tribes, and once divided, a rough equality was maintained by laws forbidding foreclosure and the sale of land outside the family. Political authority was dispersed, there was no king, and even when kings arose, they were subject to laws protecting the powerless, and subject to God who acted in favor of the oppressed. These egalitarian political and economic limits were enshrined in the covenant, and were maintained through such institutions as the Jubilee. Israel's new social order was founded by a revelation of Yahweh, and this revealed faith differed from the other religions of the fertile crescent. The differences can be seen in their creation accounts.

There was, of course, considerable variety, but Israel's pagan neighbors envisioned creation as a process of birth from above, with higher deities giving birth to lower, working down through the hierarchy to the higher humans, the divine king, his divine escort the queen, the bureaucracy, priestly caste, army, and finally, down to the lowest peasant. Furthermore, those directly born of the gods were themselves divine, since birth produces like. For ancient peoples, life on earth should reflect that of heaven, and therefore, the hierarchy of the gods was reflected in the human social order with those at the top controlling those at the bottom, while those directly born of the gods, the Egyptian pharaoh, for example, were divinely sanctioned as the rulers of the land and its people. This rule was reinforced through worship in which the creation myths served as liturgical texts for religious festivals and rites which celebrated the top down social order. In this way, the creation stories of Israel's neighbors validated the concentration of political, economic, and religious power in the hands of the ruling elite. We may now look at the Genesis accounts.

There are two creation accounts in Genesis. The first runs from Gen. 1:1 to 2:4a, the second from 2:4b to 2:25. Though each has a very different order for creation, both are in stark contrast to the creation narratives of Israel's neighbors. First, in both accounts, God is one, and he creates directly without an intervening hierarchy between God and humanity. Further, neither account makes any distinction between persons except for male and female who together reflect the unity and diversity of God's image. Secondly, both accounts avoid the birthing metaphor for creation. In the first account, God creates through his Word, and in the second, humans are made from very earthly materials, clay, and given breath by God as were all animals. Nor did Israel liturgically celebrate an original primeval order, but rather, her worship was the rehearsal of God's mighty acts in history, above all, the liberation of slaves and the gift of land to the oppressed. Therefore, Israel's creation narratives did not validate the rule of the powerful, while her worship cried out for the constant renewal of Israelite society as revealed in God's liberating acts. For Israel, God and God alone was her liberator, her ruler, the sole owner of her land, and therefore, human political and economic power was strictly limited by covenant law.

Further, both Genesis accounts place limits on the human use of the environment. In the first, humans are given the right to rule over creation (Gen. 1:26), but this was limited by God's rest of the seventh day (Gen. 2:2-3). This rest was reflected in Hebrew legislation that protected the land and its animals (among many passages, note Lev. 25:1-7, 26:34-35). Further, in the second account, earth is seen as a garden, an Eden, a delight, and the role of humans is to preserve and enhance the original beauty of God's world.

Finally, unlike other creation accounts, the Genesis creation narratives contain no violence. There is no killing, disease, floods, or chaos in any form. Carnivores are not envisioned, plants are the only food. Only because of a mysterious primordial sin does violence enter the world and nature is corrupted as seen in Genesis chapter three. The creation narratives do not describe the world as it is, but as God intends it. This can best be seen in Jesus who overcame the disease, madness, and death of creation by his miracles and mighty resurrection.

Considered as a whole, Scripture shows little interest in such sciences as agronomy, political science, the biology of sexual reproduction, or even exactly how God created the world. But biblical faith is profoundly interested in the ethics of food distribution, the uses of power, sexual norms, and how we must live in the world God has created. In short, Scripture leaves us free to pursue science, but does not allow science to dictate moral norms derived from a corrupted world. If, for example, one accepts evolutionary theory as do I, this does not mean that an ethic can be derived from the evident fact of survival of the fittest. For me, morality is supremely revealed in Jesus Christ who was especially solicitous of the poor and powerless. Without a revelation from beyond nature, however, I can see no logical reason to deny Social Darwinism, whether something as "innocent" as Reaganomics, or as ruthless as the pagan Nazi religion.

In spite of its intellectual brilliance, Greek and Roman paganism could not deny the divinity of the Roman emperor, and as a corollary, the concentration of terrifying power in his hands. The pagans bowed before him, the Jews and early Christians refused and paid with their lives. Rather than the emperor, Christians worshipped Jesus Christ as Lord, but only because his lordship takes the form of a suffering servant who gave his life for the world. For centuries, in spite of terrible abuses and persistent failures, Christian society held to its vision -- that only God is divine, that the only true authority is the service of others, that temporal power and wealth must be limited -- and by means of this vision was able to critique and renew the social order.

Not any longer. Beginning in the 17th and 18th centuries, the limits on economic life were abolished to make way for an emerging capitalism. The political limits, democracy, balance of powers, equality, are still valued, but ultimately, these values are incompatible with outrageous private wealth and transnational corporate power. Without significant political debate, we have become integrated into an international economic order which has granted inordinate political power to a global elite, undermined democracy world-wide by removing real economic decisions from popular control, contributed to the devastation of the world's environment, substituted monolithic, violent, and insipid entertainment for indigenous cultures and religious faiths, worsened the lives of millions in the Third World by unrelenting austerity measures, shriveled our manufacturing base, undermined the wage of the average U.S. worker, escalated the gap between rich and poor, and all this requires the use of military force which, since Vietnam, has been measured out against those judged unable to inflict heavy casualties in return. In short, the ancient pagan system is being implemented on a world scale.

In my view, the new world order is the paramount political challenge of our day, and is not being addressed by our two major political parties. I do not expect them to. They represent corporate, not public, interests, and for them, the prospect of global preeminence is simply too enchanting. I support a third party candidate, Ralph Nader.

I am a priest of the Episcopal Church, but the views expressed here are strictly my own.

The Rev. Robert J. Sanders, Ph.D.
May, 2003.

Articles

Creation, Science, and the New World Order

Theology