Young Christans in the Netherlands don't necessarily need a talking snake

In 1926 one reverend Johannes Gerardus Geelkerken was suspended and soon thereafter evicted by the synod of the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands as a response to the question whether the snake in the Genesis story had literally  or whether it was a figure of speech. The “case” was seized to address a deeper and underlying matter that had been preying on people’s minds and theology’s concern for more than a decade. This was the matter of epistemology: “what can we really know”? Within the ongoing shifts and movements in theology some would turn to more experience oriented faith practice whereas others would cling to and insist on a literal interpretation of the Bible. This matter had been simmering for a while and it was a matter of time before it would erupt. The “Geelkerken matter” became the fuse in the powder keg.[1]

Geelkerken’s eviction drew deep tracks in the Reformed landscape of the Netherlands with a dramatic church split as a consequence. Various pastors gave in to the pressure to choose sides with split communities and even families as a result [2].

When one reads the correspondence between Geelkerken and the church classis, it becomes clear that it was a matter of semantics and a typical case of gutter journalism.  It was turned into something much bigger than it really was. In his defence, Geelkerken wrote (sorry for the Dutch here but it boils down to “history versus history dressing”):

Trots de uitweidingen Uwer memorie begrijp ik nog altijd niet, waarom Uwe vergadering tegenover mij de kwestie der „historische inkleeding” aan de orde stelde. Reeds in mijn preek-coupure zeide ik zoo beslist: „Vast staat, dat wij in Gen. 3 de goddelijke bekendmaking hebben van een historisch feit, het feit van den zondeval.” Hoe is het dan ter wereld mogelijk — bovendien nog na mijn vorig antwoord — dat Uwe vergadering er nog niet zeker van is, dat ik volstrekt niet van gevoelen ben, „dat er verschil van meening mag bestaan of wij bij Genesis 3 hebben te denken aan historie of aan historische inkleeding.”

I recently read the Geelkerken story and started to wonder how many believers today would insist on a literal, historical reading of genesis 3. My hypothesis was that I believe that the younger generation of believers is more comfortable with the notions that the story is a metaphor and/or that it doesn’t matter whether it literally happened or not; the can is just the container for the more important coffee you store in it. Running my hypothesis by some friends the response was an overwhelming “Well I’m not so sure.”

I didn’t loose any sleep over it but I decided to go ask. Thus the mini survey. To get a balanced and representative idea, some serious, global research would be helpful and welcome. My mini research wants to get a general idea in broad paint strokes in pastel color. The fact that most respondents are Dutch limits the generalisation of the results.

In what way abandoning the literal reading of the Genesis story affects the personal faith of a person I can’t say since I didn’t ask. I am, however, quite familiar with the immediate response of some of my hard core literalist friends. They will say that not believing in Genesis three as an accurate, historical and literal event is the beginning of the end of one’s faith, if it’s not the end already: “If you start here, you might as well (and implicitly do) ditch all the other stuff as well.

335 people responded, the majority from the Netherlands. As said before, one needs to handle the data carefully, being fully aware of its limitations. The response is not the optimum. I placed the survey on Facebook, both in English and Dutch and friends responded, as well as friends of friends. I asked friends to share, which they didn’t (I perfectly understand, I wouldn’t have shared it).

Most noticeable is that the younger generation (15-25 years) seems to be more comfortable with a not literal reading of Genesis 3 (38% against 50% of the 26-40 group and 63% of the 41-60 year olds. 60+ “scores” 54%). My hypothesis seems to hit the mark.

I am sharing two simple tables that will give you the main and general overview. Feel free to have fun with the whole spreadsheet yourself if you feel the urge to do so. You can get it here (csv format. If you use the data to publish, do the right thing and note where you got your data).

So I wanted to get an answer. Unfortunately every answer leads to more questions; there is no end to it!
Navigating between the literal, historical reading of the Bible on the one hand and reducing it to some general and wise guidelines in the other hand is the task given to flowers of Christ. There’s always been, and there always will be extremes. Often these extremes are nothing more than a fearful grasping onto something that we desperately turned into something imaginable, measurable and tangible. One of the challenges of the Christian faith is that you can’t put your arms around it. Or to say it with the words of Thomas Halik:

And which of us is bold enough to expose ourselves to a God who systematically transcends the ideas we have created of him and thereby obliges us to reassess all the time our opinions about the world and ourselves? Is it any wonder that people go on preferring to create idols of their own (previously of bronze and wood, now of ideas and notions), with which they know conclusively how they stand and what the can expect?

Thomas Halik, I Want You to Be: On the God of Love; University of Notre Dame Press, 2016  

To be continued.

---

[1] Bron: http://www.protestant.nu/Encyclopedie/tabid/359/Default.aspx?Page=Geelkerken,%20kwestie

[2] http://www.dodenakkers.nl/beroemd/religie/69-geelkerken.html

Cutting and Pasting God after my own image

The worship leader, accompanied by flowing chords and backup singers, challenges the potential sing-a-longers to respond to the Lord’s “who will go” plea in Isaiah 6 and conveniently links this to a promise in the second Psalm. And they’re off, singing words of surrender, claiming promises, standing on the truth, insisting on it. The repetition underlining their seriousness; “My people, ask of me and I will give the nations for your inheritance and the ends of the earth for your possession.”
The second verse personalizes it a tad more. Now the audience is asking to be send as Gods ambassadors into the nations, thus completing the Isaiah 6 - Psalm 2 circle into a neat little package.

What is wrong with this?

I guess the intentions are good and commendable. Yes, it is Gods desire to see the nations reached with the story of the best news ever in human history – the story of Christ: redemption, restoration and forgiveness through his life and sacrifice. The worrisome aspect is the lack of respect of Biblical context, or complete ignorance and dismissal of it.

Let’s look at it more closely. Imagine that together with some prayer partners we have been claiming Belgium and after years of prayer, fasting and claiming, the Lord says “Okay, you can have it. Here’s Belgium. It’s yours.  Have a go at it.” First off all that would be a bit of a surprise and actually quite a shock. Secondly I would soon realize that I have no clue what I am supposed to do with Belgium.

Wait, maybe the Bible can help? Could it be that it contains suggestions pertaining to newly acquired nations? Well, let’s go through the challenging task and time consuming effort to actually open that Bible and find the second Psalm. Who knows.

Behold! It actually gives away some clues. In this particular case it is rather explicit. The verse directly following the “Ask of me” line instructs me exactly what to do next: “You will break them with a rod of iron; you will dash them to pieces like pottery.”

This is but one, tragic example of good intentions and bad theology; a cut and paste approach that is gut wrenching. Maybe “cut and paste” is a too sophisticated choice of words. More appropriate would be “Rip and Dash.”

Losing sight of Gods big story and constructing a personal theology that revolves around something we feel needs to be highlighted, inevitably results in a choice of randomly selected scripture and a handful of followers that, a few years or decades later might be remembered as a minor footnote in church history.

God’s big story has but a few  (I’d say between half and a whole dozen) clearly identifiable landmarks, or stakes that can be considered the framework of the Christian faith. Anything between those stakes is left for us to colour in. As I am getting older, the stakes are clearer and firmer than ever before. The colouring that I do; well I use pastels rather than brights.

This song, like many other (especially) contemporary "worship" songs are tragic examples of very bad coloring. And it's deceptive, putting people off as it builds up emotion and false hope rather than faith that is solidly connected to those God given stakes.

How bad do I have to be?

Human beings that invented  a trick or scheme and are able to actually execute it magnificently, providing that enough other human beings like what they did or do, are honored with an elevated status and granted a higher level of authority. They get to appear in prominent talk shows, get interviewed by renowned journalists and their TED Talks get multiple zero hits. They get to play with the other elevated human beings that, because of being around at the right time and place, and much to their own surprise, found themselves having fallen upward.

Authority, derived from achievements, usually have a short life span; it is the most delicate of the various authority sources. The great actor with whom half the world would love to have their picture taken with, and whose achievements are vaunted infinitely, can easily and quickly become tomorrow’s reprobate. A lesser acting achievement in his latest movie, a bug in the latest software upgrade, or a speeding ticket for the senior pastor are not the cause. After all, a lesser acting performance, a speeding ticket and a bug can be redeemed and crossed out by past and future better performances.

The weak spots in character revealed by circumstances or other people are for the media what fast-food is for the barely thinking consumer – devoured and processed quickly and via the sewage system ending up at the bottom of the Eco-system. Washed, cut, shaven and blow-dried; judgment has been passed – I never really liked him as an actor; there was something….

My struggle these days, with all the kerfuffle around recently fallen and yet to fall  Acting-, Church-, IT-,  and whatever gods, is that this kerfuffle is surrounded with a smell of hypocrisy. I don’t know, maybe it’s just me. Maybe I’m influenced too much by the words of Rabbi Jesus addressing a crowd and designated executioners of a woman that was caught in adultery. He said:  “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her” (they all backed off!). [1]

Just to be absolutely clear: the weaknesses in my character are by far not as bad or big as these of the real crooks!

I think.

---

John 8 [1]  At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.  9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”  11 “No one, sir,” she said. “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”