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:
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment