Continuation from the previous blog
So, in 1926
reverend Geelkerken, together with some of his colleagues, was evicted from office.
Allegedly he’d proposed in a sermon that the snake in Genesis 3 hadn’t literally
spoken. One elder who’d filed an official complaint which was officially invalidated
by the synod, could not accept the synods verdict and stubbornly stuck his heels in the sand (maybe a Dutch thing)
which resulted in the massive church split.
 |
| Depiction of the sin of Adam and Eve by Jan Brueghel the Elder and Pieter Paul Rubens (Created in 1615) |
In his defense
Geelkerken wrote that, for instance, it is hard to explain the particulars of
Genesis 3. He pointed out that there are as many interpretations as there are
interpreters," and added the following sentence: “just take the tree of knowledge
of good and evil, the talking snake, the tree of life etc.” Moreover he subsequently admonished the
congregation not to be bemused by this
and called the fall a historical fact.[1]
The most
effective way to communicate and pass on core truths to a next generation is
through stories. A story is easy to remember and is a relatively safe packaging
methods to safeguard the conservation of the core truth it contains.
What
Christians call sin is the elementary belief that man chooses to live without
God, preferring to live life independent from Him. Genesis 3 conveys how this severance-drama unfolds. What we need to focus on is the nature of sin and its consequence
for the relationship between God and man, man and man, and man and the environment.
When one loses himself in a discussion focusing on “did versus did not” pertaining
to the actual story, one misses the point, with hot heads, splits and foolish
conclusions as a result. Why is it that one is so easily lured into engaging in
discussions regarding containers where it’s really about what is in the container?
And let’s face it; the story of Genesis is being told and retold over and over again, using analogies, images and words that are relevant and make sense to the contemporary audience. The reason we modernize the story is because we know that it is about what needs to be communicated and understood and not about the packaging.
When I
attended lectures in India for my studies, a Canadian professor told the class
about a Bollywood movie that had made quite an impression on him. He gave the
class the summary and asked if one of the approximately 50 Indian students
would might have any idea which film he was talking about. The whole class responded
with sheer laughter and told him that the movie he was describing could have been any Bollywood
movie as “they’re all the same”. The only difference are the actors, the
scenery, the run-up to the betrayal and the eventual reconciliation.
In February
1968 a reconciliation service was held in Amsterdam. The purpose of the service
was to exonerate reverend Geelkerken and to revoke the Asser statements. Reverend Geelkerken didn’t live to see, witness
and experience it in person. He died in 1960, posthumously exonerated.
The synod
had come to its senses as they realized it was about the coffee and not about
the wrapping.
No comments:
Post a Comment