Calvin, scripture and creation
Trying to establish either creation or the Bible as the primary source of revelation doesn’t allow for the complexity of our world. We need both.
Calvin is commonly quoted as saying we should read the book of the world through the eyeglasses of scripture (Institutes V1, 2:70). While both the Bible and the world are important sources of revelation, scripture has primacy. In contrast, the poet Christian Wiman in Glimmerings (which collects emails between him and theologian Miroslav Volf) suggests that because God’s creation preceded the Good Book, we might use creation as a lens to clarify scripture. Creation has primacy over scripture.
What if it’s both?
I think both viewpoints are likely an overreach, as they imply that one position is always appropriate. Instead, we should say that in some cases primacy belongs to creation, while in other matters we need scripture in order to understand what we see in our world. While I think such a stance is reasonable, it begs the question: When should we give each pride of place, and how does one book of revelation impact our understanding of the other?
Here’s a practical example. The deep history of our world as described by science is clearly at odds with the first eleven chapters of Genesis, which condense vast geological and social developments into the span of a few human generations. I have read and heard many well-meaning attempts by sincere Christians to fit the events described in early Genesis into our scientific understanding of history. They have never worked for me. Moving from the first human lives through the technological advances made by a few generations descending from a murderer (Gen. 4:17-22) stretches credulity. I find no evidence to support the idea that an ark filled with animals and a few humans restarted the world. I can only live in the modern understanding of the earth changing over a span of billions of years.
So, in this case, what book of revelation do I take from and how do I honour the word of God in scripture? As I look at Genesis, I ask what lessons God is teaching us, not whether this is a literal historical account. I find that God created a good creation, that we are creative users of it and that we add richness to this world. I find that God loves creation and us, and that even when we fail in many ways, he will never destroy his works.
The why and the how
In other places, I see scripture providing a solution the world alone cannot. Creation is filled with suffering. Bad things happen to good people. Scripture makes sense of this through the emptying of the Godhead: God himself was born as a refugee in a stable and allowed us to become children of God through Jesus, the Christ. In his Son, God walks with us and suffers for us so we can be made whole. To me, the overarching message of scripture is that God loved his creation enough to enter into it and, through that act, lift it into a fullness that would not be possible otherwise. Here scripture explains creation, providing the “why” to science’s “how.” We need to be open to God’s teaching in both books.
It is hard to say in a few words, but . . . . I suggest that ‘living the story’ of Genesis 1-11 (or the whole Bible) has revelatory significance and authority. But not while ‘looking for lessons.’ We are changed by being in the story, reflecting on the story, accepting its unique form of authority. Bible vs. science or Bible AND science are, in my view, both rather strange ways to approach stories.
The best training for prospective theologians is, said one of my mentors, a literature undergrad degree. I would add that immersion in an oral culture such as any number of indigenous worlds would also be a key to understanding the scriptures and their relation to whatever science shows us.
All of this begs the question, I suppose, about other forms of creational knowledge that are not based on western science.