First let me say if you have no idea what I am talking about then first go read the first 2 chapters of Genesis paying particular attention to the way God is described in the two chapters. Allan on his blog poses a unique question that I am glad to see has sparked some discussion amongst those that know me.
I have seen a couple of different responses to this inquiry and one of them disturbed me a bit. I have snipped a section below to give you a taste if you don’t have time to go read the full story, I’ll pick up below the quote…
“The God of Genesis 1 doesn’t have to touch, or even see, anything. He’s distant from it. All of creation seems to take care of itself once he’s finished. He gives orders and commands. God blesses and provides for his creation and gives it what it needs. But it’s all very matter of fact and general.
Contrast that with the God of Genesis 2. That account shows us a God who forms man and breathes into his nostrils. He performs surgery on Adam and then sculpts Eve with his hands. In fact, he forms every animal and bird from the dust of the ground, not just man. He “plants” the garden. He “brought” man to the garden. He “brought” the animals to Adam. And he provided Eve out of concern for the man.” - The Kingdom, The Kids, & The Cowboys » Blog Archive » The Two Gods of Creation
They both started out similarly, first a somewhat confused and then interested look followed with an inquiry into “whatever do you mean the 2 gods described in Genesis?” Then the difference really hit home. A fellow at my work thought that it was odd at first, and as we read through the accounts we were impressed by the simplicity of the two accounts and relief that they were indeed the same God. This was followed by a discussion I enjoyed about the Simplicity and depth that has been conveyed to us through the word of God. No fear, no doubts, just wonder at the plan God laid out so quickly in 2 short chapters to describe the unique divine nature of our God. (This is where I think Allan has hit the nail squarely on the head in his description)
The second however is one where the listener was put off and defensive almost immediately to the idea, and I almost thought they might be a bit offended I had approached the subject in the manner I did. Almost like it was being flip and demeaning to God. It is this strict “The bible says what it says, don’t try to read to much into it” attitude that I wonder about. Is it wrong to pursue a greater understanding of the nuances God has preserved for us in his word? I don’t think so, although I can understand a fear that one needs to be careful to make sure your efforts are holding true to the contextual intention of the message as it was conveyed.
At first I thought it was an age thing, but that isn’t it because after beginning to think about this I have seen it from both sides of the age fence. I am no longer considered a spring chicken, though I am no where near pasturing age, I am pretty much a tweener right now I think. So if it isn’t age what is it? My wife was once asked if she thought you had to be able to read Hebrew and Greek to get into Heaven, she was taken aback, but the persons point was he didn’t think all that “interpreting” was necessary, just take the Word at it’s word.
That isn’t a bad thought if your truly aware of how the word was understood when it was originally given. I think this deeper understanding of God’s will is part of the maturing process, the feeding on meat rather than milk. I am not accusing anyone of being worldly or immature but I am seeking a better definition of meat for my life. Growing spiritually in knowledge and actions I think is beginning that walk in Christianity, if your not walking/growing your sitting still waiting.
If you began the journey good for you, I don’t try to place limits on what God’s grace and mercy cover after you become a believer. But, I can’t help thinking it is better to learn and grow than sit and wither. I know many of us fear the growth, what if I get to big for the pot I am planted in? Maybe you move to a bigger pot, or maybe you are taken completely out of the pot and are transplanted to a larger field.
In the end I liked Allan’s view on God’s 2 different sides being described in Genesis, I think it’s good to stretch outside our own boundries. In my case it was somewhat like “why did you focus on that, I have looked that over and moved on, but wait, that is interesting…” When someone challenges you with a new idea, don’t take it as truth immediately, take it in and compare it with the scripture. Does the statement ring true to the nature and descriptions given throughout the Bible along the subject. If the concept holds up then it is probably a sound view worth further study.
After that study you can decide for yourself what you think of the proposed idea. When your done with your research you’ve most likely jumped from being just a passive reader to an active reader growing deeper in your understanding of God’s will.