So many people try to persuade me that God is behind all that happens (a view that I’d wager breeds superstition), but when I consider the deliverances of the natural world and the way it appears to function, it seems that this view is surely further away from the truth, than closer to it.
Adam & Eve? Magic trees in a
Garden? Talking serpents? What kind of world might this be? If you’re
looking for a plausible interpretation of Genesis 1-3, which takes both
the ancient near-Eastern and the natural world informers seriously,
check out our book From Evolution to Eden. Making Sense of Early
Genesis.
Today’s composers compose their music in the shadow of Bach and Beethoven, Mozart and Handel, and other musicians. This notion of inheriting ideas, forms of life, and structures of composition ought to be a continual reminder that we’re not the first people on the planet to make music. Similarly, to reflect on justice it is crucial to realize that we develop our views in the shadow of Locke, Hume, Kant and other thinkers who still have a tremendous impact and influence on our perspectives today. Theories of justice, therefore, are like texts under negotiation. They require a serious consideration of the points of view of our predecessors, along with a give and take connected to a desire for a better interpretation of what would be just for the sake of all concerned. No easy task, but nevertheless one that is worthwhile. Questions of human dignity, human responsibility, and human freedom implore us to be committed to reflecting on, debating about, and acting for justice.
We can always affirm or deny a belief in God’s present action in the world. If this is the case, the extent to which either of these directions is legitimate will depend on how we evaluate varying degrees of subjectivity and objectivity, since such a process will enable us to have some measure of credibility for claims about the probable or doubtful dimension of God’s involvement. Reliable trust and suspicion in these matters would seem to be a valid goal for us all. In order to start to move towards reliability, one prominent feature of this type of exploration will be to observe and assess the character, spirituality, and wisdom of the claimer, and to connect that to God, the biblical text, self, other, and world. It’s not a good idea, nor is it an act of love to let someone make it up as they go along (I would wager there can be valid criteria for such a challenge), but neither is it gracious to not consider a claim about what God might be doing. There’s no easy way out of this tension. We’ll have to aim to be responsible as we interact with each other’s stories and attempt to come to better interpretations of God.
Searching
for better interpretations of God, the biblical text, the world, and ourselves
is a life-long task and joy. The freedom to explore is not a drawback, but a marvel.
This doesn’t mean that in and through our probing investigations, we stand or
kneel nowhere. That is simply not a credible possibility. Taking a point of view
as a conscious choice is both valid and instructive when based on
interpretative sufficiency, though this is to be done within the ongoing
tensional configuration of confidence and humility in dialogue.
