The recent wrestling match of opinions between George and Glenn
(shich now leaves both parties exahusted) seems to be about the
relative importance of history and theology in considering Genesis 1-11.
Maybe, we can shift our perspective on this by noting that theology
interprets history. Glenn is correct that - if the history did not
occur - then we face the question of 'What are we interpreting?' George
is correct in that - if the theology is not true to the spirit - we
cannot interpret history even if it occurred. We must not forget
that the process of (theology interprets history) participates in an
experience that we might think of as - a response - an call - a proposed
The twist, of course, lies in the fact that the Bible narrates both
theology and history and this narrative is conditioned by each writer
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
experience. So Paul Seely argues.
Thus we are left with a metaphor: Genesis as archaeological artifact.
How do we interpret this artifact, especially at a time when we
have discovered plenty of ancient religious artifacts portraying now
unknown ideologies? Is it appropriate to try to 'fit' the artifact int=
The key is that Genesis is part of a living tradition that is
'living' by the grace of God.
Theology must be a guide for the Christian community. Despite Glenn?s
criticism, George must assume the perspective of the living tradition
when looking at these texts.
However, I think Glenn is correct in that concordism may play
a crucial role (albeit as art) in order to distinguish the Christian
from all other perspectives. I think that theology will benefit from
the play that is concordism because (as every postmodernist knows),
the modern emphasis on the writer has shifted to the reader. And
certainly, today, we look at Genesis with an experience of nature
far different than the ancient experience.
Congratulations on wonderful exchange.