Notes on the Creation Stories

There are a number of subtle differences between the creation stories in Genesis 1 and 2 that show their differing purposes. Noting the differences between these stories can help us to avoid confusing the origins of Adam (the distant ancestor of Jesus) from the origins of mankind (a scientific question which is touched upon in Genesis 1 only).

1. In Genesis 1 the animals are created before humans appear on the scene. This is consistent with the scientific record. But in Genesis 2 God (poetically) fashions a man out of the ground prior to the fashioning of the animals. This is a clue to the reader, that the subject matter of the two stories is not identical.

2. In Genesis 1 God makes men and women at the same time. In Genesis 2, God fashions Adam out of the ground before he (poetically) fashions a woman out of the rib of Adam.

3. In Genesis 2 it is clear that Adam and Eve are a particular human couple. This is by no means clear in Genesis 1:26-27. The text could be describing a particular human couple, but it is equally open to describing an original human population, which is more in keeping with 1:20-25 (describing the original populations of fish, birds and mammals prior to man).

4. In Genesis 1 men and women rule God’s world together with equal authority, whereas in Genesis 2 the woman is fashioned to assist the man (v. 18), and Adam expresses his authority over Eve by assigning to her a descriptive name (v. 23). Verse 20 strikingly compares the woman to the animals, in the sense that she is there as a suitable “helper” for the man, only after it is determined that none of the animals can do so.

5. In Genesis 1 human beings are told to multiply and fill the earth, and exercise dominion over it. In Genesis 2, Adam is created specifically to take care of God’s Garden/Sanctuary in the location of Eden (2:5-8).

Reviving an Old Blog

I am currently working on an article dealing with the scientific record and the biblical Adam.  One point which is often overlooked in these discussions is that Genesis 1:26-28 and 2:7 are distinct creation stories.  Genesis 1 is discussing the creation of humankind as a biological species.  Genesis 2 is discussing the creation of a particular human being and his wife.  The Adam who appears in the New Testament genealogy of Jesus (Lk. 3:38) and in Romans 5 is the man described in Genesis 2.  This man appears to have lived within the last 6,000 to 10,000 years.  That does not mean that biologically modern man has only lived so recently.  The scientific record seems pretty clear that anatomically modern man has been on the scene for tens of thousands of years, perhaps as far back as 200,000 years ago.

New Publication by Jonathan Bonomo on Mercersburg v. Princeton

I am pleased to announce that Wipf and Stock has published, in the form of a short monograph, a revised and updated version of my Master’s thesis on the Hodge-Nevin controversy on the Lord’s Supper.    The title of the book is Incarnation and Sacrament: The Eucharistic Controversy between Charles Hodge and John Williamson Nevin.  It also includes a foreword by Keith Mathison.

It is currently available from the Wipf and Stock website, here. 

It will also be available through the Westminster Theological Seminary bookstore, and is currently listed there as “coming soon.”

And, of course, it will be available on sites like Amazon, too, but that won’t be for around four weeks or so from now.

Be sure to pick up a copy if you’re interested in Mercersburg and/or this particular controversy.  Happy reading!

Although this blog has been inactive for over a year, I thought it appropriate to announce this here anyway since, according to the blog stats, it still gets some traffic.

As a side note, I’ve also toyed with the idea of resuming blogging (but it would most likely be somewhere other than this blog, which was always intended as a group project).  If I do wind up doing that, I will make an announcement here.

Blessings,

Jonathan G. Bonomo

March 5, 2010

An Update and a Fond Farewell

I apologize that this blog has gone so long without either a substantial post or an update explaining the lack of posting. I have some free time this morning so I figured I’d rectify this by offering a brief update on some things. I can only answer for myself as one of the founding members here. I’m sure the other contributors have many reasons of their own for the cessation of posting.

I have reached a point in my life where blogging has ceased having enough importance for me to justify continuing to spend any amount of regular time to it. I began blogging (around four years ago now, I believe) because certain blogs had come to have an impact on my own thinking (mostly in the way of directing me toward reading resources I would not have otherwise been exposed to), and I thought that perhaps by doing so myself I could in turn help others to think more clearly about issues of catholicity by offering public reflections as a result on my own study/thinking. I also found the dialog which took place on blogs to be somewhat beneficial. Even if the discussion could at times be irritating and would at still others devolve into a mass of nonsensical, unbeneficial, and vitriolic diatribes, I always felt that the good outweighed the bad.

The inception of my blogging life took place initially at a time when my theological convictions were at something of a point of crisis, mostly due to my reading of the Church Fathers and comparing their way of thinking to the vapid form of Evangelicalism I had previously avowed. I had come to gain an appreciation for theological perspectives outside of my own and felt myself leaning ever more away from American Evangelicalism toward a more catholic way of thinking and living. I had gained an appreciation for Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Anglo-Catholicism, but my Calvinism always remained strong enough to keep this appreciation entirely at the level of aesthetics rather than actual conviction.

As I was working through many issues, mostly at an academic/theoretical level, I found the world of theoblogs to be one place where I could gain a wide exposure to a variety of perspectives and be informed of different positions by way of conversation with those who actually held them. This was and is a good thing, and I am appreciative for the role my internet interlocutors have played in the development of my own thinking on issues surrounding Christian catholicity in our day.

But I have reached a point in my life where it is necessary for me to move beyond the theoretical and into the practical. Blogs cannot be an end in themselves, and in my mind they never were. I always knew that my involvement in extended internet discourse would die out eventually as I moved away from the level of thinking through issues to developing firm convictions and eventually into putting these convictions into practice through either professional academic or ordained ecclesiastical vocation.

Well, I am neither, at this point, a professional academic nor an ordained minister. But I have at least developed a firm set of convictions concerning what I believe and what the Lord is calling me to which have made it hard for me to justify speding any significant time on blogging any longer.

What I mean is that I no longer find myself in the heated struggle of heart and mind which I had been experiencing when I entered into the wonderful world of blogging. I am quite able now to claim both the early Church Fathers as well as the Reformation Church Fathers as my own, and have very much come to grips with my identity as an heir of the Protestant Reformation, and my own particular theological tradition as confessional Presbyterianism. My faith and life in Christ has been nurtured by this tradition, and by a particular church within this tradition, for the last six of my nine years as a Christian. And even through my time of struggle I have not been exposed to any conclusive reason, either theoretical or practical, which has enticed me to throw off this identity. Much to the contrary, having arrived now at this side of said struggle, I have become even more firm in my confessional Reformed convictions than I was going into it, and have thus decided to pursue ordination to the Gospel ministry in the PCA. To be sure, I do not view the PCA as a perfect denomination or even necessarily better than other Reformed denominations. But, my understanding of catholicity demands that I stay where the Lord has placed me unless or until it becomes impossible for me to continue to do so.

Thus, as my self-identity as a confessional Reformed catholic has solidified, my desire for catholicity has become most immediately focused on the unity of the confessional Reformed churches in America. This does not mean that I have decided to cut off discussion with Christians of other traditions. But it does mean that, as a Reformed believer, I have come to see it as somewhat superfluous to work towards organic unity across confessional boundaries when the churches within my own confessional tradition remain as fragmented as they are, and are ever striving towards more fragmentation.

My understanding of the best way to work toward this unity has become fully church-focused. I had previously, as a full-time aspiring academic, been dealing in the world of the universal and theoretical. This is one of the reasons why blogging had become important for me. Theoblogs deal almost entirely in the world of the theoretical and the universal. They rarely get down to the dirty level of the practical and the particular. It is, of course, absolutely necessary that, for a time, all aspiring pastors and theologians deal with, work through, and develop strong convictions concerning issues in the realm of the theoretical and universal. However, the theoretical must never be viewed as an end in itself. We must always, as Christian churchmen, be asking concerning our theorem, “How will this preach, and how will it work itself out in the real world in the life of the actual assembly of God’s redeemed people?” Thus, when I began to sense my calling as a pastor and to develop a more churchly frame of mind, I became much more focused on ministry in the setting of an existing, local expression of the catholic Church than on thinking about that Church as a theory in the abstract.

Therefore, I have become convinced that I am being called first and foremost to be a pastor and theologian for a specific local gathering of God’s people, formed by the promise of reconciliation with God and each other in Christ as it comes to us in the ministry of Word and Sacrament. Where this gathering shall be I do not know at this point. But it has become my primary goal to prepare myself as best I can to serve that particular flock, wherever it should be. This is where catholicity must begin: in the nitty gritty of real, local churches. From here it must, of course, also work its way out into the church universal. But it must never skip this most basic step, for if it does, any talk or pretense of catholicity is but an empty show.

So, as I have continued to work to prepare myself for such ministry by developing my own personal and churchly piety, by serving in various ways in my church, by working with my pastors and elders, by gleaning from my courses at WTS in ways that have moved beyond the theoretical, and by striving to be a faithful servant of Christ in both my marriage and in my part-time employment, the world of blogging has receded very much into the background for me. This does not mean that I have come to view the time I have spent blogging as superfluous. I do not. In fact, I know that it has played an important role in the development of my thinking at what may perhaps prove to have been, when all is said and done, the most vital time of that development. However, it has become clear to me that blogging has served its purpose, and that it is time for me to move on and to cease devoting my time on any regular basis to reading and writing on blogs.

Thus, I bid this blog, its contributors, and all those who have persevered in reading my obtuse ruminations, a very fond farewell. You will most likely see me from time to time popping up in the comment threads of my heretofore “regular reads”, but as far as contributions in any regular or substantial manner are concerned, I am officially announcing my transition into the phase of blog retirement.

I am always happy to maintain private correspondance, as time permits, via email: jb4calvin at g mail dot com. I can also be found on facebook.

Wishing sincere blessings to all,

Jonathan Bonomo

Blessed Reformation Day!

And Eve of All Saints. I have posted some brief reflections on the connection between those two at another place; and this gives me the opportunity to draw readers’ attention to that place, a new site called Basilica, which has grown out of conversations between some contributors and readers here. It is not at all intended to replace or supersede this one. But whereas this forum is a less directed dialogue between participants of very widely divergent adherence- a free for all dialogue which at its best it very useful and illuminating- the new site is a confidently and consistently evangelical catholic inquiry into first principles and the fields of Christian wisdom, in the spirit of CS Lewis. It aims to offer useful resources to pastors, other leaders, and interested laymen. It will maintain a high editorial standard, and the conversations will be carefully moderated and directed to ensure the most fruitful engagement and exchange of ideas. The site can be found here:

http://thebasilica.wordpress.com/

Peace to all, and blessed Reformation Day.

LET’S GO PHILLIES!!

Couldn’t help myself.

On the Professionalization of Theology

Education has always played a large role in my thinking on the hope of future reunion of the Protestant churches, because I am convinced that a major reason (though not the only reason) for our disunity is lack of education about our theological heritage. Christians generally have no idea what the real issues that divide them from other Christians are or how those differences came about; much less do they have the first clue about how these divisions might be healed. This lack of historical and theological perspective serves only to increase defensive and militant postures towards opinions foreign to us and those who hold such opinions. And this is by no means a problem which simply exists among the laity. It is in fact just as much a problem within the theologically “educated” clerical ranks.

Playing a part in rectifying this problem has thus always been in the forefront of my mind as I have pondered where to exercise the gifts I have been given. I was at one time convinced that the best place for me was in the academy, working to educate the future leaders of the church and hopefully playing a part in instilling in them a desire to be united with their brothers and sisters with whom they may differ, or at least helping them to understand why they differ. A laudable goal, I’m sure you’ll agree. However, I have since decided to seek ordination to pastoral ministry, and what follows lays out, in all too brief a manner, my basic line of thinking which initially convinced me that I should forsake the idea of pursuing a career in the wonderful world of academia.

I remain convinced that God does indeed call people to work in the academy in order to serve the church in that capacity, so I don’t want any of my comments here to be taken as a deprecation of the academy per se or those who work therein by any means. However, I am concerned about a rather troubling trend which I have noticed for some time now. Most of the best Christian scholars are going to the academy while those who are not “academic” are going into the pastorate. Thus, our seminaries are full of a sort of intellectual hierarchy amongst the students (I say this as one who has observed closely the student life of two very prominent Protestant seminaries): the majority of highly intellectual students go for PhDs and a career in professional theologizing, while those who are not quite so intellectual enter the pastorate. Thankfully there are exceptions here, but this, it seems to me, is the general rule.

This is a dangerous trend, and one I hope to play a part in breaking. Theology exists for the church, not the church for theology. This is the natural order of things, and I am convinced that it has been reversed in recent years.

One thing we desparately need in order to reverse this situation is pastors who know the entire breadth of Christian thought and its history; who can speak intelligently to the church and the world in our day and effectively combat the fragmentation of church and society.

But also, it is imperative that the locus for theologizing move back to the church. The primary place where theologizing is done has been the abstract world of the academy for far too long. In this situation, the theologizing of the church has come in one of two forms: either a trickle down of ideas originating in the academy, or a reaction against the academy. But in both cases, the academy has dictated the direction in which the theology of the church has moved. But history furnishes us with numerous examples for the rule that most of the best theologians (and by “best” I mean those who have had the most wide-ranging impact) are generally also pastors, so this situation is needless, not to mention very unhealthy.

Thus, I don’t think it is too much of an overstatement to say that the professionalization of theology is a plague on the modern day American churches, and I am convinced that it has played perhaps the biggest role of all in the continual fracturing of the church in this country.

I am not the only one who has seen this. In fact, professional theologians themselves are pointing it out. E. Brooks Holifield, in his magisterial work Theology in America (New Haven: Yale, 2003) provides a very revealing assessment of the beginning of this phenomenon in the nineteenth century:

Presbyterians, both Old school and New, assumed leadership in the professionalizing of theology. As a full-time theologian who never held a position outside the academy, [Charles] Hodge joined the ranks of a new kind of American religious leadership. And as theology moved from the parishes to the seminaries, rivalries among the schools intensified theological disagreements. Princeton saw Andover, for instance, as dedicated to making ‘Old-School doctrines appear ridiculous and odious,’ and it viewed Yale as an enemy of orthodoxy. Old School seminaries competed also among themselves; the southerners at Union, Danville, and Columbia tried to ‘break the charm’ of Princeton’s ‘ascendancy,’ and northern ultraconservative kept Princeton on the defensive by threatening to create new schools whenever the Princeton faculty strayed. Other seminaries, including Auburn in New York, Lane in Ohio, and Union in New York City, became centers of New School thought arrayed against Old School institutions. (371-372)

And, as many of us well know, this was only the beginning.

This is a shame, and I believe it is the calling of our generation to begin an effort to reverse this situation. There is a place for the academy and for academics working therein, of course. But there also needs to be a place in the church for pastors who undertake rigorous academic work and also for career academics who are deeply immersed in the life of the church. And a healthy relationship will never exist between the two institutions unless the church begins to reassert its role as that place for which theology exists and in which the task of theology is to be undertaken.

Also, it is necessary that theologians be pastoral in both perspective and ethos if their ideas are ever really going to have any impact on people. To steal an immortal phrase from The Fearsome Pirate: “If you don’t give a crap about people and their crap, it all goes to crap.” I am convinced that a major problem with the church’s theologizing in our day is that it exists only for the most part in the form of abstraction. Our theology is “out there” somewhere. It exists in an ideal world. But the problem is that the church (for the good of which theology exists) does not exist in an ideal world. The church is a real life, messy place, full of sinful men and women. Jesus Christ took on flesh so that we would no longer have to theologize about a God “out there” with endless theorem. Theology—if it does not exist in the real world and for the real flesh and blood people who constitute the church—“all goes to crap.”

And indeed, it has very much gone to crap in a variety of ways. We find ourselves in a lamentable situation. But it is not a hopeless one.