Re: [asa] The ASA and the Soft Sciences (ASA focus for the future)

Hi Dick,

Thanks for the brief clarification of your position as over against Sailhammer - I guess the best thing will be to find the time to sit down with your book and his and work through the issues. Sadly I can't see myself having time to do that in the near future, but I'll certainly add it to my burgeoning "to do" list!

If you'll forgive me harping on with regards to the Aboriginal Dreamtime theme you might find this little snippet interesting (you'll need to read the whole lot to get the point!);

The Dreamtime stories of Australian Aboriginals tend to exist in a kind of "nested" ordering in which one might have a "private" Dreaming which is never revealed to another person, then there might be gender specific or tribal specific Dreamings which are shared within a recognized cultural group but NEVER outside. And then there are "public" Dreamings which anybody can access.

One then describes these various Dreamings by reference to the particular individual, group or region to which they are associated. So, for instance, to refer to a story from the Ngarrindjeri people of the Lower Murray River, Lakes and Coorong, one could speak of either a Ngarrindjeri Dreaming or a Lower Murray Dreaming. And it if was (say) restricted to men it would be a Ngarrindjeri Men's Dreaming.

Now, Aboriginals are not quite silly enough to miss the point that the next tribe over has different Dreamings and they have a kind of convention to deal with this. What happens is basically that the context in which a Dreaming is narrated determines whether it is "sacred" or merely "respected". So, for instance, to tell a Ngarrindjeri Men's Dreaming on Ngarrindjeri land in the context of a men's ceremony is a sacred telling. But in any other context, such a telling would be merely "respected" - think of it a bit like the historical Protestant distinction between Scripture as "inspired" and the Apocrypha as merely "useful".

So what's the relevance? Well, you need to note that many of the various Dreamings are tied to the land in a very tangible way. And the recounting of that Dreaming serves to locate specific people groups within their landscape, as well as to give that location depth and substance.

So when an Aboriginal comes across the Genesis account their first response is to see Genesis in precisely these terms. They read Genesis as an "Israel Dreaming" and understand it as a story whose primary purpose is to tie the people of Israel to the land of Israel in a real and tangible sense.

Furthermore, as their traditional approach has always been to hold to their own Dreamings in their own land, whilst respecting the Dreamings of other peoples's, Aboriginals tend to have a remarkable capacity to hold BOTH the Genesis account and their own traditional stories without any real tension. In large part this is possible because their own outlook resonates so strongly with the ancient Hebrew perspective - the emphasis on land and people is a very Aboriginal friendly concept.

Of course, the Aboriginal view of Genesis is not likely to match your own - I just thought you might find it interesting to know just how much the idea of location in the landscape pervades Aboriginal consciousness, and consequently how they see this as a fundamental and pervasive theme in Genesis. It also might help explain why I see no small resonance between Aboriginal ways of thinking and the ANE outlook. Actually, it's kind of strange to see Aboriginals just shrug their shoulders at the Old Testament and respond "yeah, we already knew THAT"!

Blessings,
Murray

Dick Fischer wrote:
> Hi Murray:
>
>
>
> I've read Sailhamer and we are not on the same page although I don't
> attack or defend Genesis 1. Genesis 1 is not the history of a
> particular people as it has no descendants. Beginning at Genesis 2:4
> and following I believe to be an accurate, abbreviated history of the
> covenant race. The Sumerians, for one example, co-existed with the Line
> of Promise in the same region and are on both sides of the flood. Sumer
> was destroyed at about the time Abraham left Mesopotamia.
>
>
>
> Of course, the history is rich with theological significance. The
> coming of Christ is prophesied in the judgment on the serpent. I
> readily agree there are areas where we could question rather or not some
> symbolism is involved. Do snakes talk? How could the God of the
> universe be "walking in the garden in the cool of the day"? Did Abel's
> blood cry out? What "mark" would have given Cain safe passage?
>
>
>
> But the persons named appear to be genuine. The city Cain named for his
> son was also known to the Sumerians and was included in their king
> list. The area of southern Mesopotamia and the time period from about
> 7,000 to about 4,000 years ago, covering the time from Adam to Abraham
> looks right. Where we (Christians in general) blundered was in our
> thinking the Genesis narrative was a portrayal of human history - the
> beginnings of /Homo sapiens/.
>
>
>
> If I can only correct that one error my work on this planet is done.
>
>
>
> Dick Fischer, GPA president
>
> Genesis Proclaimed Association
>
> "Finding Harmony in Bible, Science and History"
>
> www.genesisproclaimed.org <http://www.genesisproclaimed.org/>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> Behalf Of Murray Hogg
> Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 6:51 PM
> To: ASA
> Subject: Re: [asa] The ASA and the Soft Sciences (ASA focus for the future)
>
>
>
> Hi Dick,
>
>
>
> First, a minor linguistic quibble; "Dreaming" and "Aboriginies" are both
> proper nouns and should be capitalized in this context.
>
>
>
> As for the substantial matters:
>
>
>
> I'd be a bit tentative in critiquing your position as I haven't studied
> it in any depth. I would like to read your book (although time and
> finances are against me!) but I imagine that your position is close to
> that of Sailhammer as expressed in "Genesis Unbound" (Multnomah Books,
> 1996) - i.e. that Gen 1 is a creation account proper with the following
> chapters of Genesis being specifically related to issues surrounding
> "the land" and God's gift of same to the descendants of Israel.
>
>
>
> But let's unpack this a bit.
>
>
>
> You say that "we still haven't figured that out" - by which I take you
> to be making the claim that while Genesis is history, it's history of a
> culturally important sort, and that "we" haven't yet gotten our heads
> around the fact that it's NOT simply about historical event. It's not
> simply about what happened "back in the day" but grounds present reality
> in a significant way. So you ALREADY have at least one significant
> parallel with the Dreaming.
>
>
>
> Further, unless you want to argue that Genesis has NO contemporary
> significance for non-Israelites, that is unless you want to claim that
> Genesis tells us nothing about spiritual realities over and above the
> mere fact that a certain piece of land belongs to a certain group of
> people, then you'd seem to be making the claim that Genesis is in a
> other significant ways "more than history". This is particularly so for
> those of us who take Genesis as an inspired text through which God can
> open our understanding of spiritual realities. So you now have a SECOND
> significant parallel with the Dreaming.
>
>
>
> I could go on, but the observation to which I wish to draw attention is
> this: even in claiming that Genesis is "history" you immediately want to
> qualify that term in ways which seek to bring out the fact that the
> Genesis text is spiritually significant, and that this spiritual
> significance is not a matter simply of historical activity on God's
> part, but reflects an ongoing reality in the present.
>
>
>
> But to this, I only make the point that this is PRECISELY the sort of
> text that Australian Aboriginals regard as "a Dreaming". It grounds
> CONTEMPORARY spiritual and earthly realities in a story about the past -
> it has the form of history, but it isn't primarily about the past.
>
>
>
> But, when it's all said and done, I have no real axe to grind here. I
> merely wished to support David O.'s original contention that we might
> have something to learn from non-western Christians by means of a
> concrete example of how one non-western culture resolves the issues at
> hand through a sophisticated approach to narrative. Understand that they
> have NO problem with evolution! None! Nada! Nichts! Not a sausage! So
> clearly the suggestion that western Christians are going to "resolve"
> this issue for non-westerners is simply hubris of the worst kind. They
> have ALREADY resolved it using the categories of their own culture. And
> that's the only point that needs making.
>
>
>
> Blessings,
>
> Murray
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dick Fischer wrote:
>
>> Hi Murray:
>
>>
>
>> Or why not consider Genesis as history? Regarding the Genesis narrative
>
>> as "true" certainly is orthodox, however, some departure from orthodoxy
>
>> is necessary or we remain in the middle of a muddle.
>
>>
>
>> Try this instead of "dreaming." Consider Moses as the author who knew
>
>> the lineage of the Israelites from literature available to him at the
>
>> time, perhaps in Egypt, or maybe in the hands of the Levites. He
>
>> compiled this history and gave it to his people to tell them where they
>
>> came from. When early Christians received Genesis, being ignorant of
>
>> geology, anthropology, etc., they misunderstood Genesis 2-11 as the
>
>> history of the beginnings of the entire human race. Unfortunately,
>
>> 2,000 years later and we still haven't figured that out. Well, some of
>
>> us haven't.
>
>>
>
>> I'll put that scenario up against the Australian aborigines any time.
>
>>
>
>> Dick Fischer, GPA president
>
>> Genesis Proclaimed Association
>
>> "Finding Harmony in Bible, Science and History"
>
>> www.genesisproclaimed.org
>
>>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>
>> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
>
>> Behalf Of Murray Hogg
>
>> Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 7:40 AM
>
>> To: ASA
>
>> Subject: Re: [asa] The ASA and the Soft Sciences (ASA focus for the
>
>> future)
>
>>
>
>> Hi All,
>
>>
>
>> I'll only offer the observation here that the only people I've ever met
>
>> who offer anything like a fully-orbed, theologically orthodox,
>
>> scientifically informed, and biblically literate resolution of the nexus
>
>> between evolution and Christian faith have been Australian Aboriginal
>
>> Christians.
>
>>
>
>> This is primarily because of the approach they take to Genesis -
>
>> treating it as "a Dreaming" rather than as a historical narrative. I'm
>
>> sorry that I can't easily flesh that out much more as the Dreaming is a
>
>> quite profound approach to describing reality through the use of
>
>> narrative which has no counterpart in western thought.
>
>>
>
>> The problem for contemporary westerners is that we tend to have a pretty
>
>> stark dichotomy between the notions of "history" and "myth" - with the
>
>> former being "true" and the later "false." But the Dreaming is quite
>
>> another category altogether - it reads like history, but it has more
>
>> affinity with something like a Platonic plane of forms.
>
>>
>
>> As such a Dreaming might read to us like a historical narrative, but
>
>> it's actually a description of present reality, of the proper order of
>
>> things, so to speak. As such to ask the question "did it happen?" is
>
>> actually a category error (and will only result in much shaking of heads
>
>> amongst Aboriginals dismayed by white-fella's ignorance). The only
>
>> proper question is "is it so?" -- which one answers by appeal to the
>
>> power of the Dreaming in question. Very powerful Dreamings have a sort
>
>> of intuitive obviousness which can't be gainsaid and in some respects an
>
>> Aboriginal might appropriate the famous words of CS Lewis to say
>
>> something like: "I know that this Dreaming is true, not because I see
>
>> it, but because by it I see everything else".
>
>>
>
>> As a consequence of this sort of approach to Genesis, Australian
>
>> Aboriginals tend not to find ANY difficulty in holding together
>
>> evolution and the biblical account of creation. The key is not
>
>> critiquing the science, but in understanding the role of creation
>
>> stories in "ancient" cultures. Personally, I think westerners are by and
>
>> large clueless on this score and, as David suggests, we could learn ALOT
>
>> from our third-world brothers and sisters in regards to how creation
>
>> stories should be appropriated.
>
>>
>
>> Blessings,
>
>> Murray.
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> Dehler, Bernie wrote:
>
>> > David, when you say:
>
>> > "Maybe some of our brothers and sisters from parts of the world that
>
>> > aren't so influenced by rationalism will some day offer some solutions
>
>>
>
>> > that /we/ will need to integrate"
>
>> >
>
>> >
>
>> >
>
>> > I'm wondering what you could possibly mean by that. It seems to me
>
>> that
>
>> > the educated western world is at the forefront of integrating science
>
>> > and religion; groups such as the ASA. How could another place come up
>
>>
>
>> > with better understanding after groups like ASA have been struggling
>
>> > with it for many years- many of the brightest scientists and
>
>> > theologians? Are you thinking maybe a mystic or prophet of God will
>
>> > arise to illuminate all of this?
>
>> >
>
>> >
>
>> >
>
>> > .Bernie
>
>>
>
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>
>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>>
>
>>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Jan 6 14:44:16 2009