History and the Root of Theology

No Sunday sermon this week, since I did not preach.

Reading the beginning of Irenaeus' Demonstration of the Apostolic Teaching places the reader in a very different world. The pastor of my home church has been preaching on Genesis and how what we read in the first few chapters affects us in our contemporary world. This is a departure from the consensus of scholarly thought, perhaps even within evangelical circles, which regard the first 11 chapters of Genesis as myths designed to teach us some truth through a fictitious, ahistorical account. (In a previous post I mentioned a chapel speaker at my son's conservative Bible college who espoused this view.) Scholars, like other people, want to be accepted by their peers, and holding to Genesis as historical does not gain one appreciation among the majority of scholars.

Yet Irenaeus roots his theology in the accounts of Genesis: creation, the Fall, the flood. He makes a great deal about the various characters we find in these stories, and what they teach us about the way to relate to God. He sees theology as unfolding from these early stages as God reveals more about Himself to those who seek Him. Without this foundation, the rest of the story of redemption would collapse.

Now you can chalk this up to Irenaeus' historical naivete. There are certainly places where he shows that he accepts beliefs from non-Biblical sources, possibly on the basis of what other Christian writers taught. Yet he is careful to cite Scripture as he lays out his teaching for his audience. Irenaeus also understands some Biblical passages differently than we do today (he accepts the idea that the "giants" of Noah's times were the seed of angels and human women, for instance-although you will still find modern teachers who also accept this), but he is still careful to use the Bible the basis for his teaching.

I believe that Irenaeus is correct in his decision to root his teaching in Genesis understood as genuine history. As the history of theology shows, tearing history from the Genesis accounts often (if not inevitably) leads to finding it convenient to continue to do so throughout Scripture, including doing so to the gospel accounts of Jesus. At that point, Christianity ceases to be a faith and becomes a dry ethic that follows the remnants of the teachings of a Palestinian rabbi who may or may not have said what is recorded and who certainly did not rise from the dead.

Such a teaching may appeal to some. It allows you to create a Jesus that fits what you want Him to be by simply ignoring what you don't like in the Bible. This has been going on in the church almost as long as it has existed; Marcion was a prime example of changing the content of the Bible to fit what you want to believe. But in doing so, we rob Christianity of the power it has a a true story of God's work and Christ's redemption. In C.S. Lewis' phrase, Christianity is "myth become fact," and without the facts the myths lose their meaning.