Today I’m not going to waste anyone’s time by preaching a sermon. Instead, at this point in our service, let’s just sing the closing hymn. Then I’ll give the benediction and we can all go home. If you folks prefer this change I can call a special congregational meeting, and in a couple of weeks, we can vote on making it permanent via an amendment to our constitution. It would read something like this:” “From this day forward, with the exception of when visitors are present during the worship service, no sermons are to be preached at New Covenant Baptist Church.

Before anyone concludes I’ve finally lost it, allow me to try and explain. Recently it came to my attention I had insulted you folks when I used a well known phrase in the opening remarks of my “Bird’s Of a Feather Flock Together” sermon. In order to put those remarks in context, the following is what I said, “I hope I’m correct in assuming that as far as those of you who have been attending our church for at least six months are concerned; for the most part I’ve pretty much been “preaching to the choir.” Obviously, I don’t expect anyone to agree with everything I say. However, if you think some of my, or our churches teaching is “over the top,” so to speak, I hope you would grant me the courtesy of telling me.”

Now allow me to ask you these questions. Were any of you insulted by what I just said? After putting the phrase in context, did anybody become offended? At least one and possibly two people believed I insulted you and you should have been offended. Here’s why. Speaking of you folks, I was told: “They are already knowledgeable and don’t need to hear it again in a sermon. It’s a waste of my time and yours. When I used the phrase, “preaching to the choir” it was somewhat of an insult to my parishioners because it means ‘I don’t think you’re listening, so I’m wasting your time by preaching.’ By saying the same things over and over each week, I’m implying you folks are not listening. Instead, while I’m preaching, you’re gazing out the window or whatever.” Even if my life depended on it, and using my wildest imagination, it was impossible to see how anyone could possibly arrive at such a bizarre conclusion. When I pressed for an answer, this is what I was shown. “Preaching to the choir” means the minister is probably wasting his/her time preaching to people who show up every week. The minister would be better to preach to people who show up less often. The minister doesn’t need to convince the choir! And so it goes to preachers who preach hell, fire and brimstone to those who attend, not spending much time to bring new people into the congregation, He is “preaching to the choir” and thusly, he is accomplishing nothing,” (1). Is anyone in favor of amending our church’s constitution?

John 21:15-17 (ESV) ¹⁵ When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” ¹⁶ He said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” ¹⁷ He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep.”

As I mentioned last week and as we saw a moment ago, this is something which is a lot easier said than done. Whenever I receive that kind of feedback which I welcome and sincerely appreciate, I can’t help wondering what was so vitally important in that particular sermon that Satan didn’t want some folks to hear or read. In the one in which the phrase was used it was a matter of eternal life for those who forgave everyone who had wronged them or eternal death to professed Christians who won’t. Is it any wonder why Satan would do his utmost to short-circuit that sermon?

And Jesus wants me to do my very best to serve you folks that kind of much needed spiritual food, at least on a weekly basis. One way or another, I must try to get it into you. But it’s often very challenging as I explained in my Mother’s Day sermon. At least one person believes I shouldn’t fabricate a story which folks buy into and believe is true, regardless if it’s drenched with Scripture. I closed my Mothers Day sermon by reading a portion of a letter from someone who may or may not be a figment of my imagination. Here it is. “Hey Pastor Mike. It’s me Douglas, again. That was real cool the way you worked my letter into your sermon. Chloe thinks it was awesome. I’m still reading my Bible and other good stuff besides. I have some more questions for you. Why did God tell Moses to write something that God had to know wasn’t true? Why did God have Moses come up with such a whopper that made Christians look like fools?” Douglas goes on to explain and closes with, “Your friend, Douglas.”

Without going into all the details of the young man’s letter, Douglas had become confused because he had been advised that everything written in the first chapter of Genesis was literally true. He knew it couldn’t possibly be, and that posed a dilemma for him. For instance, either God didn’t know what He was talking about, or the Holy Spirit inspired Moses to make up parts of the Creation Account. Douglas concluded God knew what He was talking about; nevertheless inspired Moses to tell those ancient Israelites a real whopper which they bought in to.

Genesis 1:1-8 (ESV) ¹ In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. ² The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. ³ And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. ⁴ And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. ⁵ God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day. ⁶ And God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” ⁷ And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so. ⁸ And God called the expanse Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.

I assure you those ancient people understood and believed everything Moses said to be factual. How about you? Do you feel the same way about everything we just read as being literally true as the Israelites did? The following is what those ancient people believed.

Genesis 1:1-8 ^{1 “}In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. ² The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. ³ And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. ⁴ And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. ⁵ God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day. ⁶ And God said, “Let there be a solid canopy in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” ⁷ And God made the solid canopy and separated the waters that were under the solid canopy from the waters that were above the solid canopy. And it was so. ⁸ And God called the solid canopy Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.”

I realize the following commentary I’m about to offer may not be all that appealing to the spiritual appetites of some of you. If that’s the case, don’t get all bent out of shape. Just treat it as you would a vegetable which was served to you and you don’t care to eat. However, I want you to know I have reason to believe some of you will relish it; especially those who are seriously attempting to overcome a non-Christians’ firm conviction that the Bible is just a “fairy tale,” a poor lost sinner the Lord wants you to do your very best to persuade otherwise.

“In his excellent commentary on Genesis, John H. Walton writes: “As to the solidity of the firmament, [canopy] the historical context is that all people in all parts of the world, including the ancient Near East, from the beginning of history until 200 A.D. (and almost all peoples after that until modern times) believed that the sky, the firmament was rock-solid,”(2).

But God is the Creator; surely He knew otherwise. Why would He inspire Moses to tell those ancient people some things which thousands of year’s later science has proven to be untrue? No doubt God knew what Moses was up against and He inclined the man to communicate very important spiritual facts in a manner their Creator knew infallibly the Israelites would understand and profit enormously by.

Walton reminds us: “We live in a world far different from the world of the Old Testament. We must recognize the elements that distinguish these two worlds and make appropriate adjustments to our expectations. In our world, we believe reality is described most accurately in scientific terms. Mythology in the ancient world played the role that science plays in our modern world-it contained the explanation of how the world came into being and how it worked.”

“The mythological approach attempted to identify functions of the natural world as a consequence of purpose. The god’s had purposes, and their activities were the causes of what humans experienced as effects. By contrast, our scientific approach identifies the functions of the natural world as a consequence of structure and attempts to understand cause and effect based on natural laws that are linked to the structure, the composite parts of a phenomenon.”

“Much of the change in our world we attribute to personal agents,” (such as our presidential candidates are all clamoring for and promising.) But change is also attributed to natural causes, many of which are labeled natural laws. A thunderstorm is explained in terms of atmospheric pressure, convection and moisture. A dead battery is explained in terms of the law of entropy. The ancient Israelites, in contrast, perceived only personal causality. All change in the world was attributed to personal agents-to either humans (and animals by personification) or the gods. Natural events, for example, were manifestations of divine activity. Nature was not a causal agent, but rather the effect of divine agency, (3).

In his recently published outstanding book, Beyond The Firmament, Gordon J. Glover adds: “The generation of Hebrews that received the Bible directly from Moses would have been more familiar with the Egyptian creation myths. Moses, being educated in the best Egyptian schools would have certainly been very familiar with all the wisdom of Egypt, including their many creation accounts. According to the Egyptians, before there was even heaven and earth, there was a primordial sea representing the state of chaos and disorder. Chaos was associated with the destructive forces of nature that primitive man constantly lived in fear of,” (and perhaps many of those poor Burmese victims who are still reeling from the devastation of the recent cyclone were). We don’t typically look at nature as a delicate balance between order and chaos, but this is very common in more primitive societies. Except for an occasional natural disaster in some other part of the world (such as is occurring in China today) that makes the evening news, modern Westerners live relatively comfortable lives, sheltered by our technology from the danger of creation. Hurricane Katrina in August 2005 reminded us all about the chaos and destruction of the “primeval” waters. But ancient man was under constant threat of famine, pestilence, flood, drought, storms, wild animals, and earthquakes. Creation by the gods therefore is achieved, not necessarily by building things, but by imposing order on the cosmos-effectively restraining the forces of nature for the sake of human civilization,” (4).

These were some of the things Moses was up against when God appointed him to reveal profound spiritual facts to those Hebrews who would one day become known as “The Chosen People.” “The earth was seen as a flat disc or a rectangular table top floating in a vast ocean. Heaven was seen as a solid dome, or vault, which arched over the earth and supported another body of water above the sky. The vault of heaven was supported by pillars-thought to be great mountains-whose foundations were laid in the great waters surrounding the earth. The waters above the sky were continuous with the waters around and under the earth. The firmament, being a solid structure, had doors on the east and west sides through which the sun, moon, and stars would enter and exit each day. The rains were caused by tiny windows in the firmament that let down some of the waters from above the sky,” (5).

“There is no question that the Biblical firmament of Genesis was meant to be a literal solid structure supporting an ocean of water above the heavens, just as the days of creation were clearly meant to be 24-hour periods. Any interpretation of Scripture that tries to dismiss the solid firmament and the waters above is simply taking the verses out of context for the sole purpose of avoiding the “embarrassing” fact that neither of these things actually exists. But if we properly understand the actual point of Genesis, we shouldn’t be embarrassed by “the clear meaning of the text.” These passages can easily be explained in terms of the ancient Near-Eastern cosmology that serves as the unmistakable framework of the creation narrative. By leaving these verses in their original context, we can avoid the potentially embarrassing situations that often force us to dismiss the text as merely figurative or symbolic,” (6).

“What Moses brings down from Mt. Sinai elevated the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to unimaginable heights. Yahweh is in control. He alone restrains the forces of nature that threaten to destroy them. The universe is under God’s command and He has established the boundaries of nature. By His voice, not the voice of Atum, God created the heavens and the earth. No longer were the pagan gods of their Egyptian and Mesopotamian oppression given any legitimate status. The universe was born of unity and harmony, not of violence and conflict. The Biblical account shows how infinitely more powerful and purposeful the Hebrew God is than the self-serving quarreling deities of pagan mythology. In short, Genesis gives the ancient Hebrews a theology of creation that was much more profound than anything they would have been familiar with.” “Basically, the creation narrative was God’s theological rebuttal to the Egyptian creation mythology, not a scientific rebuttal of ancient Near-Eastern cosmology,” (7).

“The Holy Spirit had no intention to teach astronomy, and in proposing instruction meant to the common to the simplest and most uneducated persons, He made use by Moses and the other prophets of popular language, that none might shelter himself under the pretext of obscurity, as we will see men sometimes very readily pretend an incapacity to understand, when anything deep or recondite is submitted to their notice. Accordingly, as Saturn though bigger that the moon is not so to the naked eye owing to his greater distance, the Holy Spirit would rather speak child than unintelligibly to the humble and unlearned.”

“This powerful principal of accommodation can have other applications as well. I recently read of another very practical example. The situation involved Western doctors trying to prevent the spread of infection by midwives in a primitive culture. Rather than try to teach them about bacteria and germs, concepts that had no familiar cultural context, the doctors decided to use the natives’ own unscientific traditions to communicate the knowledge necessary for their salvation. This instruction took the form of ritual washing so that “demons” from the hands of midwives will not be transferred to the baby or mother. The desired effect was achieved, even if by means of fictionally incomplete or incorrect knowledge. Now ask yourself this: If these natives are ever to advance their knowledge to the point of understanding the actual material mechanisms by which infections are transmitted by unclean hands, will they curse those Western doctors for not giving them factual truth? Or will they appreciate the wisdom of those doctors, accommodating their ignorance and meeting them in their time of need-so that despite their lack of knowledge, they might still be saved? What a wonderful picture of how God deals with us! (8).

Sometimes I feel like old Granny of “The Beverly Hillbillies,” who, when speaking about their children used to say, “I gotta git some vittles into them youngum’s, Jed;” especially when I have to do whatever it takes to get some spiritual vittles into, as we used to say in Brooklyn, youse guys and goil’s, even if I have to create a young man named Douglas to do it.

ENDNOTES

(1)answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061119021645AA645qzlCy

(2) P. Seely, “The First Four Days of Genesis in Concordist Theory and in Biblical Context,” Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 49 (1997): cited in, The NIV Application Commentary: Genesis © 2001 by John H. Walton, pg.82, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49530.

(3) Ibid, pg.83.

(4) Beyond the Firmament:  Understanding Science and the Theology of Creation, © 2007 by Gordon J. Glover, Watertree Press LLC, P. O. Box 16763, Chesapeake, Va. 23328, pgs. , 59-60. In my opinion, every pastor and those entrusted into his pastoral care who take The Great Commission seriously ought to saturate themselves with the often profound insight contained in the pages of this Biblically sound, thought provoking, well documented, non technical, very enjoyable read.

(5) Ibid. pg. 62.

(6) Ibid. pg. 67.

(7) Ibid. pg. 68.

(8) Ibid. pg. 79.