Uncategorized
Untitled
“What To Do With Creation Stories” Based on Psalm 104:1-4, 10-15, 27-30 and Genesis 2:7-9, 15-25
I was really excited about the idea of starting Lent with Creation. After all, Lent is a season of preparation, a time when we are reflective and attending to the needs of our faith, and what better way to start that work than with the beginning of our shared story?

That excitement lasted until I sat down to reread the texts. At which point I began to question my sanity itself, and why I would set myself up to try to make meaning out of the Adam and Eve story. After all this story has been one of the primary ones used to subjugate women, not to mention queer and trans people AND has a bonus narrative of over emphasizing a duality of gender. My concerns about preaching about this led me down a line of thinking where I started to wonder if Creation itself really matters to Christianity and if perhaps we would be better off just ignoring all stories of Creation so I don’t have to preach on Adam and Eve.
That should count as a red flag in my thinking processes, because my faith is at the root a Creation-based faith. Creation is how I make sense of EVERYTHING. The Bible starts and ends with creation. We as people are co-creators with God, working towards the world as God would have it be (“the kindom”). Creation is sacred. The natural world is one of my best teachers. All of creation sings praises to the Creator. There is wisdom in every rock and stream and leaf. This is how I think. This is how I am!
I myself learned how deeply all of this is engrained when my beloved 2 year old spent last summer curiously pulling leaves and flowers off of living things, while I found myself assessing the health of the plants and inserting myself between him and any plant I deemed likely to be hurt by the loss of a single leaf. The lectures that came out of my mouth about respecting all of living creation were an excellent clue as to what I believe, although – as you might expect – not terribly convincing to the one who heard them.
So, what to do with creation stories?
And, before anyone gets too concerned listening to me, this seems like a prime time to talk about science and how great it is. To take a creation story seriously is not to assume it is factual about history and science, it is to consider it as a meaning making narrative and look for the clues of what it was trying to explain and why. I am DEEPLY committed to understanding God as Creator, it is inseparable from my faith as well as my world view, but I believe God created through the big bang and continued to create through evolution and continues to create today, along with us and beyond us.
For me, to claim God as creator isn’t about denying science. It is about believing there is sacredness in all that is, and that goodness is possible because God is the root of all being.
But, still, what are we to do with creation stories?
Well, I guess, we take them as they are: stories to help us understand the challenges of life, and we listen for their wisdom. Of course, the Bible has a multitude of creation stories because the Bible is working to make meaning and creation stories are particularly good at that. Phyllis Trible, starts the book God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality with the words “The Bible is a pilgrim wandering through history to merge past and present.”1 Looking at creation stories is the same as looking at the rest of the Bible. To make sense of it for the present requires some sense of what it may have meant in the past, but also a firm grounding in the present to see what it means now.
Now, as creation narratives go, Psalm 104 is one of my favorites. It seems to focus on the goodness and majesty of creation, and I like that theme. It also focuses on God’s presence within creation, another one I really like. Best of all, Psalm 104 presents God as active in caring for creation for the goodness of creation itself – us included. It serves as a reminder to be grateful for water, which brings life, and for grass which sustains cattle, for edible plants we get to eat and wine and water and bread to satisfy people. If Psalm 104 does all this while having some weird conceptions about what the sky is and some odd ideas about punishment, I can let it be, because I need the reminders of awe and care and hope that I hear in the text.
However, as creation narratives go, Genesis 2 is probably my least favorite. To be fair though, I dislike the text because of what others have done with it more than because of the text itself. So I forced myself to actually listen to it, and it turns out to be WAY more interesting and life giving than I expected.
Dr. Gafney says the first created human in this story is an “entity that will be divided into equal halves to form two human persons, yielding different theological implications than turning a man’s rib into a woman.”2 She is working on the interpretation from Phyllis Trible, which I’d like to point out was published in 1978 and continues to be one of the best texts on the subject.
In Trible’s translation of this Genesis creation story we start with, “And YHWH God formed hā-’ādām [of] dust from hā’adāmâ and breathed into its nostrils the breath of life and hā-‘ādām became a living nephesh.”3 From the beginning, Trible says, “Hā-‘ādām is the focus of God’s pleasure.”4 She translates hā-‘ādām as “earth creature” as it is a pun on the word for earth, and points out that the earth creature is NOT identified sexually. Rather the earth creatures is “precisely and only the human being so far sexually undifferentiated.”5 Further, “only two ingredients constitute its life, and both are tenuous: dusty earth and divine breath. One from above, one from below. One is visible, the other invisible.”6
And here I start to get a sense of the meaning the early story tellers were trying to get to. They wondered about this fragile reality called life, they noticed that we are interrelated with earth, but also more, at least while we are alive. These metaphors for what we “are” make a lot of sense if you are thinking meaning making and not science, right? Also, if you are listening to what the text says and not assuming that “earth creature” is “man.”
Now, if I were to pick one point from this story as the key thing that I think should be taken from it, I would pick the line “it is not good for the earth creature to be alone” which, as Trible says, “contrasts wholeness with isolation.”7 Please note that this is said while the earth creature is still… one. So I don’t think this is actually about romantic or sexual love, but rather the need for companionship and RELATIONSHIP. Further, God has been quite present with the earth-creature to this point, and it seems that God rather LIKES the earth-creature, but God still senses that the earth-creature is MADE FOR RELATIONSHIP with other earth creatures TOO.
And that, dear ones, I think holds throughout time. Trible says, “Since the earth-creature is not only part of the earth but also other than the earth, it needs fulfillment from that which is other than in the earth.”8 And, I’ve got to say, that feels right. And she points out that the ACTUAL phrase attributed to God says, “I will make a companion corresponding to it.” If you have a word other than companion, particularly one with a hierarchical basis in your mind, know that it is not fair to the Hebrew the story is told in. Trible explains, “According to Yahweh God, what the earth creature needs is a companion, one who is neither subordinate nor superior, one who alleviates isolation through identity.”9 Then God makes the animals, and they don’t fit. This reflects a God who is flexible, and working out with the earth creature looking for what that one needs, right? I like that metaphor too!
And then, God tries something else. Trible says, “In becoming material for creation, the earth creature changes character. Whereas the making of the plants and animals were divine acts extrinsic to the earth creature itself, the making of the sexes is intrinsic. Indeed, this act has altered the very flesh of the creature: from one come two. After this intrinsic division, hā-‘ādām is no longer identical with its past, so that when next it speaks a different creature is speaking.”10
“And hā-‘ādām said,
This, finally, bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh
This shall be called woman [’iŝŝâ]
because from man [’îš] was taken this.”11
Trible again, “the female pronoun this (zō’t) unmistakably emphasizes the woman whose creation has made the earth creature different. Only after surgery does this creature, for the very first time, identify itself as male.” “No ambiguity clouds the words used ’iŝŝâ and îš. One is female, the other male. Their creation is simultaneous, not sequential. … Moreover, one is not opposite of the other. In the very act of distinguishing female from male, the earth creature describes her as “bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh.” These words speak unity, solidarity, mutuality, and equality. Accordingly, in this poem the man does not depict himself as either prior to or superior to the woman. … For both of them sexuality oringinates in the one flesh of humanity.” I’m going to take this a step further and say that if this story claims the first earth creature was not gendered (non-binary perhaps?) and that humanity comes before gender, sex, or sexuality. The human experience is primary. The human need for relationship is primary.
This story seems to be trying to figure out not just where we came from, but what relationships we are supposed to have with God, with earth, with plants, with animals, and with each other. While it is at it, it is trying to figure out the pull of sexuality and the power of new love, the form of families, the role of gender, and what makes humans unique. That’s a lot to try to answer for one story. It is a lot more than the Big Bang Theory is able to offer too.
The Bible gives us multiple creation stories. I think that means we are to take seriously the sacredness of creation, but not fuss over the facts presented in each one. But we do have these stories to help us make sense of the big questions of life. Some of the answers will work for us, some won’t. It is OK to take what brings life and leave the rest.
For me, today, I like the idea of being an earth creature with Divine breath, I appreciate the reminders of awe and beauty, and the ones that say that I was MADE for relationships and that’s why they matter so much to me. What will I do with creation stories? Fight with them and savor them. Thank God. Amen
1Phyllis Trible, God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1978) page 1.
2Wilda Gafney, A Women’s Lectionary for the Whole Church (New York, NY: Church Publishing, 2021), p. 78.
3Trible, 79.
4Trible, 80.
5Trible, 80.
6Trible, 80.
7Trible, 89.
8Trible, 90.
9Trible, 90.
10Trible, 97.
11Trible, 97.
Rev. Sara E. Baron
First United Methodist Church of Schenectady
603 State St. Schenectady, NY 12305
Pronouns: she/her/hers
http://fumcschenectady.org/
https://www.facebook.com/FUMCSchenectady
February 26, 2023








