Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Solving the Matter of Creation
“And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.” Genesis 1:31
Read that sentence again. Doesn’t it sound like the creator was just a bit surprised? And I think he was. And that is what I want to talk about today.
First I have to tell you that my head is no good at complex theories. So to set the context of a simplified approach, allow me to digress for just one moment.
A few years ago I was literally floundering in a university-level course on Administration. The assignment – to discuss the role of an Administrator. But where to start? It was so impossible to extract anything meaningful from my workplace environment. Too much stuff to sift through. So finally in desperation I turned my study to the limited details of running my own home. Here I found great examples of administration and resource management. Then, surprisingly, within those very simple limitations, I fleshed out a grand essay about Corporate Jungle Administration. Despite the difference in the size and arena, the application was still there. But simplifying the problem allowed me to back away from the forest enough to see the trees.
So I backed away from Administration in order to see how an Administrator works. And now I want to back away from Creation enough to see how the Creator works.
So first of all, can we simplify the definition of creation? When brought to its lowest common denominator it is a conversion of an inanimate thing into an animate thing. So when I think about it that way, the big question is not the one we have so long puzzled over. “Is there a God? Is there a creator?” But rather, “Could Creation, as we know it, happen without a Creator?”
And that is the question that came to mind while watching Hub creating his newest batch of rhubarb wine. It struck me, that here, for me to observe, was a simplified version of creation. So now I need to assess from this observation whether this creation is the work of a Creator or nothing more than a coincidental reaction of natural forces?
And so I watched as Hub took inanimate matter (rhubarb, sugar, water, etc), and put it in a big pail and stored it in a warm place. Without interference on his part the mix fermented. And then after a space of time, Hub drained and clarified the brew. We tasted it and, to the Creator’s surprise, “Behold, it was very good!” But yet, it was a creation that was not all hands-on. Some of what occurred happened without any direct influence by him. Yet, without him, all that happened would not have happened. So he is the Creator.
Now my mother, on the other hand, made wine through the process of the ‘Big Bang Theory’. She canned fruit, often using recycled lids. And so some of that fruit became wine though that is not what it was meant to be. And “Behold, it was very good!” In this instance the Creator was both surprised and dismayed. But just because it was not her intent to make wine, does that mean she was not the creator of that wine? In the final analysis it wouldn’t have happened without her. So yes, she was the Creator. So even the ‘Big Bang Theory’ has a creator.
So now Hub, as a Creator, and my mother, as a Creator, cannot be dismissed because without their effort and involvement, there would be neither rhubarb wine or fruit wine. Yet in each of these processes things happened without their interference that were spontaneous reactions. And that spontaneous reaction thing, that thing that happened without their interference, does not mean that they are removed from the process. Or that creator-involvement can be denied.
No matter how much evolution, time, or space occurred in the beginning of Planet Earth, is not this simple proof that there was still, within that process, the involvement of a Creator? So what’s to debate about Creation and the Creator? Absolutely nothing.
Excuse me. Could I have more wine, please?