Artists, please unite around this statement by N.T. Wright, for it is a powerful paragraph:
“It is, I believe, part of being made in God’s image that we are ourselves creators or at least procreators. The extraordinary ability to bring forth new life, supremely of course through begetting children but in millions of other ways as well, is central to the mandate the human race receives in Genesis 1 and 2. To make sense of and celebrate a beautiful world through the production of artifacts that are themselves beautiful is part of the call to be stewards of creation, as was Adam’s naming of the animals. Genuine art is thus itself a response to the beauty of creation, which itself is a pointer to the beauty of God.” (Surprised by Hope, p. 223)
This stirs my heart to write, create, and share with the world. Yes, I’m talking about raps too 🙂
Luke is a pastor-theologian living in northern California, serving as a co-lead pastor with his life, Dawn, at the Red Bluff Vineyard. Father of five amazing kids, when Luke isn’t hanging with his family, reading or writing theology, he moonlights as a fly fishing guide for Confluence Outfitters. He blogs regularly at LukeGeraty.com and regularly contributes to his YouTube channel.
I don’t see how the human race received any mandate at all from Genesis 1 and 2; after all these are just stories; the real world is a non-mandate domain of random evolutionary processes. Even theologians admit this!
Clive, not so fast 🙂
First, there are a variety of ways that people understand Genesis 1 and 2. Saying they are “just stories” with providing no evidence is easy, but doesn’t convince me (and countless others, I’m sure). There are multiple reasons why Genesis 1 and 2 can be read both historically as well as theologically. I’m not inclined to pit those two types of readings against each other there. I know some are, but I’m not.
Second, I don’t buy into your statement of “random evolutionary processes” either. I personally don’t hold to Theistic Evolution, so if that’s the route you are talking about, we’re still not on the same page.
Thirdly, theologians admit a lot of things! It all depends upon what type of theologian we are talking about. Furthermore, not all theologians have equally accurate contributions to make to the world 🙂
Fourthly, your point stands about not saying a mandate in Genesis 1 and 2. Lots of exegetes question that. However, in response I think it could be said that it is more implicit and based on humanity being created in the image of God and given the mandate to be “fruitful.” So on the very narrow reading, it would be mostly about having children and having the creation as our domain. I’m choosing to read that (and Wright obviously goes this direction) as also including our contribution to the arts 🙂
Not everyone will concur. That’s okay 🙂