M. Conrad Hyers (1933–2013)

Christianity has never been free from controversies or conflict with the surrounding culture, this is as true of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries as the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries (the period of the first Ecumenical Councils), as it is of even the beginning of the faith's separate existence (Paul's conflict with Jewish believers over expected and acceptable behavior of Gentile believers in Messiah). Every age in fact has its unique set of controversies. The longest running controversy of modernity is the apparent conflict between Religion and Science -the opposition of "faith" to "reason" as it is sometimes styled- and in particular over the question of origins. From the middle of the 19th century, portions of Christianity have been fixated on the question of human origins...."Creation" vs "Evolution" arguments rage back and forth, and the resulting bitterness and entrenching of positions has all too often fueled criticism and rejection of Christian Faith as delusional, irrational and unpractical. Yet it is not a foregone conclusion that "Science" and "Religion" must be at odds, and Professor Conrad Hyers of Gustavus Adolphus College in Minnesota in his book "The Meaning of Creation: Genesis and Modern Science" through a commentary on the two creation narratives in the first part of the Book of Genesis seeks to show how this can be so.

Written in 1984, "The Meaning of Creation" offers a different perspective on the 'creation' versus 'evolution' conflict, and takes to task the shared assumptions inherent in a literalist reading and interpretation of the creation narratives from both the religious and scientific interpreters, as misunderstanding the real issues that the creation narratives wrestled with. For Hyers, it is not a question of reconciling science and religion in the realm of human and cosmic origins, but of acknowledging that the two accounts (biblical and evolutionary) speak to different audiences using different languages addressing different needs, and further, that they may not even be responding to or asking, the same questions, separated as they are in time and space. Hyers maintains, for instance that the primary motivating issues facing the writers of the Genesis accounts were the rejection of polytheism and idolatry from within Judaism, and that each account is written from a different socio-economic perspective: an agrarian perspective (a priestly, orderly creation) for Genesis 1 and a pastoral perspective for Genesis 2 and beyond (an account that critiques unfettered advances of civilization and praises the nomadic existence)) -and not about the naturalistic mechanisms that brought about the Creation as concerns modern science and modern scientists.

Hyers, rather than trying to harmonize the Genesis creation accounts with current scientific theory, or arguing for the primacy of one approach over the other, instead puts forward a primarily religious reading of the texts. Eight chapters, a prologue, and notes bring to life an argument that a literalist approach to the creation narratives does a disservice both to religion and to science, and that such an approach was not what the original authors of Genesis intended. Most of the book is taken up with this discussion of the two creation accounts and their differing perspectives, leaving little space to consider them in relation to accounts of natural science and agnosticism. This is at once its strength and major weakness -as in fact Hyers makes only passing reference to such things as scientific method and theory, symbols and language, and little attempt to compare the two against each other, that one would expect from a book with the subtitle "Genesis and Modern Science")

Chapters 2-4 bring out the imagery of Genesis 1 and chapters 6-7 do the same for Genesis 2, while chapter 1 sets out the difference between religious language and scientific language and applies this difference to the biblical texts for the rest of the book. Chapter 5, standing between the discussion of Genesis 1 and of Genesis 2 and beyond, introduces the symbolic imagination and the religious uses of symbols and the contrast between it and the scientific imagination and the scientific use of symbols. The last chapter is a brief exploration of three further problems or conflicts that arise out of the creation narratives and the doctrine of Creation in relation to a scientific understanding of the universe: 1) chance versus design in nature, 2) the existence of evil and suffering in the world, and 3) the use of patriarchal language. he argues that reconciling the two disparate accounts is effected by recognizing that such questions were not addressed by the author(s) of Genesis, and that to truly take in the meaning of creation we must accept both the order and ambiguity that it represents.

With this in mind, the greatest weakness of the work becomes clear: the paucity of the interaction between 'Science' and 'Religion'. His actual discussion of Genesis 1 and 2 (and beyond) was quite meaningful, and helps put many of the subsequent theological themes of the rest of Scripture into context, but the final chapter's dialogue with science which covered so briefly the issues raised by the comparison of religious and scientific accounts of origins at the beginning ddoes not really resolve itself, and properly deserves a book in and of itself.

Not everyone will be comfortable with Professor Hyers' treatment of the creation narratives, of course, or of his resolution of the problem (such as it is) and yet, compared with another work that rejects a simple literalist reading of the creation narratives -John Shelby Spong's "Rescuing the Bible From Fundamentalism"- Hyers offers a more readable, erudite, and sympathetic argument. Even if you do not agree with his assessment though, reading his book will enrich your understanding and appreciation of the meaning of Genesis 1 and 2, even if it does not bring a rapprochement, or even the outlines of such, between Science and Religion.… (meer)