Genesis 1 - a tale of two stories
‘In the beginning...' sounds a bit like the fairytale opening: ‘Once upon a time...' - and the first chapter of Genesis does read a bit like a fairytale. Mind you, I can think of another story to set against it, one that sounds equally unlikely but also has truth within it.
In the beginning, 13.7 billion years or so ago, an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity - came into being. Like a balloon blowing up, the material compressed within that singularity expanded. It was made up of tiny particles called quarks, that are never observed alone, but always in the combinations we know as protons and electrons, photons and neutrons - the building blocks of the elements which make up our universe. These subatomic particles also started to combine: first into the atoms of hydrogen and helium. Then, as gaseous masses formed into stars, heavier elements like carbon, crucial for life as we know it, came into being. Some stars, like our sun, acquired planets. The planet we call earth found an atmosphere. And somehow in the muddy chaos, life emerged in the seas, enriching the atmosphere in oxygen, enabling more life to develop in the sea and on land: plants, insects, fish, birds, animals, people, each developing in their own way to survive and produce more offspring.
There are similarities between these two stories: they attempt, with all the information at their disposal, to explain how we got here. There are similarities in the order of creation. But there are also differences. When Genesis 1 was being written, the Babylonians among whom the exiled Israelites lived worshipped the sun, moon and stars, so it was important to describe how the God of Israel made and named these not-gods. By the time the Big Bang theory was constructed, people knew much more about the beginnings of our universe, enough to find the idea of God sitting somewhere in outer space making everything in six days unworkable. However, the way the universe had to be fine-tuned in the scientific story to make beings like ourselves possible still speaks of a Creator to those who wish to hear, and back when Darwin constructed his grand scheme of life evolving through natural selection, many Christians rejoiced in this new glimpse of how God makes things make themselves.
Why then is there so much fuss about creationism in some churches? I see this as a mistaken understanding of the sort of writing we find in Genesis 1. It is not a scientific account of geological and biological events in time. It is a theological account of the values that lie behind the universe we know. It tells us that this material world is not to be worshipped, for it is not God; but also that it is not to be destroyed, for God made it very good. It tells us that we are not the whole of creation, for God lavished care on the universe before it was our turn. It tells us that both women and men are made in God's image, equally valued and cherished by God. And it tells us that though we are in charge of this planet, we have a responsibility to look after it as God has done: with infinite care.
• Is the story of Genesis 1 important for your faith? If so, how?
• Does the scientific story clash with the biblical story, or enhance it for you?

‘In God's image?' What does that mean?
Often people in churches have been tempted to make God in our image - to assume that because we think something, value something, do something, surely God must do the same. Yet if our account in Genesis 1 tells us that the first human beings were made in God's image - long before there were races or nations, long before people started to claim God for their side - then whatever that image is must apply to all people. Some churches teach from Genesis 2 that God's image in us was destroyed by the choices made by Eve and Adam. To me that indicates a very low opinion of the image of God in us, if it can be rubbed away by human mistakes, however bad. I believe on the contrary that, as the Quakers say, every person has ‘that of God' within them. What, then, can it be? Here are some of my thoughts.
The image of God in us cannot be anything physical - or what would that say about the humanity of people with disabilities? But by the same token, it cannot be mental, either. Against some philosophers who argue that people are not truly human until they are independent of others - which would put a child or someone with Downs Syndrome, say, on the wrong side of the line -
I believe we show our true humanity by interdependence. That is one reason why I have trouble with the idea of euthanasia, for I could easily imagine people feeling a pressure to die in order to avoid being a burden on their relations.
You see how quickly an apparently abstract question like: ‘what does it mean to be made in God's image?' brings us to practical consequences. For our ideas of God and of humanity are interwoven. Every aggressor through history has tried to persuade his followers firstly that God is on their side and secondly that the other side are less than human, and therefore not worthy of care or compassion. Jews in Nazi Germany, black people in the southern states of the USA before the Civil War, gay people in some countries today: their persecutors reckoned they were not properly human, not really made in God's image, so could legitimately be put to death. But if all people, including those with whom we disagree, are indeed made in the image of God, what more positively may that mean?
I've already said that I believe we show our true humanity by interdependence; and that, it seems to me, is part of the image of God within us. For we believe in a God who is community, who before the world began already interrelated as Creator and Christ and Holy Spirit. It is ‘that of God in us' which impels us to reach out and make contact with people who are different from us. And just because those people will not always see eye to eye with us, that contact gives us a chance to mirror to one another God's goodness, mercy, compassion and love. But there is one more aspect of God's image in us which I think does not always receive its full due in Christian circles: our creativity. Running a household, playing an instrument, making a discovery or teaching a baby to talk, our ability to create is something we can enjoy ourselves and appreciate in one another.
• What in your opinion is it about humanity that shows that people are made in God's image?
• When you make something that's good, could that connect up with God's creation?

Stewardship of creation
According to Genesis 1, God has given humanity the responsibility of looking after creation. But can I really argue that? The words ‘dominate and subdue' in God's brief to us have caused a lot of ecological grief. Christians have argued that the world was created for the benefit of humanity, as the pinnacle of creation, and that therefore we are entitled to do with it whatever we please. That included deforesting and depopulating the Highlands in order to pasture sheep on them, making deserts of fertile soil by overworking the land and driving thousands of species to extinction: acting in no one's long-term interest, even our own. It is more than time to look again at Genesis 1 in the context of the whole Bible. Those who argued that domination must imply aggressive use were acting in the image of a selfish, tyrannical God. Yet those who follow Jesus must understand leadership in a different way: as good shepherding which takes care of the weak and vulnerable and ensures that they are not trampled by the strong. And it's about time we took that seriously. For many Christians in other parts of the world are feeling extremes of climate change that we in Britain, for all our recent snow worries, can scarcely imagine. Forest fires in Australia, sea-level rise taking land from the Pacific Islands, increased risks of malaria in wetter areas and of malnutrition in drought - compared to that, we don't know we're born. The way we live, using up scarce resources and polluting our planet, impacts on people in places we will never see in ways that would horrify us if it happened next door. But organisations like Christian Aid are beginning to bring home to us the news that unless we change our lives, we will carry a large share of the responsibility for global disaster, but our grandchildren will have to endure it.
It's not all bad news. In recent years, churches are beginning to rediscover the meaning of stewardship. Rather than behaving like arrogant lords of creation, we are joining with others who seek to sustain natural habitats and the creatures which inhabit them. Instead of using up the earth's resources willy-nilly, looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth when we think our waste will be made good by God, we are starting to exercise our creativity in reusing and recycling what we have. Instead of overheating our houses and letting our taps drip, we are using fuel and water more carefully. At last, we are beginning to take seriously our responsibilities for creation in small and practical ways - the only way to change our lives sustainably.
• Should Genesis 1 make a difference to our everyday lives?
• How can we help each other be good stewards of creation?