Extra Credit Podcast

Last week we discussed the fraught history of the church and sports. This week we turn to a more positive theology of sports grounded in the doctrine of creation. Is sport a consequence of the fall (Genesis 3) or can it be grounded in God’s good creation (Genesis 1)?

In this two part teaching I’ve been closely following the argument of a wonderful book by Lincoln Harvey entitled “A Brief Theology of Sport.”

George Orwell famously quipped that sport is “war without guns.” That is to tell the story of sports beginning in Genesis 3. Harvey argues that this is to get it backwards. Sport is not a civilized form of war; war is a corrupted form of sport.

However, we do live in a fallen world in which everything is corrupted by sin. The church needs to be able to tell two stories simultaneously about all things: we live in a corrupted world and sport is a part of that broken world; but by faith we understand that the world was created good by a good God. Sport is corrupted in many, many ways, but it is also part of God’s good creation (which explains why it is so unstoppably popular).

Harvey’s theological contention is that, through a robust doctrine of creation, sport can be seen as a celebration of the deepest truth of our identity as unnecessary-yet-meaningful creatures. God’s creation of the world is completely unnecessary (it is a free act, not necessary in any way) and yet completely meaningful. God’s act of creation is “play.” As creatures we are completely unnecessary but completely meaningful. Sport reveals the deep truth of who we are. In fact, sport can be directly mapped onto the doctrine of creation and seen as a celebration of our created reality.

But as a celebration of who we are in our created reality, it is easily corrupted by humanity sicut deus (humanity in its attempt to supplant God in order to become gods against God).

There is a thin line separating sports as self-worship (the fall) and sports as a celebration of our created identity as unnecessary but meaningful creatures.

You can listen to a great interview with Lincoln Harvey on his book here.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit cameroncombs.substack.com

In A Brief Theology of Sport Lincoln Harvey argues that throughout its history the church has often failed to think theologically about sports. That isn’t to say it hasn’t thought about sports, though. Over the centuries the church has oscillated between a complete rejection of sports to a blind/naive acceptance.

Harvey identifies a (clashing) “chord with three notes” that has been consistently struck by the church in relation to sport throughout its history:

* The church has been opposed to sport. Primarily because of sport’s long association with pagan religion and idolatry. Christians have been deeply suspicious of sports.

* But history has proven that sport is unstoppably popular. Despite attempts to ban sports from the pulpits of preachers and thrones of the emperors, people continued to flock to sporting events. Something about sports makes it hard to give up.

* So, the church has often attempted to use sport by setting it to serve the church’s own purpose, harnessing it for whatever end the church was interested in at the time (The Crusades being a good example).

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit cameroncombs.substack.com

Genesis 4 is dense and deep and yet it is sparse with its language. It’s like a riddle. The narrator gives us very few words, but those few words suggest and evoke interpretation. Novelist Ernest Hemingway famously made a wager that he could write a short story using less than ten words. He only needed six: “For sale: baby shoes. Never worn.” That is brief but suggestive. It sets your imagination firing in all kinds of directions. We have something like this in Genesis 4. Very few words, but those words are evocative. They invite you into the story in order to fill in the gaps intentionally left.

Or think of Picasso. It wasn’t that he couldn’t paint realistic paintings, but that he intentionally painted in a suggestive manner.

Here’s an example of an early, realistic painting from Picasso:

Picasso said, “It took me four years to paint like Raphael, but a lifetime to paint like a child.”

Here’s an example of one of his later paintings:

The brush strokes are not realistic. The lines don’t fill in all the details for you. There are less strokes here, but they are suggestive. They are supposed to evoke something in you: you fill in the rest.

Genesis 4 is a story told by a master storyteller. The story contains very few words, but suggests so much. We have a lot to fill in! But it’s every bit as intentional as Hemingway or Picasso.

****

This is the diagram of Cain and Abel referenced in the teaching:

And here are the quotes referenced:

Miraslov Volf, Exclusion and Embrace:

“Why this…vagrancy, we may ask? Why banishment into the land of unpredictability and fear…? Because belonging is home, and home is brother, who is no more…To have a brother one must be a brother and ‘keep’ a brother.” 

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Creation and Fall:

“The end of Cain's history, and so the end of all history, is Christ on the cross, the murdered Son of God. That is the last desperate assault on the gate of paradise.”

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit cameroncombs.substack.com

The last ten verses of Genesis 3 are typically referred to as “the curses.” Adam and Eve have taken and eaten the fruit of the tree that God commanded them not to eat. God finds them hiding in the Garden of Eden, questions them, and then lays out the consequences of their actions.

But, unlike us, God’s curses always carry within them his promises. There is a hidden secret in all the threats of God. Hidden in his threat is always a promise of reconciliation, new life, and forgiveness.

I gave this quote from Old Testament scholar Iain Provan regarding the translation issue with “pain” and “childbearing” in Gen. 3:16:

The word ‘etseb is used of emotional pain and the pain involved in work. It can also be used of a more generalized kind of pain. It is never used elsewhere in the Old Testament, however, to refer to labor pains, or ‘birthpangs.’ Conversely, there is a well-established vocabulary which is routinely used for labor pain: tsarar, khebel, khul…If we take our lead from the meaning of ‘etseb elsewhere in the Old Testament, Gen. 3:16 refers to the agony, hardship, worry, and anxiety of the circumstances in which children are conceived, born and raised, and in which they die…This is the same word’s clear meaning when describing the man’s work in the field in the very next verse (Gen. 3:17).”

This is how Dietrich Bonhoeffer concludes his lectures on Genesis 1-3:

What a strange paradise is this hill of Golgotha, this cross, this blood, this broken body. What a strange tree of life, this trunk on which the very God had to suffer and die. Yet it is the very kingdom of life and of the resurrection, which by grace God grants us again. It is the gate of imperishable hope now opened, the gate of waiting and of patience. The tree of life, the cross of Christ, the center of God’s world that is called but upheld and preserved—that is what the end of the story about paradise is for us.

I also made reference to this painting of Eve and Mary:

Finally, here are the diagrams referenced in the teaching.

Diagram 1:

Before the fall Adam’s/Eve’s lives revolve around the Tree of Life (which is God). God is their center. The Tree of Knowledge is God’s boundary (God’s “No”) that they bump up against, and this shows them they are not God (which is a good gift).

Diagram 2:

After the fall the boundary that separates Adam and Eve from the Tree of Life is the cherubim with the whirling sword. This is the greatest curse/threat: they will surely die. The boundary of the Tree of Life was the Tree of Knowledge (God’s “No”). The Tree of Life still has a boundary, but now Adam and Eve experience God’s “No” as a sword. It has become law. But in the curse of the deadly sword a promise is hidden inside. The promise of going under the sword is resurrection life.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit cameroncombs.substack.com

This week we discuss God’s conversation with Adam and Eve after they have taken and eaten the fruit (Genesis 3:8-13). We look particularly at the problem of Adam’s and Eve’s blame shifting (which is our problem), and the way Christ overcomes the problem. Christ is the one who takes responsibility for the world. He is the one who bears the guilt of the world—yet without sin. And as the body of Christ we are called into the same vocation: taking responsibility not only for our own sins but also the sins of the world, and bearing guilt for the sake of our neighbors.

Here are a couple helpful quotes from Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s Ethics on bearing guilt and taking responsibility:

Jesus is not concerned with…being good (Matt. 19:17); he is concerned solely with love for the real man, and for that reason He is able to enter into the fellowship of the guilt of men and to take the burden of their guilt upon Himself. Jesus does not desire to be regarded as the only perfect one at the expense of man; He does not desire to look down on mankind as the only guiltless one while mankind goes to its ruin under the weight of its guilt…He does not wish to acquit Himself of the guilt under which men die. A love which left man alone in his guilt would not be love for the real man.

If any man tries to escape guilt…he cuts himself off from the redeeming mystery of Christ’s bearing guilt without sin and he has no share in the divine justification which lies upon this event. He sets his own personal innocence above his responsibility for [other] men, and he is blind to the more irredeemable guilt which he incurs precisely in this; he is blind also to the fact that real innocence shows itself precisely in a man’s entering into the fellowship of guilt for the sake of other men. Through Jesus Christ it becomes an essential part of responsible action that the man who is without sin loves selflessly and for that reason incurs guilt.

Last, here is the “Sicut deus” vs. “Imago dei” diagram referenced throughout the teaching:

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit cameroncombs.substack.com

This week we turn our attention to Genesis 3:1—7 where we meet “the pious Snake” (Bonhoeffer). He’s pious because he seems to be interested in God and God’s word. In fact, he even knows something behind God’s word.

I asked everyone to unhook our usual identification of the Snake with Satan just for the class because Genesis makes no such identification. It is true that the prophets/Revelation later make these types of identification, so to make the connection between the Snake and Satan is a scriptural way of speaking. But, as I tried to show, I think a hasty identification of Satan can blind us to what the text in Genesis is trying to get said. Particularly with theme of the “firstborns” being passed over and the “late comers” being favored/chosen.

But, as I mentioned in class, the comment section here on the newsletter would be a great place to have the discussion about the Snake, Satan, and any other question that we didn’t cover last night.

Finally, here are some of the diagrams I drew on the board last night.

Diagram 1:

Before the fall Adam’s life revolves around the Tree of Life (which is God). God is his center. The Tree of Knowledge is God’s boundary/barrier (God’s “no”) that Adam bumps up against, and this shows him he is not God (which is a good gift).

Diagram 2:

After the fall the center of Adam’s life is now replaced by Adam’s own knowledge of good and evil. Adam’s conscience is what his entire life is based on now. (The conscience is how we adjudicate between rightness/wrongness.) This makes him judge over his neighbors and himself. This is death.

Diagram 3:

The overcoming of the knowledge of good and evil is not the proper knowledge of good and evil, but the knowledge of Jesus himself. Jesus is the one who purifies the conscience of the worshiper (Heb. 9:14). The knowledge of Jesus becomes our center and he himself becomes our conscience. This lifts our burden of being judges over our neighbors and ourselves. This is life and freedom.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit cameroncombs.substack.com

Just a few notes:

* If you have any thoughts or questions, please use the comment section here! I’d love for the conversation to continue.

* I had a few people ask me about the resources I’m using to teach and a few others who have asked about further resources I would recommend. If you’re interested in finding resources about anything in particular, leave a comment and we can discuss it.

* You can always share the audio of this teaching with friends and invite them into the conversation here and to church!

* Last, I’ve included some of the (poorly drawn) diagrams from last night. I hope it’s helpful:

Diagram 1:

Only when we have Eve (Thou) do we have Adam (I). And vice-versa. Adam finds out who he is through the face of Eve and Eve through the face of Adam. What they each give to the other is a boundary that helps the other see their own limit. When they each bump up against the other they recognize this other is another “I” not an “It.” This other is not a tool or an animal, but a person. This happens through the other’s ability to say “No.” Eve’s ability to say “no” to Adam lets him know that she is there in her freedom and shows him his limits (this is a good gift of God). Adam and Eve are defined by the other: I end where you begin.

Diagram 2:

Eve can say “No” to Adam and this shows him his limits; it shows him who he is. In the same way the Tree of Knowledge is God’s “No” to the humans. God’s “No” to Adam and Eve shows the their limits: They are not God (this is a good gift). It teaches them that they do not have life in themselves. They are creatures. They have limits. This is the boundary/barrier that Adam and Eve bump up against to show them that they are not their own source of life.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit cameroncombs.substack.com

Hi everyone! A couple of notes:

My goal will be to post the recording from each week’s class the following Thursday or Friday.

Please use the comment section to ask questions or make a comment! I’d love for this to become an additional space for us to interact and to keep the discussion going.

You can also share the audio of the teaching with friends/family and invite them into the conversation here…and then to church!

My hope for this new space is that it would not replace our Wednesday night class, but that it would be an extension of it. There’s nothing like being in the room together!

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit cameroncombs.substack.com