The Cosmetology of the Bible
Tuesday, October 30th, 2007The pastor of one of the largest churches in Houston was casually acquainted with a friend of mine who was pastor at a smaller neighboring church. They at least knew each other well enough to say hello and call each other by name. My friend was considered an “up and comer” in clergy terminology and this mega-church pastor offered him a tip on church growth: “If you want your church to grow, you have to have a conservative cosmetology of the world. Lean on that for teaching the creation story and your church will grow.”
I don’t doubt the sincerity of the mega-church pastor, but the word is cosmology, not cosmetology. What he was saying in his malapropism was to ignore the attempt to merge science with faith by sticking to the conservative interpretation of the Bible that would claim allegiance to a literal understanding of the Bible. Some have politicized that understanding of the Bible in our time and idolatrously called it “inerrancy.” The irony of that claim is even they don’t believe the Bible is inerrant. A five-year-old may struggle with a literal understanding of the world, but most adults grew through that period of learning a long time ago.
On the issue of the debate between faith and science, I don’t see them as polar opposites that must necessarily square off against one another. They are complementary and in need of one another. I don’t see science as a secular attempt to disprove the Bible implying it is merely an ancient book of wives tales and false information about the world. But neither do I expect my faith to ignorantly thumb its nose against science and say it is an idolatry designed to keep me from believing in God. In truth, science and faith desperately need one another.
The Bible is not a book of science although it does reflect the science of its time. The cosmology of the Bible (the way the ancients understood how the world was constructed and held together) was a flat-earth notion of the earth suspended between the waters above (sky and clouds) and the waters below (subterranean waters).
So Genesis tells us in the story of Noah that when it started raining, there was the unrelenting rain from above. It also tells us the mantle of the earth cracked releasing the surging waters from below and the known world was swallowed by water from both above and below and subsequently drowned. I believe the point of telling the story this way was to recall the creation of the earth in the first creation story of Genesis 1 when God separated the waters above from the waters below and suspended the earth between them. I believe the collapse of this system in the flood was God’s way of reverting the creation back to chaos. In short, the story of Noah is a mythologized way of describing God’s anger over the reality of humankind’s disobedience against God. So angry was God in this story that God blew the Creation back to chaos as it was before the world was made. Do we continue to believe today in this kind of cosmology even though the Hebrew Scriptures clearly teach it? Some ministers do but I do not.
Today, we would regard many of the Bible’s stories as healthy examples of what some would call Hebrew mythology. That term recognizes there is much in the Bible we could call images or analogies or simply “truth told in story fashion.” By implying the Bible should be understood literally rather than figuratively, we’ve done a disservice to faith. We’ve tweaked the nose of faith and made it jump through our flat earth need to make it something it was never designed to be. The ancients would be the first to guide us to accepting the world as God has given us curiosity to know it. All of that makes me love the Bible even more, doesn’t it you?

