Evolutionary Creation

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters…

Genesis 1 v 1-2

I think it’s safe to say that the opening words of Genesis Chapter 1 have been an inspiration to many down through the years, as well as a source of controversy to others. Used by many to further the idea of “Creationism”, the words are quite different from the opening introductory words by Charles Darwin in his famous book, “The Origin of Species”:

When on board H.M.S. Beagle, as naturalist, I was much struck with certain facts in the distribution of the inhabitants of South America, and in the geological relations of the present to the past inhabitants of that continent. These facts seemed to me to throw some light on the origin of species — that mystery of mysteries, as it has been called by one of our greatest philosophers [John Herschel].

Stating the obvious, there has been much heated debate between those who believe that we are made ”in the image of God” and those who believe that we are the result of evolutionary processes and will continue to evolve. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the majority who hold the Evolutionary point-of-view are Atheists, while the majority who hold the point-of-view of “Creationism” (or “Intelligent Design”) are Theists.

On Tuesday morning, I attended a Physics lecture given by Jocelyn Bell Burnell, a physicist from my own country of Northern Ireland. As she explained the “Big Bang” a member of the audience at the front of the theatre shouted out ”Theory!”. I was hoping she would give her thoughts on Evolution but, saying that, her speciality is in Physics, not Biology. From what I heard afterwards, it seems that most people were quite hostile to the Big Bang “theory”, not believing that an explosion and collision of particles and rocks could create life.

It got me thinking afterwards whether the “Big Bang” (and Evolution) really are incompatible with the Christian belief that we are made ”in the image of God”. I later opened my Bible at Genesis Chapter 1 and read the account of Creation. While reading through it, I greatly struggled at times about how (if possible) the account should be interpreted and what it means in relation to contemporary science. Indeed, I think the interpretation of Genesis Chapter 1 is key to answering whether the “Big Bang” and Evolution are relevant, or irrelevant, to the Christian belief of being made in the image of God. If Genesis 1 is to be interpreted literally, as a physical, historical event some time ago, then I think it does conflict with contemporary science. However, if Genesis 1 is to be interpreted metaphorically and is a story which reflects universal truths, then I think the conflict weakens.

A good example of the issue of interpretation, I believe, lies in the verse ”in the image of God”:

So God created Human Beings

in his own image,

in the image of God he created them;

male and female

he created them.

Genesis 1 v 27

When most people think of the word “image” they think of the physical, aesthetic appearance of someone or something. If I was to paint an image of a river, I would be recreating the physical characteristics and shapes of the water- the colour of it and the way it moves. However, if we apply the same definition, or standard, of “image” to that of God (and perhaps Humans) I think we do run into problems.

If we are to mean ”image” in terms of physical appearance, are we to say that we physically resemble the “physical” appearance of God? Well, according to Christian Theology, that would be wrong because God isn’t a physical being, but a spiritual one (indeed, the opening words of Genesis Chapter 1 talk about the “Spirit of God”). Some might even go further and say that because Jesus was God in body form, or physical form, that Jesus physically resembled/resembles God. The problem with that is that we, in the 21st Century, do not fully know what Jesus’ physical appearance was. Even-so, I think we would need to ask ourselves: Does it really matter what Jesus physically looked like? What’s more important, what Jesus looked like, or what Jesus taught and who he was?

In the Books of Matthew and Luke, there are two genealogies charting the family tree of Jesus. In the Book of Matthew, the genealogy starts with Abraham. The major difference between the two, I believe, is that Matthew charts the “fathers” while Luke charts the “sons” (as well as that, Matthew seems to start with Abraham, not Adam):

Abraham was the father of Isaac,

Isaac the father of Jacob,

Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers.

Matthew 1 v 2

Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph…

the son of Seth, the son of Adam,

the son of God.

Luke 3 v 23, 38

I know some Christians will say that Jesus is the physical descendent of Adam but, if I must be honest, I am not so sure. To my knowledge (although others can correct me if I’m wrong), Jesus never claimed to be a physical descendent of a physical, historical Adam but a descendant of King David. The angel speaking to Mary, telling her of God’s promise, reveals this fact to her:

Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favour with God. You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; his kingdom will never end.

Luke 1 v 30-33

The genealogy in Matthew Chapter 1 doesn’t mention Adam at all, although it is mentioned in Luke Chapter 3. Indeed, I think it’s quite interesting to note that both Jesus and Adam were thought to be the “son of God”. Even more interestingly, in the English translation, Jesus is called ”Son” with a capital “S”, while Adam is referred to as “son” with a lower-case “s”. Perhaps it makes little-to-no difference, but I think it’s an interesting distinction to note- it, in a sense, suggests that Jesus is superior or greater than Adam:

And a voice came from heaven: ‘You are my Son, whom I love, with you I am well pleased.’

the son of Seth, the son of Adam,

the son of God.

Luke 3 v 22, 38

Many Theologians (and non-Theologians, I suppose) believe that there used to be two, real-life people called Adam and Eve; both of whom physically existed in a physical garden called Eden many many years ago. Certainly, in my experience, Ministers and Preachers talk about Adam and Eve as if they are historical figures like Gandhi, Napoleon, or George Washington. The historcity of Adam and Eve, to many Theologians, is undisputed. Indeed, the two are somewhat crucial to the Theological concept of “original sin” that many churches and Christians hold true to.

In his book, “The God Delusion”, Richard Dawkins comments on this very same concept:

The sin of Adam and Eve is thought to have passed down the male line- transmitted in the semen according to Augustine. What kind of ethical philosophy is it that condemns every child, even before it is born, to inherit the sin of a remote ancestor? Augustine, by the way, who rightly regarded himself as something of a personal authority on sin, was responsible for coining the phrase ‘orginal sin’. Before him it was known as ‘ancestral sin’.

The ‘Good’ Book And The Changing Moral Zeitgeist

Some time ago, I wrote a post in which I explored the origins of morality and what it meant- Good and Evil, and Right and Wrong:

Imagine you are born and grow up hearing nothing about God(s) and Religion. Imagine you had never heard of the Bible, the Koran, the Torah or any other “Holy Texts”. In fact, imagine you are the only person alive- the only Human Being. Now imagine there are no animals; no fish, no birds, no dogs, no cats etc. Put simply, you are the only being that exists on this planet.

How would you know what was Right and Wrong? If there was no-one there to tell you, “This is Right and this is Wrong” where would you get your Morality from? Would you have any Morality?

Now imagine there are animals (you’re still the only Human). How would you know if a lion killing a deer was Good or Bad? Would the lion killing the deer be a Moral or Immoral act? Or maybe these animals know what is Right and Wrong, but how would you? The lion knows that killing the deer is Morally Right…but would you know that?

This may all sound very trivial but simply put, “Where do we get our Morals from?”

If we grew up hearing nothing about Jesus, God or the Bible (or other Religious philosophies) could we distinguish between what was Right and what was Wrong? Would we even wonder if there was a God?

In recent times, Religious people (and I use the word “Religious” hesitantly) have been accused by Secularists of needing a “Holy Text” as a foundation for their Morality. Humanists believe that every Human has the Right to be happy, hence the Humanist logo being a “Happy Human”.

I refer back to this post because of the moral questions raised in it. In the story of the Fall, Adam and Eve are tempted by a snake to eat the fruit off the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil:

Now the snake was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, ‘Did God really say, “You must not eat from any tree in the garden”?’ The woman said to the snake, ‘We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, “You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.”‘ ‘You will certainly not die,’ the snake said to the woman. ‘For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing Good and Evil.’

Genesis 3 v 1-5

At this point, one can’t help but think, “Was the snake right?”. If eating of the fruit meant gaining the ability to distinguish between Good and Evil acts, then why condemn it? Surely that in itself, knowing what was Right and Wrong, would be a Good thing? Was the snake right and God just didn’t want Humans to know Good and Evil so as to become as knowledgable and as powerful as Him? Did God want Humans to remain in a vegetative, robot-like state? Would such a state jeopardise the Free Will of Humanity- we become mindless creatures who obey the whim of our Master?

A part of me wonders why there was even a tree called, “The Tree of The Knowledge of Good and Evil” to begin with. If we have knowledge of something, it generally means that something already exists by which we have information on. For instance, I know how to type on a keyboard- processes in my brain co-ordinate the direction of my hands to press certain keys on the keyboard, which then form particular words.

So, using this line-of-thought, did “Good” and “Evil” already exist, even before the “fall of Man”? Does that explain why the snake was able to tempt Adam and Eve because it itself was “evil”? (it also raises the question of: If God is Good, perfect and all-loving, then why did he create a crafty and deceitful snake? Was the snake given Free Will to become crafty?) Did Adam and Eve just spring into motion Good and Evil in Human Beings, but before that it already existed? Secondly, a part of me wonders what would have happened if Adam and Eve had ate off the Tree of Life instead- would the same repercussions have taken place, or would it have been beneficial to Mankind? Indeed, Genesis is not the only place where the Tree of Life is mentioned. Towards the end of the Book of Revelation, John has a vision of “Eden restored”:

On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations. No longer will there be any curse.

Revelation 22 v 2-3

It was only after eating the fruit that Adam and Eve realised they were naked and felt embarrassed or ashamed- it was afterwards that they gained a greater perception. Beforehand, they had no idea. I suppose it could be argued that eating the fruit, even though it disobeyed the commands of God, was good for Humanity as Adam and Eve’s sensory and mental abilities were developed:

Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realised that they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

Genesis 3 v 7

I think it’s interesting to note that in the chapter beforehand it states:

The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.

Genesis 2 v 25

I can’t help but wonder whether Adam and Eve, before eating the fruit, were somewhat mentally retarded. Although it mentions that they felt no shame in their nakedness before eating the fruit, was that more because they were mentally unaware that they were naked? Was it only by eating the fruit that they gained sensory experience and became aware of their nakedness?

I do realise that I am taking a somewhat unorthodox view of the “fall of man”- a view which would probably be denounced by many churches as “heretical”. Perhaps so, but I think it depends on whether the “fall” is to be interpreted as a literal, historical event that happened aeons ago, or a universal metaphor explaining Human Nature and depravity. Not only that, but I think many Christians are faced with the dilemma of: “Well, if the story of the Fall is metaphorical, then what becomes of the sacrifice of Christ?”. Many Christians believe that to view the Fall in metaphorical terms is to jeopardise the purpose, or meaning, behind Jesus dying on the cross for the “sins” of Mankind. To be honest, and here more of my unorthodoxy seeps through, I don’t find the issue or conflict to be major. Even if Adam and Eve were not physical, literal people, wouldn’t Mankind still need a form of redemption?

Secondly, many Christians believe that if we are to view Adam and Eve as metaphorical figures to explain Human Nature (or Human depravity), then what becomes of the account of the rest of Creation? Is the creation of the physical world to be taken metaphorically? When it’s read, the account of creation does sound like a literal account- it sounds almost like a science experiment. Likewise, people will point-out how, in the Genesis account, there is a structure to creation; how there is order. For example, people will point-out how, on each day, God “spoke” things and beings into existence- God didn’t “speak” everything into existence all at once, in one day, but “spoke” things into existence through many days. A part of me has always wondered how the forms of things in the Genesis account knew to come into existence in the way they did. For example, in the creation of Light, it’s said that:

And God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light.

Genesis 1 v 3

It doesn’t mention in Genesis of God pre-planning, or “sketching”, what “light” would look or be like- it just “pops” into existence in its final and complete form. Perhaps it could be argued that there was a version of Pre-Destination involved in the Creation of the world: God “pre-planned” what light would be like and be made of and, at the whim of his command, come into existence in the way he envisaged it- a bit like a designer drawing the design of a new car before handing it over to the engineers to build into a reality in physical form, using the artist’s drawing as a guide.

As well as that, we have to remember that Genesis only talks about the creation of Earth, or the beginning of Earth. If God said, “Let there be light” and it was so, does this suggest that, as a fundamental property, light was already created or already existed and God, in a sense, slotted the “Light piece” of the jigsaw puzzle into place? Before that, was light needed for the creation of other things in the Universe? I think a good metaphor to use is that of the video game, “The Sims”. In “The Sims” (and mostly every other “simulation game”) objects are already created for the player to use- all they need to do is to ”drop” the objects into their Sims’ home. Does the same principle apply with regards to the Creation story? Was it the case that the fundamental properties of the Universe already existed and all God needed to do was to “Copy and Paste” them into Earth?

Closely related to this issue is that of ex nihilo- the creation of something out of nothing. Many people ask the questions: Why is there something rather than nothing? Why is there existence rather than non-existence? Although the questions seem genuine, I can’t help but feel that they are somewhat pointless.

Imagine for a moment that there is no such thing as “existence”- no physical worlds, peoples, or universes. Is it even possible to imagine such a scenario? How can we imagine the state of nothingness- if nothing, or no things, exist then surely there is nothing to imagine because no physical things exist in a state of nothingness? People believe that the concept of nothingness is similar to death- being surrounded in complete darkness. However, if we are in a state of nothingness, in which no thing exists, can we even say that darkness exists? Indeed, can the concept of nothingness exist in a state of “nothingness”?

The mind boggles…

Many believe that Evolution and Creationism are incompatible ideas. People have in their minds, both Atheists and “Believers”, the idea that both Evolution and Creationism are polar opposites- two entirely different ideas about the creation of species (including Humans)- each set of people have been told by their “leaders” (or those in the same “camp” as them) that the ideas are contradictory. My personal opinion is that people read the account of Creation according to Genesis too superficially and, in a sense, need to “dig deeper”.

While Genesis does describe some “hows” of the Creation of the world and Man, it doesn’t give us every piece of detail. The cliché example is that of the time-frame of the “days”- were they twenty-four hour days, days of millions of years, or something else? Do the events of the days have any relation to contemporary scientific views on the creation and origin of the Universe? I think, in some sense, they do. However, I’m not sure whether or not that means the Genesis account should be taken literally (or treated as a real description of the events which led to the creation of the physical world).

Perhaps the most obvious example of the parallels is that of the beginning- both Science and the Bible acknowledge that the Universe had a beginning. Scientists believe that the event of the ”Big Bang” (as it’s so often called) was when the Universe was born; an event when the fundamental properties of the Universe came into existence. It was the point at which existence began, including non-eternal time. The first words of Genesis, and the entire Bible, begin with, “In the beginning”. Some may say, “Well, so what? The Bible got lucky”. I don’t think, however, there is any ”luck” involved in the issue.

I think what differentiates the Genesis account of Creation (or view of Creation) from that of other such accounts is that it doesn’t give credence to mythological or superstitious beliefs. In Ancient Greece, for example, it was believed that thunder and lightning were caused by Zeus; Atlas was a deity whose punishment was to hold the world on his shoulders; Helios rode a chariot on which he pulled the Sun across the sky and Poseidon controlled the seas and earthquakes. Many, if not all, of these mythologies were created years after the time of Moses, still in existence by the time Plato, Aristotle and Socrates arrived on the scene. The natural world in Genesis is just that: Natural. The author does not see the need to refer to overblown gods and mythological creatures to explain natural phenomena- nature and God, to the author, are two separate things (yet, to the author, God is not deistic).

In my opinion, the fundamental question to ask in all of this is the following: Why was the Genesis “account” of Creation written? (if it’s an “account” of a historical event)? What purpose (if any) does it serve to the reader? Why not start the book with the story of Abraham or Moses? If it was intended to be read literally, from the viewpoint that it was a literal event, then why not include more details?

For instance, why not include specific, scientific details on how each physical thing was created? Why not detail the growth of the plants? Why not describe the process of photosynthesis? Why not comment on the reproduction, variety and groups of animal species? True, it could be said that because Moses wasn’t there he didn’t known the ins-and-outs of what happened. However, and this has been brought up before by others, the Bible is not specifically a “science book”. While it does deal with matters on the physical world and Humanity’s place in it, it is not inherently focused on the natural processes, laws and mechanics of the Universe- it is not inherently interested in how the natural world “ticks” but in why it “ticks”. I don’t necessarily mean “why” as in equations and formulae of reactions, but of the deeper, underlying ”why” question: Why do we exist? What is our ultimate purpose in existing? Or, if you want an easier question (although, that depends on what you mean by easy!): What is the meaning of life?

If you expect Genesis to give you a detailed analysis of the process of photosynthesis, then you will be disappointed. If you expect it to answer your questions on String Theory, then you will be disappointed. If you expect it to fluently explain Evolution and Natural Selection, then you will be disappointed. If you expect it to demonstrate the concepts of Gravity and Relativity with charts and diagrams, then you will be disappointed. And so on…

I don’t believe that Genesis Chapter 1 sets out to conclusively “prove” anything, at least not in the physical sense. Reading through it, I get the impression that the “account” is more of an account of wonder at the natural world than an account written to scientifically persuade people. Hence, I think it is being read and interpreted in the wrong light and, if anything, I think this is doing the literature a great deal of injustice. It’s like how the account mentions of God “resting” on the seventh day- why would God need to rest if he is all-powerful? The fact that he “rests” gives the story, in a sense, a more Human element.

Although I have used the word, I can’t help but feel that “account” is the wrong word to apply to Genesis Chapter 1, for the sole reason that it isn’t mentioned. The fact that God is continually mentioned throughout the passage, however, seems to suggest that the author’s emphasis is more on God as a creative being, an active force in the world, than on God’s creation. Indeed, many Theists will say that all praise belongs to God for creating the Universe out of love and, certainly, that is the impression I get, especially when reading the Psalms- the emphasis is not so much on the Creation as it is on the Creator.

No doubt people will disagree with me on this and, to be honest, that’s fine; everyone has their own view. Maybe there is a fascination inside each of us, a fascination to know where we come from and what our existence means, that drives and compels us to look for the answer. We may never fully understand or comprehend how we came to exist but, saying that, maybe the ins-and-outs of the processes that made us don’t necessarily matter. Maybe what matters most is not so much how we came to exist, but the simple fact that we do exist…

You have set your glory

above the heavens.

When I consider your heavens,

the work of your fingers,

the moon and the stars,

which you have set in place,

what are mere mortals that you are

mindful of them,

human beings that you care for them?

Psalm 8 v 1, 3-4

Ours, The Victory…

If thou be’est born to strange sights,
Things invisible to see,
Ride ten thousand days and nights,
Till age snow white hairs on thee,
Thou, when thou return’st, wilt tell me
All strange wonders that befell thee.

John Donne

For a while I was writing another post about, believe it or not, the apocalypse and the so-called “end of the world”. I’ve more-or-less finished it (and it will be posted in due time) but recent events (or maybe I should say, perhaps ironically, revelations) have made me put it aside for now.

Flicking through my Blog posts in my mind I haven’t written, to my knowledge, many posts solely dedicated to a person, a group of people, or something else. The closest post to come to a “dedication”, I feel, was that for Jack- my pet dog of nearly ten-years who died in October of last year and who was, no question about it, very close and very precious to me. This post, however, is quite different in that it’s not a post about the death of a loved one- far from it- it’s a personal post about someone whom I treasure very deeply and who has had a large impact and influence in my life for the better part of approximately twenty years.

Again, I don’t make dedications very often but I wanted to dedicate this post to my eldest sister, Victoria, who recently got engaged to her boyfriend of seven years, William.

Last week, Victoria and William were on a trip in New York City in America, during which William proposed to her (asked her for her hand in marriage). Needless to say, I am thrilled for both of them and, in all honesty, I think they make a wonderful couple. I haven’t heard many more details at the moment regarding wedding plans (only that it will take place towards the end of October), but I’m sure it will be a special occasion. It will also mean that William will be my new brother-in-law (I’m not sure how he feels about that!). Not only that, but it will also mean (and I know I’m getting a bit far ahead of myself here!) that I will be an Uncle if they ever have a child or children- “Uncle James”- the thought is, I admit, quite scary and bizarre…

Victoria is four-years-older than I yet, despite the age gap, I have never felt a sense of detachment from her- I have, more-or-less, always felt that she’s someone I can approach, someone who understands me (and that I understand her) and someone who is willing to listen. She is, without a doubt, very intelligent, graduating from one of the most distinguished Universities in the country with a Master’s Degree in Pharmacy and subsequently becoming a Pharmacist (a very well paid job and quite prestigious). She is smart, she is funny, she is popular but, above all, she is (I am proud to say) my own sister- we are connected biologically and, even though it may sound weird, she is my own flesh and blood.

In some sense, I dedicate this post to her because, in the back of my mind, I know (or, at least, feel) that my own congratulations will be drowned in the wave of many congratulations that many people will give her and William- I not being the charismatic type. I will admit that a part of me fears my congratulations not being heard by them, so I suppose writing them a congratulations (albeit in the form of a Blog post) is the best option I have (to be truthful, I wouldn’t know how to approach it socially anyway- I’m quite awkward and rubbish when it comes to it). As well as that, I hope this is more personal, being my own words on my own Blog. Granted, I don’t know whether they will read this or not but, nevertheless, it’ll not stop me writing it…

I am, whether for good or ill, the only male (along with my dad) in the family; I have no brothers. Some might think that having two older sisters would drive a guy insane, but I can safely say that the claim is unfounded! I will be honest, though, a part of me has wondered at times what it would be like to have a biological brother, whether younger or older than myself. Still, I am thankful for the sisters that I have even though, years ago, I may have been extremely bored walking around (what seemed to me) an endless stream of clothes shops, being surrounded by make-up and “girly colours”, hearing female conversations and coughing after coming into contact with perfume. Not to be overly smug about it, but I think I have done quite well keeping my manliness in check…

I think most people would compare me more to Victoria than to my second eldest sister, Jenny. In many respects, I can see why. Victoria and I share the same tastes when it comes to a lot of different things- whether it be the same taste in books, music, films, television programmes or even sense of humour. Indeed, I’ve always felt that Victoria was the one I could associate most with in my family. That’s not to say that I couldn’t (or can’t) connect with everyone else in my family but that Victoria has, in my opinion, always been the one I’ve felt the most understanding towards. Over the years, we have done things in which there have only been her and I, from going to the cinema to watch a movie, buying a takeaway from a Fish and Chip shop, going on a trip in the car around the coastal route, or even something simple like going to the village or town for shopping.

About five-years-ago, when I was going through a rough time in my life, Victoria hand-wrote a letter to me, including some Bible verses on separate sheets (again, which she hand-wrote, even underlining what she thought were the key points). It is a letter I deeply cherish and one I like to re-read when I need motivation, inspiration and guidance, or even when I’m only reflecting. For most of her life, Victoria has been a Christian, since about eight or nine-years-old. Not to be biased, but she is, in my opinion, a true model of what it means to be a Christian. The last paragraph or so of the letter is one I’ve quoted before on my Blog but it’s one I’d like to quote again, just because I think it’s very profound:

I am a leader of a uni bible study group but most importantly, I am your sister. You can trust me with anything. I love and care about you. I am always ready to listen to you- at uni or not. Feel better James, I’m praying for you.

About two-years-ago, I wrote a Blog post in which I talked about my various experiences over the years, of which the letter was a part of. She left a comment in which she directed me to her Blog (which she doesn’t update any more). Although I haven’t said to her, I did read her Blog a couple of times. On one such post she wrote (and I hope this isn’t an invasion of her privacy!):

Hmm,
I want to see the new harry potter film. I want James (brother) to come with me, but he’s 15 and might think me, let’s face it, ridiculous to even dare suggest such a thing… I live in hope.

I’ve been spending quite a bit of time with my sis at the moment, not particularly strange… I drive, she wants to go places. Lol, Tuesday was her day off work (& unsurprisingly- mine) so we decided to go to the north coast for the day. Last night we went to see Charlie and the chocolate factory. Before I find myself being slated for neglecting my brother… noo, I’m not. He’s been working the past couple of weeks (even my 15 year old brother has been working more than me, disgraceful) so he wasn’t at home on tuesday. I did invite him to the cinema, not in a passing “better ask cos he’s there & can hear me talking” I did actually want him to come. I was disappointed when he wouldn’t. Looking back though, I guess it could prove traumatic at 15 to go to the cinema with your two older sisters, regardless of one driving or not. Ah well.

In the comments section of my post, she directed me to a post in which she wrote fifteen statements about family and friends, without naming who the statements “belonged” to. Statement fifteen was about me…

I’m never going to learn how to treat you unless you tell me. I’d jump in to save you anyday, just give me a yell. I’m always, always going to be looking out for you, whether you like it or not. I’m not even slightly sorry for saying that. I’m sorry I give you a hard time. I know you can’t help it, I keep forgetting though. Hopefully you know I love you really.

Re-reading that, it somewhat surprises me. Not so much now, but in my teenage years I used to take the cynical view that people were nice to me out of a sense of pity and not because they genuinely cared who or what I was as a person. To read that my company was genuinely wanted by my sisters, I must say, came as a surprise to me (although, maybe it shouldn’t). I guess, in reply to the sentiment, I would definitely have went to the cinema (or anywhere else)- the reason I so often refused, or turned down the offers, was not so much out of embarrassment at being in the company of my sisters- it was more a lack of self-confidence; even something as simple as going to the cinema was a physical, mental and social challenge for me, as it meant leaving the comfort zone of my room and home.

In some respects, I have my own sentiments to voice. Even though it somewhat sounds stupid now, there was a time when I genuinely thought, “I’m a rubbish brother”. I genuinely believed that I embarrassed my sisters; not intentionally, but just in who I was as a person- I wasn’t funny, I wasn’t “cool”, I wasn’t confident, and I couldn’t hold a conversation to save my life- I was, in a sense, very different to them and very different to the people and friends around me.

I know I don’t always show it or say it but, deep down, I do sincerely care about my sisters- I love them and I would like to think that I would help them or defend them, should they ever find themselves in trouble.

A while ago, I wrote a post about marriage and love, including the symbolism of the heart. She may or may not agree with me, but Victoria (and William) do not strike me as being people who “flash out” when it comes to special occasions. I’m not going to lecture them or dictate their special occasion to them (and I hope others don’t), but I do hope that they (among others) realise the true nature of a marriage and of a wedding ceremony. In my experience, many couples concern themselves more with the reception afterwards, the “evening duo” and disco, or the venue of the ceremony, whilst treating the ceremony itself as a fanciful add-on to the greater package. Strictly speaking, however, a wedding is the ceremony itself, during which two people come together to unite as one, exchanging promises to be loyal, faithful and caring to each other:

‘Haven’t you read,’ [Jesus] replied, ‘that at the beginning the Creator “made them male and female,” and said, “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh”? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let no-one separate.’

Matthew 19 v 4-6

That is, intrinsically, what a “marriage” entails. Again, I’m not going to dictate Victoria’s and William’s wedding day to them- it is, after-all, their own. I’m only outlining what I think a true marriage ceremony entails. If anything, I think it takes tremendous courage to break the mould and go against the cultural wave of the modern view of a “marriage day”. Many people in society believe that a wedding day should be extravagant, should have all the “bells and whistles” of a reception and disco, and generally be made into a full-blown, full-day event; so-much-so, in fact, that people react quite exasperatingly on learning that there will be no reception or disco after the inital ceremony. However, to react in such a way, I think, is to misunderstand the concept of a “marriage” or wedding.

I sometimes think (fear, almost) that marriage is misinterpreted by some to suggest the suppression of women to men. Feminists, in particular, like to “point out” that men are the ones who dominate the marriage and the women- even some “Christian Feminists” might take such an opinion. I think, however, it does not truly reflect the Biblical view of marriage which says that the man “belongs” to the woman and the woman “belongs” to the man. It’s not that the man “dominates” the woman, or that she is his property, but that they both “belong” to each other. It is, in a sense, a give-and-receive scenario; a two-way street:

The husband should fulfil his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife.

1 Corinthians 7 v 3-4

I wish Victoria and William a very happy future together- they are, I believe, perfectly suited to one another. Perhaps that’s the mark of not only a good marriage but of a good relationship: Harmony; peace; co-existence; Yin and Yang- whatever you want to call it.

I will say that I’m proud of Victoria- proud of her character; proud of her integrity; proud of her virtues. Some might say that it’s wrong of me to feel proud, regardless of whether it’s pride towards myself or another person, but when you have such an incredible sister as Victoria (and Jenny) you can’t help but feel a sense of pride.

I guess my joy lies in the fact that Victoria is, and always will be, my biological sister- someone whose genetic make-up is similar to my very own. Genetics aside, however, she is someone I value of the upmost and someone whom I have a deep love and respect for. At times, we may have our disagreements and we may have our conflicts but, at the end of the day, no relationship is perfect and conflicts will happen. Perhaps that’s where redemption and forgiveness come into play- a chance to mend friction and start over again…

On my bed I remember you;

I think of you through the watches of the night.

Because you are my help,

I sing in the shadow of your wings.

Pslam 63 v 6-7