creation science OR fellowshipping with Christians who disagree with you

[jane churchland]

Hello again MASGers,

I am hoping for some help and light. In the last year I have made friends with a Christian couple who are hard-core creation-science types. (I'm afraid the paucity of my experience in dealing with people who are like them in this respect has left me without a very rich vocabulary to describe this aspect of them, I do not mean this to be derogatory and I certainly hope that if they happened to read this they would not think it was such.) I have not spent huge amounts of effort developing my position in this area, but while I agree that the bible teaches creation, it seems to me that some of the claims associated with this position over-read scripture, and in short, I am unpersuaded by a six twenty four hour day, young earth etc reading of Genesis. So, one part of my issue at present is thinking through what I do/should believe about creation. The other part is the part that I am really being troubled by.

These people are my brother and sister in Christ, and beyond even that, I really do want to grow my friendship with them. I like her very much, and I respect him a great deal. But it feels to me like more and more the creation-science thing just keeps coming up, because they bring it up, because they think it is very very important, and they want to persuade others to agree with them about this, that they want to persuade me to agree with them about it. For some part, I have been ducking the issue; more recently I have tried to be open about what I think in a non-confrontational way. I am worried that things are going to end badly between us, and this grieves me. I am also worried for them, that this is such a massive focus, it makes me wonder if it is healthy for them? (this sounds smug even to me, but it is an honest representation of how I feel.) I am also worried for our church, because a lot of this stuff has been happening publicly (e.g. stuff said during church services, in Sunday School, published in the parish newsletter.) My understanding is that there are some who agree with them but many who do not and who are made uncomfortable by the way creation-science and anti-evolutionism are being pushed.

So, any words of wisdom about how to go about loving and fellowshipping with these people who think I am wrong?

[Stephen Brown]

Hey Jane,

This is tough isn't it?!  We are called to strive together to seek one mind on matters of faith and Christian living.  Yet, what do we do when we seem to hit a road block with fellow believers over issues like Creationism v Evolution(ism).

Sounds like you're genuinely trying to think the issue through.  You never know, they might be right.  Humility is always the key and I certainly here that in the tone of your post.  A few questions that might help.  By the way, I personally am conservative on this issue.

Some questions that helped me think this through...
If you hadn't been taught Evolution in school & university, TV, Advertising, etc, what would you make of Gen 1 & 2?  Would it read like an historical narrative or an allegory?  I know that's hard because of conditioning.

Are you convinced that Evolution is the best explanation for the existence of our world as we see it and know it now?

Why do their opinions rattle you (us) so much?  Is it that we aren't as confident in our presupposition that Evolution has all the answers than we thought before being challenged on it?  Is it that we feel they are accusing us of being un-biblical?  Are we placing the primacy on the theory of Evolution over Scripture (is Scripture the secondary document - evidence - in our mind when thinking about creation and origin) when investigating our origins?

I realise that it 'feels' like people 'push' these conservative ideas, but when we stop and listen to our culture and the popular media, I'm sure we'll begin to realise that the conservative voice aint that loud after-all.

How do you remain in fellowship?  Listen, pray, be ready to change your opinion based upon Biblical evidence.  I hope the others do the same.  I do hope it hasn't got personal yet, it shouldn't!

As far as them teaching and promoting their conviction on this issue, is that a real problem?  It is if it being used to create division in your church.  But if everyone approaches the issue with humility and confidence that the Bible does speak with authority about our origins, then there should be no cause for alarm.  

[Phil Weickhardt (Phool)]

Let me rant a little about Creation first then I will talk about disagreements!

Creation

There is a large body of knowledge in the Creation Research field.

I think this is the best: http://www.globalflood.org/papers/papers.html

It also refers to:

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ 
http://www.icr.org/

Fundamentally neither Creation nor Evolution as an explanation of the "origins" can be referred to as Science. Science presupposes reproducable, emperical evidence. The only "witness" accounts to these events are viewed variously as "myths" or "fables" or truths beyond simple comprehension.

Geology has been totally hijacked by evolutionary theory. There is enough evidence for a catastrophic flood as there is for the "millions of years" hypotheses. At Melbourne Uni in a Geology class in the 1980s my wife asked about certain rock deposits that occur in a particular pattern (reporducable science), her geology lecturer turned on her and stated that creation rubbish would not be discussed in his classes. This is in reference to reproducable, empirical observations.

Astronomy likewise is used to argue against Creation. A good friend pursues cosmology as a hobby and he is a creationist. His view is "The heavens declare the glory of the Lord". He is appalled that creationists are censored by peer-reviewed journals and their ideas are not published. This is why several peer-reviewed pro-Creation journals exist.

The young earth theorists base their beliefs on Creation and Flood, so Genesis up to and including chapter 7 is relevant. The reading of animals and birds by their kind is crucial

Take with you seven [a] of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth. (Gen 7)

There is no evidence yet of evolution successfully producing a superior organism. Most hybrids between species are impotent and cannot reproduce. All ADAPTATION that is seen by animal species can be explained by "evolutionary processes" but this doesn't include an organism becoming a different organism. Dinosaurs are now extinct, through the same processes as Dodo birds and Tasmanian Tigers. I would contend that God created all animals (before Eve) and they survived until the flood. The fossil record could easily be explained by a catastrophic flood. I am not going to argue for or against 24 hour days, that is too hard for me [but not too hard for God].

Jane, I would encourage you to read widely about Creation Research, from the proponents. Some of it can be militant but these faithful people are very tired of being ridiculed by the secularists.

Disagreements

Advice from scripture:

1 Timothy 1:3-5 (New International Version)

 3 As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer 4 nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. These promote controversies rather than God's work—which is by faith. 5 The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.

I cannot say whether you or they are right but there is no point arguing about the matter. Ask them if you can agree to disagree for now so that you can agree on the many other matters of faith. We had a similiar issue with promoting Santa Claus a few years ago, there was a heated dispute about whether Santa Claus detracted from the incarnation and whether he was a secular irrelevance and in intrusion on the Christmas season. It was easier to not discuss and not fight.

[Stephen Brown]

Phil Weickhardt (Phool) wrote:

I cannot say whether you or they are right but there is no point arguing about the matter. Ask them if you can agree to disagree for now so that you can agree on the many other matters of faith. We had a similiar issue with promoting Santa Claus a few years ago, there was a heated dispute about whether Santa Claus detracted from the incarnation and whether he was a secular irrelevance and in intrusion on the Christmas season. It was easier to not discuss and not fight.

Can I suggest that it is probably better to Discuss/Engage and not Fight.  Surely, we are able to not leave our brains and opinion at the church door and come to some agreement.  No discussion, I agree, is far too easy!  We must strive to be of like mind based upon Scriptural witness.  Thrash it out Jane in love, humility, and conviction that the Word speaks clearly on all matters of faith and life.  Praying for you and the brothers & sisters you desire peace and fellowship with.  Also, thanks for the interesting insights Phil.  The old creationists do cop it a bit don't they

Hope this encourages...
Philippians 2:1-3
1If you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any fellowship with the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion, 2then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and purpose. 3Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves.

[Jordan]

Hi Jane,

I also hold to a young earth, six day creation. I'm persuaded that Genesis 1-3 are essentially historical narrative in genre, along with the rest of Genesis.

I also feel that with any issue of disagreement, Christians should strive for agreement, not merely tolerance. If tolerance is all we can manage then we should be thankful, but we should still strive to agree (1 Cor 1:10).

However, if in the minds of those you disagree with this issue looms so large that they cannot accept you as Christ accepts you and keep other things in perspective, then you'll probably be forced to limit the amount of time you spend with them.

I have close friends on either side of this debate. The key for all of us is to put first things first. Keep the gospel in focus, and God will help us sort out the smaller issues.

My advice is, ask your friends if they are willing to pray with you about this issue. Are they willing to put unity as a priority, willing to be wrong, willing to be humble about this? Also ask yourself these questions.

God will give you all the strength to overcome this disagreement if you seek him with your whole hearts.

In Christ,
Jordan

[Jereth]

Hi Jane,

Boy you are opening a massive can of worms!! I'm replying to you without reading what the others have said, so that what I say isn't coloured by my reactions to the others (some of whom I can see are good friends of mine)... but after writing this I will very eagerly read through the other opinions expressed.

A brief personal background: I spent the better part of 10 years trying to get my head around the Genesis & Origins issue. I am from a science background, and have a robust confidence that science is basically reliable. At the same time I believe that Scripture in all its parts and in its entirety is inerrant.

On the pastoral side...
My experience, like you, is that this can be an extremely divisive and emotional issue which sees Christians going unneccesarily to war with each other. There are people on the Creation Science - Young Earth Creationist (YEC) side who are inappropriately dogmatic about their views, and often appear to treat this issue like the gospel itself (as you have observed, they can attempt to "evangelise" YEC to non-YEC Christians). YEC is promoted in a very unhelpful, IMO, way by organisations such as Answers in Genesis [www.answersingenesis.org] whose material pretty much communicates that you are heterodox/compromised if you hold anything other than the PRECISE view that they hold. On the other side, there are theistic evolutionists who are incredibly pompous about their own views, radiate the belief that they have a superior intellect because they can read the bible allegorically, and look down their nose at more "literalist" Christians who are considered retarded fundamentalists. I am not a fan of either of these extremes.

I don't personally know how to deal with people of either extreme except to pray for them, asking that God would cause them to take this issue less seriously than they do. Perhaps you just need to say that you don't want to talk about this issue with them, because it will only cause friction and upset. I guess you need to try and convey that actually it is a secondary issue, so much as they are entitled to hold their views with conviction and passion, they shouldn't be making it a stumbling block for others.

As for the debate itself
In my decade of exploring this issue I've managed to work out all the main viewpoints, which I'll share with you here.

Exegetical options for Genesis 1
1. Literalist - Genesis 1 is a literal account of 6 literal consecutive 24-hour days in history.

2. Day-Age - Genesis 1 is a literal account of 6 literal "days" which in actual fact represent (possibly overlapping, but nevertheless consecutive) long periods of time, because "yom" in Hebrew doesn't necessarily mean 24-hour day and with God a thousand years are like a day (2 Pet 3:8).

3. "Framework" view - Genesis 1 is meant to be read as a literal 7-day week, but it is not intended by the author to be a historical account of what actually happened in history. Instead, it is a piece of literary art which communicates a theology of Creation in the framework of a familiar human week with 6 days of work and 1 of rest.
(for proponents, see Meredith Kline and Henri Blocher -- both are at least broadly evangelical)

4. Mythical - Genesis 1 simply isn't true, it is a myth invented by an scientifically ignorant ancient writer just like the Babylonian and Sumerian creation myths.

Of these 4 options, I believe that 1-3 can be held by Christians with an inerranist, high view of Scripture whereas option 4 is a liberal option. Personally I lean towards option 3 but not dogmatically.


Scientific options
A. YEC - The earth was created in 6 literal days 6-10 thousand years ago. The figure is calculated by adding up the genealogies in Genesis 5 & 10.
YEC tends to be (but not always) allied with several other beliefs:
- animals didn't die prior to the Fall; all animals and humans were originally Vegetarian/herbivore
- Cain and Seth married their sisters
- Noah's flood was global, i.e. it covered the entire earth
(Answers in Genesis demands that Christians not only accept YEC, but these other beliefs as well)

B. Gap theory - The universe and earth have existed for billions of years (as per science), but God recently prepared the earth for life in 6 literal days, as described in Gen 1:3ff., probably less than 100 thousand years ago. (The "gap" is the time interval between the big bang and the beginning of the 6 days)

C. Progressive creation - The universe and earth have existed for billions of years. God created life over the last 4 billion years, using miraculous intervention in several successive stages to create new forms of life. In between these miraculous creative acts, natural geological and biological processes were at play to cause further diversification of species.

D. Theistic evolution - Things pretty much happened as atheistic science/evolution describes it, except that God was in control of the whole process. There was no miraculous intervention except possibly at 3 points: the Big Bang (to get things started), the creation of the first biological organism (even science can't explain this), and the point at which primates transitioned into humanity (because in the Christian worldview humans aren't simply evolved animals).

** The recent phenomenon known as Intelligent Design does not strictly fit into any of these categories, but I think it closely resembles Progressive Creation because it postulates miraculous intervention at several points in a long process and accepts that life could have existed for millions of years.


So basically, what you have to do first is decide which exegetical option you think is most likely correct (out of 1-3, which IMO are all valid choices), and then move on to choose a scientific option which fits with it (A-D).
[Note: I do think that one day (probably in heaven) we'll all find out which is the correct view! I'm not saying they can all be simultaneously correct. It's like the women-in-authority issue -- I'm sick and tired of people saying that there can be two correct views. We're not pluralists -- there is only one truth, and the fact that we disagree about what that truth is doesn't mean there are multiple truths!]

Personally, out of the scientific options, I gravitate towards Progressive creation. I really don't think the earth and universe are young -- I simply cannot see how scientifically this is the case, and I don't see anything in Scripture which demands it to be the case. The Gap theory is valid exegetically, but scientifically it has problems -- how do you account for the fossil record which says dinosaurs lived 65 million years ago? Theistic evolution is okay in principle, but has the danger of removing God from the picture and giving too much ground to the theory of evolution (which, after all, has a lot of problems still) and Dawkins-style atheistic materialism.

Hope that helps!

Jereth

[Andrew Stagg]

I too have wrestled with this debate. On one side I have my geological training which years after I studied still appears to my muddied mind as a robust position. But on the other I passionately believe scripture and need to put my trust in it. So I'm not going to force what I currently think about this issue onto anyone else. Being trained in rocks I have substantially less knowledge about evolutionary theory, but I've read enough to have my personal doubts, especially as science has revealed greater levels of complexity in this area. Geological History and Evolutionary Science are two different theories. So I guess that makes me an old earth creationist. I fully respect that others hold strongly to a 6 day earth position and I usually don't make a fuss about it, partly because it feels wrong to confuse a fellow brother in Christ. I'm confident God will reveal the answers to me (and everyone else) one day and it will be consistent with Scripture, will make some sense with what we see today, and will totally bring Glory to Him.

The only part of this issue I really struggle with however is when I get hammered by six day creationists with what I can see (with the aid of my training) is shoddy science and I'm made to feel that I'm required to check my brains in at the door and just believe what I'm told by some guy that I wouldn't trust in any other area of my life. God often asks us to trust HIM although we can't see clearly, but he never asks us to totally abandon our brains or reason in the process. So I get upset when people who do not have any of the training that I had, attempt to make this a life an death issue about how serious I am about my faith.

I find it personally helpful that people who hold a very high regard to scriptural inerrancy, people such as JI Packer and Mark Driscol both appear to currently hold old earth creationist positions. (but don't ask me to reference the exact podcasts where they said this tho, because i'd have to listen for weeks to refind them!!!)

Cheers
ANDREW

[Matt Williams]

Hi Jane, what a great question!

My approach is simply this: if it's a secondary issue to me and a primary issue to them, then I will maintain fellowship until they can't. I don't think we are called to be evangelists for particular scientific conclusions, and I don't think Christians need to agree on those matters. Nor should anyone's quest for scientific truth be constrained by the biblical narrative - if the biblical narrative is true as scientific history, then it should become obvious from the evidence. Scientists should be free to carry on their business, with all its provisionality and varying degrees of certainty.

But if we assume your young-earth friends are wrong - so what? They have over-read a story which is given to us as "our story" as factual history. That may just cement the theological truths of that story in place for them all the more. (I would be concerned if they were so focussed on the science they missed the theology!) Some more concrete minds are incapable of adopting stories as pseudo-history for purposes of self-understanding, instinctively believing a failure to be true at one level discredits a story at all the other levels, so more important aspects of faith may be damaged if you unseat their conviction in 7-day creationism - love demands we tread carefully.

The truth of the Genesis narrative is - at least - that it is our story through which we understand ourselves, the dignity of human beings and our relationship to God and the world. That, of course, is the basis of your unity with your friends, so I would focus on celebrating those common beliefs. If you were embracing evolution as a new framework for understanding what makes human beings valuable (e.g. the more evolved they are the more valuable) then they would have every reason to be concerned, because that belief is incompatible with the biblical story of human beings made in God's image. But I know you're too wise for that!

I don't think I'm offering you much you don't already do instinctively: be gracious to them, show them that your faith is authentic and solid even if you can't accept their view of science, and hopefully in time the Spirit will re-orient their priorities - and they might redirect that energy from persuading people the earth is young to persuading people that Jesus is Lord.

Blessings
Matt

[Phil Weickhardt (Phool)]

Wow, thanks Andrew.

Just to illustrate how difficult this issue is...

There are fossils of marine animals in the Himalayas and on other mountains.

Is this because of tectonic plate movement which pushed what was sea floor up to become high peaks or is it due to a global catastrophic flood which covered the entire earth? That is a point I grapple with as I teach science and geography in a Christian secondary school.

Some people can explain how the earth reshaped during the flood (the earth broke open etc. etc) and all the continental drift occurred during the six month flood, others hold an old earth view.

I think that the influence of evolutionary theory and all of its subordinates (include "social darwinism" here) is pervasive in this post-modern society and just muddies the waters greatly.

There is some fabulous case examples of water erosion and rock deposits which should take a long time which have taken very short periods. Much research has been done in volcanic areas (Mt St Helens is one) and in civil engineering projects that have spectacularly failed.
http://www.grisda.org/origins/11090.htm

My brain hurts

[Jereth]

Hi Andrew,

Andrew Stagg wrote:

Geological History and Evolutionary Science are two different theories.

From one OEC to another...I definitely agree they are distinct theories, but at the same time there is a lot of interaction between geology and paleontology, and hence evolutionary biology. is there not? Eg. you find a fossil in one rock layer in Australia, and another fossil in a rock layer of the same age in Africa, and conclude that the 2 species co-existed in time. Then you can plug that data into your evolutionary tree. (But that doesn't prove evolution, of course -- the evidence just as easily supports Progressive Creation)

On a totally separate but related note: I suspect that the poo will really hit the fan when the debate starts up about whether creationism/I.D. can be taught in schools (as in the US). I have strong suspicions about what the Labor party are up to, with their national school curriculum and all this "freedom of religion" business -- something tells me that the next few years will see the government force creation, religion and God out of our schools. Then we'll all have to start homeschooling our kids (God forbid!!). Just need to look at what has already happened in the US and Europe...

Jereth

[David Palmer]

This is a topic that always generates discussion, particularly since the advent of groups like Answers in Genesis, and the widespread dissemination of their views through the Christian School movement.

Somewhere or other the argument for a young earth involves the issue of the meaning of “day” in Genesis 1.

 The Hebrew word for “day” is yom. It is not correct to limit yom to a 24 hr period. Thus within the confines of Genesis 1&2, we can say there is no sun to define the length of the day for days 1 to 3, the seventh day is not bookended by “there was evening and there was evening”, in fact the 7th day, the day of rest, we know from Hebrews 4 still continues. Furthermore in Gen 2:4 the literal translation from the Hebrew reads “these are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created in the day (yom, singular) that Yahweh God made the earth and the heavens” In other words what is described in Genesis 1 as 6 day’s work in Genesis 2 is encapsulated in God’s “day” of creation (those with a NIV will see that it has truncated v4 and left out the reference to yom, the NJKV is much closer to the Hebrew). Also, I suggest the naming of the animals in Genesis 2 might have required more than a 24 hr day, even without sleep.

I know there is a whole range of other issues like were the original animals herbivores and only became carnivores after sin entered. Just maybe there are issues we don’t know answers to, will never know this side of glory. I can live with that.

For the record I find the literary view of the days of creation as set out, for example, in Henri Blocher’s little book, “In the Beginning” as the most compelling, but as Jereth indicates there is a great variety of views of the days of creation held by Bible believing Christians.

Contra Jereth, Meredith Kline and Henri Blocher are definitely evangelicals in the classic Reformed mould.

My concern with the young earth view is:

a) Not wanting a repeat of the Galileo debacle – Christians really did believe the earth was the centre of the universe and could quote Bible texts referring to the rising and setting of the sun in support of their view – but they were wrong, and we all agree they were wrong.

b) The evidence as I read it is the universe is very old – we need to remember God’s revelation comes to us in two ways - natural revelation from the study of creation and special revelation, and whilst we read natural revelation with the spectacles of Scripture (Calvin) we should neither ignore or deny what our study with God given talents of the natural order tells us, even if we do so, as we should, provisionally.

c) Apologetically against secularists and atheists, we don’t get to first base on the basis of a 10,000 yr old earth, not that I for one could argue with integrity for a 10,000 year old earth.

I have to say from a few encounters with some spokespersons for young earth creationistism that once you raise objections to their views, you can quickly become the target of questioning whether or not you are Christian! Some become extremely aggressive.

[Rob Miller]

So far this thread is a great example of the problem Jane originally raised. The question was not about creation, evolution and science, but about living together with differences.

So maybe it would be good stop pushing your barrows (enjoyable as that is), and think about the question of the status of this issue with regard to Christian unity and fellowship in the Gospel. Is it a fellowship-breaking issue? Why / why not?

Also, how crucial is the six-day / age-of-the-earth issue to the Christian doctrine of Creation? Is it at the heart of Christian belief about the status and meaning of the cosmos?

[Stephen Brown]

Matt Williams wrote:

But if we assume your young-earth friends are wrong - so what? They have over-read a story which is given to us as "our story" as factual history.

The truth of the Genesis narrative is - at least - that it is our story through which we understand ourselves, the dignity of human beings and our relationship to God and the world.

If you were embracing evolution as a new framework for understanding what makes human beings valuable (e.g. the more evolved they are the more valuable) then they would have every reason to be concerned, because that belief is incompatible with the biblical story of human beings made in God's image. But I know you're too wise for that!

A few questions Matt.
Do you think Gen 1&2 is factual?  In what sense do you understand it to be factual or not?

Is the truth of the Genesis narrative (by the way, it doesn't read simply like a fable or story - but we'll call it a narrative for now) only "our story" to help "us" understand "ourselves" in relationship to God?  Surely it is much more than that!  I'd of thought that at the very least it was GOD'S Story about himself.  A witness from The WORD about his Glory in Creation & Mankind.  "Before Abraham, I was..." sort of thing.  I think we read it very diferently when we acknowledge that those words in Gen 1&2 proceeded from the mouth of God.  They aren't simply human opinion and speculation on what might've happened or on par with stories from the Dreaming or other creation myths.

Embracing evolution may not lead an individual down the Eugenics path, but it has for many people in the past.  Evolutionary Theory has had an extremely poor track record!  The Nazi & Communist Parties ring a bell.  Oh, and us Anglicans (who often think we are WISE!) recently fell in with this sort of thinking when we adopted a "Gradualist" position on the sanctity of life.  If that isn't a product of Evolutionary Theory playing out in our Theology, Sociology, and Anthropology then I'll go hee.

Again, I'd simply encourage Jane and anyone who bumps into other Christians on this topic to engage, pray, and be ready to change your opinion.  I think Jordan's advice is the best way forward for us all.

[Jereth]

Matt wrote:

Some more concrete minds are incapable of adopting stories as pseudo-history for purposes of self-understanding, instinctively believing a failure to be true at one level discredits a story at all the other levels, so more important aspects of faith may be damaged if you unseat their conviction in 7-day creationism - love demands we tread carefully.

Hi brother, thanks for your contribution. I commend and agree with your advice to be pastorally senstive. However I'm concerned a little about the way you've worded this. What do you mean by "pseudo-history"? And by "failure to be true at one level"? I do not think that a Bible-believing Christian can ever hold that Scripture is untrue at any level. The Bible must be true at all levels if it is God's inspired Word. If Genesis 1 is not historical, that is because God did not intend it to be historical -- so there is no untruth or deception in it. However, if God or Moses intended it to teach a historical account, and yet it fails, then God is found to be untrue or a liar -- which to me is unacceptable. Can you please clarify? Perhaps I've understood you wrong. thanks.

David Palmer wrote:

Contra Jereth, Meredith Kline and Henri Blocher are definitely evangelicals in the classic Reformed mould.

I stand corrected!

I should add that, despite my own personal preference for the framework/literary interpretation, I believe that the burden of proof lies with those of us who wish to interpret Genesis in anything other than a strictly literal manner. I agree with Steve Brown that, if we took Genesis away from all our evolutionary conditioning, it would most naturally read as a straightforward, literal, narrative. If we're going to err, it should be on the side of caution -- i.e. assuming the literal sense of Scripture and the truthfulness of God's word. Hence I have every respect and empathy for my Christian brothers and sisters who take the literal 6-day view because I know that their motive is usually one of humble fidelity to God's Word -- whereas more often than not the attitude of theistic evolutionists is quite arrogant and stands over the Word rather than under it. I'm willing to have a friendly and gracious conversation to explain my own view to a 6-day literalist, but if they wish to maintain their view, good for them.

Jereth

[David Palmer]

I have come back to make a similar point to Rob Miller - some of my friends are young earth creationists. If the relationship is important sometimes you have to agree to disagree, a bit like the baptism issue.

A problem when you feel your way into a new relationship can arise when one of the parties tries to bring the other to their point of view on a particular subject and the relationship becomes conditional upon that. No problem if you are going to come across to their viewpoint, but if not you need to let the other know ASAP otherwise it could get nasty. I've little experience of Christians theistic evolutionists, but I've known some prosletysing young earth creationists who can get quite aggressive.

[Matt Williams]

Hey Steve and Jereth,

I'm sorry, brothers, I really don't have time to get into a long debate about this. I had observed, as Rob Miller after me, that although Jane asked a question about living with difference on this issue, many of the ensuing responses were about trying to resolve the differences, to persuade one way or another. I thought I'd offer some thoughts more 'on topic'.

Out of respect for your respectful questions, I will try to make myself clearer, but I can't promise any further engagement. I am not saying Genesis is not true on more levels. I am just saying it is at least true on those theological levels I described.

By pseudo-history I mean the adopotion of a history as my own for self-understanding, even if (factually speaking) it isn't my history or didn't actually happen that way in time and space. As a Gentile, I do this when I read myself into the story of Israel and adopt that for understanding myself, even though it didn't happen to me or my ancestors. The book of Job could be a fictional story for all we know, but nonetheless it becomes a lens of self-understanding that, in terms of its effects on me, is no more or less powerful if Job did or didn't actually exist. The power of scripture is that it is mediated through story, and it is those stories that God uses to shape me rather than the events they describe. The story -the word, the scripture - is itself the instrument of the Spirit, whether fact or fiction, parable or history or myth.

(In any case, there is always slippage between event and story - turning an event into language necessarily changes it, its selectivity removing some possibilties of understanding and adding others. That's why it is so essential that the Holy Spirit inspired the authors of scripture, and it will not do to view scripture as a purely human record of events that seemed to involve God.)

In the case of the death and resurrection of Christ, of course it is only the reality of the events themselves that will make them ultimately efficacious for me in my own resurrection. So if Christ is not risen indeed, our faith is futile indeed. But at the present time their efficacy is mediated by the Spirit through the story of those events, the scripture, through which I know only in part. God alone knows fully, and the scripture can never be said to fully encapsulate things as God sees them - it is always a condescension to explain things in part in deference to our ability to grasp in part. Scripture is not God's perspective, which must always be bigger, but it is true to God's surpassing truth.

I'm not saying the beginning of the world did or didn't happen any particular way at any particular time. I wasn't there, and I'm not even particularly interested in the question. The effect on my life of the Genesis narrative is exactly the same regardless of its fidelity to things that happened in space and time. It is a concise story of origins that gives me a godly perspective on the creation, myself, others, and God. I can happily separate those things. I understand, though, that others cannot - and I would sooner they had their science "wrong" than their theology.

When Jereth says "I do not think that a Bible-believing Christian can ever hold that Scripture is untrue at any level... if Genesis 1 is not historical, that is because God did not intend it to be historical - so there is no untruth or deception in it", I think we are saying the same thing in different ways. I'm not saying the scripture was untrue, just that it is only true in the ways intended - so Jesus' parables likewise are not historical facts.

I wouldn't argue that the Genesis narrative is necessarily historical or ahistorical because of genre, such as poetry/prose etc. We can declare hunches about how historical it is all we like, but the text does not force our hand in that regard. I accept it as it is at the minimum - a theologically educative story - my story - the story. I'm okay with it not being a scientific or historical story, and i'm okay with it turning out to be scientifically and historically true. Either way, we're not afraid of truth, so the questions may be asked independently, and the conclusions reached with integrity - and in the meantime my faith is not forever contingent on the outcome of an historical or scientific debate.

On a personal note, I grew up as a strong creation scientist, and truly believed that my entire faith had to be abandoned if that reading of Genesis were ever disproved. I eventually discovered that this meant my faith was in my ability to figure out what was true, and my faith in God was secondary to and contingent on that self-confidence. I had made myself a judge of scripture. Eventually, I defeated myself and had to turn to God for faith as a gift, rather than an accomplishment. There are many things I do not know - but this I believe - that God created the heavens and the earth and that all human beings are made in his image, to care for creation and delight in it after his likeness.

As for making a decision on the science... well, when we have a lifetimes work available just pondering the mysterious beauty of the Triune God and seeking to translate the way of Jesus Christ into our daily lives, I'm afraid I don't see the urgency. I'm quite happy to have the information filled in at the resurrection. If others find the questions more interesting, as I find, say, music interesting, then I'm all for their pursuing that and hope they find pleasure in their toil.

Blessings
Matt

[Jereth]

G'day Steve,

Stephen Brown wrote:

I think we read it very diferently when we acknowledge that those words in Gen 1&2 proceeded from the mouth of God.

Sorry to be nit-picky, but I wouldn't mind clarification on this. What do you mean when you say that Gen 1&2 proceeded from God's mouth? Do you think that Gen 1& 2 was produced in the same way as most of the rest of Scripture -- i.e. Moses was inspired with the truth, and wrote it down in his own personal literary style (just like, say, the way Luke's gospel or Paul's epistles were written), or do you think that Gen 1&2 was more special -- that it was produced by direct dictation rather than by normal inspiration -- like the 10 commandments?

If Moses wrote it without dictation, how was he inspired to know what happened in those 6 days, since no one was there to observed what happened until Adam was created on day 6?

cheers
Jereth

[Andrew Stagg]

Matt Williams wrote:

By pseudo-history I mean the adopotion of a history as my own for self-understanding, even if (factually speaking) it isn't my history or didn't actually happen that way in time and space. As a Gentile, I do this when I read myself into the story of Israel and adopt that for understanding myself, even though it didn't happen to me or my ancestors. The book of Job could be a fictional story for all we know, but nonetheless it becomes a lens of self-understanding that, in terms of its effects on me, is no more or less powerful if Job did or didn't actually exist. The power of scripture is that it is mediated through story, and it is those stories that God uses to shape me rather than the events they describe. The story -the word, the scripture - is itself the instrument of the Spirit, whether fact or fiction, parable or history or myth.

Wow what a long post!! I'm afraid we have all drifted hopelessly off topic (myself included)...


Hi Matt,

While I don’t think that you are really arguing that Job is fictional, I’m not sure we should really toy with the right to treat some books as fiction. This is because there is nothing in the book of Job itself to indicate that it isn’t completely true. Job begins with “There was a man in the land of Uz whose name was Job, and that man was blameless and upright, one who feared God and turned away from evil.”  this reads like a fairly factual statement to me. God himself talks about Job in Ezekiel 14:14 “even if these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they would deliver but their own lives by their righteousness, declares the Lord GOD.” And James talks about him in 5:11 “Behold, we consider those blessed who remained steadfast. You have heard of the steadfastness of Job, and you have seen the purpose of the Lord, how the Lord is compassionate and merciful.”

If Job didn’t actually exist (and don’t think that you really arguing that) then the book of Job just becomes a story about what God imagined he might do in the world (not what he actually did). It means that James writing about steadfastness means little since the character who exhibited it might not have really existed.

The other danger with this is if people start pondering the idea that some books might be “fact or fiction, parable or history or myth “ we enter the territory where people start to doubt all sorts of books in the bible. I know that you would never support this view, but there is no shortage of folks around today who drifted so far down this road that they now argue that the gospels didn’t happen and the resurrection “story” is allegory

[Tim Patrick]

To Jane's original question (I hope),

The question that I would be gently exploring with your friends is why this article of belief is so important to them. I see two obvious possibilities (there may be more)

1. Something very significant about living the Christian life is built on it.
2. It's a litmus test for 'true believers'.

Not knowing your friends and so not wanting to pre-judge their position in particular, I feel it's common for many people who hold a six-day view to be coming from camp 2. Somehow, for many Christians the literal reading of Gen 1 seems to have become as central to the Christian faith as the person and work of Jesus.

I respect that some think if we don't believe in six-day creation then we mustn't be taking the Bible seriously. However, there are two things to say to this. Firstly, there are many Christians who are very committed to the Bible who just don't see that this text demands a literal reading - in fact, some would argue that to read it literally would be to do it a greater disservice. Secondly, we could ask a controversial question - is it necessary for all 'real' Christians to have the same theology of Scripture? What does fellowship look like between two people who love the Lord, but humbly understand the Scriptures differently? I suppose that ends up being a question about where the lines in the sand are, or what we should do when we draw them in different places. And I suppose that's coming back around to your original question...

Again, I think I would try to find out what difference your friends think this makes. Is it a fellowship-breaking issue? If so, why? None of this is a sure path to guaranteeing the relationship, but it's hopefully at least a good way to grow in understanding of each other. Perhaps the lessons we learn in this one will be instructive for us when we think about our relationships with Christians who have different view about other parts of Scripture too...

Good issue.

Tim

PS. It's sad to me when Christians do a bad job in dealing with this topic. Ultimately, the question is most urgently relevant in apologetics. The popular portrayal of the 'science vs Bible' debate has given countless Westerners another good reason to just ignore the church.

[Matt Williams]

Hi Andrew,

I'm not sure we're quite on the same page. The form of a statement doesn't necessarily imply the genre is historical or factual. I could start a story, "A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers." - and proceed to tell the story of the good samaritan, but it does not necessarily follow this man actually existed. I could later refer freely to the samaritan "you have heard of the good samaritan, be like him" without implying that I am now saying something about a man of history rather than a character of a story. Plain statement is not the preserve of historical account.

I am not saying Job didn't exist, as you say, but I don't think your evidence is grounds to insist that he did. I really can't see that the bible forces us to one conclusion or the other, and with no other evidence to go by, I am completely agnostic on the question of Job's historicity, and have no desire to persuade anyone that he was or wasn't real. I do desire to persuade people to learn from his story.

The death and resurrection of Christ is a different case, as I said above. Its historicity matters because it is the actual event that is the grounds of our hope in an actual event for us. For many other stories in the bible - though I do expect and believe much of it is a well grounded and reliable account of actual events - it matters less what conclusion we reach about their factuality, since it still has integrity as a prototypical story, or example for us, and therefore the same power to shape our lives by the power of the Holy Spirit. And stories can still be reliable depictions of how God works and may work with us, whether they are parable or eyewitness history.

History is all very interesting, I just think sometimes we get hung up on proving the less important things rather than digesting the more important things, and too easily make the mistake of equating the importance of the historicity of Christ's resurrection with the importance of the historicity of every story in the bible.

Blessings
Matt