To preface, I’m stepping out into dangerous territory. The debate often misframed as “evolution vs creationism” is almost as intense as the protestant and catholic conflict in Ireland. It’s almost required to take a strong stand on the issue to be a Christian nowadays. After years of hostile conflict, everyone has strong opinions on the matter. I don't intend to step on toes and take sides, but to offer criticism on the conflict as a whole.
The debate around young-earth creationism and “pretty much everything else” is not whether science “proves the bible”, but about how to read the first chapter of genesis. This “exegesis” involves the context, audience, history, and author to determine the meaning of the text. Good exegesis asks how it fits into the theological narrative; bad exegesis removes it from its context.
A literal interpretation is one way to read Genesis 1, but it certainly isn’t the only one. Latching onto a single interpretation at the expense of the rest of Christ is counterproductive (to say the least). This was what drove the persecution of Galileo. The church thought that the readings in Psalms 96, Psalms 93, 1 Chronicles and more proved that the “firmament” was fixed. However, the orbiting spheres of Galileo contradicted this, leading them abandon the loving nature of God and attack a man over something as theologically irrelevant as the movement of celestial bodies. To them, to question the nature of the firmament was to contradict the authority of scripture, and their stubbornness still haunts them today.
Augustine was very careful to use the literary context of a scripture piece to determine its meaning; books of history and instruction ought to be read literally, while poetry and songs ought not. Thus when Psalms 104:5 says “"the Lord set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved”, the writer is writing in metaphor, not literally. To read it as poetry still supports the character and power of God, so an alternate exegesis does no harm. But holding onto it at all costs destroys the entire meaning of scripture.
A symbolic reading of Genesis 1 uses this context. The poetic nature of the writing lends itself to a more lyrical reading, not a literal one. Also, the nature of the audience, a tribe of pre-scientific people, simply would not understand any modern scientific language. Because God is a relational being, he speaks to us where we are, and if that happens to be sheppards in the desert, He’ll speak accordingly.
Moses wrote genesis to show his people how foundational God was in everything, not write a textbook that wouldn’t be understood for two millennial. To reduce this deep theology solely down to a literal scientist reading dodges the actual meaning of Gods character.
I’m not an expert on exegesis; I’m just an ex-soldier in the culture wars who questioned his marching orders. I’ve heard enough of the bickering to have formed ideas of my own. For some great analysis of creationist exegesis please read this criticism. I don’t dare take his arguments as my own, but I will admit it inspired my rant today. Jepson’s point in the above link is not that young-earth creationism is wrong, but that Ken Ham’s exegesis is just outright bad. It’s well worth a read
When you get down to origins, it’s tricky. Even if the universe is just a few thousand years old, it certainly doesn’t LOOK like it; we wouldn’t see hardly a single star in the sky, as the light from the wouldn’t have reached us yet! We could make the silly argument that God created the world with the appearance of age, but that raises the greater question of why the deception in the first place? Yet, a theistic evolution would present a world with death before sin, which creates issues.
We should be humble enough to admit that we don’t know how the world began, and smart enough to trust that God’s bigger then our limited knowledge. Never should we cut down an infinite God down to only what we can comprehend.
A constant reminder that the love of God is completely unconditional needs to be at the center of this debate, above all else. Christ did not come to us to “make sure we know when the universe was created”, but to “seek and save the lost”. THIS is what matters. A Christian can hold any of a number of views about the origin of the universe, as long as he knows and loves the personhood of God. It’s to debate the how of creation and ignore the why.
Once we get the respectful and loving part down, THEN we can talk about our exegesis.
No comments:
Post a Comment