Some folks believe very fervently that the creation accounts in Genesis are literally true. The world was created in 7 days; Adam and Eve are real, historical figures who lived in a real Garden of Eden and were tempted by a real talking snake. That forms the foundation of their faith in God as sovereign and all powerful and in God’s redemption through Jesus. In fact, they might argue that not accepting Genesis 1-3 as accurate, factual accounts of creation undermines the rest of the Bible.
I believe that the first chapter of Genesis is more of a statement of faith in God the Creator than an actual account of the creation of the universe. As for Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden, I don’t know if it actually happened as it is presented in the Bible, but I don’t think the fundamental truths of the story are lessened if it turns out to be an allegory or a parable rather than a factual account. In fact, I think it’s possible to miss at least some of the deeper meaning if you insist on it being entirely factual.
This leads to the first questions to explore: What are the essential messages conveyed in these creation accounts? What do we miss if we believe the creation accounts in Genesis are parables rather than accurate, factual accounts of what really happened?
I quit trying to change the mind of anyone who believes that the creation accounts are literally true. It shouldn’t make a difference in our common relationship through Jesus, except when some insist that believing in creationism is a condition for being a Christian. Then it goes from being an interesting discussion or intellectual exercise to a potential barrier to the Gospel. In my experience, such an insistence has created an unnecessary tension between science and religion and has only served to turn many people away from Christianity.
The late Michael Spencer wrote of a Japanese exchange student who attended a Christian school in the U.S. for a year. She told a teacher before she returned home:
“I am an atheist because I believe in evolution. When people here explained to me what they must believe as Christians, I always ask them about evolution, and they say ‘You cannot be a Christian and believe in evolution.’ So I cannot be a Christian, because I believe that evolution is true.”
Spencer lamented that the student didn't hear that many Christians don’t believe science and faith are incompatible or that many Christians accept both evolution and Christ. It’s a false condition that distracts from the Gospel. Fortunately, the perception that religion and science are conflicting or incompatible may be changing. A recent study found that the vast majority of college freshman saw no conflict between science and religion (The (Lack Of) Conflict Between Science and Religion in College Students). Folks who insist that science is hostile toward Christianity (in my experience, it isn't) or that only a literal interpretation of every aspect of the Bible is true to God (I don’t think God’s grace insists on this) may only be pushing others away from the overarching story of God’s relationship with us and how God is at work in the world. And that is far more important than any claims that the Bible also serves as a scientific text for creation.
Now for the second set of questions: Does it matter whether the creation accounts are literal or not? Why would it make a difference? What do we lose when we focus on debating whether God created the universe in 7 days or several billion years or whether Adam and Eve were historical people or a metaphor? What does it have to do with the Gospel?
I will add some personal thoughts in the comment section. Hope you’ll join in the conversation!
This quickly gets deep and complicated. So let me keep it simple. Have you ever heard of any other evidence that a snake has ever talked??? I have not. That's NONE as in ZERO. Oh! I stand corrected. I think I saw one once... in a cartoon... about the creation story!
ReplyDeleteI hope there aren't too many people that would "... argue that not accepting Genesis 1-3 as accurate, factual accounts of creation undermines the rest of the Bible." Back to the real talking snake... so one's entire understanding of scripture (and the faith that results) presumably stands on that? AMAZING!!! What about Jesus?
ReplyDeleteTo regard the creation story as "metaphor," one needs to understand specifically what a metaphor is... and more generally what "figures of speech" are. At least that's what they were called back in my junior high days in the fifties when I first learned about them. I learned that "metaphor" is a "simile" without the words "like" or "as". Without this understanding, one can only regard the writing literally... concretely... and restrictively, I think.
ReplyDeleteI don’t know who wrote Genesis although tradition credits Moses as the author of Genesis, but I do think it was inspired by God. The author was writing for his time. If the author said that the earth was created 4.5 billion years ago from something called the big bang, no one would understand or believe it not even the author. For the time Genesis was written, 7 days seemed very believable and I suspect God provided that message. The basis narrative says God makes the world, creates man and appoints man as His creation in His own image, but man proves disobedient and God ultimately destroys man’s lair by the Great Flood only to let man flourish again through a true believer named Noah. This is the bottom line. Man was place on Earth by God through creation, not by evolution. If you think about it, God was responsible for both events, creation and evolution, but apparently God was not satisfied with the way evolution turned out for man. The Neanderthal man was created through a long Evolution process and God put Cro-Magnon man on Earth through creation to replace the Neanderthal man, which he promptly did. The primary thing I believe is that the Universe and ultimately the Earth was created by God. God put man on Earth and also created a perfect environment to sustain his life.
ReplyDeleteIf God created science and evolution, why couldn’t God have created man through evolution? Being outside time and space, God would know all the evolutionary steps that would take place to create Adam. It would still be creating man, as stated in Genesis.
ReplyDeleteA few quick comments/observations:
ReplyDelete- In Eugene Peterson's interpretation of the Bible, The Message, the first chapter of Genesis is in the form of a Psalm. I remember reading an interview with Peterson where he explained that in the earliest Hebrew texts (scrolls?), that's how it was written - as poetry, not prose. It was not intended to be a collection of facts (and certainly not a science or history book), but as a statement of faith in the Creator.
- I've noticed two camps who insist on a literal translation of the creation accounts in Genesis (and, for that matter, the entire Bible): some conservative fundamentalist Christians who insist that this is the only way to read the Bible and some atheists who insist that this is why the Bible is wrong and dangerous. I don't know whether these groups are growing in size, but they are dominating the volume.
- I just saw a trailer for a movie called "Evolution vs. God". I'd argue that it begins from the wrong premise - that the science of evolution is incompatible with a faith in God. It also ignores the fact that, at it's basic nature, science is one way we use to better understand the world and universe around us. In that this universe was created by God, it also provides some insight into how God is working in the universe. Unfortunately, the movie appears to use a tactic I've seen used by too many fundamentalists: if you don't believe in their interpretation of the Bible and their concept of God, then you are disagreeing with God and not with their interpretation. I predict it will do nothing more than play into the preconceived notions of young-earth creationists and inspire more scientists to shake their heads at the pretzel logic used by the movie makers. It will do nothing to bring anyone closer to God or to Jesus.
- I would argue (and this could be a good discussion in itself) that one of the primary reasons we've seen a rise in vocal atheists who are openly hostile toward religion is because of the insistence of more fundamentalist Christians that the 7-day creation story in Genesis is every bit a science text as any other one and that all other science is wrong/contrary to God. To be honest, there are holes in both sides of the spectrum and the one thing missing in their arguments is humility.
- In the end, the good news of Jesus has nothing to do with how you believe the universe was created and everything to do with showing love for the Creator, the creation, and all of the people who live in that creation. If we began from a foundation of love, then at the least, the debate might become a reasoned discussion that involves more listening than it does ranting.