One of the most persistent narratives being passed around modern Evangelicalism is that one must deny evolution in order to really be a true “Bible-believing” Evangelical. If one does not believe in six-day young earth creationism, then obviously one is inconsistent in interpreting Scripture and does not really believe in the God of the Bible. It has been a powerful narrative for that particular group, in particular because it allows those who believe in six-day young earth creationism to shut off those who do not. After all, if they do not really believe what God says, then they really may not be full Christians, and why listen to them?
In passing, since many Evangelicals in Great Britain do not believe in six-day young earth creationism, I have heard and read more than one comment sadly bewailing how European Evangelicalism has been tainted by European liberalism. As an example of how leading European Evangelicals interpret Genesis, The Rev. John Stott says:
Not many Christians today find it necessary to defend the concept of a literal six-day creation, for the text does not demand it, and scientific discovery appears to contradict it. The biblical text presents itself not as a scientific treatise but as a highly stylized literary statement (deliberately framed in three pairs, the fourth “day” corresponding to the first, the fifth to the second, and the sixth to the third)…
“It is most unfortunate that some who debate this issue (evolution) begin by assuming that the words “creation” and “evolution” are mutually exclusive. If everything has come into existence through evolution, they say, then biblical creation has been disproved, whereas if God has created all things, then evolution must be false. It is, rather, this naïve alternative which is false. It presupposes a very narrow definition of the two terms, both of which in fact have a wide range of meanings, and both of which are being freshly discussed today…
If you were to Google© “J.I. Packer AND six-day creationism,” you would find various blog entries that bewail his stance that the best way to interpret Genesis is simply to consider it a framework story. (You can read further into it if you are interested.)
The attitudes towards the first two chapters of Genesis of two main European Evangelicals whose theological writings are consistently read in American seminaries are nevertheless bewailed. At the end of the arguments, it becomes obvious that it is only that Evangelicalism that is founded on a particular American interpretation that is the only fully true Christianity. Mind you, this argument blithely papers over the strong theological divisions even among conservative “Bible-believing” Evangelicalism, but it papers them over on the assumption that everyone is working out of the same base, it is only the details on which they differ. And that base is a particular definition of what it means to “literally” interpret Scripture. Any other interpretation is said to be corrupted by liberalism.
When all is said and done, even The Rev. John Stott and The Rev. J.I. Packer are not really Evangelical. Sad, is it not? Hmm, guess what, in this case I am on the side of Revs. Stott and Packer. Note that The Rev. John Stott comments, “Not many Christians today find it necessary to defend the concept of a literal six-day creation …” Most world Evangelicals (or Orthodox or Roman Catholic) really do not feel it necessary to defend six-day creation. Neither do I.
Real questions – Is your God big enough to create any way He wants? Since He is beyond time and space, can He compress things to fit the timeline of an ancient narrative? However you may interpret Genesis 1-12, is it the authoritative, revealed Word of God?
Here’s how it looks to me.
People holding this literalist stance are completely buying into an epistemology they claim to refute, and they base their argument on its rules for making truth claims.
They adopt the assumption that any text that conveys truth must do so in terms that stand up to scientific inquiry and must be construed as literal reportage. They fully adopt this modern, materialist hermeneutic in their attempt to refute the modern, materialistic atheism that they oppose. As committed to ignoring the early Church Fathers as they are to opposing evolution, they remain in their intellectual isolation, which appears to generate spiritual isolation in this case, too.
Many of them who convert to Orthodoxy are bringing their anti-evolution beliefs and non-Orthodox exegesis with them into the Church, and I sure wish our clergy would do more to correct them.
Excellent point, Stella, and yes, it is up to the clergy, and the educated laity, to correct this.
Something I heard yesterday, as coming from one of the Vatican astronomers, all Jesuits and, of course, bona fide scientists: “Scientific textbooks go out of date, on average, every 10 years or so. The Bible, of course, does not. So to attempt to turn the Bible into a scientific textbook is to do it no favors.”
Ah, hypothetical word games are always fun. Let’s see, does your God create the universe in such a way that it will lead people to doubt him? Does He deliberately plant false evidence such that people of science will be damned to hell for the sin of being confused by the inconsistency between the scientific evidence and the Word of God?
Word games are fun! I could carry this on for a long time. But, the more serious point is that these are word games that a subset of Americans play that are not generally played outside of the USA by either Evangelicals, or Orthodox or Roman Catholics. And, uhm, yes the Orthodox have believed for a couple of thousand years that the Word of God is authoritative. This is the reason that Council after Council keeps stating words like, “as the Fathers have taught us.”
There are many many reasons why neither John Stott nor J.I. Packer back American interpretations.
Good thoughts, Father. This Anglo-Catholic still enjoys your perspectives. Indeed, Jesus, the revealed logos, is “the authoritative word of God.”
My disillusionment with YEC began with the realization I could not in conscience write believers who did not hold to YEC “out of the Kingdom” and that in contrast to some YEC advocates who were effectively if not actually saying such was indeed the case……
OrthoCuban, the only reason these Bible-Believing (TM) Evangelicals have a Bible to Believe is the bishops of your Church and mine (who were one and the same at the time) prevented the Shirley MacLaines of the period from rewriting the Bible in their own image back when years AD were in the low three digits. That’s how they got their Paper Pope which they recite like a Calormene quoting the poets.
I am, of course, late to the discussion, but I wanted to ask for an opinion, should you happen to read this reply.
What, if any, is your opinion on the Old Earth Creationist movement. It’s as far as I can tell a very small movement indeed, but seems to have some interesting points to it.
The Old Earth Creationist movement is basically what any Christian who is not a Young Earth Creationist believes. But, Old Earth Creationism is a generic name given to any of several explanations, including gap creationism, progressive creationism, and evolutionary creationism. The various types of Old Earth Creationism all seek to take seriously the datings and finding of the various sciences while continuing to insist that God created out of nothing. They also attempt to give some historical validity to Genesis by insisting that it is not merely myth and allegory.
There is a lot to be said for this type of creationism. I, personally, like the evolutionary creationism with a cosmic time explanation for Genesis.