When the Holy Spirit moved upon the human authors of Genesis, they were inspired to record a distinctively Hebrew account of creation.  But what makes the book of Genesis distinct?  The folks in the Creation Science movement would have you believe that Genesis is special primarily because of its scientific and historical accuracy.  And they are willing to bet the whole “Evangelical enchilada” on the dangerous notion that unbiased scientific inquiry should confirm the literal accuracy of the Biblical creation model.  So modern Christians are equipped, via pseudo-scientific books and videos, to demonstrate the relevance and the truthfulness of the Scriptures by forcefully engaging in scientific apologetics.  But few Christians seem willing to invest the mental energy needed to fully appreciate the scientific case for an evolving creation and as a result, they severely underestimate the challenge facing them.  Armed with what they think are powerful nuclear weapons, they hurl themselves against an impenatrable fortress - fighting with what really amounts to sticks and stones.  Thankfully, many believers are beginning to question the effectiveness of this, and are prayerfully seeking other ways to stand up for Truth. 

So what are the Biblical alternatives?  How else can we defend the Genesis creation account against what appears to be a near-universal scientific consensus on origins?  The issue really comes down to this: is the book of Genesis an encyclopedia of natural history, or is it a theological polemic against Ancient Near-Eastern paganism?  Or could it serve both purposes?  When one considers the terrible theology wedded to the polytheistic creation accounts of Israel’s pagan neighbors, it becomes clear that the Hebrew creation account had to confront this theology head-on and replace it with a distinctively Hebrew monotheism.  That was obviously priority #1.  But should we also expect the Holy Spirit to toss a few scientific nuggets into the story - something that we could easily use today to demonstrate the authenticity of the creation account?  Perhaps, but we also need to be willing to accept the fact that our concerns were not the same concerns facing the original audience.  While revelations of natural history might have satified the scientific curiosities of post-Enlightenment Christians some 3500 years later, it would have done nothing to help a newly liberated gagle of Hebrew slaves wondering through the wilderness.  Is it possible that Moses had to pick and choose his battles?  As more and more evidence mounts against the speical creation model, I think we need to start asking these types of questions.

This might come as a surprise to some, but things that interest modern Christians (like the age of the earth or the origin of the species) were of little concern to the ancient Hebrews.  So rather than authoritatively address issues of natural history, we instead see the Biblical authors making explicit references to the “scientific consensus” of their own Ancient Near-Eastern culture.  But unlike the scientific consensus of our day, which is based on emperical analysis of physical data, these ancient cosmological models took the form of creation mythologies which tied the functions of the cosmos with the whims and wishes of particular gods and godesses.  And Genesis clearly shows us that Moses, who was educated in all the wisdom of Egypt, did not elect to challenge the ancient idea that the raw materials of the cosmos took the form of a watery abyss; or that creation was accomplished through a divine ordering of the primordial chaos by a series of separations: light from darkeness, water from land, heaven from earth, etc…  In fact, you might say that Ancient Near-Eastern science was commandeered by the Biblical authors to demonstrate that all things, even the primitive cosmology of an ancient culture, must be understood in terms of Yahweh working through history to accomplish His will. 

Now fast forward 3500 years.  The scientific consensus of our day, while most likely not 100% correct, is nevertheless much more accurate than the ancient concept of a flat, geocentric earth with its solid firmament holding back the waters above the sun, moon and stars.  And similar to the polytheism that was so prevalent in the Ancient Near-Eastern cosmology (which tended to see a multitude of gods with each governing a different aspect of creation), the modern scientific rendering of creation is also conflated with bad theology.  Polytheism is not really en vogue now-a-days, but materialism, atheism, and deism are all by-products of the modern scientific worldview which tends to see the cosmos as a finely-tuned machine operating without any need for a creator.

So in light of this, how should Christians today tell the story of creation?  Should we ignore centuries of scientific progress and defend every last detail of the Genesis creation account despite mountains of evidence to the contrary?  Or, can we take a page from the Holy Spirit’s playbook and use the modern scientific consensus as a polemic to make our theological points?  After all, are they not the same theological points made in the Genesis account: that God is the creator, sustainer, and ruler of the cosmos?  And that He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together?  And that all 14 billion years of natural history culminates in the person and work of Jesus Christ?  As you watch my video, please pay close attention to the theme of God progressively revealing Himself throughout the course of human history - ultimately culminating in the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ.  Also ask yourself this question: Does the modern scientific consensus of natural history really change anything theologically?  Is God not still God?  Are we still not His creatures, created for His glory and bearing His image?  Is Christ not still the focus of history?

I’ve also posted this on my own video page (no YouTube logo in the corner).

This entry was posted on Sunday, December 2nd, 2007 at 6:55 pm and is filed under Random Things. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.