PCA Report on Creation
On more than one occasion, someone has asked how my views on Genesis square with the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) Report of the Creation Study Committee on the days of creation. In my own local PCA congregation, we recently did a fascinating study on how Genesis relates to each of the four views presented in the committee report. Each interpretation is considered by the PCA to be within the bounds of Christian orthodoxy. They are as follows:
Calendar Day View: The Genesis days of creation are “calendar” days. Therefore, God constructed the heavens and the earth in six 24-hour days and rested on the seventh. No attempt is made to accommodate the creation narrative to the scientific consensus on origins. Instead, an ad-hoc alternative science (creation science) is invented to accommodate the material details of Genesis 1.
Day-Age View: The Genesis days of creation represent undefined periods of time, or ages. The specific sequence given by Moses is taken as chronological, but the actual duration of each “day” is not limited to a 24-hour period. Overlapping of the ages is permitted to better accommodate the scientific consensus on origins, but the Genesis chronology is still difficult to align with modern science (i.e. the earth existing before the sun).
Literary Framework View: The Genesis days of creation are not intended to be solar days and are organized topically rather than chronologically. Days 1, 2 and 3 describe different realms (or creature-kingdoms) that God established, and days 4, 5 and 6 depict God populating these realms with created things (or creature-kings). Since natural history is not the focus of the framework hypothesis, there is no necessary conflict with modern science regarding the natural history of the earth or the cosmos. The ad-hoc rejection of some elements of scientific consensus might still be necessary strictly on theological grounds (i.e. common ancestry of humans with other primates), but science is generally not the focus of the narrative.
Analogical Days View: Very similar to the Framework Hypothesis, but with less emphasis on the “kingdoms-kings” structure.
If picking one of these four views was like voting for president, and I was forced to accept the candidate with the fewest problems, I guess I would vote for the Literary Framework view since it appears to be the least hostile to modern scientific consensus. But in my opinion, all of these views are terribly unsatisfying. Not only do they dangerously undermine the authority of the biblical text by replacing the author’s concerns with the interpreter’s concerns, but they also drive an unnecessary wedge between special revelation and natural revelation – keeping Christians ignorant of scientific truth and isolating some of the most brilliant minds from the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Is there any other way to look at Genesis?
Most theologians would agree that the process of biblical inspiration utilized the purposes and intentions of the human authors. This makes the authors’ intent our most accessible link to what God intended. So what would Moses do? Which one of these positions did the newly-liberated Hebrew people endorse as they wandered through the wilderness contemplating the creation narrative given to them by Moses? That might sound like a stupid question – because it is. Something tells me that neither Moses nor his original audience would have subscribed to any of these four views. There probably were no creation debates among God’s people during Old-Testament times. In fact, we probably wouldn’t be having this silly debate today were it not for extra-biblical (scientific) revelation. As we move further from the ancient worldview of the original Genesis audience, the more unfamiliar the creation narrative will look to us.
Quite frankly, the last 2500 years of scientific discovery have revealed a cosmos that is quite different from what any ancient Near-Eastern person would have known. And so Christians are put in a difficult position of having to either defend an outdated cosmology against the rigorous advance of scientific discovery, or to reinterpret the Scriptures according to whatever direction the scientific winds are blowing. Any “solution” to this false dilemma will only undermine the integrity of the scientific method and the authority of God’s Word. But if we really want to understand Genesis, why don’t we stop asking the kinds of questions that modern post-Enlightenment Western Christians tend to ask and instead see the creation narrative through ancient Near-Eastern eyes? Sounds great – but in order to do that we must first jettison about 2500 years of scientific baggage.
Here is something that few Christians like to think about: the people of God who originally received Genesis were no more advanced scientifically than the surrounding cultures. Their ability to gather data was limited to the same powers of naked-eye observation from the same terrestrial vantage point as the rest of the ancient Near East. Consequently, their view of the physical cosmos was very similar to that of their pagan neighbors. The Hebrews would have only known of a different cosmology if God had directly revealed it to them, and Genesis 1 would have been the ideal place to do such a thing. But rather than correct the common ancient Near-Eastern misconception that the flat Earth rests firmly on its foundations, that an ocean of water rests above the heavenly bodies, or that the sky is a solid dome regulating the passage of precipitation, wind, and celestial objects through the expanse of heaven, Moses instead uses the popular cosmology to tell the story of creation. It’s no wonder that Christians today get so tripped up over the firest few chapters of Genesis.
Modern Christians don’t like this idea. It just feels like a squishy concession to literary criticism. Our modern materialistic world demands that all truth be expressed in exact scientific terms. Anything that looks like ancient mythology is instantly given a lower status on the truth scale, and deemed unworthy of inspiration. Our mechanistic worldview places unrealistic demands on the ancient Scriptures that derail our attempts to properly understand them. For us, things don’t exist unless they are first built. So naturally, any discussion about something being created must address the individual structural components and the exact sequence of their assembly. In the scientific worldview, things operate according their physical structure and material composition. You know the drill. Different substances have different physical properties that dictate how various structural elements behave and interact with their environment.
Don’t get me wrong; this is all well and good. In fact, it’s great! The scientific worldview enables us to send people to the moon and bring them back alive – 3 cheers for modern science! But if we approach the creation narrative with this same set of presuppositions, something that would have been completely foreign to ancient modes of thinking, we are guaranteed to miss the entire point of it.
For the ancient Hebrew wandering through an empty wasteland, cosmic functions were not primarily a consequence of material structures, but rather of divine purposes. Something did not exist, in a teleological sense, until it had a purpose and a name. So creation of the cosmos had little to do with God building things, and everything to do with God assigning function and purpose to that which was formless and void. In the ancient Near East, the gods accomplished this task by re-organizing the primordial chaos so the cosmos can accomplish its intended purpose. Consequently, the best way to understand Genesis is not to ask the question ‘what was built, in what order was it built, and how long did it take to build’ – but rather ‘what or who gives ultimate purpose to the essential functions of the cosmos?’ That is certainly how the original audience of Genesis would have understood it.
A creation narrative wouldn’t have been a creation narrative unless it started with the primordial waters and addressed these same cosmic functions. But apparently the ancient gods were forced to divvy them up. One only needs to examine the pagan creation mythologies of Israel’s neighbors to see how rampant polytheism was in the ancient Near East. From Egypt to Nineveh, the essential functional elements of the cosmos (time, weather, fertility, astronomical phenomena, the cycle of life etc…) were each assigned to a different god or goddess. It was the responsibility of these deities to ensure the orderly operation of the “natural” forces under their control. Without the gods, it was believed that nature would fall back into chaos and disorder – a return to the primordial state of emptiness and formlessness represented by a dark and watery state.
Modern man lives a life that relatively isolated from the raw forces of nature, but ancient man lived in constant fear of them. For a primitive tribe of nomads who just walked away from the relative stability of Egypt and was heading into the wilderness, understanding who controls the same forces of nature that will determine the outcome of their journey was a big deal. In fact, it was such a big deal that many would have gladly remained under the protection of Egypt’s gods than face the uncertainty of the wilderness. So God unleashed the forces of natural destruction (the ten plagues) on Egypt to encourage the Israelites to turn from Egypt’s gods and trust in Him alone. But even then, as soon as the Israelites felt the hunger pains of nature’s pitiless indifference, they turned against Moses and begged Egypt’s gods to deliver them.
In light of the Hebrew state of mind, how should we expect Moses to deliver the only true creation account? Should we expect him to write a peer-reviewed technical article on Big Bang cosmology? How about a lucid explanation of the role of dark matter and dark energy on cosmic expansion? Would a full-color picture of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation have impressed the stubborn Hebrews? How about the realization that the cosmos stretches at least 12 billion light-years in every direction; or that 13.7 billion years of cosmic history had preceded them? Would any of this cosmic trivia have been reassuring? Probably not. While such things might appropriately fascinate a 21st century Western audience whose mechanistic worldview predisposes them to inquire about the material properties of things (because function is naturally a consequence of physical structure), it would have done nothing for an ancient Near-Eastern audience who thought – not in the mechanical terms of ordinary causes – but in the teleological terms of ultimate causes (because function is a consequence of divine purpose).
Not suprisingly, this is exactly what a plain face-value reading of Genesis reveals when we set aside our modern worldview and see the text with ancient eyes. We clearly see God establishing the essential functions of the cosmos, setting in motion day and night (time), separating the waters above the heavens from the waters below, spreading out the firmament to regulate the passage of moisture, wind, and celestial bodies through the sky, watering the land, causing vegetation to grow and sprout seed, causing the seas and skies and land to bring forth life, and creating man in His own image – not to tirelessly work the land and grow food for the lazy gods (as in the Mesopotamian creation story) but to have dominion (or stewardship) of the creation and to subdue the land for the glory of Yahweh!
In addition to accommodating the creation narrative to the scientific worldview of the original audience, the infinite wisdom of God can also be seen in the way Moses intentionally avoids introducing new cosmic structures and functions. Not only would it have distracted his audience from the theological points being made, a scientific portrait of creation would have needed updating every hundred years or so – or whenever scientific discovery sheds new light on our finite understanding of God’s universe. And once revelation is sealed, who would have the authority to do this? But by limiting the creation narrative to a discussion about God organizing and establishing the essential functions of the cosmos, Moses gives us a timeless account that transcends the scientific consensus of any particular generation – truly making the creation narrative relevant to all generations! After all, the rising and setting of the sun, the waxing and waning of the moon, the circuit of heavenly bodies through the constellations, the annual seasons, the biological succession of Earth’s flora and fauna are all ongoing processes that every generation of God’s people can easily relate to – regardless of their technological advancement or lack thereof. Calvin says it best in his commentary on Genesis 1:16,
…because [Moses] was ordained a teacher as well of the unlearned and rude as of the learned, he could not otherwise fulfill his office than by descending to this grosser method of instruction. Had he spoken of things generally unknown, the uneducated might have pleaded in excuse that such subjects were beyond their capacity. Lastly since the Spirit of God here opens a common school for all, it is not surprising that he should chiefly choose those subjects which would be intelligible to all… Moses, therefore, rather adapts his discourse to common usage.
When I think how incredible Genesis 1 would have sounded to the discouraged Hebrew who, having been raised on a steady diet of Egyptian paganism, is suddenly told that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob – the same God who establishes the ordinary functions of the cosmos by His powerfully spoken word, the same God who appoints the boundaries of the seas and holds back the floodwaters above the heavens, the same God who causes the rain to fall, the sun to give light, and who directs the paths of the stars – that He alone has the power to restrain the destructive forces of nature that await them in the empty wasteland, it seems silly and petty of me to demand that this ancient text also give me the exact age of the earth or the exact order of what was built and when.
Imagine the poor Hebrew stumbling through the wilderness; unsure where his next meal will come from, but certain that the forces of nature are conspiring against him. He needs assurance. He needs to know that the God of his fathers has not abandoned him. But just as Moses prepares to speak directly to his concerns, Bill and Ted arrive in their phone booth/time machine, Ted kicks the Hebrew to the ground while Bill shouts,
“To heck with your ridiculous, ancient, superstitions dude! The real issue here – the issue that is so important Ted and I will break fellowship over – is exactly how long it took God to make all of this!”
In his book, Letter to a Christian Nation, atheist Sam Harris states that if the Bible were really God’s word, it would contain information that no ancient person could have possibly known about, like the invention of the world-wide web. He writes that something worthy of being called the “Word of God” should contain a passage like,
In the latter half of the twentieth century, humankind will develop a globally linked system of computers – the principles of which I set forth in Leviticus – and the system shall be called the Internet. (Page 60).
Most Christians obviously understand how utterly ridiculous such a requirement would be. What the heck does the internet have to do with the concerns of ancient Hebrews or first century gentiles? And what about 1000 years from now when nobody even remembers what the internet was? Should we really expect the Bible to include bits of trivia relavent to every generation of believers? Is that we are to know God’s Word is true and relavent? Of course not! Yet, many of us unknowingly approach Genesis (and Revelation for that matter) with a similar list of equally selfish demands that would have been just as irrelevant to the original audience. In my humble opinion, any discussion about the Genesis days of creation that relates them to natural history completely misses the point. It’s almost as pointless as trying to figure out which 20th century world leader is the beast of Revelation (do people still do this?). On the bright side, there are a few in Reformed Presbyterians, such as Peter Enns of Westminster Theological Seminary Philly, who seem to understand this. There are probably much more that I am unaware of. When it comes to understanding Genesis, perhaps the next generation of PCA congregants will have more exegetical options than the four views of the committee report.
-GJG
January 31st, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Very interesting post. I really, really like Enns I&I and am rereading his book again. Also following his blog. I do have a couple of questions for you on the PCA.
1. I’m not Presbyterian & so am a little confused about all the different groups. I know you guys (along with the baptists) were the key 2 denominations that split during the fundy/liberal row in the 20’s. Do you have a brief overview of where the PCA fits in with, for eg. the Orthodox Presbyterians & the other myriads of Presbyterians?
2. I checked out the PCA creation statement, and it says that:
“In these chapters we find the record of God’s creation of the heavens and the earth* ex nihilo*; of the special creation of Adam and Eve as actual human beings, the parents of all humanity (hence they are not the products of evolution from lower forms of life).”
How rigorously is this applied in your denomination? Would a minister that subscribes to common descent be removed from office? Are you personally taking a risk wrt your own church membership with the publishing of your book & your blog?
Steve
January 31st, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Steve,
The PCA split from the PCUSA around the 60’s (I think). Basically, the PCUSA is liberal, the PCA is conservative. The OPC is slightly more liturgical than the PCA, and on average, less seeker-friendly — but still theologically conservative. The EPC is also very conservative theologically, but it allows women to serve as elders and embraces elements of charismatic theology.
The sentence that you quote from the report shows just how “inside the traditional box” this study of the creation days was. For instance, there is absolutely nothing in Genesis that would have caused a Hebrew to formulate a doctrine of Creation was ex nihilo. There is a one-sentence introduction telling us that we are about to read a creation narrative, and then we start with earth as an empy waste. “Ex nihilo” was not even an ANE concept that would have made any sense. Matter was universally believed to have always existed and nothing in Genesis would have changed that fundamental belief. DO NOT MISUNDERSTAND — the Bible certainly teaches Creation ex-nihilo — BUT JUST NOT IN GENESIS! These ideas can be found in other places, like Collosians 1, etc… The Hebrew in the wilderness would not have read ex-nihilo out of the creation narrative. This just demonstrates how easy it is to bring baggage to Genesis.
Interestingly, the idea that Adam and Eve are the biological parents of all humanity is also not explicity demamded by a face-value reading of the text, but is an assumption one brings to the text based on the theology of original sin extending to all men (which we learn from other passages). Original sin is obviously an important Christian doctrine upon which God’s unfolding Covenant of Grace rests. It is also a difficult problem for evolutionary biology (the subject of my current writing project). But a face-value reading of the text apart from the rest of Scripture doesn’t necessarily require Adam and Eve to be the biological parents of humanity. Paul makes the strongest case for that years later.
I know that sound rediculous. But it’s possible that other things are happening in the world that are not specifically mentioned in the creation narrative. In fact, we know that Genesis doesn’t tell us everything about creation (planets? galaxies? only plant and animal kingdoms? etc…). The idea that humanity is limited to this one family is an assumption based on the doctrine of original sin — not a straightforward Genesis. There could have been a lot more going on than what Genesis relates. For instance, a plain reading of the text indicates that Cain is the first-born of Adam and Eve, and then Abel. Nobody else is mentioned. After Cain kills Abel he fears for his life as he wanders the countryside. Why? Becasue word will get out about what he did and people will try and avenge Abel’s death. So he flees to another city (Nod) where presumably nobody knows of his crime, takes a wife from there, and settles down. And God assures him that nobody will lay a hand on him.
What? This doesn’t make any sense unless there were either (1) other people around at the time not directly descended from Adam and Eve, or (2) there were many generations of brothers and sisters born before Cain and Abel. Either way, there is more going on with respect to humanity than is specifically told us. This simple fact alone should caution us about making extra-biblical assumptions, even when they are apparently based on good theology (remember Aristotle’s “sacred” cosmology!).
Most people automatically default to option (2) and manipulate the text to insert hundreds of years between the birth of Cain and Abel, and Abel’s murder — allowing for many generations of brothers, sisters, and cousins to build the city of Nod. Ironically, many of these same folks will chop your head off if you try to add anything to the days of creation, but adding many generation before Cain and Abel is driven by the same concept of original sin that is also responsible for an a-priori rejection of common descent strictly on theological grounds. It doesn’t really solve the problem exegetically, but only beggs the question by also assuming that Adam and Eve must be parents of all humanity, which again is not explicity stated in the text. So the question we must ask ourselves, in light of the evidence for common ancestry and the plain reading of Genesis 4 is this: is our traditional concept of original sin accurrate? Do we take a good idea and ruin it by pushing it further than what God intended?
That was the same question that Medieval Christians had to ask themselves when it was suggested that the underside of the earth could be inhabited. However, you know the rest of the story. Nobody could figure out how descendents of Adam could have crossed the equator (the torrid clime) by ship, and no missionaries had been sent down under, and the Bible clearly says that the Gospel had been preached to all people — ergo no people live down there. End of story! Well, sure enough — Magellan found people living in South America that had no idea of Adam or of Christ. But rather than make any adjustments in the doctrine of original sin, many theologians instead concluded that these indigenous peoples were not even human! This of course is pure racism resulting from trying to solve a difficult theological problem. Rather than just admit that our concept of original sin is limited, we would rather jump to a dangerous conclusion about the image of God in tribal people.
If they are not really human, then they don’t have to be physically descended from Adam and Eve! And Paul doesn’t have to being incorrect when he implies that the Gospel had been preached to every kingdom! Creative theologians can fix anything with these ad-hoc assumptions! Problem solved, right? Wrong! We obviously screwed that one up. And our current understanding of the doctrine of original sin is also probably limited. But we still use this doctrine to settle questions of biological ancestry without even looking at the evidence first — without even “sending explorers to check out the distant lands” so to speak. Questions of physical science simply can’t be determined by theology. If that actually worked, we’d still believe in Aristotle’s sacred cosmology! It is much more theologically and exegically correct than Galileo’s universe. These are all topics that I’m covering in my follow-up to BTF, of which you read the first three Chapters/Essays.
Nevertheless, I will probably allways be in the PCA becasue there is still flexibility here to think outside the box (if you are a layman). A few folks in my own congregation have read BTF and we are not outcast for it in any way. I might have a hard time holding office, but I’ve got enough on my plate wihout taking on that kind of responsibility. So I’m happy just to have fellowship with thinking Christians who keep me in check.
GJG
February 3rd, 2008 at 10:54 am
Gordon and Steve,
Although I’m not a member, the church we attend is a member of the Presbyterian Church (USA) denomination. Although the PCUSA, in general, is somewhat liberal, our particular congregation is very conservative, although not in a fundamentalist sense. It is very Christ-centered and missional.
Here are a few excerpts from the PCUSA’s 1969 statement on evolution and the Bible (http://www.pcusa.org/theologyandworship/science/evolution.htm):
Neither Scripture, our Confession of Faith, nor our Catechisms, teach the Creation of man by the direct and immediate acts of God so as to exclude the possibility of evolution as a scientific theory. Scripture states that “out of the ground” the Lord God formed every beast, Genesis 2:19, and “of the dust of the ground” the Lord God formed man, Genesis 2:7. Genesis 1 teaches that according to the Word of God there came into being Light, Firmament (called Heaven), the Earth and the Seas. Then, God said: “Let the waters bring forth” and “Let the earth bring forth.” After the creation of Light, the Firmament and the Earth, after the Earth and the Waters brought forth plant, aquatic and animal life, then God said: “Let us make man.” This man, Adam, meaning both a man and man, is by nature both individual and corporate. The name Adam is simply a generic term for man brought forth from the Earth. Genesis 1 describes Creation as taking place in six days; however, it is not necessary to understand the Genesis account as a scientific description of Creation.
It may be that the Westminster Divines understood the “six days” as well as such phrases as “of the dust of the ground” and “the rib of man” in a literal sense; but, as they were merely using the words of Scripture with no intention to argue the theory of evolution (of which they had never heard), we are free to interpret their words in a different sense, just as we now do the words of Scripture.
Our responsibility as Christians is to deal seriously with the theories and findings of all scientific endeavors, evolution included, and to enter into open dialogue with responsible persons involved in scientific tasks about the achievement, failures and limits of their activities and of ours. The truth or falsity of the theory of evolution is not the question at issue and certainly not a question which lies within the competence of the Permanent Theological Committee. The real and only issue is whether there exists clear incompatibility between evolution and the Biblical doctrine of Creation. Unless it is clearly necessary to uphold a basic Biblical doctrine, the Church is not called upon and should carefully refrain from either affirming or denying the theory of evolution. We conclude that the true relation between the evolutionary theory and the Bible is that of non-contradiction and that the position stated by the General Assemblies of 1886, 1888, 1889 and 1924 was in error and no longer represents the mind of our Church.
We re-affirm our belief in the uniqueness of man as a creature whom God has made in His own image.
So, Gordon, you may want to think about switching denominations.
February 3rd, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Mike,
I agree with that statement. It makes a lot of sense. For now, I’m happy to remain PCA — even if my views of creation might fit better with PCUSA. The PCA needs folks like me!
Thanks for checking in!
Gordon
February 3rd, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Yes, they do need you! If I found a church that reflected my doctrinal views in all ways, I’d probably end up joining my own cult … not that I’ve thought about starting one.
We’re getting ready to move to Monterey, CA, and I’m hoping we can find a theologically conservative church that allows for freedom in matters of origins and eschatology. Our previous church was great in that respect, but the internal divisions and back-biting politics made it spiritually unhealthy to stay. Ironically, we found a temporary home in the PCUSA church, a denomination with which I disagree on a number of doctrines; the life of the church, however, abounds with the Spirit of God and much of the interpersonal bickering is nowhere to be found. I’d rather attend a YEC/Dispy church that follows the Spirit than an TE/Preterist church that is characterized by rotten fruit.
February 3rd, 2008 at 5:29 pm
So true! After the “new perspective on Paul/Federal Vision” ugliness hit the PCA, we used the opportunity of a PCS move to take a break from all of the infighting. We went to an emergent evangelical Church for a few years and enjoyed the peacefull fellowship. But we eventually missed the intellectual stimulation of our PCA roots, so we’re back now. Nevertheless, it was nice to see what the rest of God’s church is up to for a time.
My comment about Revelation at the end of the post was just for you! Even though preterism is not the focus of my ministry, I do think that the same mindset that causes folks to trip over Revelation also causes them to trip over Genesis. Basically, people read the text as if written directly to them — rather than TO THEM VIA a distant audience with a completely different set of presuppositions and concerns.
GJG
February 12th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
[...] approach to these issues is Beyond the Firmament by Gordon Glover. See his post on the PCA report here. Posted by: Joel Hunter @ 5:41 pm | Trackback | [...]
February 16th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
I was curious as to why you say that “the Literary Framework view …[is] terribly unsatisfying, …[it] dangerously undermine[s] the authority of the biblical text…”
Further in your article you say the “creation of the cosmos had little to do with God building things, and everything to do with God assigning function and purpose to that which was formless and void.” This seems to be essentially what the Literary Framework view advocates. The first three days God is “forming” the formless and the final three he is “filling” the void.
You also advocate that the Bible is not in conflict with science since it is consistent with the “science” of the ancient near east. I can’t back up their research, but I found from some ‘googling,’ that the Framework view is consistent with ancient near eastern philosophy.
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/fw.htm
“There was a pattern in the ancient Near East of a perfect work being completed in six days with a seventh day of rest. The six days were divided into three groups of two days each.”
“So, a completely harmonious account of creation, in accord with other ancient examples of similar schemes in the literature of that time, and using the rules of style in ancient epic poetry and narrative prose of the ancient Near East, would be the parallel form of symmetry found in Genesis 1.”
“The Genesis author was simply writing in the ‘politically-correct’ cosmogenic and prose-narrative style of that day. Thus, the Genesis 1 text was not meant to represent a sequential order of creation or one that needs to fit with modern science. It was simply the literary way that writers of that day wrote down their narrative thoughts.”
It sounds like this author who holds to the Framework view has very similar conclusions as your own even though you conclude that the Framework theory is “dangerously undermine[s] the authority of the biblical text.”
PS: I agree with everything you had to say in your videos and look forward to reading your book. I just think the Framework view is consistent with your interpretations and not at odds with it.
February 16th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Hi Stoneman, welcome to my blog and thanks for the comment. I’m probably painting with too broad of a brush when I lump the framework and analogical day views in with the others. Indeed, there is nothing in these views that is necessarily antithetical with understanding the ANE cosmological context of the Genesis Creation narrative. In fact, one of my book reviews on Amazon.com categorized my views as “framework” — so I probably should have made that distinction here.
My criticism here would be more approapriately aimed at the Comittee’s treatment of the Framework view rather than the view itself. I’m glad you brought this up because I’m sure others had the same reaction but just didn’t comment.
I hope you enjoy the book!
GJG
February 23rd, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Thank you Gordon for filling in the details of how your views fit (or fail to fit) the church group of which you are a part. I’ve wondered.
It is a little different for me, being in leadership in my local church and in the network of churches we belong to. My views must be taken into account, and dealt with at all levels. The road has been rocky, but seem to have taken some positive turns of late.
I often wonder where the theologically conservative church will line up on all these issues 15 years from now. And what needless ruin may lie in our wake.
Your post restates your BTF thesis more fully and with clarity. It is helpful to set ourselves in the historical context of the first readers of Genesis. You help us to do just that. I am looking forward to your follow-up book. I just received my fifth or sixth copy of BTF. I keep “loaning” them out, and replacing my own copy!
February 23rd, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Hey Cliff, so you’re the one buying my book! Thanks. Actually, I think some other people are buying it too. Sales have been good over the last two weeks.
You’ve hit the nail on the head. In fact, your situation is sort of what inspired me to start this next project. Also, if you read the Amazon reviews on all the books coming out on Evolution and Christianity, authors get low scores for two reasons: (1) because the reviewer doesn’t agree with evolution, or (2) because the author avoided the theological problems of evolution — such as original sin and death before the fall. In fact, my one 4-star review on Amazon.ca was because I choose not to really tackle those types of issues. But those are the issues that threaten to tear the Church apart. Hence the focus of my next book.
GJG
March 3rd, 2008 at 11:09 am
Gordon-
Keep a sharp eye out for Denis Lamoreaux’s new book Evolutionary Creation: An Evangelical Approach to Evolution, due out any week now. You will find it a rich source of ideas for your own project.
You may be familiar with Lamoreaux’s work already, but here’s a very informative recent podcast interview with the man:
http://www.themeetinghouse.ca/roundtable/roundtable14.mp3