I think a similar thought would be that we live in Babylon, not in Israel; the entire church is in exile, not in the promised land – and it’s those who grasp that we are in Babylon who recognize that it’s all about needing a Savior, not about triumphing politically.
So, so many YECers I knew at University fell into the category of having all the answers, and how they thought that explains why so many who think that way “completely miss Christ”: their system of answers is a closed system and their knee-jerk response is not to think about something new that comes along but to defend the system.
Orthodox theology contains a bit of a remedy for that: it doesn’t just recognize that we don’t have all the answers, it emphasizes it! I heard a lecture from an Orthodox theologian with a STD (Doctor of Sacred Theology [Latin word order for the initials]) and a PhD in theology and his opening point was that we don’t have all the answers, but he was going to share the answers he had grasped.
It’s a hard attitude to maintain, for two reasons: fallen humans instinctively want to justify ourselves, and that’s more than a little difficult if you recognize you don’t have all the answers; and it requires continual learning (interestingly, I recently read a summary of a study that found that between pastors who keep learning and those who just operate from what they learned in the past, the “burn-out” rate is far higher in the latter group).
But there’s a hymn for that:
This also echoes a theme in Orthodox theology, but they wouldn’t say that he wouldn’t explain what happened in a way that fit into their understanding of the Bible, they would say that he couldn’t. After all – and this is a danger in systematic theology – any system that thinks it has everything figured out is a closed system, and anything that won’t fit such a system must be nonsense.
Yes. But another emphasis is essential: our faith is in Christ, not in any interpretation or even in the Book itself. Of the YECers I knew who adjusted their faith by abandoning that philosophy, it was those who returned to the foundation which is Christ; those whose foundation was the Bible failed.
We need to be here:
That is true only because the YEC faith has a wrong foundation: first, it fails to treat the Bible on the Bible’s own terms as ancient literature; second, it imposes the idea that only if something is 100% scientifically and historically correct can it be true. The first is dishonest at best; the second is alien to the time period of the Old Testament and the New.
Historically the ideas of YECism come not from the scriptures but from scientific materialism – that’s where the second item above comes from. Scientific materialism demands literalism because it cannot conceive of any other way of communicating truth, yet even a cursory survey of the scriptures show that to be just one way of presenting truth.
Just a sample–
Jesus never said anything suggesting that the scriptures are the foundation of the faith – quite the contrary! They are a signpost, with some aids for the journey, but to put them at the center is to have the wrong center.
Actually studying evolution to grasp it – which few here do – brings joy to a biblical Christian because the theory of evolution is nothing but a description of what all is contained in the command “Bring forth!” that continues to echo down the ages.
Though I would dispute the title “Biblical Christian” if claimed by someone who does not begin in Genesis by asking “What does the text really say – that is, what did the original writer intend and what did the original audience understand?” and thus discover that the two different types of literature that are woven as one bearing three distinct messages must be the starting point, not what it looks like in modern English translation.
Okay, so what does Geneis 1 say? If you are going to throw out the mechanics?
(This is not a trick question. I know where I stand, I just want to know how you view it)
Having been in the church until my twenties, I can totally see that. I was never a big fan of the legalist view of the Bible. It did make me question if some people thought we were supposed to worship the Bible instead of God. Thankfully, there were others in my church whose views on the Bible matched your own.
This is something some YECers I’ve met have trouble with: totally apart from fossils, totally apart from radiological dating, even totally apart from magnetic dating, just from physical examination of rocks we can give minimum ages for many mountains, and they’re all far, far older than thousands of years; the youngest come in at a minimum of hundreds of thousands. These dates come from examination of rocks and laboratory stress tests that tell us how fast different rocks and minerals can be bent/distorted without breaking, which makes them hard and fast dates that can’t be disputed – so either all those mountains are at the very least hundreds of thousands of years old, or God is deceptive.
I recall helping a YEC student work through this. It started with him literally covering his ears and saying, “I can’t hear this!” and there was definite distress in his voice. I put my hands over his and looked into his eyes and asked, “Why?” and he just looked panicked, so I led him out of the lecture hall to a quiet place and asked again, softly, “Why can’t you listen to it?”
He answered – on the verge of tears – with exactly what he’d been taught: that if any fact contradicted the Bible, then the Bible had to be false . . . and he didn’t want the Bible to be false. I put a hand on one of his knees with a lot of weight because he looked like he was about to run, and waited until he looked at me again, whereupon I told him that there’s a good theological term for what he was afraid of. Of course he asked what it was, and I told him, “Excrementum tauri – in English, ‘bullshit’.”
“What?” was his response, both (I presume) because because I’d just kicked a leg out from his worldview and because he’d never heard me use foul language before. I told him that was what Martin Luther called bad theology: bullshit. And the idea that if any facts appeared to contradict the Bible then the Bible was false was bullshit, generally because what people are claiming the Bible says is bullshit.
Then I asked what was the most important fact for Christians. His reply was half questioning: “The Bible?” “Nope”, said I, “the Bible is just a signpost. Try again.” And that was when he collapsed into my lap in uncontrollable sobs as he managed to get out, “Jesus”.
He was so brainwashed by YECism that he didn’t know where the center was – and when he realized that the center wasn’t a what but a WHO, it broke his worldview and shifted him to a real one: Jesus is the one fact we need. But not every person indoctrinated in YEC can make that jump; they’ve invested too heavily in the scientific materialist principle that the Bible as read as it appears in modern English has to be 100% scientifically and historically accurate or the whole thing is false. Some have come around, first abandoning their faith, but on being shown that there’s enough historical evidence that Jesus lived, was crucified at Jerusalem, and that His disciples all were convinced utterly that He rose from the dead, they managed to start where they should have in the first place: it’s all about Jesus, and the thing to do is
Yes. If you want people to have a faith that will survive and conquer, it can’t rest on the Bible, and definitely can’t rest on a view of the Bible that forces God to have spoken in a modern worldview in English rather than resting on Jesus the Word made flesh, born of a virgin, died on a cross and risen on the third day. Faith does better to rest on no more than this:
I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth. and inJesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord, Who was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended to the dead. On the third day he rose again. He ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of the saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.
than to rest on the Bible with an interpretation that requires being uninformed and uneducated about what the Bible really is and what it really means.
So you can’t “let it lie”; that is a directive to abandon people. If I’d just “let it lie”, I wouldn’t have gotten to be the instrument for pulling that university student back from the brink; if I’d just “let it lie” I would have failed in the duty to point people to the Savior.
I could say that you were “lucky” but that would not be Christian. I could say that not everyone would have responded the same way. And you still have not answered my question.
You cannot just pick and choose what parts of the Bible are relevant. The creed is not enough.
And the creed is derived from scripture. The only place you can discover Christ from is Scripture. So if you are going to challenge any of it you had better have answers.
it is two types of literature at once; first is what I learned to call a “royal chronicle”, second is a “temple inauguration account”.
the order of events follows the order in the Egyptian creation story
As a royal chronicle, it sets forth in easily remembered and poetic† form a great accomplishment of a mighty king. It uses a framework that is not meant to be literal though it can be taken literally for the purpose of understanding the accomplishment being set forth (in Genesis, this happens to be time; it could also be geographical or something else). In doing so it sets out the relationship of those involved to the mighty king being told of.
As a temple inauguration, it also uses a form easily remembered and poetic, but describes the establishment of a temple space and then its filling, with the deity whose temple it is coming at the end and “resting”, which isn’t a cessation from work but a supervision from a position of ease of a functioning whole. In this case, it contrasts sharply with other such accounts since here it is the deity whose temple it will be who does the establishing and the filling rather than people desiring to worship or gain favor from the deity.
The Egyptian aspect is important because as the writer tells of the accomplishment of YHWH-Elohim in establishing the world as His realm (God as king) and relates how the world is also established to be YHWH-Elohim’s temple, he does so in an order that the Israelites who had lived in Egypt so long would recognize from the stories told by their masters – and systematically turns every aspect of the Egyptian account on its head: in the Egyptian version, light and darkness at the beginning of things just exist; the ‘firmament’ is a deity, the earth is a deity, the moon is a deity, etc., but the Hebrew writer methodically demotes all these great Egyptian deities to nothing more than things created by YHWH-Elohim for His purposes – they are tools, something especially true of the sun and moon to which the writer gives the wonderful insult of not even being named but only described by their function . . . and in context of the entire account they aren’t just tools of YHWH-Elohim, they are tools meant to serve humans instead of the other way around. It’s devastating piece of polemical work that to the Egyptians would in essence be saying – in a modern idiom – “All your gods are belong to YHWH!” and on the flip side telling the Israelites who had been surrounded by the temples of those gods and the endeavors of their priests (who ran most things in Egypt) that the Egyptian gods were nothing more than tools made by YHWH.
So the first Creation account in Genesis declares that YHWH is king of all not merely by being greater but by having made it all, that the entire world isn’t just His kingdom but His temple so that He is King and Priest, and not to worry about other “gods” because they are just tools of the King and servants of the Priest.
That’s what the first audience would have understood: the royal chronicle aspect would have been evident early on, the temple inauguration aspect would have been revealed when YHWH takes his rest (because gods rest in temples), and the polemical aspect would have been blatant the moment darkness and light were revealed as not things with their own eternal existence, and almost humorous as the various deities of the other nations were demoted one by one. We sort of take it for granted because we’ve heard it over and over, but for the first audience it would have set out in stark and memorable terms just who this God was who had brought them out of Egypt.‡
Very little of that comes through when the modern English is read wearing YEC glasses. That’s the big reason I reject the YEC ideology vehemently, because it mangles the text by obscuring the actual message as well as by trying to export details of the account(s) as stand-alone declarations when they’re only to be taken literally for understanding the point of the account.
An Orthodox priest once told me that every question that is theological has to begin by asking, “Who is Jesus?” The YEC version has to step out of what they focus on in order to address that, and can only do it poorly; the actual intent of the writer answers it easily: Jesus is King, Jesus is Priest, Jesus arranged all this so we can worship Him.
= – - – = – = – - – =
I don’t know what you mean by “mechanics”; applied to a text that would mean the structure of the writing.
= – = – = – = – = – = – =
† “poetic” does not mean it’s poetry but that it uses rhythm and symmetry and (rich) imagery as a poem would
‡ I see no reason not to attribute this to the time of the Exodus, though many scholars point to aspects that would also have made it extremely relevant during the Exile.
The creed is certainly enough for salvation; it sets out exactly what we need to know and Who we need to trust.
And I chose the Apostles’ Creed because its core predates much of the New Testament, though in the form as we have it it likely was adapted in Rome and Gaul (and back to Rome), originating for the same purpose it is used today, as a baptismal summary of the faith.
Yes – it’s a signpost, it isn’t the destination.
I don’t challenge a thing – that’s what YECers do when they act as though the Bible was written three generations ago in modern English and addressed to us. Something all Christians need to get through their heads before they attempt to interpret anything is that we are reading other people’s mail!, eavesdropping on other people’s conversations! The moment we assume it was written to us we are guaranteed to start getting it wrong because in so doing we are requiring it to fit our worldview – and not a phrase of it was written in a modern worldview; most of it isn’t even close.
And YEC answers are deficient at best, deceptive more often, and idolatrous at worst. AIG probably isn’t authoritative any more, but every single “answer” I’ve ever encountered from them involves lying – lying about science but also lying about scripture.
“Lucky”? That was a Holy Spirit moment through and through, no luck involved.
I was blessed to be able to share the moment someone let go of a false foundation and grasp the true one.
It itself gives us enough information for salvation, it does not give us enough for salvation itself – that has to do with believing in the heart, not just head knowledge.
This would have been news to the early church and all its apostles! They were instrumental in the continuing development of “the Bible” (as your favorite version of it is now in your hands), and not the other way around. And yes - the collected testimonies (both contained in scriptures as well as the collecting testimonies ever since) have become an essential part of our faith now too in order to remember and learn about Christ. We do so in order that His Spirit may be in us. Once Christ is formed in us, all the sign posts that pointed us to him have accomplished their essential job. They are still important, to be sure; but if they begin to be enthroned above Christ’s leading, our one allegiance should be clear … that is, if we are to believe those very scriptures we so enthusiastically venerate.
There is the rather infamous Ephesians 6. But, obviously, first-hand knowledge trumps second-hand reading every time. Our first-hand experiences are a little more esoteric, but no less important for that. If I got no actual interaction with God I am not sure blind faith would suffice. Which is where those who need a more concrete experience have problems. The trouble is, the first step is faith rather than proof.
Interesting…that is not the Ehrman story that I have heard him say. But maybe there is more than one. It’s a black-and-white thought process to be sure — whether Ehrman or some university students. Students, of course, may also be in rebellion against various things and re-thinking what was learned at earlier ages…Agree with lots of your second paragraph–a rather run-on sentence!!
Good thoughts, Laura. It could also be that this individual — depending on how long he has been Christian – has heard only one view and presumes that all Christians think that way. Never heard the idea that people may enter ministry as a way of “doing penance.” My pastor always said that you enter ministry if you absolutely “have to” for reasons of personal goals that cannot be met any other way. This is different than “penance.”…or sounds like it. Thanks for your thoughts. I always enjoy these discussions.
He WANTS to argue about it, because argument helps to validate his feelings. It you have to, simply point out that science works, giving us inventions, patents, medical treatments, and new areas of discovery. This includes evolutionary science. If he thinks science is wrong, then the way to show that is to demonstrate a new theory that does everything the old science can do AND MORE. Creation Science doesn’t even pretend to have the practical applications of mainstream (ie: real) science, so that might shut him up, or at least make him change topics. Call that a win!
Maybe simpler to point out that ICR does apologetics, not science, and that he probably knows the difference. At all costs avoid arguing about science; this is about apologetics, not science.
I never quite grasped it until I was doing student teaching and had to teach a sequence on evolution, and there were two delightful games included in the material that helped clarify it immensely
Do you have any links to those games? I would dearly love to play them with my teenage daughter
I’m not sure they’re even online; the worldwide web was just in its infancy and the internet was still almost completely text-based. When I search all I find is video/computer-based games.
I doubt I even have notes on them in my files, even if those files weren’t an hour and a half from here in my storage unit.
