My Rebuttal: Creationism and the Mystery of God

I have struggled with how to address what was said yesterday in our Morning service.  I agreed with some of what was said by our Creation speaker yesterday, but because of my convictions I can't just let this go by without trying to make some clarifying/contradictory remarks in certain places.  At the end of the day, I am someone who is accountable to what gets taught to our church, and I don't want to chicken out of addressing this.  I especially want to extend a life rope to many of you who are dealing with high-level science in a classroom setting of some kind, which leaves you with genuine questions that do not have quick and simple answers.

Let me mention a few things first:

1. I am not interested in blog wars, or long fruitless arguments.  I am especially UNinterested in anything that would be divisive to First Baptist as well.  This blog is private, for the people I have sent this to, and that is all for right now.  I have selected you all because you are my primary obligation: students, former students, young adults.  I have added some of you because of conversations that we have had through the years on science and faith.  Please keep this between us, and feel free to ask me for clarifications, or even to disagree with me, you have that right.  I am still praying through how to address this within the larger congregation of our church, and I am walking through what I am saying to you with our church staff this week.  Please, please don't use me to hate, or think that what I am doing is hating, on First Baptist Welcome.  I am trying to do the complete opposite.

2. I am a believer in Creation, which should shock none of you.  I believe that Genesis is a literal book, and not only that, I believe that it is non-negotiable for you to view it as literal, otherwise you have no basis for anything else in the Bible.  I believe in 6 literal days for Creation, that is my interpretation, though I will discuss this a little bit.  I believe that the earth is thousands, not millions of years old.

3. Through the years, both in my own study and personal relationships with folks in careers and studying in scientific fields, I have gained more of an understanding and a heart for big questions that are hard to answer.  I think one of the most important passages in the Bible regarding Creation is Job 38, and it usually is not quoted in presentations by Creationists.  The capstone of the chapter is 38:4 where God says to Job "Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me if you have understanding."  For all the theologically conservative acceptance of the Genesis account, we are silenced, and rightly so, by the mystery of God in creation.  So, we had better be careful that we not connect too many dots that aren't explicitly connected for us, and make them matters of heresy.

Now, if I may, I'd like to just say the following about what I struggled with yesterday, and where I feel that our speaker either was wrong, or drew a line in the sand that First Baptist Welcome does not draw, and I believe our church is right when we don't.

- There was absolutely no empirical data presented to support Creation during the hour that our speaker spoke yesterday morning.  This was surprising to me, and I was thankful that more data was presented in the evening session, though honestly this was not even a majority of the evening session.  I understand that this was a sermon, and not a college lecture, and so I did not expect a clinical presentation.  Instead of an offering of data or 'tools', what was presented was an encouragement to build and lead our family's lives around the teaching of the Bible.  This should be something that none of us have a problem with, BUT...

- ...what came across then was that building our family's lives on a biblical foundation was in essence adhering to everything that Answers in Genesis, and those in the youngest of young earth camps (there are several even in the classic Creationism camps) believes, or else we would be forsaking the biblical text. A graphic followed towards the end of the presentation that showed those who took differing interpretations of the creation narrative (theistic evolution, gap theory, etc) to be destroying the foundation of Genesis, and in essence destroying Christianity (I have been unable to come up with this graphic, and I apologize).  I have given a basic definition of these two terms in the graphic to the right.  The problem with that kind of statement, besides the fact that it is an interpretation/opinion, is that there are not clearly defined boundaries for when someone becomes a theistic evolutionist or a gap theorist.  I hold to the views that I listed at the top of this blog regarding Genesis, but am I a gap theorist because I believe the earth is older than 4,000 years (which is what some of the AIG camp believe, maybe all of them)?  Are my students heretics because they might be taking individual viewpoints about where microevolution stops and starts, what the distinctions are between species and kinds historically, and even how God might have used something like evolution in parts of creation?  That's not forsaking the biblical text, it is simply recognizing some of the information before Genesis 6 which is not explicitly and undeniably spelled out for us chronologically, or scientifically.  The tendency and problem with conservative Christianity, particularly in the more Independent-Fundamentalist camps, is that they like labeling, exclusion, and at times an almost shaming of those who don't believe like them.  This seemed to me to be an element of what was communicated yesterday.

- Most Millennials are really tired of a simplistic approach to this issue, and I believe rightfully so.  There are times when SOME Creationists speak about scientific theories either in the light of conspiracy, or in such a drastic over-simplification that even a novice can tell that something is not being presented fairly or completely.  I have a desire to fight for the individuals in my care who are going to sit in classrooms, laboratories, observatories, or even just watch PBS.  We have got to be careful about making the wonder of God, and the mystery of Creation, to be small, and quickly answered and dismissed.  Everything I mentioned above about reliance on the biblical text literally is foundational to Christianity.  I truly believe that.  However, we can't be either quickly dismissive of questions that don't have simple answers, or not try to answer them with integrity.  This generation won't take cartoon illustrations and "we need to believe the Bible" as a basis for blind trust to whoever gets up and speaks to them, and I am really glad that is the case.

- I am not going to spend too much time on this, but just in case you were wondering, I was disappointed with ethnic jokes being told, regardless of the nationality or ethnicity of any speaker.  I would also like to never again hear the "Adam and Steve" phrase used.  It demeans a true struggle with homosexual behavior for an individual, and it accomplishes no real purpose in its effectiveness.  Overall, I felt that at times Sunday morning seemed to feel more like a propaganda session (urgency to believe, little reason given as to why) than a tool-giving session on Creation.  I think that the speaker's urgency for us to honor the biblical text was admirable, but at times that was applied myopically and more finitely than it should have.  I also think at times there was an unfair presentation of evolutionary theory (to say the big bang was from nothing is inaccurate according to proponents of that theory, for example), and I don't ever think it helps an argument to misrepresent the other side.

- I do think challenging the claims of evolution is a worthwhile cause, and I do think that those in the movement of evolution make assumptions that they take to be unchallenged fact.  To be bluntly honest, there are so many Creation ministries out there with their own authors, who in all honestly are not qualified to give an objective, empirical counter argument to evolution, that it becomes difficult to find good, reliable, well-done arguments against evolution.  The best that I have read by far is a little dated, but was even written by a non-Christian, which takes away the claim that it is unobjective.  I would recommend that as a good starting place for those of you interested in that topic who are looking for something a little meatier.  It is pictured to the right, and called Darwin on Trial by Phillip E. Johnson.

A God who let us prove His
existence would be an idol.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer

- I do not believe that God is interested in proving Himself to any of us in the scientific sense.  Dietrich Bonhoeffer once said that "A God who let us prove His existence would be an idol."  I think that was remarkably well said.  I am always wary of an impression that I would get from someone who seems to say "all the hard questions you have, just buy my book, and you won't have them anymore."  Our speaker did not say that, to clarify and to be fair, but sometimes we can get that impression from some Creationists in this realm.  A big, mysterious, unsearchable God will have big, mysterious, unsearchable aspects that we cannot reach the bottom of, and when we try to do so too easily we err.  As was mentioned yesterday, Romans 1 lays out the fact that God doesn't have to do anything more to prove His existence to us other than creation.  I think anyone who looks at it objectively, even with questions, will still have the impression that the cosmos can not be an accident.

- Al Mohler, the president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, once said in a forum on science and faith that (I am paraphrasing from memory) "all of creation was corrupted in the fall, the Bible points to that.  It's not just humanity, but the very earth, and rocks, and space.  We can't even trust them to tell us the truth."  Regardless of whether we ever fully perfect carbon dating, red shift, or the fossil record, we cannot rely on them empirically without keeping that in mind.   We do need to have a commitment to biblical truth that faces whatever contradiction to science we may ever face.

NOW, I want to say this.

- I struggle with saying this in many ways, because I know without a doubt how hard it is to get in front of people and present anything.  I have no doubt that on a weekly basis any of you can and undoubtedly do assess what I say, and you will always have right reasons for criticism when I speak, for a number of reasons.  I have said things poorly at times from the pulpit, I have even presented things that I came to understand were not as correct as they should have been as I have grown in ministry.  That process will continue, undoubtedly.  I've tried to assess even what sin issues there might be in trying to be objectively critical of what was said yesterday, and I want you to know that I have written what is above with as much care, humility, and recognition of my own fallen nature as I can manage.  My goal is not criticism, because criticism accomplishes nothing.  I am trying to present the views of our church vs. the views of someone outside of our church who came to speak as a guest.

I owe each of you what I believe is the truth, and I am not okay with having any serious student or casual observer of science feeling shamed into an area that is not an explicitly called for in the Bible.  That's not what Christianity is about, it's not what the Southern Baptist Convention is about, and it is not what First Baptist Welcome is about.

I am happy to entertain any questions, comments, or disagreements you might have.  I do, once again, ask that you not share this, or mention this to anyone without my permission though.