Let’s open with a little story…

Once upon a time, there was a generally accepted view within society about creation. It appeared to line up with Scripture so, of course, the Church supported this idea…

Then onto the scene walked a scientist with an incredible intellect matched only by his curiosity. Through his studies and observations, he came to a different conclusion and began to present an argument passionately for a theory which threatened this previous view. Worse yet, it opposed a literal interpretation of Scripture.

The Church pushed back hard, rejecting this new theory outright and trying silence these heretical teachings. Its influence was so strong that it was even made a crime to teach this new idea.

Yet, even so, the new theory gained traction as more and more people were swayed by the scientific arguments. Public opinion began to shift and people insisted that both models be taught in school, much to the dismay of the Church, which continued to push back with all its might. But, despite its best efforts, the biblical view continued to lose ground, as a growing body of data seemed to point in the direction of “heresy.”

Eventually the new model became the only one taught, except in a few small pockets of fanatical believers.

Does this sound familiar?

This is not, in fact, a story about Charles Darwin and the Theory of Evolution. History likes to repeat itself and we have been here before folks. It is, instead, an account of Galileo’s argument for the Heliocentric Theory and the Church’s response.

Long before Darwin took his first breath, in 1609, Galileo Galilee looked with wonder into the night sky through the lens of his newly invented telescope and saw things that had only be speculated about before.

The heliocentric theory (that the earth is one of many bodies revolving around the sun) was not new. It had been presented a century before by Copernicus and far earlier by others, but these arguments had been solely based on speculation and mathematical calculations as opposed to actual observation of astronomical phenomenon. Galileo brought something new to the table and he shared it openly and adamantly in a way that had to be addressed.

Opponents of Galileo argued that his teaching was heretical, flying in the face of scripturally evidenced “facts.” The main text used in such arguments was the account found in Joshua chapter 10 where the sun was said to have stood still in the sky for a full day…

“On the day the Lord gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the Lord, in the presence of Israel:

“Sun, stand still over Gibeon,

and you, moon, over the Valley of Aijalon.”

So the sun stood still,

and the moon stopped,

till the nation avenged itself on its enemies,

as it is written in the Book of Jashar.

The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day.” (Joshua 10:12-13)

Though this was certainly the most cited text, the book of Joshua did not stand alone. Psalms 93 and 104, along with Ecclesiastes 1:5 were also looked to as evidence of the earth’s stability and the movement of the heavens.

After a long ideological battle and in response to the mounting controversy, the Roman Inquisition tried Galileo for heresy in 1633 and found him “vehemently suspect.” He was then sentenced to indefinite imprisonment and kept under house arrest until his death.

Furthermore, lest anyone else fall into the trap that Galileo did, the teaching of the heliocentric theory and books supporting it (such as Copernicus’ “De revolutionibus” written almost a century before) were banned by the Church. It was not until 1822 that the Catholic Church lifted this ban in response to immense public pressure, and even longer before some Protestant sects did likewise!

Nowadays, there are few who would argue against the heliocentric theory (except for those interesting folks in the flat earth society). Even among Bible believing Christians, the theory is widely accepted, despite those Biblical proof texts used to undermine it. And yet, while it seems we have made progress in this area, it also appears we may not have learned all that much through the journey. One might even contend that the Church simply moved on to the next battle, applying the same type of thinking and resistance to new scientific theories or discoveries, all in the name of reading the Bible “literally.”

But what does it mean to read anything literally?

During the Industrial Revolution Jonathan Swift penned an interesting solution to Ireland’s problem of overpopulation and Poverty in “A Modest Proposal“. It was really quite obvious…children of the poor could be sold at the meat market. This would not only combat over-population and unemployment. It would also economically benefit poor families and improve the menu of the wealthy, thus contributing to economic development of Ireland as a whole.

Now, of course, Swift was not really suggesting that the Irish eat their children in stews and fricassees as his proposal recommended Instead, he was making a sharp satirical commentary on the prevailing attitude of the time towards the poor and the rise of rationalism at the expense of human compassion.

To read this “literally” rather than satirically would be to miss the entire point.

Or rather…to read this literally would not bereading it “literally” at all. To read anything literally we must first understand what kind of literature it is. We do not read history the way we read poetry and vice versa.

We understand this principle when we walk into a library, but we somehow forget that the Bible IS a library. It is not one work, but many, compiled together, consisting of several genres. Within its pages we do read history, but we also read poetry, satire, and so much more. And it is important…no crucial…that we understand what kind of literature we are reading before we make judgments based upon it…especially when they pertain to who is granted membership in the “Real Christians Club.”

But heck, if we are going to just take things at face value and look no deeper…I’m making Ecclesiastes 10:19 my life verse! “A feast is made for laughter, wine makes life merry, and money is the answer for everything.”

That was sarcasm right there in case you missed it…or read my words literally.

The tricky part then becomes determining what genre you are, in fact, reading. Some sections of Scripture are easy. The Psalms are clearly songs. But what about when it gets a bit less obvious? What about when you have a story within a story (such as Jesus’ parables within the Gospels). Or how about Jonah and the Whale? Is this a historical account or a folk story to teach an important moral lesson? Does it even matter?

Maybe what matters most is simply admitting when it is not clear. We must be careful not to draw lines that are not there and then make them our hills to die on. If we do so we risk alienating many for the sake of our opinions rather than the sake of truth.

The Barna Group (an amazing organization that does some incredible research on faith trends) surveyed young people who grew up with a christian background and found the Church’s apparent antagonism to science to be one the leading reasons young people are leaving it. 35% of the young people they surveyed shared the sentiment that “Christians are too confident they know all the answers.” Nearly a quarter said they have “been turned off by the creation-versus-evolution debate.” And these are young people who grew up INSIDE the Church. Let’s not even start on how this appears to those outside.

It is a such a shame that this anti-science view of the church is driving people away because it doesn’t need to. We have all heard the advice “choose your battles.” But this is not even about that. We first need to decide if this even IS a battle. And if it is, we better be sure we are on the right side.

The battle over evolution rages because of the Genesis account of creation and its seeming opposition to scientific evidence. But forget evolution for a moment (I know that is like saying forget the elephant in the room). There are plenty of other issues with the Genesis account that also raise some questions. Read literally, the account seems to suggest that the creation of the entire universe was accomplished in just 6 days. Scientists, on the other hand, argue that it took billions of years. How do we account for the discrepancy between the two? What about the fact that the Genesis account states that day and night were created before the sun? And how were those plants God created on the third day carrying out photosynthesis without that same sun that He created on the fourth day? Ok…I guess maybe they could hold out for just one day. And then there’s the apparent contradictions within the Bible itself when looking at the specific order of creation in Genesis Chapter Two versus Chapter One…

But what if they are just that…apparent contradictions. What if we are reading this all wrong? What if the creation account is not, and was never meant to be, a literal description of how things were made at all. Maybe, instead, it is meant to answer a bigger, deeper question…”Who is God, what is my relationship to Him, and what is my place in the universe?”

The opening of Genesis is the prologue to the entire Bible…Could it perhaps have more to do with setting the stage for the story contained therein, and our understanding of our place within it, than it does with giving us the blueprint for creation?

Let’s take a moment and look at the story through different eyes…

First let’s note the first three days of creation….

Day One – God creates day and night

Day Two – God creates the sea and the sky

Day Three – God creates dry land and plants

Now keep those in mind as we looks at Days Four, Five, and Six…

Day Four – God creates the sun, moon, and stars

Day Five – God creates fish and birds

Day Six – God creates animals and humans

Notice anything?

What if we draw it like it like this…

Day One – Day and Night Day > > > Four – Sun, Moon, And Stars

Day Two – Sky and Sea > > > Day Five – Birds and Sea Creatures

Day Three – Dry Land > > > Day Six – Animals and Humans

The first three days of the creation correspond perfectly to the following three days; the latter ruling over the former (ie the Sun, Moon, and Stars ruling over Day and Night).

But what about that seventh day?

Well, although it has traditionally been translated as “God rested”, in the original Hebrew the word “rested” could also be translated as “was seated.” Picture a large impressive seat above everything…one might even call it a throne.

Maybe this isn’t telling us that God rested, but that when creation was complete, He was enthroned over it all. What if the creation account isn’t about the order of creation at all, but instead the ORDER of creation…the hierarchy of who God is, what the creation is, and where we stand in relation to it? The day and night, with the heavenly bodies ruling over them, the sky and sea dominated by birds and fish, the earth subdued by animals and mankind, with God enthroned over it all.

What is there is no conflict between Genesis 1 and a scientific account of creation because it is not a scientific story?

That was a lot of “what ifs,” but it is a question we need to become more comfortable with…because our absolute certainty about things that just aren’t so clear is killing the church. So I will ask it again…

What if there is no conflict at all unless we choose there to be?

And what if this isn’t the only area where we are forcing people to pick sides when they don’t need to?

Share this: Facebook

Twitter

Reddit

Tumblr

