Hey everyone,
Sorry for my long silence. I’ve been busy moving to London and taking a break from fundamentalism to clear my head. I’m now ready to dive in again, and rest assured that will be my last break for a long time. If you’re reading this, thanks for not giving up on the blog.
Creationists, and some atheists, make out that, before Darwin, everyone believed in the literal truth of Genesis. The Creationists therefore claim that their belief is the truest expression of Christianity. Fundamentalists say that their faith is the most authentic to the early Church of the Book of Acts.
So here’s an interesting question: Did the authors of Genesis intend the story to be taken as historical record?
Here’s an even better one: Was Jesus a Creationist? From my reading, it seems highly likely that he wasn’t. This raises the enjoyable spectre that if Creationists could travel back in time to meet Jesus, he would have absolutely no idea what they are going on about. This makes me want to invest all of my money into the development of a time machine.
Historically, Genesis was not interpreted literally from the time of Jesus and beyond. This makes sense. You’d have to be an utter moron to look at Genesis and conclude, from face value, that it is intended as science. There are several mornings and evenings before there is even a sun. When Adam and Eve want to hide from an all-powerful, all-knowing God, they stand behind a tree. And this appears to fool the Almighty.
According to Rescuing Darwin: God and evolution in Britain today, early church fathers were not much impressed by people who tried to read the Bible literally. In the third century, the theologian Origen wrote, “I do not think anyone will doubt that these are figurative expressions which indicate certain mysteries through a semblance of history.”
Augustine was even less kind about those who try to read the Bible this way:
“It is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics… For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call on Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.”
I didn’t know they had ACE schools in the fifth century, but Augustine seems to have been to one.
Ancient Jewish readings of the Holy text were similar. Philo, a contemporary of Jesus and Paul, wrote that Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden were all “intended symbolically rather than literally.” According to the authors of Rescuing Darwin, even earlier Rabbinic readings of Genesis, which Jesus would have known, had flexible, allegorical understandings. So it’s unlikely that Jesus himself would have thought the world was created in six 24-hour periods exactly 4,004 years before his birth.
In The Battle for God, Karen Armstrong argues that the whole concept of history as an accurate record of events is a modern concept. In the ancient Middle East, history was intertwined with myth, and the purpose of the stories was to express meaning and beliefs about the nature of the world, more than to record what actually happened. In Amstrong’s view, the entire Old Testament is more a myth about Jewish identity. In the ancient world, history simply wasn’t understood as we use the term today.
Fundamentalism takes its name from The Fundamentals, a compilation of 90 essays published in 1915 by the Bible Institute of Los Angeles, seeking to return to the core of the Christian faith. Most interestingly, Rescuing Darwin notes that several of the authors of these essays were self-professed Darwinists (although others did attack evolution). So even within the last 100 years, the fundamentalist view of Genesis has narrowed.
So, then, it’s not even true to say that Creationism is true Christianity, whatever that might mean.
Related posts:
Welcome back!
It’s always interesting to read church history and remember that Evangelical Christianity is a very recent movement in the grand scheme of things.
Of course, you’d never know it from how most Evangelical pastors preach.
Good food for thought…I was surprised when I started reading early church writings that they did not hold to a strict literalistic view of Scripture. Not that they couldn’t be dogmatic in their own way, but it’s true that much of what passes for “essential” doctrine was of no concern to the church for almost 1800 years.
On the flip side, much of what the early church fathers argued as “essential” is not hotly debated in most Christian circles.
Glad you’re back. It’s been a while, but I spent a few years hanging out in W4 and points west. If the Haven Arms is still in Ealing Common, have a pint for me. Tuesday’s used to be quiz night…. brilliant!
Make it so!
Glad to find your blog. I just started one myself. I grew up a Christian Fundamentalist as well….it’s been a long road out! Look forward to reading about your journey.
I’m not merely stirring the pot here, I’m sure that the YECs think Jesus was the equivalent of a YEC – which is why they are such. However, I doubt they could prove that he would be a YEC if he was alive on Earth today.
Young Earth Creationism (yes all Christians believe in a Creator and some non-YECs are still essentially creationist) is an anachronistic dogmatic stance that requires a believer to wage a holy war against ‘bad’ science.
When the Bible was written most people believed in one or more gods who created everything, that Earth was created at the very ‘beginning’, that it is probably a flat disk around which the sun moves (during the day) before disappearing out of sight at night, that God ’caused’ any seasonal variations – our knowledge of past natural events, of life on the planet, and of cosmology was very rudimentary.
Pretending that today we know no more than we did then about these huge topics, and that science and scientists are ‘blind’ or ‘biased’ – and also that Genesis was ‘infallible science’ when Jesus was alive and thus remains so today – is of course logical in a way (if one is a Bible literalist and fundamentalist).
But one would expect the available evidence (interpreted appropriately and consistently by the science community collectively) eg from dating methods and genetics to more or less back up the Biblical account. However it points to a much more complicated and fascinating broad outline of the ‘history of the universe, the Earth and life on Earth’! Thus the YEC position, which attempts to be ‘faithful’ to the original scriptures regarding our origins, appears strongly anti-science, denying of reality and common sense, and frankly rather silly to everybody else. To many people including some committed Christians it appears untenable – even if one allows for the Biblical notions of ‘original sin’, God’s curse, and a groaning creation that is due to be ‘replaced’ one day. YEC claims that ‘science’ is a deception (and enemy of consistent theology), because it ignores scripture and the supernatural, may persuade some but when it comes to specifics I think the claims lack real substance and persuasive power. But of course some continue to embrace YEC-ism – probably because they feel ‘forced’ to do so, or simply because they conclude that it is what Christians are ‘supposed to do’ out of faith as ‘pleasers of God not men’.
Whilst there is much to learn, and some knowledge doubtless will be revised in its details, science offers a naturalistic story of how we came to be here which does not require a supernatural Christian God (though it doesn’t prove his non-existence just suggests that the Bible is not ‘infallible science’ but is a product of its time and is useful for ‘teaching’ and ‘training’ and the others things mentioned at 2 Timothy 3:16).
I think it is daft to forget the context of when in history Romans 1:18-20 was written down in the apostle Paul’s letter: “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse” (NIV).
Whilst the verses do still resonate today, to me they suggest that Paul was highlighting that immoral people (some of whom may have been atheistic or followers of another god or gods) were ‘ignoring’ the Christian God by misbehaving and that their misbehaviour caused them to forget God or appear to deny what they really knew to be true about the Christian creator of all things. The invisible supernatural power which, as most people then would probably have accepted by faith, brought about all the glories of the natural world and order.
Also, the apostle Peter wrote at 2 Peter 3: 3-6 “Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed” (NIV). Whilst it is hard to accept that people could really ‘forget’ a recent worldwide hill-covering judgmental year long deluge and disaster that killed all but eight humans (if it really happened as described) Peter seems to be suggesting – from the context of his comments – that his readers were or might become sceptical scoffers about the promised future return of Jesus and that part of their ‘rationale’ was saying that things were ‘carrying on as normal’ which, whilst true, failed to bear in mind the past divine upheaval of the flood described in the Hebrew ‘book’ known as Genesis.
Paul and Peter seemed concerned about believers forgetting or denying an invisible divine creator and judge – not because of rational scientific enquiry and discoveries about the past, but because of their rebellion, wrong desires, and ‘wicked’ behaviour which tended to make them ‘oblivious’ to God.
Sorry this has become a bit of sermon. I’m posting it as a new thread at the ‘British Centre for Science Education’ Community Forum as it all came to me overnight as a ‘follow-on’ to thoughts there as well as a clarification of my initial comment under Jonny’s blog post suggesting that Jesus did appear to accept some of the essentials of what is today known as ‘Young Earth’ or ‘Biblical’ creationism.
I think one should be careful to avoid assuming that “creationism” means “young earth creationism.”
I would think that any Christian would be a creationist of some kind. However, the YEC version does not seem at all Christian to me. For me, it is hard to see how a true Christian could reject clear scientific knowledge. Rather, a true Christian should see science as describing what God created. Or, as another site puts it “Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the rocks.” (That seems to be from a song).
If anything, I see Jesus as a critic of literalists of his day.
It’s good to see you back posting.
They’re going to be locking themselves in their churches and doing spinning on the spot after they (the funny fundies) read this!!! And, hello again
Was Jesus a Creationist? I think that you are asking the wrong question. According to the YEC’s, the Genesis creation story is an eyewitness account and Jesus was not only present at the time but was instrumental in the creation process.
Science had moved on a bit by the 1st century – we knew that the Earth was round. Jesus was just the chap to fill us in on the gaps in the creation story. But did he? No, he added nothing of scientific interest. Presumably he thought that what was good enough for Moses was good enough for everyone.
Clearly the YEC’s are in error with all their speculations about the Flood and fossils, million-fold increases in radioactive decay, continents rushing about, animals clinging to rafts of vegetation while evolving like mad ‘within their kind’. If we were supposed to know these things, Jesus would have told us.
I realise that this comment is becoming increasingly ridiculous but that just seems to be a consequence of taking YEC material seriously.
Alan
I agree with most of what you say – but didn’t people, including Bible writers, still think that the planet might be a circular but flat/flattish disk when Jesus was around? See Matthew 4:8 (NIV):
“Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendour”. Unless of course either I am taking this too literally. Or alternatively the Bible writer(s) wrongly thought that all kingdoms were concentrated in one area and could be viewed from the top of some very unknown but very high mountain (OECs use such verses to argue, equally unconvincingly, that Noah’s Flood was huge but also purely regional – because all human life – and animals too? – were concentrated in the Middle East region; if the Bible writers, and presumably the devil and Jesus too, thought that clearly they were incorrect). All of which of course suggests Matthew 4 is a moral lesson and not something upon which to base an opinion of whether the Bible is literally infallible science, geography and history (something that one might expect the timeless Word of God to be – possibly).
Hope this makes sense.
What does Jonny think about the comments? (Such as my previous comment.)
Ashley
When I referred to science having moved on a bit by the 1st century, I was thinking of progress made by scientists rather than popular opinion. Eratosthenes had measured the diameter of the Earth, so presumably its roundness was common knowledge among scientists. No doubt, the common population still assumed a flat Earth.