My current frustration with the way this debate goes at times has to do with the way certain people try to frame the discussion, using certain “hot button” words, yet not knowing what they really mean. What am I referring to? Young Earth Creationists such as Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis have hijacked certain words to try and make their camp look like the only viable option for Christians. They flaunt these wrongly defined terms as the bulwark of orthodoxy, claiming that they are the only ones who are such, and everyone else who disagrees with them does not fit these “terms” and are to be rejected as either A) liberal, B) denying the authority of Scripture, or C) not even real Christians.
Without further delay, I want to discuss three theological terms and one scientific term. These terms are as follows: “literal”, “creationist”, “biblical creationist”, and “theory”.
Let’s look at the term “literal”. In the origins debate, it is used by Ken Ham et al to refer to how they read the book of Genesis. Young Earth Creationism teaches that Genesis 1-2 is about material origins. It teaches that the days of Genesis are 24 hour, chronological days, in which God created everything. They teach that the flood was global, and that all the fossils were formed from this one event. They also teach that the earth is 6-10,000 years old. They claim that a “literal” reading of Genesis teaches this.
Now let’s pause and talk about how they use the word “literal”. For Ham’s version of Young Earth Creationism, “literal” goes something like this: God “literally” took some dust and formed a man. God “literally” took a rib from Adam and fashioned into Eve. The serpent really talked, God “literally” walked through the Garden, etc. They claim they are taking the text at “face value”, and that trying to read any symbolism or poetry into Genesis is not taking the text “literally”.
What surprises me about this logic is that if we are going to continue with their definition of “literal”, it needs to be applied to everything in the creation narrative, yet they don’t do this. If we are going to interpret it “literally”, then the earth is not round, but rather a three tiered structure with the heavens above, then a dome in which the sun, moon, and stars are hung, then in the middle, a big land mass surrounded by water, and under that is the netherworld. Yet they won’t take these parts “literally”. Why? Because modern observation in science tells us this is not the case.
So what does “literal” really mean? When scholars refer to interpreting something “literally”, it means to interpret it according to the rules of its genre. It means to get at the literal meaning that the author was trying to convey. For example, even though Jesus used metaphors at times, we still interpret the text in a “literal” manner not by dismissing the metaphors, but acknowledging they are there and seeking to understand their meaning. Furthermore, to interpret a text “literally” means to consider its historical/cultural context, as well as its linguistic/grammatical construct. To ignore these indicators in a text is to not interpret it literally.
This means that Young Earth Creationism, despite its claim, is not a “literal” interpretation of the text. Rather, it is a superficial one. It ignores the Ancient Near East context in which mythological and archetypical language is common place, as well as seeing creation as assigning function to things rather than addressing their material origin. YECism also ignores the plethora of grammatical clues in the Hebrew that make the narrative read more like poetry rather than the chronological, historical narratives that we have in Kings and Chronicles. Therefore if any interpretation ignores what has been outlined above, it should not be considered as a viable option, nor should it be considered trying to interpret the text “literally.”
The wordplay that Ken Ham and AiG uses is meant to show themselves as the only interpretation that respects the authority of Scripture. This is disingenuous at worst and ignorant at best. Those Christian scholars on the forefront of this debate do not question the authority of Scripture. They are best seeking how to understand the text in its “literal” manner- that is, how the original audience would have understood the text. Furthermore, in interpreting the Genesis text “literally” (as scholars define it), it becomes anachronistic to try and read our 21st century debates about science into the text.
My suggestion is this: If we are going to make headway in this debate, let’s use the term “literal” in its intended, scholarly definition. This means it’s time for some YECs to stop hurling anathemas at others who don’t agree with them. Rather, they need to see that they are the ones in error in how they use this term. So, if you are a YEC and reading this, I ask you to please stop referring to you view as a literal interpretation of the text.
The second term I want to discuss is “creationist”. This term is used by both YECs and fundamental atheists to refer to the YEC position. What it implies is that the YEC interpretation is the only one that is a “creationist” interpretation. This means that any Christian like me who holds to evolution, whether it be cosmological or biological or both, is not a real “creationist.” Using the term this way is again, disingenuous at worst, and ignorance at best. Theologically, the orthodox doctrine of creation has never included a strict stance on the interpretation of the specifics of Genesis. To be a creationist means to affirm 1) that God created everything that there is through His Son and by His Spirit. 2) God is separate from and not dependent upon creation. 3) God sustains creation and keeps it in existence 4) Man was created in the image of God and is the crown of creation. 5) Man sinned and was driven out of the Garden. The fine details are all debatable.
What this means is that someone can still be a “creationist” and accept evolution as the process in which God used to create all that there is. I don’t have time to address this in detail, but the main objection that comes up is the “image of God” passages, and how humans could have evolved and still be in the image of God. This is not a problem, since theologically, the image of God does not refer to the physical make up of man, nor his continuity with all of nature. Rather, the image of God is both a functional and spiritual term. This means that God could have endowed early humans with His image, even if their physical form was created from the process of evolution.
My suggestion to YECs: Let’s be honest and stop setting up straw man arguments and trying to demonize other Christians as not being “creationists” simply because they believe God used a different process than you do.
The third term I want to address piggy backs off these first two. It is the term “biblical creationist.” Ken Ham et al use this term to try and show the moral superiority of their position by claiming that their view of creation and Genesis is the only “biblical’ one. I have often seen this word “biblical” thrown around in a very cavalier manner at times, with the purpose of promoting one, and only one INTERPRETATION as the end all biblical position. Granted, the Bible is certainly clear on many things, but on others, not so much. For example, it is wrong for me to say that my view of the Lord’s Supper is the BIBLICAL view. There are those who hold to consubstantiation, as well as those who hold to the idea that the supper is just mere symbolism. I am not going to denounce those views as unbiblical. Why? Because I recognize that there is a degree of uncertainty in this, and that my interpretation could be wrong, and that though I don’t agree with the other position, I can see that they are trying to make sense of the text. In scholarship, there can be disagreements on things that wouldn’t necessarily discount another position as “umbilical”.
What this means for the discussion is that to be a “biblical creationist” means to hold to the main theological teachings of scripture that I outlined above. If one does not fall within these parameters, then it is acceptable to question their position as “biblical”. This means that those Christians who hold to Old Earth Creationism, Progressive Creationism, and Evolutionary Creationism would still fall within the realm of being “biblical creationists.” Therefore my suggestion to YECs is to again, be honest and stop trying to refer to your position as the only “biblical” one.
Finally, the last term I want to address is a scientific one- “theory”. Besides the occasional obnoxious jab as being an “evil”utionist, one of the other things that makes me double facepalm is this phrase: “_______ hasn’t been proven, it’s only a theory.” Insert in that blank whatever tenant of modern science, be it the big bang, age of the universe or earth, or cosmological or biological evolution. My simple plea to Christians is to please stop saying this, it makes us come across as ignorant and dumb. For those who say this, the word “theory” means an idea or suggestion that has not been proven, like “I have a theory about ________”. This is not how the word is used in science. In the realm of science, when something becomes a “theory”, it means that it is a well substantiated claim or explanation of the natural world, which has been proven and validated through observation and experimentation. In other words, it is not a guess. Therefore “theory” does not mean a “guess”, so we must stop trying to use it that way to set a straw man argument against science.
In closing, my reason for writing this post is to clear the murky waters of how terms are erroneously used in this debate by many YECs to help “slant” their view to conservative Christians like myself and others who hold to the inspiration and authority of the Bible. Ken Ham et al figure that if they can continue to use these words, and scream loud enough that their view is the only view that falls within these parameters, then you won’t ever consider any other view, since they are all “unbiblical.” This type of foolishness needs to stop, because it is both deceptive and unhelpful to people. In any Christian debate, we should seek to be genuine, true, and honest about opposing interpretations, even if we disagree with them. It is way past time to reclaim these words and put them back in their proper place.