Fundamentally unclear

The original fundamentalist writers’ interpretations of the Genesis Creation story may not be as clear as you think

Scott DeLong ’12, Secondary Education, Assistant Editor in Chief

Expositions:  Christian History

Acadia National Park on Mount Desert Island has undergone many chang­es in recent decades because of increased tourism, but oceanfront estates and park­ing lots are not the only transformations the island has seen. Plaques around the park inform visitors how the iconic pink granite formed 360-380 million years ago. Ages passed, and black diabase rock oozed up through the granite to form coastal dikes. 20,000 years ago – recently in geologic time – an ice sheet transformed the gulf of Maine by gouging mountains, moving rock, and scooping out lakes. Mount Desert Island continues to be transformed every year as sea stacks and ocean cliffs erode.1

Mainstream scientists accept the above state­ments as fact, but they are not consistent with the Creation story the Bible gives. Genesis explains that God separated land from water on the sec­ond day of Creation.2 Generations later, a global flood covered the earth – an event many Chris­tians believe created major geologic features.3

Today, a ridiculously large number of sourc­es feed the conflict between religion and science, which echoes from the U.S. Supreme Court to the opinion section of The Maine Campus. Since it appears that people have already cho­sen sides for this bitter battle of beginnings, one question rises to paramount importance for be­lievers: Is a literal view of Genesis necessary for a fruitful Christian life and an honest reading of the Holy Scriptures?

It may surprise you, but the answer is no. It is not a surrender of biblical fundamentalism; rather, it is a sign of respect for it.

The beginning of the 20th century was a turbu­lent time for Christianity in the United States. A wave of liberal theology emerged that was disregarded essen­tial components of the Christian doctrine. To counter this trend and unify Christian principles, two American evangelists, A. C. Dixon and R. A. Torrey, collected 90 essays on the basics of Protestant Christian faith, bound them into volumes and distributed them from 1910 to 1915.

The end result, titled The Fundamentals: A Testimo­ny to the Truth, covered topics ranging from the deity of Christ to the nature of sin. Most Christians have largely forgotten the essays over time, yet they remain relevant to our generation which is wrestling with the same ques­tions. The Fundamentals are somewhat paradoxical when it comes to the biblical story of Creation – for a document aimed at unification, there are essays defending different interpretations of Genesis. It seems the editors of The Fun­damentals believed that multiple viewpoints were theolog­ically sound enough to be included in a collection of the basic tenets of the Christian faith.

A 2007 Gallup poll showed that 31 percent, of Amer­icans today believe the Bible is absolutely accurate and should be taken literally.4 Commonly called “creationists,” these people believe that the earth was created less than 10,000 years ago, and that man was created in his present form on the sixth 24-hour day.

In volume two of The Fundamentals, the Rev. Dyson Hague presents his case for a young earth. Instead of exam­ining his scientific arguments, which are nearly a century old, it would be more revealing to read his reasons for de­fending the literal Genesis position:

If the first chapters of Genesis are unreliable, the revelation of the beginning of the universe, the origin of the race, and the reason of its redemption are gone. … [T]he beginning of Genesis, therefore, is a divinely inspired narrative of the events deemed necessary by God to establish the founda­tions for the divine law in the sphere of human life, and to set forth the relation between the omnipotent Creator and the man who fell, and the race that was to be redeemed by the incarnation of His Son.5

Here lies the crux of the argument against an allegorical or figurative Genesis interpretation: If Genesis is cultural fabrications, then the core themes of the Bible unravel. If men and women did not rebel against God, the concept of sin crumbles. The resulting moral relativism eliminates the need for Christ’s death as a payment for sin to make humankind right with God. A mythical Genesis maims Christian faith and reduces the living Word of God to folktales sprinkled with moral lessons.

Hague is justified in his motivations – the authority and truth of the Bible is the foundation of Christianity – but it is incorrect to say that because something is not literal means it is not true.

A non-literal interpretation of the Bible is not a new idea. Since the dawn of Christianity, believers have wrestled with seri­ous questions regarding the interpretation of the biblical Creation account. How is there light on the first three days before the cre­ation of the sun on day four? What does God mean when He said, “let the earth bring forth”? In what ways did God make men and women “in His image”?

While some positions taken by past theologians are now considered flawed, they serve as a reminder that biblical literalism hasn’t always been viewed as a crucial trait of Christianity. The Bible is full of stories and parables that use figurative language to communicate truth. Of course, this doesn’t mean that Genesis, which bears marks of historical narrative, should automatically be taken as a divinely inspired allegory, but in light of overwhelm­ing scientific evidence and the convictions held by many educated people, the non-literal interpretation remains a popular stance.

The Rev. James Orr, in his essays on Genesis, has a much more open view than Hague. Orr argues that Genesis can be left open to a reasonable interpretation without any harm done to the under­lying truth. He says it’s important to realize that:

Creation, the Fall, the Flood, are not myths, but narratives enshrining the knowledge or memory of real transactions. The creation of the world was certainly not a myth, but a fact, and the representation of the stages of Creation dealt likewise with facts. The language used was not that of modern science, but, under divine guidance, the sa­cred writer gives a broad, general picture which conveys a true idea of the order of the divine working in Creation. 6

Orr argues that accepting a non-literal interpretation doesn’t instantly make Genesis folklore; the underlying truths are the same. He argues that as science progresses, we should not dismiss discovery if it appears to contradict our interpretations, since: “the Bible clearly does not profess to anticipate the scientific discoveries of the 19th and 20th centuries. Its design is very different; namely, to reveal God, His will, and His purposes of grace to men.” 7

Orr does reject Darwinian evolution, criticizing the lack of apparent transitional fossils – a strong argument in his day. He considers that God may have created new kinds of organisms at strategic points in the history of life to separate simple organisms from conscious animals and to separate again those with self-con­scious humans.8

Still, his views are far from Young Earth creationism. For ex­ample, he suggests that biblical genealogies (used to date the earth at roughly 6,000 years), “might not refer to individuals.” 9 In addi­tion, he understands that the days in the Creation account could be “aeonic days,” representing long ages instead of 24-hour blocks of time.10 These stances do not negatively effect his faith; he, like many Intelligent Design advocates and theistic evolutionists to­day, is more in awed of God when he surveys the discoveries of modern science.

Just as someone is not a Christian simply because they attend a certain church, a Christian’s identity and salvation is not defined by their position on non-essential issues like the interpretation of Genesis.  A Christian is one who believes and responds to the free gift of redemption that God has offered through the death of Je­sus. As Paul explained to the Corinthian Church, “[Christ] died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.” 11

Unfortunately, those who remain in the minority about these issues may wonder where they fit in the Church. The truth is that the restoring blood of Jesus Christ is for everyone, Young Earth creationists and evolutionary biologists alike. This is why open, respectful discussion is important. Two opposing beliefs cannot both be true, but a differing viewpoint should never be dismissed before listening thoughtfully, thinking objectively, and seriously researching an answer.

Evolutionary theory has been accepted by some devout Christians, who can reconcile modern scientific discoveries with their uncompromising faith in Christ and the Bible. Many of the writers of The Fundamentals were distrustful of evolution, but if it did in fact occur, the Rev. George Wright who argued for intel­ligent design principles in his essay for the volumes, says it best: “The mechanism of the universe is so complicated that no man can say that it is closed to divine interference.” 12

1.  Maine Department of Conservation. Maine Geological Survey. “The Geology of Mount Desert Island.” Augusta, Maine: 2008. http://www.maine.gov/doc/nrimc/mgs/explore/bedrock/acadia/igneous.htm (accessed Feb. 16, 2010).

2.  Genesis 1:9.

3.  Genesis 7:6-24.

4.  Newport, Frank. “One-third of Americans believe the Bible is literally true.” Gallup News Service, May 25, 2007. http://www.gallup.com.

5.  Hague, Dyson. “The doctrinal value of the first chapters of Genesis.” In The Fundamen­tals: A Testimony to the Truth, edited by A. C. Dixon, vol. 8, 74-89. Chicago, Ill: Testi­mony Pub Company, 1913.

6.  Orr,  James. “Science and Christian faith.” In The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth, edited by A. C. Dixon, vol. 4, 91-104. Chicago, Ill: Testimony Pub Company, 1911.

7.  Ibid.

8.  Ibid.

9.  Ibid.

10.  Orr, James. “The early narratives of Genesis.” In The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth, edited by A. C. Dixon, vol. 6, 85-97. Chicago, Ill.: Testimony Pub Company, 1912.

11.  2 Corinthians 5:15, English Standard Version.

12.  Wright, George. “The passing of evolution.” In The Fundamentals: a Testimony to the Truth, edited by A. C. Dixon, vol. 7, 5-20. Chicago, Ill.: Testimony Pub Company, 1913.