The Earth's Age

A friend of mine was asking me the other day about my thoughts on the age of the Earth, and therein essentially my view on creationism/evolutionism and the book of Genesis. As an Old Earth Christian who takes Genesis as more of a parable than a history book, I usually end up having to justify myself to both sides of the spectrum. My least favorite people to argue with are "Young Earth Scientists" who seek to scientifically justify a "literal" Biblical timeline. Following are critiques which summarize the most frequent proofs proffered by the individuals and why I take issue with them.

Proof by analogy is problematic: I have yet to hear someone criticize evolution without attempting to compare some effect of evolution to some impossible scenario. Unfortunately, the value of any such argument is inherently tied to the accuracy of the analogy, and good analogies for anything of substance are hard to find. David Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, published in 1779, annihilated any hope for proving the existence for God on the basis of analogy summarized by a phrase Christians must openly admit: there is simply nothing like God. Immanuel Kant, perhaps the seminal philosopher of all Western thought ever since, spent his entire career developing a way of thinking which could still accommodate God within the basically irrefutable context of Hume's dialogues. Even so, over two centuries later, people continue trying to use the same logic, and for whatever reason, people keep listening.

Proof by misuse is much more problematic: There is a book published by a young-earth scientist which makes the argument that a great part of what's wrong with evolution is that it has been used to support racism. While I am well aware that evolution has been used to justify racism, genocide, and a wide array of other ills, I would be very careful as a religious person to avoid postulating the argument that such usage invalidates the idea itself. Religion in all its forms certainly trumps virtually any other idea on the grounds of devastation through misuse. Evolution is a process through which changes occur in organisms. It is not designed to prescribe a path of action, nor does it come with a built in philosophy. Evolution says nothing about God save that he must be patient, and Christianity says almost nothing about how God chooses to do the things He does.

Proof by abuse of definition is contemptible: The most common arguments I hear come out of this movement rely on using very particular definitions. They create a single, unwavering definition of Christianity, then produce an equally rigid definition of evolution, and then somehow stand amazed that these two definitions conflict. I generally disagree with both definitions proffered. While scripture is full of historical truths and facts about humanity and the world around us, it is not at all times explicitly literal. To deny metaphor to scripture is to undermine the beauty of the psalms and the wisdom of the parables. What is gained if Genesis is literal rather than metaphorical? Neither rendition changes how we live in the present, and I'm fairly certain we won't be quizzed on it before the gates of Heaven. What we gain from the book is wisdom. If it is literal, than that wisdom is present, but I would argue shallow. An allegorical history is both beautiful in its ability to bestow an understanding of who we are without needing to sift through irrelevant data regarding unimportant events. If Genesis is history in the modern understanding of the word, then it is mostly meaningless. It has nothing more to offer then a list of events which transpired. If it is allegory, then the depths of its mystery can be endless, just like God Himself.

Litigious Creeds

I remember in High school (or was it middle school?) when my Roman Catholic friends were trying to memorize the Nicene creed. While I certainly had read it before, and knew the basic tenants of which it spoke, I was certainly thankful that my church had no such requirement. Not only because I'm a little lazy, but because I don't feel the need for such an extensive creed. I do understand the desire for specificity, but I can confidently assert that it is doctrine which has caused most of the conflict within the church, as well as a great deal of its apathy. As the church expends energy on developing a more accurate mission statement, it loses sight of its actual mission.

I'm not saying that anything goes: just because something is permissible it does not make it beneficial (1 Corinthians 10:23). I really do believe in minimum standards and the need for discernment. However, from what I see in the Bible, God prefers to have some room to do crazy things no one expects. As creeds move from being general to specific, they attempt to limit what God can do, and that's always a bad idea.

The early Church, while perhaps not thrilled with diversity of opinion, was accepting of it. The Sermon on the Mount was used as the basic instructional material for new converts, people were expected to believe that Jesus was an important guy, that how one lives is more important than simply that one lives, that it is crucial for all of humanity to act in love towards one another, and some other general rules. People could debate details on all of these (and they did endlessly), but as long as people stuck to the general rules, and were willing to discuss matters, the details were ultimately irrelevant.

In many ways, I think Greek Life is a good example of how the Church should look. Being a fraternity man myself, I realized early on that despite plenty of problems, the Greek system overall had the right idea. There are hundreds of different organizations: some national, some regional, some local. Each of these groups has a specific focus, unique rituals, bylaws, and leadership. However, no Greek would deny that members of a different house are not Greek. Every Greek knows that people outside the system don't care if you're a Theta Chi or a Tau Kappa Epsilon. Sure, some chapters do things they shouldn't do, and are rightfully punished both from within the Greek system and outside of it, but at no point is the issue not a Greek issue.

The Church desperately needs this kind of unity. Sure, different denominations operate different ways, have a different style of worship and a different creed, use different standards for leadership, but they are still part of the same Christian family. Honestly, does it really matter if I think that God created everything in 6 literal days or not if I accept Christ and prayerfully seek to express compassion to the world? Does it really matter if I believe the Bible to be precise and literal or to be divinely inspired if, in either case, I take it to be the most accurate representation of God's will for humanity? I really doubt that on judgment day we'll be given a scan-tron test full of questions about doctrine and Bible knowledge. God really doesn't strike me as the standardized test type. I think He's much more interested in whether or not we fed the hungry, gave water to the thirsty, visited those in prison, and overall heeded His instructions for us. One of the most revered men in scripture is Abraham. The question I ask is this: was Abraham a hero for attempting to sacrifice his son, or because he did what God told him to do? The difference is between legalism (one of the great sins of the Pharisees) and faith. From what I can tell, faith always wins.

Honestly, I think Christian infighting is more about fear than anything else. So long as we don't agree on what God wishes, we can't be expected to enact it. If we keep changing the goal, we can never be behind schedule in accomplishing it. Lengthy and specific creeds not only give us something to fight about, but make it so that when we're not fighting, we're trying to figure out what the creed actually means. I love debating theology, and I do have an elaborate and somewhat specific set of principles which I believe, but I would never codify them and expect everyone to live by them or face judgment. According to Romans 14:5-10,

"One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. He who regards one days special does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat."

We will all answer to God, not to the Nicene Creed, or the Apostles Creed, or any church mission statement or doctrinal document. There is absolutely nothing wrong with particular beliefs, seeing one day as more sacred or some kind of food as inappropriate. What is wrong is believing that you are God, and can declare these things to be true for all.

Curbside Prophets (need a real job)

If you are ever tempted to stand up on a public bus to proclaim some aspect of your faith, may I vehemently recommend that you NOT. On my way home from work today, I heard a man sitting a few rows behind me quietly asking the person next to him about Jesus. While I generally find this approach to be obtuse, I could at least initially admire his devotion. Then he addressed the entire bus, proclaiming God's disdain for homosexuality. When challenged on his judgmental attitude, he attempted first to sidestep the attack by claiming that people will sit quietly by when evil is spoken, but suddenly become agitated when truth is spoken. He then spent a few more minutes defending his original statements as non-judgmental before getting off the bus with a final "Jesus loves you all."

In what universe is that an effective approach to witnessing? Regardless of what he was talking about (which I'll post on soon), did he really expect to convince anyone who didn't already agree with him of anything? Did he really think that because of his threats of hellfire another soul would find salvation? Maybe I'm off the mark here, but I see a plethora of problems with this approach. What this gentleman probably believed to be an desperate plea for his beloved brothers and sisters to act in righteousness was at best ineffective, at worst (and much more likely) painfully counterproductive.

First, I would like to point out that it is generally difficult to have a thoughtful exchange of ideas among a large group, unless that group essentially exists for that very purpose. In case it wasn't painfully clear, buses do not exist for that purpose. Most people on the bus would rather keep interaction to an absolute minimum. In fact, this applies to the majority of people in public areas. While plenty are perhaps open to having meaningful discussions, even they are generally offended if you approach them with that assumption in mind. Productive conversations, especially unanticipated ones, are best left to very small groups, such as perhaps the person sitting next to you. I have had plenty of meaningful conversations with the person sitting next to me, but never from a podium.

Second, framing a conversation with threats of hellfire is not likely to win you many supporters. Damnation doesn't scare people who don't believe in it, nor those who don't believe they've done anything wrong. What it will do is indicate that you are more interested in fearmongering than an open discussion of values and ethics, which will cause most people to assume there is no use in attempting to have a meaningful conversation with you. I do believe that there is room for discussion of judgment, but it should generally be left to discussions among Christians, not as a threat against those outside. I could go into a long discussion about "judge not lest ye be judged," but I'll save that for another time.

Third, if something does compel you to loudly proclaim judgment in public, don't claim peoples' negative reaction to your comments as justification. While doing the right thing in many circumstances will get you in trouble, it does not mean that anything which gets you in trouble is the right thing. Yes, the truth will upset people much of the time, but so will lies, personal attacks, ignorance and arrogance, and none of these things merit reward.

I wish to conclude by emphasizing that while faith is absolutely personal, it is certainly not private. It is something to be lived out and discussed, but like so many other things in life, how we choose to live it and discuss it is critically important. I was once on a panel discussing issues facing modern Christianity, and one matter brought to my attention was evangelizing and missions work. While I agreed with the rest of the panel that the Church has a very questionable history in these areas, filled with regrettable and indefensible actions, I made it clear that it is no less crucial now than ever. What Christianity needs is not to abandon all attempts at witnessing out of fear, but to learn new and wholesome ways to show what Christianity is really about. Simply because we can no longer waltz into the marketplace and begin proclaiming the word of the Lord, we should not abandon living as imitators of Christ, seeking to show love and compassion to the world. We need fewer curbside prophets, and more creative ones.