Should Christians argue about their views on Genesis 1? Should they have any views on Genesis 1 and Creation in the first place?
Should Christians dialogue with one another about their personal interpretations of Genesis 1? Should they have any views on Genesis 1 and upon the Creation in the first place? This article is the first in a series aimed to help Christians find their bearings among the many varied opinions expounded by Bible-believing adherents about Creation - and the interpretation of Genesis 1 (and 2).
Our hope here is to give all true disciples of Jesus a good, sober understanding of the “creation ministries landscape” at a glance.
In this article we ask whether Christians ought to have any views on Genesis 1 and Creation; and whether they should dialogue (or “argue” in the philosophical sense of the word; an argument in philosophy is simply a set of reasons offered in support of some conclusion) about such views at all.
Focussing upon interpretations of the creation of our world, four categories are elucidated: (1) Young Earth creationists (YECs), (2) Old Earth creationists (OECs), (3) Evolutionary creationists (ECs), and (4) those who assert that it simply doesn’t matter - that we shouldn’t argue about these things. In practice, the last group is the smallest. But pausing for a moment and hearing what the latter group says may help us eventually understand the other three groups better…
What the fourth group is in line with are Christians who assert that we shouldn’t argue about any Christian doctrines whatsoever.
But such a sentiment goes head-on against the biblical position that Christians are ambassadors of the kingdom of heaven, always ready to give a good account of the heavenly kingdom they represent – demonstrating, proclaiming, and defending the beliefs and values of their King. We Christians have a mandate to proclaim the truth about this world as God represents it in Scripture.
A blanket statement that it’s not our job as Christians to convince people, ignores and rides roughshod over much of what the Bible says about the responsibilities of God’s people to proclaim His truth. Ultimately it is God alone through His Holy Spirit who converts people. However, throughout the Bible we understand that God primarily uses His people as the instruments for this process. (1)
Hyper-sensitive souls sometimes think of the word “argue” as mean-spirited quarrelling but, as noted above, it is a neutral word which very often refers to calm, level-headed reasoning.
The point here is not to say that Christians have a great responsibility to only discuss, dialogue and argue their views about Creation. It is simply to point out the far broader perspective: that reasoning, dialogue and proclamation of all Christian doctrines is indeed integral to Scriptural truths.
On the other hand, there are Christians who wish to argue about every single Christian doctrine! One notes that quarrelling about unimportant doctrines can actually harm the godliness of the church (1 Tim. 1:3-4, 6:20-21; 2 Tim. 4:3-4; Titus 1:13-14, etc.). Some Christians behave as if all biblical doctrines should be fought for with equal force. But while all doctrines might be equally truthful, Jesus and the Apostles clearly showed that not all doctrines are equally important.(2)
Having established the principle that Christians do, in fact, need to reason and to persuade people (3) about biblical doctrines - especially the very most central doctrines that cluster around the gospel (“good news”) of Jesus - we need to ask which doctrines lie at the very centre. Moreover, where should our evangelistic focus lie?
A most helpful discussion along these lines is found in Gavin Ortlund’s little book, Finding the Right Hills to Die On(4), where he shows that not all issues which Christians believe are at the same level of importance for personal salvation, holiness and persevering in the faith. (Ortlund helpfully uses the notion of “theological triage,” borrowing the term “triage” from emergency medicine.) Ortlund carefully argues for the ranking below 5.
First-rank doctrines are essential to the gospel.
Second-rank doctrines are urgent for the church (but not essential to the gospel).
Third-rank doctrines are important to Christian theology (but not essential to the gospel or necessarily urgent for the church).
Fourth-rank doctrines are indifferent (they are theologically unimportant).
Arguing about how many angels exist, for example, is a fourth-rank issue. 1 Timothy 1:4 mentions another: speculating about mythical genealogies. They are theologically unimportant issues, leading to unproductive speculation.
Among the first-rank doctrines – those essential to the gospel – are these(5): the Trinity, as well as the incarnation, life, substitutionary death and resurrection of Jesus. The integrity of the gospel is at stake in these doctrines. We should defend these with “courage and conviction” (5)(even as we are careful that our speech should be “always full of grace, seasoned with salt,” Col. 4:6).
Second-rank doctrines are urgent for the church, but not as essential to the gospel as first-rank doctrines. Examples include: the Lord’s Table (Holy Communion) and the continued existence, or not, of supernatural gifts. We should approach second-rank issues with “wisdom and balance.”(6)
When we proceed to third-rank teachings, one example might include “endtime” perspectives(7). These are not doctrines which Christians should find totally divisive - but rather, such should be approached with “circumspection and restraint(8).” They are important to Christian theology, but not essential to the gospel.
Ortlund points out how the neglect of crucial issues might endanger our correct understanding and preaching of the gospel(9). This in turn has a corroding effect on the authority of the Bible, leading to the eventual erosion of its central message.
The doctrine of creation is a third-rank issue(10); specifically whether one promotes YEC, OEC or EC. That said, some specific sub-points of interpretations of Genesis 1/Creation may have far-reaching implications – particular interpretations may even extend up to the level of first-rank doctrines. While one should not expend the time and the energy devoted to first-rank doctrines, third-rank doctrines cannot simply be neglected.
Returning to the questions we initially raised, we assert that differing personal interpretations of the biblical Creation narratives should be dealt with great circumspection and restraint. Needed here are intra-church discussion, debate and dialogue. Not silence! Truths contained in Genesis do have far-reaching biblical implications.
It should be noted that a Christian who is simply indifferent to the interpretation of Genesis 1 is indeed hard to find! In practice, everyone has some personal perspective on it. It behoves us to humbly and carefully heed Augustine’s astute admonition from the early 5th century:
“Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?” (11)
1.Throughout the Old and New Testaments, believers evangelize others and argue for God’s truth. Jesus argued (e.g. Mark 11:27-12:37), Paul argued (e.g. Acts 9:29, 7:2, 17:17-32), the Apostles argued (most prominently through their New Testament letters), and the prophets argued (in stating the Lord’s case against Israel).
2. E.g. the Apostle Paul points out that some doctrines are of greater importance than others. The central facts of the gospel are “of first importance” (1 Cor. 15:3; cf. 1 Cor. 2:2). When it comes to the law and Scripture, Jesus himself commonly differentiated between light and heavy ones, the small and the great. We recall how Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for neglecting more important teachings whilst observing less important ones (Matt. 23:23). To an expert in the law, Jesus affirms that there is a “first and greatest commandment” and a second one following close on its heels (Matt. 22:37-39).
3. Cf. e.g. Acts 19:2
4. Gavin Ortlund, Finding the Right Hills to Die On: The Case for Theological Triage (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2020).
5.Ortlund, Finding the Right Hills to Die On, 76.
6. Ortlund, Finding the Right Hills to Die On, 95.
7. Pre-millenialism, a-millenialism, post-millenialism, etc.
8. Ortlund, Finding the Right Hills to Die On, 95.
9. Ortlund, Finding the Right Hills to Die On: “doctrines can be important to the gospel, though not essential,” 118.
10. Ortlund, Finding the Right Hills to Die On, 136-143.
11. St. Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, vol. 1, Ancient Christian Writers, trans. and annotated by John Hammond Taylor, S.J. (New York: Paulist Press, 1982), 66.