These days, there seems to be an ongoing debate in the Adventist church over whether the world was created in seven days or whether it took millions of years to occur. Two things concern me about this debate. One, is the volatility and anger I see and hear from those passionately defending their position, and two, is the way the discussion distracts us from focusing on what is most important.
Here is what I hear from many who I talk to. “Why does the debate even matter? Are we trying to prove that God exists, or that scientists are smarter than theologians? Scientists are notoriously wrong, inconsistent and not even of one opinion when given the same set of facts. I think the debate is just a distraction.”
What seems to be true is that those that accept the biblical account of creation do not need any further evidence that God is the Creator, and those that do not believe won’t be convicted by any arrogant “I know it all” argument. We will have all eternity to investigate this issue once Jesus has come. In the meantime, let us behave in a way that honors our God, and remember that God is more concerned about how we treat people than by what we know.
Agreed, some proclaim truth in a manner unbefitting the message. But would we pass on talking about the Gospel, the return of the Messiah or even the seventh-day Sabbath because those who accurately proclaimed them did so reprehensibly?
ReplyDeleteThe questions about the relevance and the distracting nature of the debates over creation vs. evolution and young creation vs. old creation are good ones. The debate is essential to "what is most important," i.e., the Gospel, because it is a modern rehash of the first recorded debate — "Did God really say …?" Today's variation is, "Did God really say They created the heavens and the Earth in six 24-hour days as recorded in Genesis 1?" Thus, the debate among believers in God is not, "Does God exist?" Rather, it's, "Do we believe the revealed description of what God has done?" And determining the trustworthiness of the words recorded as coming from God has everything to do with taking the Gospel — another account of what God has done — to those who don't believe God exists.
Would those living about 3,500 years ago and hearing "evening and morning" six times in Genesis 1 and "in six days" in Ex. 20:8-11 have concluded something differently, based on their observations of sunsets and sunrises and of the coming of the Sabbath each seventh day? If Genesis 1 were written with a six-day pattern only as a mnemonic because the "real story" was beyond the grasp of primitive nomads, wouldn't that make the teaching of the seventh-day Sabbath in Exodus 20 just a codified mnemonic, rather than a statement about reality? If so, then to what account of the Creator is the first angel's message to the world before the Day of the Lord in Rev. 14:6–7 appealing? Genesis 1? Genesis 2? NASA's? A combination of all three?
This debate quickly moves from being a "distraction" to being a foundation for the Gospel. If Genesis 1 were allegory possibly layered with a mnemonic (i.e., God didn't create the heavens and the Earth in six days as written), what about Genesis 2 and its description of the first man and woman (and the divine institution of marriage)? What about Genesis 3 with the account of the first sin, the curse on creation and the promise of the Seed of the woman, the Savior? When does allegory become history, for which the action (sin) demands an equal and opposite reaction (Savior) from the merciful Establisher of the laws of nature?
The Messiah and the New Testament writers assumed the veracity of the first three chapters of Genesis. The apostle Luke started his account of the Gospel with a genealogy that goes back to "Adam, the son of God," a lineage that holds weight only if Adam actually existed and sinned as recorded. The apostle John started his account of the Gospel (John 1) with the foundation of God as Creator, even paralleling the "in the beginning" language of Genesis 1. Near the beginning of his letter to believers in Rome, the apostle Paul noted that acknowledgement of God as Creator was essential for avoiding a shift of society away from God (Rom. 1:18–32; a "because" for not being ashamed of the Gospel, mentioned earlier in the chapter). Paul also spent a lot of time (1st Corinthians 15) contrasting the "first man" and his sin and the "last man" and His perfection in talking about the potential for destined-for-death sinners as sons of Adam to become destined-for-life sons of God.
Yes, "God is more concerned about how we treat people than by what we know." And the way we learn how to treat people, to overcome our selfish inclinations, is to read "every word that proceeds from the mouth of God" (Deut. 8:2–4; Matt. 4:3–4; Luke 4:3–4) and trust the Source of those words, rather than second-guessing whether God said them or if they mean what they look like they mean.