The Creation Controversy, Part One: Biblical Authority

Also in this series: Introduction

Before I start my examination of the biblical text, I would like to address three arguments young-earth teachers frequently make with regard to the overall context of the creation controversy. The first of these arguments has to do with the question of biblical authority. This argument is well represented by comments from Ken Ham, who is the president of Answers in Genesis, perhaps the most prominent young-earth creationist organization in the world today.

Writing in 2015, Ham argued that “The history in Genesis 1-11 is foundational to every single biblical doctrine of theology,” including where such things as sin, death, marriage, and the atonement are concerned. By “history,” Ham means the young-earth interpretation specifically. In fact, he went on to argue that old-earth interpretations erode this foundation by disconnecting the Bible “from the real world,” and really amount to an attempt to destroy it altogether:

 

“Because once the history’s gone, it’s then just some pie-in-the-sky religion, divorced from its foundation, and ultimately it will collapse. The Bible has been disconnected from the real world and relegated to just a collection of stories…

 

“The church has been destroying its own history by believing in millions of years, taking man’s interpretation of the evidence, and adding it to the Bible. Discussions about Genesis and the whole issue of creation/evolution/millions of years is an issue of authority. Do we take God at His Word or not? Is the Bible the infallible Word of God? And what right do we have to tell God what we think He means, instead of letting Him tell us what He said?”[1]

Necessary Distinctions

In response to Ham, I will first say that I agree that Genesis is in fact a necessary foundation to the entire realm of Christian theology. Genesis firmly establishes that God is the creator of all things, including mankind, which he chose to make in his own image. We derive a number of elements of doctrine from these simple facts, including God’s authority over mankind, his right to lay down laws governing human behavior, and his right to bring mankind into judgment—all foundational elements for fully understanding the faith.

Also of critical importance here is the fact that Christ and his apostles quoted the Old Testament, including Genesis, in such a way as to clearly indicate that they believed those writings to be authoritative. If they were wrong in this, the consequences are dire indeed. For instance, if Christ was wrong about what God said in the Old Covenant era, how can we trust him when it comes to what God supposedly said through him concerning eternal salvation under the New Covenant?

So, yes, there is a genuine question of authority at stake in the book of Genesis, and for that reason we certainly need to be careful in how we approach it. That said, however, there are some critical distinctions that must also be drawn here:

First, belief in a young earth is not a prerequisite for affirming what Genesis has to say in regard to God’s creating man in his image, the creation of two distinct genders, or the divine institution of marriage, to reference a few of Ham’s concerns. I disagree with Ham on the nature of the creation days and the age of the earth, but I affirm that man is created in the image of God, that there are two distinct genders, and that marriage was instituted between male and female by divine decree. There is no ambiguity in the text on these matters, and nothing contributed by any other passage of scripture suggests that these statements mean anything other than what they straightforwardly say. As I hope to illustrate shortly, however, the same cannot be said for aspects of the creation account. There are ambiguities in the account that beg deeper consideration, as well as certain other relevant passages of scripture that ought to be consulted before we come to any firm conclusions.

Young-earthers and old-earthers alike agree that when God speaks what he has to say is authoritative. There is no dispute there. What is in dispute is whether we have correctly understood what God has said, and this is not a conflict that is confined to the creation debate, by any means.

For centuries now, Christians have disputed amongst themselves regarding the meaning of many passages of scripture. Calvinists and Arminians have long disagreed on what the Bible has to say about the sovereignty of God and the nature of salvation. Proponents of various prophecy schools—such as pretribulationism, posttribulationism, and preterism—read the same passages of scripture, pronounce them “perfectly clear,” and yet come to radically different conclusions as to their meaning. Ask a Baptist if baptism has anything to do with salvation, and he’ll probably tell you that it doesn’t. Ask a member of the Church of Christ the same question, though, and you’re liable to get quite a different answer. Yet, both appeal to the same scriptures.

All of these groups, and others that could be named besides, believe in the authority of the scriptures. All of them see themselves as defending what God has said against what men have said in their own wisdom. Thus, contrary to what Ham is arguing, authority is not the central issue in the creation controversy; interpretation is the central issue. Unfortunately, this truth is often obscured in the heat of debate, just as it has been obscured in other theological controversies over the centuries. Ken Ham views his interpretation of Genesis as being the only viable interpretation of the text and, therefore, as effectively identical with the Word of God, thus he portrays those who disagree with him as denying the Bible and challenging God. “What right do we have to tell God what we think He means,” Ham asks, “instead of letting Him tell us what He said?” This is a troubling statement on several levels.

First, it has the character of a rebuke, yet, ironically enough, it lacks authority. For Ham’s claim that all of Christian theology rises or falls on a young-earth interpretation of Genesis to be true, he must establish that his interpretation is the only coherent, realistic way in which to understand the text. In that event, one would have no choice but to either affirm it or to disavow the authority of scripture. Obviously, Ham is convinced that this is the choice we face, but numerous reputable Christian leaders and scholars—people who affirm the gospel and take reasonable care with the scriptures—are convinced that this is not at all true. This issue will be addressed further in chapter two, where I examine the beliefs of Jewish and Christian scholars of centuries past. For the moment, however, suffice it to say that, in so far as we know, there has never been an entirely unified view of Genesis, either in Jewish or Christian circles. The authority Ham is appealing to here is really his own interpretive framework.

Second, as noted previously, it is manifestly untrue that one cannot affirm the essentials of the Christian faith, including the gospel itself, without affirming Ham’s interpretation of Genesis. Apart from his views on creation, many old-earth creationists would likely affirm much of the rest of Ham’s theology. Although they don’t begin with identical foundational assumptions, they still end up in most of the same places, theologically speaking.

Third, old-earth believers are not ‘telling God what we think he means’ when we interpret the Genesis creation account. This implies an air of smugness on our part, if not an outright act of rebellion, as if we somehow believe ourselves worthy to tell God we’re fit to override him as we please. I do not know of any old-earth believers who have this attitude. We in the old-earth community employ interpretive methods, not to tell God anything, but rather to understand what God is telling us (and on some points we disagree amongst ourselves). Theologians and lay believers alike have been doing this, in every area of theology, for two thousand years. Are old-earthers alone to be faulted for interpreting scripture? Indeed, Ken Ham and his young-earth colleagues routinely employ interpretive methods to support their claims concerning the creation days, the flood account, the biblical genealogies, and related matters.

One especially notable instance where young-earth teachers have applied interpretive methods to Genesis is the question of where the Garden of Eden was located. In Genesis 2:8-14, Moses describes the garden’s location with respect to four rivers: Tigris, Eurphrates, Pishon, and Gihon, and tells us a bit about the surrounding regions as well. This appears to be a straightforward description of the garden’s location, laid out with references to landmarks Moses’ contemporaries would have recognized, and that are still partially recognizable even today (the locations of the Pishon and Gihon rivers having been lost).

Appealing to young-earth interpretations of Noah’s flood and death before sin, Ken Ham argues that Moses did not describe a location that exists in our world, but rather, that existed in the pre-flood world, and could have been anywhere on the globe. According to Ham, the rivers we know as the Tigris and Euphrates today were actually named for different rivers that existed in the pre-flood world and were destroyed during the flood.[2]

 

Is this an example of Ken Ham telling God what he thinks he means, or does that criticism apply only when old-earthers interpret the text? I realize that teachers like Ham believe their position to be so manifestly correct that it astonishes them that anyone could disagree; however, as I pointed out previously, this is hardly unique within the world of theological discourse. It’s high time that young-earth creationist leaders stop accusing their old-earth brethren of ‘compromising,’ ‘not really believing the Bible,’ ‘imposing man’s authority over God’s authority,’ and so on. These accusations are unnecessarily inflammatory; and what’s more, they are flatly untrue.

 

 

 

Next in this series: Authority from Tradition - the Jewish Sages & and the Early Church Fathers 

---

[1] Ken Ham, “Biblical Authority and the Book of Genesis,” Answers in Genesis.org, June 27, 2015.

https://answersingenesis.org/the-word-of-god/biblical-authority-and-book-genesis/. Note: In this book, I quote Ken Ham and other young-earth teachers with the goal of evaluating their claims, not for the purpose of attacking them personally. In the language of the Book of Acts, the creation controversy is not something that has been “done in a corner.” Ham and the others I reference are public figures who have gone on record with their remarks. As such, their comments are subject to examination, particularly in light of the biblical admonition to “test all things, hold fast to that which is good.” Nor am I exclusively focusing on young-earthers here. I will also be referencing the views of other teachers in the church who have placed their views of Genesis and creation on the record, and for the same purpose.

[2] Ken Ham, “Where Was the Garden of Eden?” Answers in Genesis.org, August 20, 2013.

https://answersingenesis.org/genesis/garden-of-eden/where-was-the-garden-of-eden-located/