The Power Behind Creationism is Tradition, Not Truth

15th-century BibleThe debate between science and Christian faith often centers around the different views of creation. But since there are varying views that stem from a Christian perspective, it cannot really be said that faith is the issue. Rather, it is a particular view of Biblical creation texts that is at odds with prevailing scientific thought. This one view has almost become emblematic of the whole Christian faith, and the center of rancorous debates, but why is there so much energy around this one perspective? I believe the answer is the same thing that has fueled many passionate debates through the years, even during Jesus’ ministry: tradition.

If one reads enough young-earth creationist writings, either in book or online form, it quickly becomes clear that one of the most commonly-used arguments for that literal interpretation is that it has been the most common viewpoint of the church for thousands of years. It’s common for writings to point out the many early church fathers that believed in a literal six 24-hour creation, or the eminent Christian scientists throughout history that held the same view. It’s even common to generate lists of modern well-known figures to further validate its consistency and spread.

But all this is merely a way to say that the young-earth creationist view is a well-established tradition. By itself this does nothing to establish its truth any more that a comparable list would have established the truth of Earth being the center of the universe. Tradition, like science, can be very informative, but does not lead us into truth.

For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it. And I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers. Galatians 1:13-14

Tradition has played an important role in the Christian faith, both positive and negative. On the one hand, much of Scripture existed as tradition before its final Spirit-led recording, and Paul talks about Christian behavior and the Gospel as traditions to be followed. On the other hand, Jesus had scathing comments about some of the traditions of His day, and latter examples like geocentrism show how even popular and long-held views can be wrong. Paul’s example shows how zeal for tradition can lead to behavior that seems Godly, but actually works against His purposes.

One of the ways this happens today is when we let tradition lead us to particular interpretations of Scripture, rather than letting the text speak on its own, or by selectively choosing passages that support a traditional view, rather than surveying all relevant passages.

An example of the former is noting an apparent conflict between the use of “day”, “morning”, and “evening” in days 1-3, when the sun isn’t created until day 4. This is often solved by pointing out that whatever light God used before the sun, perhaps His shekinah glory, was localized so that it performed a similar function. This certainly solves the problem, but is a complete fabrication — Scripture says nothing of those details. Adding to Scripture in this way in order to support a pre-existing (ie, traditional) view is eisegesis.

An example of the latter is the ubiquitous use of Exodus 20:11 to show how Scripture interprets Genesis 1 literally. However, this use generally ignores the different Hebrew word used for “rest”. Even more amazingly, a similar but different passage, Exodus 31:17, is virtually never referenced. The latter passage, because it describes God as being “refreshed” from His rest, points to a figurative interpretation of Genesis 1. Virtually all young-earth commentators choose to simply ignore this passage, or at best, ignore the differences. However, there are only two verses in all of Scripture that so directly comment on this issue, and they are not the same. Choosing to use only one to support one’s point is an excellent example of proof-texting.

These are just a couple of many such examples of the way traditional views are read into the text, rather than letting the text speak. These errors are subtle, because they do not directly contradict Scripture, so to anyone starting with the traditional view, they seem like very reasonable “clarifications”.

On their own, such mistakes are unlikely to get people excited, but when fueled by the popularity and emotional investment of an entrenched tradition, the energy level of debate rises significantly. Thus, it is the tidal force of tradition that drives the debate today, not just a focused debate of ideas. The conflict is not between science and faith, but between science and tradition.

The unfortunate thing is that the debate itself is damaging to the faith. Satan loves the debate, for it takes our eyes off of Jesus. Satan doesn’t care whether we believe in a young or old earth, but as long as we’re talking about something other than the Savior, as long as the debate is the first thing that comes to mind when Christianity is mentioned, instead of the Gospel, then Satan wins.

So unfortunately, the current zeal for tradition is destructive, just like Paul’s.

I believe the answer to this is to adopt the heart of the Bereans in Acts 17:11. They received information, but lined it up against Scripture before accepting it. Neither tradition nor science is the ultimate source of truth, but both can raise questions. Rather than trying to answer such questions based on existing understanding, we should seek the Lord’s guidance anew, and examine the Scriptures regularly with a humble heart. We need to be willing to listen to Him, and approach the Word with the mind of Christ rather than with the natural mind.

This entry was posted in Essay and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to The Power Behind Creationism is Tradition, Not Truth

  1. Christian Schmemann says:

    Ironically, the ‘tradition’ of literal interpretation that you cite is not and never has been part of Apostolic Tradition, was never taught in any of the Ecumenical Councils, and was not known to the Holy Fathers.

    In short, literal interpretation and ‘sola scriptura’ were ersatz inventions of the Protestants of the 16th century. There is no Christian problem with Evolution; there is only a Protestant problem with Evolution.

    Given how many Evangelical Protestants refuse to budge at all on the issue of Evolution, I predict that the 21st century will see the absolute collapse of Protestantism on a global scale, leaving only the Catholic and Orthodox Churches remaining.

  2. jim0211 says:

    Good point, Christian. I’m not that knowledgeable about specifics of ancient beliefs, but your observations would make the typical creationism argument even flimsier. However, my point wasn’t whether they were correctly referencing ancient beliefs, but simply that the strong appeal to such references was in itself misguided.

    I think a real threat from science is not things like evolution, but the type of “sola scriptura” belief that removes the value of one’s relationship with God. It’s as if natural analysis works so well in science, we should expect it to lead us into all truth, including Scriptural. No Spirit needed.

  3. bruce r bloomberg says:

    Mathematics is real, but not physical. It works every time and is always consistent, e, g, two times four is always eight, (as far as I know). It is conceptual. It literally is, but again, it is not physical. That being said, this article is ‘refreshing’, and speaks of a more honest exegetical methodology, bravo. I beg to differ with Christian in that the ideas of Aristotle were imbedded into mainstream catholic doctrine long before the reformation, because in the absence of scientific knowledge to the contrary, they fit rather nicely. Geocentrism is the child of Greek and Hebrew thinking and is the father of any thought that the Bible is talking about ‘the creation of molecular reality’, or various like-minded themes that sooo much of mainstream Christianity is caught up in, to their great hurt. Is the idea of truth, that the truth comes out in the end, literal ? Is that idea real ? Does it literally exist ? Upon this notion hinges belief. And the satan really does have contemporary Christians chasing their own tails with smiley-faced characters like Ken Ham leading the way. We need a different literal sense, other than physical,(at least for now), in which to understand scripture, i.e. knowledge of the physical is the bottom rung of the understanding ladder and the Bible is the highest rung we can see, (there are more), and there are a lot of rungs in between.

    • jim0211 says:

      Great comparison, Bruce. Mathematics nicely illustrates the difference between literal and physical. Like saying that something is literally true in a spiritual sense, but not physical. Perhaps it depends on which we consider to be of primary importance. Are we walking by faith, or by sight?

  4. Michael Snow says:

    Yes, as already noted, the YECs are not following tradition (see the link to Augustine at the end) and they are not even following their own rule of interpreting the Bible. They seem to have deleted the very first two verses.

    • jim0211 says:

      Michael, you point out another great example of a place where tradition reads something into the Scripture (a specific amount of time) that simply isn’t there.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s