25 March 2014

Hermeneutical difficulties with a 6-day (young) creation

From a hermeneutic perspective, I don't entirely get why Christians would need to believe in a 6-day creation with the world being only 10,000 years old. I mean, why can't one take the Bible seriously while also believing that God used the evolution process to bring the creation into being? Genesis 1 emphasizes, through using God's name 32 times in 30 verses, often followed by an action verb, that God did it. As for the how, that's less clear: a truly literal interpretation is problematic. After all, how many people believe the world is flat, an obvious literal conclusion of there being waters belows and above, just one of the challenges you're faced with in order to take it literally?

The Bible talks a lot about us being created, but that doesn't require a world creation in 6 days  10,000 years ago. Psalm 139 talks about us being formed in our mother's womb. We don't usually talk about God physically shaping a baby in a womb (like putting a hand out or something), and we know about a lot of the scicence of procreation. At the same time, understanding the science behind it does not make God any less active in the wonder of a birth of a child or in our being fearfully and wonderfully made. So why can't we apply that to creation? Why can't we, knowing more the science of how the world was brought into being, see God as being less active in the process of the world coming to being?

I wanted to articulate some of the things about creation that I've been thinking about lately, as it's important for me to have them more clear in my own head because of the ministry I'm going into (ministry to grad students at a research university heavily focused on science). Yet, I still hold to the question of my last post: don't we as Christians have more important things to get excited about? Perhaps it's also time that I start sharing more about things I think we should get excited about.

No comments: