It’s funny how our attitudes about certain things change over time. You know that slightly uncomfortable feeling you get when you look back at your old photos from high school? Pegged jeans, high tops, shelved hair? Doesn’t look so cool anymore, does it? How could something so cool then look so ridiculous now? What has changed? You? Maybe a little, Maybe you’re a little thinner up top and thicker around the middle. But I’d bet when it comes down it, you probably haven’t changed much. Has the world changed? Maybe a bit on the surface, but once again, at its core, it’s pretty much the same. So why do I look like such an idiot with these parachute pants on today? Maybe it just my perception that has changed. My eyes capture images of my surroundings and feed those images to my brain. My brain then convinces me how cool I look when I blend in to those images I’m seeing. Take me out of that world and place me into another one where I perceive something different and I don’t look so cool anymore. The same is true with entertainment. Not too long ago, I got a little excited when I saw that the complete series one of my all time favorite shows was on now on Netflix. That’s right. I’m talking about one of the greatest TV shows of all times. MacGyver. As a kid, I loved that show. Come on, admit it, you did too. Give him some duct tape, a ball point pen, a stick of gum, and maybe some old chemicals lying around your garage and he couldn’t be beat. Genius! So with great joy I jumped into the pilot episode. It was horrible. Bad acting. Ridiculous story. Laughable special effects. Will it alter my idolatry for MacGyver? Not if I can help it. I’m afraid to watch another episode in fear that he may lose some of his awesomeness. So what does this have to do with creationism? Hang on, I’ll get there. Bear with me. Why are skinny leather ties not cool? Why is MacGyver (though still awesome) now cheesy? The ties haven’t changed. Still stiff and hard to tie. The show hasn’t changed. Still in its original format. But the backdrop I’m placing them into has changed, and they don’t fit. They are out of place. I’ve experienced more, seen more, hopefully learned more, and now I see things differently. Unless I immerse myself back into the world of MacGyver and Saved by the Bell, those styles and images will never be quite as right as I thought they were. The point? I would liken the push for Young Earth Creationism as sort of an Uncle Rico in Napoleon Dynamite. It might have made sense a while ago, but not in the context of the current state of knowledge we live in. Like someone living in the 80’s, it is disconnected. Either the brain is not picking up on proper images of the world it belongs in (bad Science?), or it just doesn’t care (bad Theology?). Either way, it is disconnected.
So the question I have is should we read Scripture in light of how we perceive the world today? Some say that we can’t and shouldn’t because our perceptions are constantly changing. How can we trust the words of fallible humans over the spoken truth of an infallible God? Admonishments such as, “It is time to stop compromising the clear words of God’s inspired Word and start trusting fully in what He said He did” sound great but does it make sense in the context of the creation wars? Science has had a history of faultiness, but does that mean it can’t be trusted at all?
The problem I’ve grown into is that it’s just not that simple. How can I ignore the reality I live in for something that seems so ancient? Is it even possible? I’m yet to meet a Christian that takes all of Scripture at face value (though I hear a few that claim to). Ever stone your children for disobedience? Women, have you ever spoken in church? If so, was your head covered? Silly, off target examples I know, but we all read scripture in context, as we should. We also all read scripture with glasses on, which is not necessarily bad, but should be recognized. The same is true of Genesis and the other creation stories mentioned in the Bible. Though there are few today that believe the earth is flat, that is the picture we get from Scripture (Psalm 24:2, Dan 4:7-8, Matt. 4:8, Gen 11:4). I don’t know of anyone who subscribes to the ancient idea that the sky consists of a dome holding an expanse of water held up by solid pillars, though that is the picture we get Scripture (Job 38:22, Psalm 104:3, 13, Gen 1:6-7, etc.) How about geocentricism? Should we hold to that? See Joshua 10:12-13, Hab. 3:11, I Chron. 16:30, Psalm 93:1, and Job 9:6, among others. It’s one thing to describe the sun rising and setting as we still do today. It is another to actually believe it, as ancient civilizations did. The cosmic view proposed in Scripture is consistent with the cosmology of the day as witnessed by other ancient texts. It was written within a certain framework. So when it’s obvious that we can dismiss the descriptions of a solid firmament held by great pillars or a flat earth located in the center of the cosmos in light of our current understanding, how can we show consistency in our understanding of cosmos as revealed to us by God in His Word? How is it rationally possible to believe that flat-earthers are somehow “detached” from reality and at the same time dismiss those who trust that the earth is very old as “compromisers”? I cannot answer that within framework of young earth creationism. It seems to me that the testimony is inconsistent. By telling people to reject science and listen to God’s word, all the while reframing some aspects of Scripture in light of science hints of hypocrisy. As it is, Christians are often accused of picking and choosing the Scriptures they choose to follow. This is just one more example and potentially a poor testimony to those outside the church.
I am no longer a young earth creationist because I cannot read ancient literature in the framework of a modern cosmos and convince myself that I am consistent in my interpretation. It would be like watching Macgyver today and convincing myself that it is well scripted drama or better yet, squeezing my butt into some skinny jeans and telling myself that I look good. It’s just not right. Compile that with the lack of scientific integrity I see coming out of some young earth publications, and you have me well on my way out the door. Those reasons though could be argued to be insufficient in themselves if God really did mean for us moderns to believe that the earth was created in six 24 hour days. Of course I don’t think that’s the case, but I’ll save that for part 3.
No comments:
Post a Comment