Genesis or Geology

I agree with the essence of Fred Sanders’ piece, A New Type of Christianity is Coming, Is Here over at the Scriptorium. His basic assertion is that “a new type of Christianity” is taking shape around us, morphing to fit our changing world.

Everything changes, and everything has to be left wide open to new developments. Just because Christianity has a Bible and creeds doesn’t mean it’s impervious to taking on exciting new forms, even forms that make us re-think what Bible and creed even mean.

Sanders lists three characteristics of this New Type of Christianity:

1. Scientific: New Type is open to all truth, wherever it may be found.
2. Ethical: New Type affirms the central doctrines of the faith, but has a different criterion for what counts as central.
3. Social and Altruistic: New Type is all about action, service, and helping people.

The article seems spot on in highlighting these ideological shifts, especially in relation to the Emergent Church and the rise of the Religious Left… that is until the author notes that his essay was taken, almost verbatim, from an editorial piece in The Biblical World, circa 1910. The fact that our religious ancestors were noodling over cultural adaptation and “biblical versatility” a hundred years ago, sheds light on current religious trends.

Christianity has always taken on “exciting new forms” to fit the needs of culture, so this shouldn’t be anything new. Of course, sometimes those forms instigated controversy and acquired zealous opposition. The New Testament is largely a re-interpretation of Scripture in light of the messianic coming. For instance, six times in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5-7) Jesus used the phrase, It has been said, but I say unto you. In other words, a new locus of authority was established in Christ. Everything that was said and done B.C. must be viewed through another lens. Many people had difficulty seeing their creeds and traditions interpreted in this new light. The Judaizers of the first century were one such group who constantly resisted such changes and fought to shoehorn Old Testament laws into New Testament practices.

Today’s New Type of Christianity fights a similar battle; this one, however, compromises its own theological foundations. The danger of contemporary “religious morphology” is its potential downgrading of biblical inerrancy, its willingness to “re-think what Bible and creed even mean.”

Notice how Sanders summarizes point one, under Scientific:

New Type is open to all truth, wherever it may be found. Paul said “Whatsoever is true,” and that’s what New Type clings to. We may be in for some terrible shaking of our foundations in the coming years: we need to be the generation that is brave and impartial enough to admit that if the Bible doesn’t seem to agree with the best science and history, it’s the Bible that’s wrong. The inerrancy thing, in particular, is finally over, and not a century too soon. (emphasis mine)

This point, however tongue-in-cheek, echoes the 1910 editorial, which was assuredly not tongue-in-cheek:

If there be a controversy between Genesis and Geology, the new Christianity will stand with Geology. The record left in the strata of the earth cannot be impugned by a poet of the prescientific age, even though that poet be also a prophet of a higher conception of God than had before his day prevailed. In conformity to the same principle the new Christianity will accept the assured results of historical investigation into the records of ancient times. Religion has its rights, but so also has history… (emphasis mine)

For the believer, this idea of Religion yielding to Science is rife with dilemma. Of course, Christians are regularly impugned for their (apparent) disregard for scientific method.  But just because miracles aren’t testable, does not mean they’re not possible. Besides, as much as this writer/believer reverences both Science and Religion, I have yet to find convincing ways that Science contradicts and disproves Christianity. In fact, the historical method has been used far more to validate biblical tales than debunk them.

However, a deeper, more  disturbing problem occurs when one pits Genesis against Geology. If Geologists only have authority in the realm of history, and Prophets only have authority in the realm of metaphysics, doesn’t that create a permanent animosity between the two? So prophets can never speak with authority about evolution and geologists can never speak with authority about God. But if, as Scripture teaches, the spiritual world has preeminence over the physical world, then the concession to bow down to the Scientist in “earthly” matters can have grave consequences (spiritually speaking), especially when our Holy Book unfolds upon a very physical earth. Furthermore, if Geology overrules Genesis, then the Bible’s claim to be the Word of God is seriously up for grabs. I mean, how divine can the Bible be if it can’t get the nature of the universe right? All that to say, the moment that the Christian Church — whether in the name of cultural adaptation or liberty — begins to compromise biblical authority, it’s in deep sh*t. From there on, anything — any doctrine or creed or story — is fair game for revisionists.

It’s obvious this New Type of Christianity is itself old. It goes all the way back to the Garden and the serpent who whispered, “Yea, hath God said…?”