What about those creation stories?

While a junior at the Christian liberal arts university I attended in the late 80's, a guest speaker came to campus for a series of meetings.  He was a well-known pastor from a large church in the area.  Among other things he came to argue for the inerrancy of the Bible, meaning it is wholly reliable in everything it speaks of, including (and especially) it's creation account.

I listened to his presentations with dissatisfaction, but decided not to ask a question of him publicly.  Instead, I waited until after his presentation for a chance to talk with him.  I asked him, "What do you do with the two different creation stories in Genesis?"

"What do you mean?" he asked.

"Well, there are two different stories about the Creation.  One in Genesis 1, and a different account in Genesis 2-3.  And unfortunately, the order of things created doesn't match up in both of these stories."

The guest pastor seemed surprised to hear this, and asked me to show him what I was referring to.

"Look here in the first chapter, starting at verse 20 it describes how on the 5th day God created all the birds of the air, then on the 6th day he creates all the land animals, and THEN he creates humankind (both male and female) as the final pinnacle of his creation.

"In the separate account in Genesis 2-3, God creates Adam, then creates all the animals to try to find a companion for him, then creates Eve."

I looked at him with a questioning look and asked him simply, "So when was Adam created?  Was it before all the animals or after all the animals?"  

I don't remember exactly how the guest pastor responded, but I remember the basic sense of his answer was that I was misunderstanding the text and I didn't have enough faith.  Misunderstanding the text?  I don't think so.  It is really quite plain in older translations (I noticed that the new NIV has created a fix by saying in Genesis 2 "now the Lord HAD created the animals" - a tense of the verb that is missing in older translations and appears to be a way to massage away this discrepancy.)

If indeed the entire Christian faith is based upon the absolute, perfect inerrancy of the scriptures, meaning there is absolutely no contradictions or discrepancies or things that are not literally true - then it appears that one needs to read no further than the 2nd chapter of the Bible.  If such a foundation is indeed the basic building block of the Christian faith, then Christianity should be rejected on the first day of a yearly Bible reading plan.

I've had multiple conversations with Christians about this over the years since then, and have heard all sorts of convoluted explanations why the clear discrepancy of the order of creation events is not really a discrepancy.  It is really painful to listen to.  Just read the text and chart out the events in order.

I try to tell people that it is not a "higher" view of scripture to call it inerrant, because it requires a person to judge the contents of the scriptures before actually reading them.  I encourage them that it is actually much more honoring to God and to the human authors of scripture to actually read the words that are there and form our beliefs about those words based upon what we read.  Let us create our statements about what the Bible is and how it works in the life of the Christian AFTER (not before) we actually read it through.

The good news is the inerrancy of the scriptures is NOT the foundation of the Christian faith.  The work, example, death, resurrection, and teaching of Jesus of Nazareth is the only proper foundation for the Christian faith.  "On Christ, the Solid Rock, I stand. All other ground is sinking sand."

The house of cards of Biblical inerrancy

I run into people all the time within evangelicalism who basically subscribe to this belief about the Bible:

"God inspired humans to write down exactly what God wanted them to write.  Therefore everything in the Bible, from Genesis to the Revelation, is God-breathed.  Since God is perfect, what he does is perfect, so the Bible is without error in everything it speaks of."

Although not a technical definition, this is the basic idea that is meant by the term "Biblical inerrancy".  This foundational belief leads to the next one:

"Good Christians believe everything the Bible says and never doubt it, regardless of what modern scholarship and science discovers. If there is a discrepancy between something in modern scholarship or science and the words of the Bible, good Christians will always hold to the Bible teaching and reject or doubt the modern discoveries."

Good, faithful people are taught that there are no discrepancies or contradictions in the scripture.  Or, if there are things that seem like contradictions, there is a way to "harmonize" the divergent facts and still hold to the doctrine of inerrancy.

Although this seems like a very "high" view of scripture, and very worshipful and faithful, there is an underlying problem that such a view of scripture sets up.  With such a view of the Bible, IF an error is found, the entire Bible is cast under suspicion.  "If there is an error there...how can I be sure that there aren't errors in other places as well?  And if God didn't write the Bible perfectly, then how can I trust that I can follow it's teachings to find eternal life? How can I tell where it is true and where it is in error?"

Thus, under the idea of Biblical inerrancy, a single discrepancy or contradiction or error found in the Biblical texts can actual derail a person's entire faith in Jesus, and make their version of Christianity fall to pieces like a house of cards.

Likewise, people on the outside of Christianity looking in feel that they could NEVER become a Christian, because they would have to accept the Bible as inerrant, a position which is intellectually impossible for them to accept.

As a pastor, I want to help my people to a more secure foundation for their faith.  As a father, I want to lead my wife and children to a more secure foundation for their faith.  I do not want them to feel that they either have to believe in modern scholarship and science OR the Bible.  I want to help people develop ideas about the Bible that actually work in our modern age for people inside and outside the Christian faith.

But it is a risky thing to even speak of what the next posts will discuss - glaring problems with the doctrine of inerrancy, starting with the 2nd chapter of the Bible.

Why this blog?

Here's a newsflash.  My name is not Chris.  My last name is not Christianity.

I am an American Christian man.  I have worked as a pastor for over 20 years, picking up a bachelor degree at a Christian liberal arts university and a Master in Theology at a seminary along the way.

But I am not the person I was when I started down this path toward career Christian leadership.  Although once comfortable with the term "evangelical" to describe myself, I find myself aligning less and less with the beliefs and practices of evangelical Christianity.

I am a firm believer in Jesus Christ as the Messiah, the Son of God.  I affirm the Apostle's Creed. But I cannot accept much of what is required of "evangelical Christians" to believe and do.

My hope in writing this blog is to give me a place to safely and honestly share my theological wonderings and wanderings.  I hope it may become a place where others who are walking a similar spiritual path as myself may find encouragement and the courage to follow our convictions.

If you're reading this, welcome.  And may God's grace be with you.