Answers in Genesis (AiG), a creationist organization, is doing great harm, not only in the way it devalues science education, but also in the way that counteracts its primary aim—to spread the Gospel. They claim to be “an apologetics (i.e., Christianity-defending) ministry, dedicated to enabling Christians to defend their faith and to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ effectively” (http://www.answersingenesis.org/about).
First of all, their dedication to apologetics makes them irrelevant in a culture that has questions of a deeper existential nature. When people are taught apologetics, they are taught only to answer questions—not to ask them. However, if a person is taught merely to accept answers without first understanding the question, how effective are those answers going to be? Not many people enjoy talking to people who can spout off textbook answers to any problem imaginable—it shuts down discussion and often does not deal with the real issue—but that is what Christians are taught to do. The organization even has a magazine called Answers, which implies that they do indeed have all of the answers to any problem in the universe. But really, how many questions in life have simple, pat answers? Yes, Christianity may make a claim about answers, but as a faith, it is essentially an uncertainty. That does not mean that it is wrong to accept it or to live by it, but that element of uncertainty must be accepted.
Secondly, what are those answers that the organization proposes to give? They propose that by taking every word of the Bible literally, you can know everything that you would ever need to know about life. Again, does this make sense? Not many churches today mandate that women keep their heads covered (1 Corinthians 11). Why? Because it is important to take into account the historical and cultural context of the passage. Why should Genesis be any different? Many Biblical scholars view the beginning of Genesis as poetry because it contains some of the characteristics that are typical of Hebrew poetry, such as parallelism and repetition. There are also two accounts of Creation—the Priestly account and the non-Priestly account, which focus on different aspects of Creation. If Genesis were literal history, why would these two accounts both need to be included?
The AiG website states, “By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information” (http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith). Yes, scientists, like everyone else, are fallible people, and yes, science is built upon assumptions, as is every area of life. Why should this be a problem? How would it be possible to live if certain non-provable things were not assumed? Science does not claim absolute truth. If it did, then Ham’s critiques would be valid, but it does not. It recognizes that its truth is tentative and that it is subject to further investigation. But that does not mean that it is wrong to accept the conclusions that science has drawn tentatively. Furthermore, why should all evidence be disregarded if it appears to contradict one particular reading of Scripture? There is nothing that should be blindly accepted without thought or question because blind loyalties tend to encourage a sense of “otherness,” which involves cutting off those who are outside the group. If Christianity’s goal is to spread hope and love, then constructing an “other” who is to be attacked or ignored is counteractive to that purpose.
Furthermore, why must something be literal in order to be true? Is it not possible for art and literature to express truth about human nature and about how the world works? There are many books of poetry in the Bible, and those are still considered by AiG to be the inerrant word of God, but they do not express truth literally. If Genesis is read as the Israelites’ view of human nature, of the origin of evil, and of the nature of God, then it is a very beautiful narrative. But if it is read as a history/science textbook, what is its value? How many people turn to history and science textbooks when trying to find meaning in life?
Ken Ham claims that if Genesis is not interpreted literally, then the entire rest of the Bible is false. Why? Because “Paul says in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 that Jesus came to solve the problem that started in the Garden of Eden. If Genesis 1–3 is not literal history, then Jesus died for a mythological problem and is therefore a mythological Savior offering us a mythological hope. The glorious gospel of Christ is at stake in this battle” (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2011/02/21/adam-and-orthodoxy). What is this mythological problem? It seems to be the problem of evil, the problem of sin, the problem of death, and the problem of separation from God. Are any of those problems dependent on a certain reading of a certain text? Isn’t it pretty clear that those are very real problems for everyone? And if they are not mythological problems, then why would a non-literal reading of Genesis invalidate Christ’s message?
By making ridiculous claims that Christianity can only be understood in one particular way, a way that one specific group of modern evangelicals has proposed, AiG is doing more harm to Christianity than good. They have ostracized people who desire to think critically about faith and people who agree that science is a legitimate way to pursue truth, albeit tentative. If there is any truth at all to Christ’s message, is it right to discourage those people from seeking truth in religion? Why must Christianity involve blind belief with no sense of honest questioning, doubt or self-critique?
No comments:
Post a Comment