You are no doubt aware of the debate that has been going back and forth between Al Mohler and the Biologos foundation. Al Mohler’s latest can be found here. The most recent response from Karl Giberson of the Biologos Foundation can be found here. My purpose here is not to solve the debate because there is no resolution. Both parties are talking past each other. Giberson is a scientist, not a theologian or biblical scholar (though, in fairness, Biologos has several well known biblical scholars who contribute to the conversation there). Mohler is a theologian with a particular understanding of how to read the Bible. I’m not even sure that the debate makes sense. Dr. Mohler is obviously not going to change Giberson’s mind and Biologos is never going to convince Mohler that one ought to consult the ancient near eastern evidence when one reads the Bible.
Ultimately, I think Joseph Kelly is right when he says that this debate is really about worldview. But, I think that we can narrow things down a bit more. Certainly worldview plays a huge part in this debate, but I think that a more specific issue is also at play. I’ve mentioned genre and its importance in biblical interpretation several times recently. This, I’m afraid, is another example. Mohler understands Genesis 1 as an historical narrative. I’m not certain why he sees it as such. I had a discussion with someone who agrees with Mohler recently, and his reasoning for Genesis 1 being understood as historical narrative is that such an understanding was “the plain meaning” of the text. This kind of thinking has obvious problems (e.g., “the plain meaning of the text” presupposes an understanding of genre, thereby determining how the plain meaning is arrived at. Plain meaning in poetry is quite different from plain meaning in a royal annul, which is quite different from plain meaning in a law code, etc, etc). I would assume that Mohler has more robust reasons, but I am not aware of them.
So, Mohler understands Genesis 1 as some kind of historical narrative, because of this he believes that Genesis 1 is supposed to convey a more or less literal “this is the way it happened,” view of creation. But Bible scholars, some of them quite conservative, have proposed a wide variety of ways to understand Genesis 1. For instance, some think it is a liturgical hymn. Others think that it is a functional chiasm, the first several days creating abstract things and the later days creating the concrete containers (cf., Kline, Kingdom Prologue). Still others see Genesis 1 as speaking of the world not in literal terms, but in temple imagery (e.g., John Walton). I say all of this to say that I believe that Mohler, in making his understanding of Genesis 1 a requirement for being a Christian, has in fact made his understanding of the genre of Genesis 1 a requirement for being a Christian. As far as I am aware, the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy is entirely compatible with any of the views I mention above. That makes Mohler a conservative among conservatives.
It is probably obvious that I find some very large flaws in Mohler’s interpretation of the Bible. I think he has failed to take into account a plethora of cognate literature. Most disappointingly, I have not–as of yet–seen him discuss the ancient near eastern literature that has a bearing on Genesis 1. Even more disappointingly, I have not seen him discuss his own understanding of why Genesis 1′s genre ought to be understood as a literal narrative explaining creation in detail as opposed to a polemic against other nations’ understanding of creation, or as opposed to temple imagery, or as opposed to any other number of options.
I’ll be dealing with Genesis 1 and genre again in the next few days, this time with reference to Proverbs 8. Stay tuned.
Calvin,
I think you do well to accentuate that this is an unresolvable debate, at least with the information we currently have. But I have two thoughts I’d like to explore.
Firstly, I don’t think that Mohler is specifically saying that you must hold a literal six day view of creation to be considered orthodox, but that you affirm a historical Adam. It seems the more pertinent passages to support this are Romans 5:12-21 and 1 Cor. 15:42-49. I think Walton and Kline would likely affirm such a view as well. Mohler simply cannot see how evolution informs biblical interpretation in such a way that allows one to hold orthodox Christian belief. I don’t think he’s as uncomfortable with alternate interpretations of the creation account as he is with Christianity absorbing evolutionary theory without seriously addressing the impact it has on the whole of Christian theology, not just creation. Unfortunately for some (and Mohler might very likely be in this camp), a move towards a less literal interpretation of Genesis 1 is viewed as a step towards buying into evolution wholly. But, I’d like to see more Christian-evolutionists address this issue outside of just the Genesis account. Tim Keller’s white paper is the only significant treatment I’ve read so far.
Secondly, the backbone of the literal six-day argument, as it has been explained to me, is the frequent use of waw consecutive imperfects. It’s difficult for me to accept the creation account as a liturgical hymn when it’s not very hymn-like. Certainly, I think the temple-imagery is there, and I think the chiasm is fundamental to the understanding of the passage, but the fact that it is highly structured does not discount the fact that it is genre is obviously narrative. I worry that, in their attempts to conform their understanding of the text to current understandings of science, people do some significant interpretive gymnastics to make it fit, and go beyond the text so they feel more comfortable with it. They seem to let their worldview impose on the text, determining what they want to think, and then molding their interpretation of the text around that. I don’t currently hold a strict six-day view, but that doesn’t require me to deny that the creation account seems to be written as narrative, or propose a genre that is semi-prose, semi-poetic so that my interpretation seems more plausible when it is not demanded by the text.
Benjamin – Thanks for the comment! Regarding your first thought, I would agree that the historical Adam is vitally important to Mohler. I myself am not entirely settled on the issue, though at present I would put myself in the camp that says Adam was a real person. After rereading several of Mohler’s recent blog posts and articles (more than the single one I linked to in my post) I still think that his issue is really more than simply an historical Adam. I believe he is concerned that any non-literal interpretation of Genesis 1 “opens the doors” to liberal thought. Indeed, Walton (whom you mention), Longman and others have contributed to the BioLogos Forum, which Mohler appears to see as a heretic organization.
As for wayyiqtol forms (waw consecutive imperfects) in Genesis 1…that is an argument against it being a liturgical hymn (though there are hymns that make use of the wayyiqtol form, cf., Hab 3). However, there are many other options for the genre of Genesis 1. Just because Genesis 1 can be seen as prose, does not mean that it must be understood as historical narrative. I think that temple cosmology, a poetic (as in the science of literature, not as in poem) description of abstract followed by concrete, or several other options are real possibilities. Especially when one takes into account other ancient near eastern literature.
On another note, I agree that some people certainly do interpretive gymnastics to make things fit, both in Genesis 1 (on both sides of the debate!) as well as other passages. My real issue is that making one sides interpretive gymnastics the shibboleth for admission to the community is a problem.
Any additional thoughts?
I would second what Calvin says, and add this in response to your comment:
“I worry that, in their attempts to conform their understanding of the text to current understandings of science, people do some significant interpretive gymnastics to make it fit…”
I can’t speak for everyone, of course, and I’m sure there are some who fall into this camp, but I know that for me, it has nothing to do with fitting the text with current understandings of science and everything to do with what the text meant to the original audience. Personally, I don’t know how God actually created, and I don’t think the intent of the chapter is to tell us, scientifically, the exact steps and processes by which he created everything.
Now, if the theory of evolution were not around, would people be questioning a “literal” reading today? Perhaps, perhaps not – after all, “allegorical” readings were in vogue long before Darwin. But when scientists realized that the earth goes around the sun, that also changed the way we look at certain texts, as did the discoveries of other ancient near eastern literature.
Ultimately, for me anyway, it’s a desire to understand the text as it was meant to be understood. I think six-day literal creationists fall into that same problem which you described, as, I’m sure, do some on the other side. They have decided what the “plain meaning” is based on their own worldview, not that of the original audience.
Well, that’s one thing I like the best about being in seminary – we’re free to pursue various avenues of thought and exegesis without necessarily worrying about signing a statement of faith for a faculty position or affirming particular parts of a confession for ordination… we can save that for later. In turn, we can make better (more honest?) efforts at letting the text be the text, and try to get at the original context and intent without imposing what we feel is the “plain sense” reading. That’s what I am primarily interested in. Regardless of Dr. Mohler’s views, or anyone else for that matter, on who is in and who is out – I don’t know where this whole debate is headed, but I don’t doubt it’ll be a rough ride.
I’d think this somewhat informs your earlier post on tenure, publishing, etc. Some people have become so convinced of a particular view, either through extensive study or devotion to one tradition or another, that they cannot consider an opposing viewpoint to posses any merit *at all* – and, thus, those that hold such viewpoints must be intellectually, morally, or spiritually deficient. Now, I fully think that the purpose of an open mind is to close on something. We can’t hold a “maybe this, maybe that” view on everything forever… but we ought to be able to at least consider an alternate viewpoint, even if just so we don’t make a caricature of it in our rebuttal to it.
To that end, I would like to hear more people dealing directly with the text, as well as ANE comparisons. I think a strong case can be made for the Biblical creation account being a polemic against ANE cosmogonies. And I’d like to hear more about various proposals for form/genre, particularly in comparison to other OT passages. But rarely do I read someone who stays completely within the bounds of analyzing the text. It usually diverges into extra-biblical realms within a few paragraphs.
Benjamin, a rough ride indeed–as it is already proving to be for a number of people.
I wouldn’t say that it informs my opinion on tenure directly. It may indirectly inform it in as much as tenure has become a kind of icon for the academic world. But perhaps I’m misunderstanding what you’re saying.
I also agree that, in the end, I want to hear people dealing with the text. I’d agree that a strong case can be made for Genesis 1 being a polemic against other ANE accounts. I think one of the reasons people are quick to pull in extra-biblical literature is that we have very little in the Bible that is similar to Genesis 1 in terms of both genre and content. The ANE material probably provides the closest parallels. However, there are certainly some passages (Proverbs 8, for instance) that cover the same content (i.e., creation) even if in a different genre. There are a couple posts on Genesis 1 and Proverbs 8 in the pipeline, so I’d be interested to have you chime in on those as well.