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.