Opening the Door for Doubt
Acknowledging interpretive room does not erode trust; blind dogmatism does.
August, 2022
Our ministry often fields questions about how to grapple with "experts" who seem at odds with the Bible. On one hand, empirical evidence and experience seem to greatly support Scripture's views. Yet similarly qualified voices may conflict with narrow interpretations. The most infamous such issue is the age of the earth. For a layman, assessing geological evidence directly is almost impossible. Judging the quality of interpretations is not much easier. Unfortunately, many passionate Christians fail to make a crucial distinction in those conversations. That opens faith to attack in completely unnecessary ways.
Students often ask about how to handle such discussions. Science classes at the secondary or collegiate level can be diametrically opposed to some vocal Christians on issues like the age of earth. It's those very students who often approach us looking for help in how to navigate that conflict. In such cases, we work to remind fellow believers that God has made the most important truths clear, so those are the ones on which we should insist. On other matters, He has not chosen to be so specific, so we shouldn't be dogmatic. Importantly, that means we have no reason to allow attacks on secondary issues—or unimportant ideas—to weaken our faith.
Before we even tackle certain issues, we need to know how to best address them. In some cases, we should expect exact answers—when those don't arise, we have good reason to be confused or frustrated. In other situations, we need to accept a level of uncertainty. When those questions return a range of options, or more than one possible explanation, we're merely getting confirmation that the idea is not clear.
Among the more frustrating mistakes people make regards certainty. On things which should be extremely clear, human beings like to express doubt. On vague issues, we tend to zero in on narrow ideas and refuse to consider others. In matters of faith, the first mistake is not common. Most believers agree about the truly fundamental aspects of God's truth. Where we often fail is on the second part: being overly confident when God has not given us reason to be.
The apostle Paul warns against arguing over doubtful issues (Romans 14:1). Various translations use phrases like "opinions" or "disputed matters." That means there will be issues on which sincere Christians may disagree. If every single aspect of faith was meant to be crystal clear, this advice from Paul would not have been given. Instead, we'd only have his advice on cornerstone ideas, where there is no reasonable disagreement (Galatians 1:8; 1 Timothy 1:3–7).
Consider the difference between the age of the earth versus the means of salvation. The entire Bible offers just two chapters where God's process of creation is mentioned—and the second is a thematic repeat of what's recorded in the first. At no time after those chapters does the Bible give an explicit, unambiguous mention of "how" or "for how long" God created. In contrast, the Bible repeatedly and explicitly connects eternal salvation to faith—in book after book, chapter after chapter, and verse after verse.
It stands to reason, then, that God finds it extremely important that we know how to be saved, and not especially important that we know exactly how long He spent creating the world. That does not mean there is no correct answer to these debates over the age of earth. Someone is right, and someone is wrong. But it's clearly not a topic God felt the need to clarify. As a result, it's possible to harmonize many different interpretations of Genesis chapter 1 with cornerstones of faith such as salvation.
Consider, also, that God's message is meant for all of mankind. Scripture explicitly mentions that submissive faith—not intellect—is what ultimately determines our eternal destiny (Luke 18:17; 1 Corinthians 1:27; John 5:39–40). The number of people on earth with sufficient education, experience, data, and mental horsepower to reasonably debate the age of the earth is relatively small. That does not mean reasonable people cannot come to reasonable conclusions; it means that is not something we must know in order to know God. The beginning of faith comes from universally obvious truths (Romans 1:18–20) and proceeds with sincere, humble seeking (Matthew 6:7–8). It does not come only when a person gains enough scientific knowledge.
The core message of Genesis 1 is accessible to all people; the meaning which matters is very clear: God is the Creator, and humanity is responsible for our fallen condition. The exact details of how God created impact other beliefs and other interpretations. It's not that the question is entirely irrelevant. But it's not a deal-breaker for faith, or fellowship, or grounds for accusations of heresy. Truth is truth, and all truth matters…but some truths are more useful than others.
With respect to different Christian one might be reading and hearing on this issue, many of them are doing more harm than good. Those who pick a single, hyper-specific interpretation of Genesis chapter 1 and attempt to debunk or define faith on that basis alone are being foolish. Those debates ultimately lead to much wasted time and wasted energy, over something that never convinces anyone and ultimately makes little difference. Worse, it feeds the lie that any evidence against their interpretation is evidence against the faith itself.
It's important to believe the Genesis account "by faith." On that, we have no choice. Even those who reject the account entirely must do so "by faith," since they have no hard, absolute evidence against it. But that faith is not blind: it means accepting that anything true in science and anything we accurately understand about Scripture indisputably match. At the same time, it means trusting God over the nuances we can't fully understand (Hebrews 11:13–16; 1 Corinthians 13:12).
The most any science class could ever do is support or refute certain interpretations of Genesis. Evidence and arguments might tip the scales for a certain view over others. Those alternate ideas should not—cannot, rationally—lead to doubts about the veracity of a passage that allows so much room for interpretation.
-- Editor
