Is the Genesis Account of Creation Meant to be Understood Literally?

I just read The Language of God by Francis Collins. He is a physician and one of the world's leading scientists who headed the Human Genome Project and currently serves as the director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). He is also a self-confessing Christian. In this book he argues that belief in Christianity is compatible with science, and evolution in particular. He endorses a view he calls theistic evolution, in which God-who exists outside of time and space-through the process of evolution over an extremely long period of time brought man forth and endowed him with a spiritual nature, which sets him apart from the rest of living things. He arrived at this conclusion based on the accepted understanding of geology, the fossil record, and molecular biology; his findings in the painstaking process of mapping the entire human genome; and the existence of a universal Moral Law and search for God, as well as his own personal spiritual experience and study of the Bible.

Collins, like myself, rejects a young Earth model that insists that the Earth is just several thousands of years old. A younger version of myself would have dismissed this view. I would have argued that interpreting any text of Scripture differently than it has traditionally been done would be evidence of a weak or compromised faith. Even though the Bible is full of all literary genres, I would have believed that reading the creation section of Genesis as anything other than a literal, step-by-step account would lead to a slippery slope, subjecting all of Scripture to a liberal, tainted perspective that would erode it's integrity. 

Thankfully, my perspective has changed, and I have not lost belief in the truthfulness or reliability of God's Word. My faith is no less sincere or orthodox. There are reasons why Collins' views are justifiable and are not heretical. Perhaps more importantly, there are also reasons why Christians can disagree on such matters and still maintain genuine respect and fellowship with one another.

Collins believes that the creation account in Genesis is not meant to be read as a literal, scientific treatise. It is reasonable to assert that some of the words in Genesis are not meant to be taken literally. For example, God breathed breath into man, and made man in His image. God has no physical body from which he breathes or from which an image can be imprinted. Nonetheless, clear meaning can be derived from the text in such cases. 

To Collins (and many believers), what is of special importance is the meaning of the word day in the creation story. The exact meaning of the word has been understood differently among genuine believers from the beginning of Christianity (Augustine, for example, sees no reason to be compelled to read the days as literal twenty-four hour periods). Most Christians have understood the creation events to have taken place in seven sequential twenty-four hour periods. Others believe that the Genesis account is a literal depiction of the creation order, while not necessarily understanding days to mean such literal periods. Others read the account as a more allegorical revelation of God's character and role as creator. The most compelling reason, to me, to not require such rigidity of belief in this particular matter is the inescapable fact that in the first chapter of Genesis, God did not create the sun and moon until the fourth day. With no sun to clearly distinguish one calendar day from another, how can we say for certain that at least the first three days of creation were literal days? We must leave room for valid understandings that may differ from our own in this case without labeling others as heretics or of an inferior or less sincere faith. 

Collins' view appears to be a fusion of the second and third schools. He is a scientist and a believer, and he rightly feels that those positions are not at odds with one another. Most fields of science-paleontology, biology, physics, cosmology, for example-make the acceptance of a young Earth difficult to hold. His studies of the human genome also provide very compelling evidence that humans have been around for much more than a few thousand years. Like myself, Collins does not believe that God is in the business of deceiving us by making the world appear to be older than it is. Nothing in Scripture supports this idea of God acting in such a deceitful way.  Additionally, belief in the inerrancy of Scripture does not require all texts to be read literally. Therefore, it is valid for a Christian to hold to an understanding of the days in Genesis to be read figuratively without compromising faith or falling onto a slippery slope of unfaithful interpretation in the face of difficulty (accounts such as the Gospels, on the other hand, are clearly meant to be read as historical, eye-witness accounts).  

Collins also spends some time describing his embrace of theistic evolution. As a believer in a very old Earth and universe, he also holds to the view that humans have in fact come about by the process of evolution over a very long period of time. Although he makes a strong case, my orthodoxy makes me more reluctant to hold to such a view in this area. However, I do not believe his faith is inferior or less genuine because of this. As a very brief view, he describes theistic evolution as follows: God made everything with the Earth in particular being fine-tuned for life. By an unknown mechanism, God gave rise to organic life, and natural selection and evolution led to a great diversity of life on Earth. Eventually, humans came to be through this process. Once humans emerged, God endowed them as uniquely intelligent, moral creatures with free will and a spiritual nature. Although unorthodox, Collins believes that this view alone is compatible with science (a gift from God) and theism without compromising either. His case is in the book is very compelling, although it is not my intention in this space to go through it in detail.

There are several critiques to this view that he addresses in the book. The most difficult one for me to wrestle with is the implications for what it means to be made in the Image of God. However, I have to agree with Collins that the principle here does not describe a physical attribute of man, but rather a special aspect of the human mind, will, and spirit. To Collins, it represents God's implantation of a soul and the Moral Law into humanity. It gives us morality, a grasp of God Himself, a view of eternity, and a nature that is able to commune with and glorify God. Although I don't disagree with his view of what it means to be made in the Image of God, I have a hard time seeing evolution as the means by which God brought man about. Even if parts of Genesis are to be understood figuratively (and accepting that God exists outside of time and space), I can't escape the reality that it does seem to teach that God had a much more active role in the creation of man. Nonetheless, I can still stand in full fellowship with Collins as a believer in God and follower of Christ. I believe that his faith and belief in God or no less valid or legitimate than my own.

I know this won't sit well with many people in the church, especially within evangelicalism. In my youth I was taught, maybe more implicitly than explicitly, that it is imperative to hold to all matters of religious belief with an unyielding rigidity. Alternative views on any matter of faith must be met with condemnation, or at least skepticism. This is harmful because it often later leads to a full rejection of faith when valid alternative views or evidence is encountered. The reality is that the Bible does not offer complete clarity in certain matters, although it does in essential matters of faith. Because of this, we can disagree and even change our minds on certain matters without compromising or watering down our own faith. To be honest, I'm not sure what the correct way to interpret Genesis is. However, I am perfectly willing to accept that there are multiple ways that it can be interpreted, all in good faith.

I think it is very important for believes to remember the words of Augustine here: "In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity/love." I do not believe the interpretation of the creation account in Genesis is a matter of first importance for Christians. We can disagree without compromising on non-negotiable matters of first importance (inerrancy of Scripture, the reality of sin, the historical death and resurrection of Christ, salvation in Christ alone, obedience to Christ, etc). God is the creator and source of all life, and the centrality of the Cross are the primary keys to Christianity. Most other matters are non-essential, and Christians can disagree in full faith. This does not mean that fellowship is broken. As Augustine reminds us, we are called to show love, grace, and understanding in those grey areas in particular. Christ tells his followers that they are to be recognized by the world by their love for one another. We dishonor Christ by not loving our brothers and sisters in the face of disagreements over non-essential matters. What makes this reality most interesting (and not the subject of this blog) is that sometimes it is difficult to agree on which matters are essentials! Even so, the call to love and charity-especially among believers-is not in dispute.

_________________________________

*Image by Andres Nassar from Pixabay.