Creation Doctrine

I recently wrote a post reflecting on BBC 3's mockumentary about Creationism, which stirred up some controversy and became (quite quickly!) one of the most commented-upon posts on my blog. The issue of creation and origins is vitally important, and frequently misunderstood. Too easily we get into the wrong discussion, engage with the wrong things, and fight the wrong battles. In this post, I want to explain a little bit about what I believe, with some fairly fundamental help from one of my favourite Reformed Theologians, Michael Horton. Horton is a great author and thinker, and my interest in his work started with the recommendation from a friend that I should read his "The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way". This flowed into more engagement with his work, and I'm a particular fan of the way that this serious systematic theologian has applied theology to the local church in books such as "The Gospel Driven Life", and "The Gospel Commission", the latter of which is an excellent book on discipleship. Anyway, on with the matter at hand.

Probably my favourite recent Systematic...

There are so many different issues to engage with on the idea of 'Creation Doctrine' that it is difficult to know where to begin! We need to consider the respective roles of religion and science, the point/author/context/meaning of Genesis, and how Christians can react to things. In this post I want to briefly look at three things; the context of Genesis, the Doctrine of Creation ex Nihilo, the relation of science and religion, and the communication of God and man.

The fundamental expression of an orthodox Christian Doctrine is found in that idea of "Creation ex Nihilo", or, Creation out of Nothing. This doctrinal idea riffs off of the opening words of the bible, Genesis 1:1, and is a bold statement. Michael Horton suggests, and I'm inclined to agree, that "The context of Genesis is God's assertion of his sovereignty as Israel's suzerain over and against the Gods of the nations". This is in contrast to the myriad of idols that populated the ancient Mediterranean religious supermarket, and is a key to understanding why Genesis is written the way it is. Indeed, as Horton goes on to say, "The biblical creation narrative is just close enough to those of Israel's pagan neighbours  to fulfil the polemical function of mocking the idols, yet is radically different in content". The truth of this idea can be seen in its continuation throughout the Old Testament: God is always over and above idols, infinitely more real and more powerful than the so-called gods of other nations. In Genesis, God is staking his claim over the entirety of creation. Horton helpfully quotes Louis Berkhof, "The Doctrine of Creation is not set forth in Scripture as a philosophical solution of the problem of the world, but in its ethical and religious significance". This too, is helpful, reminding us that Genesis is God speaking his kingship over everything, and above squabbles about interpretation. God is much bigger than we think - and Creation itself echoes that (its always expanding, is mind-bogglingly vast, and generally very interesting).

It is interesting from a theological point of view to note the way in which God creates and engages with creation. Genesis 1:1 is often seen as one of the most important verses about the Trinity, especially in the light of John's Gospel, wherein the prologue echoes the creation narrative in describing Jesus. It is helpful to note the personal nature of the God who creates, using the Logos (brilliantly explained as a concept in a guest post "Jesus the Word"). The core of the Christian Doctrine of Creation is that of the Creator God, whom the Apostles Creed calls "Maker of heaven and Earth" with not scientific judgement on how, and that God is Trinitarian. I have discussed the Trinity recently,  in a three-part mini-series beginning with "God Is". With Trinitarian theology, we can also start to engage with questions of the meaning of creation, the purpose of creation, and so on, though these are beyond the scope of this current post.

The relationship between science and religion has often not been easy. From the Galileo controversy to todays modern Creationists locked in battle with evolutionists of all stripes, and the 'scientific' underpinnings of the New Atheists, one could be forgiven for thinking that it is science vs religion. I don't think this is the case, and I'm grateful for it. We can be grateful that Horton takes the view that the two can get along, all the way to some powerful conclusions. He writes, on the idea of 'big bang', etc, "I mentioned above that the idea that our cosmos came into being at a definite point in time... is now affirmed generally by the sciences". And it goes further, because (As Horton points out at length), science and theology are not fundamentally opposed, but different forms of human endeavour  As he puts it, and this is a veiled criticism of some pseudo-science; "identifying every scientific mystery with a divine explanation - where Scripture does not provide clear evidence - transgresses the scope of religion and theology". Hortons approach is helpful in bridging the un-needed gap between religion and science, and I am grateful for his work here.

Fundamentally, though, the Genesis account (in the context of God's kingship and the provision in the text for a starting point for everything) is about how God relates to his creation, and what we can understand about him. I've mentioned before Calvin's understanding of the usage of six days as 'accommodation' to human faculties - which is a very forward thinking observation from this biblical scholar of hundreds of years ago - and this is a good starting point. Horton is very clear on the role of scripture; "Scripture reveals God's agency at the points where God considers it relevant to the unfolding plot of creation, redemption, and consummation". Understanding creation and origins means understanding God. And from Genesis we can learn a huge amount more about the character of God, than the methods he used to create everything. And in this character, in relationship with this God, we can start to move forward. We can engage with the sciences. We can measure, observe and respond to the majesty of the creator. But there is something bigger, too. I will write more about Jesus in the coming days, but a Christian understanding of creation, with an understanding of science, is complete only with hope. Secular science cannot factor in hope, or as Horton puts it, "Contemporary science tends to assume that there is no teleology of hope for creation". But the Christian story has a different response. And I will let Horton have the closing word here;

"The hope for a new creation - that is, a miraculous restoration of the cosmos at Christ's return - does not arise from empirical observations and mathematical probabilities but from God's promise in Scripture. Only in the gospel does the world's story become open to a hope that lies beyond observable data - in the new creation". 

Horton nails it. The Bible is about everything - science is about stuff. Theology is humans trying to understand what God has said - and science is a great way of engaging with some of the things God has done and made. They are not in competition, and they are different. But the story that we find ourselves in is far more interesting than a petty battle of presuppositions. The story that starts in Genesis, and is revealed in scripture whilst providing the script for everything is far more interesting. Its about a people, a promise, and a person.

And that's all I have time to write today.

________

Thanks for reading, stay tuned for posts related to the framework that Genesis lays. I'd love to get your thoughts in comment form, and of course I'm always grateful for likes, shares and retweets. Thanks again. 

_____

All quotes from: Michael Horton, "The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims On the Way", Zondervan, 2011, pp. 324-49