Why I'm inclined to believe (or at least want to PURSUE) a young-earth interpretation and disinclined to believe (or pursue) an old-earth interpretation

My conversation partner a couple of weeks ago asked something like, "John: Why are you spending so much time and energy on this issue? Neither the young-earthers or the old-earthers would ever claim it is central to salvation!"

He also said, "Are you letting this kind of study take the joy out of your life?"

Reality: This area has already taken a bunch of joy out of my life. As I admitted in a previous post, it led me at least to contemplate suicide for a few minutes, and then, not wanting to do that, social suicide--"disappearing" without a trace and without notice to family or friends. That was ten years ago. On the morning of 9/11/2001, actually. A couple of hours before the planes began flying into the buildings in New York City.

No. This path I've been on has been no fun. No joy. In fact, it has carried me through an extremely long and painful "Dark Night of the Soul."

But/and that is part of the reason I've been strongly inclined to believe (or at least to want to pursue) a young-earth interpretation of Scripture: Because if I could be fully convinced that the young-earth perspective is the right one, I think I would be a lot happier. My life would be a lot easier and my thought patterns much more in line with the social group of which I have been--and want to be--a part. And, despite my comments about being raised in an evangelical home where theistic evolution was pretty much "understood" as God's method of creating, a young-earth creationist understanding would, I am convinced, be way more in line with the overall tenor of how I was raised, how I have been taught, and where my heart wants to go with respect to biblical hermeneutics and, really, my entire bibliology.

******
Dr. Harold Ockenga wrote in the original Foreword to Dr. Harold Lindsell's 1976 book, The Battle for the Bible:

The evidence that those who surrender the doctrine of inerrancy inevitably move away from orthodoxy is indisputable. It is apparent that those who give up an authoritative, dependable, authentic, trustworthy, and infallible Scripture must ultimately yield the right to the use of the name "evangelical."

Lindsell says much the same thing (ibid., pp. 23-24):

[L]ittle difference at a given point in history may seem to separate those who believe in an infallible Scripture from those who do not. This is especially true at the moment when the only discernible difference between them is over purely incidental matters. Otherwise they are fully agreed on all of the other great basic doctrines of the Christian faith. They believe in the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the vicarious atonement, the physical resurrection of Christ from the dead, and His second coming. Since they believe all of these things, and claim that the Scriptures that teach these key doctrines are trustworthy, what is the problem? What difference does this seemingly minor concession make? . . . One part of the answer is the deep conviction based on past history that however small the differences may appear to be at this point, the gap will become enormous in due season, and the differences will increase as other doctrines, now believed, are tossed overboard, discarded with the doctrine of infallibility.

Lindsell uses the example of the Unitarian Church (ibid., p. 26):

In the early nineteenth century the difference between the Unitarians and the orthodox did not seem so great. But today the chasm is vast. Many Unitarians are atheists; many are humanists. In both the first and the second Humanist Manifestos the names of Unitarian clergyman are prominent. Among Unitarian Universalists the doctrine of sin has disappeared. The gospel is not preached. No missionaries go to the ends of the earth with the good news of Christ's salvation. Nor is the Bible preached in their churches. This group is utterly and completely apostate. No other conclusion is possible.

Lest there be any question about what these men mean by inerrancy, let me use Lindsell's definition (op. cit., p. 18):

[The Bible] can be trusted as truthful in all its parts. . . . It communicates religious truth, not religious error. But there is more. Whatever it communicates is to be trusted and can be relied upon as being true. The Bible is not a textbook on chemistry, astronomy, philosophy, or medicine. But when it speaks on matters having to do with these or any other subjects, the Bible does not lie to us. It does not contain error of any kind.

Let me state right here:

• I don't want to drift into unbelief or atheism.
   
• I want to be able to read the Bible with the expectation that I will learn something of value and hear from God.
   
• I don't want to read the Bible with a critic's eye. That's not how I see any of the writers of Scripture reading Scripture.
   
• I want to enter into worship with wholehearted abandon: joy.  
• And beyond all of these things, I desire to go out with my evangelical and fundamentalist friends and, without apology, preach the Good News of Jesus Christ that some, by whatever means, may become children of God.

By accepting the Bible as the simple, straightforward, inerrant "in whole and in the parts" Word of God, I believe I can achieve all of these ends . . . far better than if I follow an old-earth path in which I must always be on the lookout for evidence that a particular passage or verse or word is not true from a modern scientific/historical perspective . . . and then, if I find such a passage, verse or word, having to figure out in what sense it is or is not, ought or ought not to be authoritative in my life!

*******
Few in the old-earth camp, it seems, want to admit it; many (as do I) want to remain solidly ensconced in the evangelical/fundamentalist camp. But, as I attempted to demonstrate in the second of my Why are certain questions forbidden? posts, no matter how much we might wish it were otherwise, the more conservative evangelical/fundamentalists seek to write their statements of faith in such a way that there is no room for anything but a young-earth interpretation of Scripture.

And when you get down to the details, you find that a thorough and thoughtful analysis of young- and old-earthers' perspectives on Scripture do, indeed, ultimately and unmistakably show a divergence.

I know of no old-earth creationists who want to admit or think that they are "compromisers," as Ken Ham charges. Nor do they think that teachings about Noah's flood being global or God creating the Earth and everything in it in 6 literal 24 hour days are "vital," "core" faith issues, or that churches ought seriously to consider whether they should permit people who disagree on these matters to join. They would certainly not countenance the idea that men and women ought to be precluded from church leadership if they disagree with young-earth creationist views.

But, despite my friend's claim to the contrary, a significant portion of young-earthers do, indeed, believe that these are "vital" and "core" faith issues and desire to keep old-earthers out of their fellowships.

See the Already Compromised ad in the latest issue of World magazine and the product description for the book on Amazon for the use of the words "vital" and "core." See also the article by Dr. John Morris, president of the Institute for Creation Research, Should a Church Take a Stand On Creation? for a discussion about young-earth creationism as a key item for a church's statement of faith.

Morris concludes his discussion:

I still am uncertain about young-earth creationism being a requirement for church membership; perhaps it would be proper to give new members time to grow and mature under good teaching.

But I do know one thing: Creationism should be a requirement for Christian leadership! No church should sanction a pastor, Sunday school teacher, deacon, elder, or Bible-study leader who knowledgeably and purposefully errs on this crucial doctrine.

But however much the old-earthers would like things to be different, the fact is, differences between old- and young-earthers are there and they are real.

The young-earthers take a straightforward and what I would call relatively "simple" approach to Scripture interpretation: more or less: "God says it, I believe it, that settles it."

The verbal plenary inspiration of Scripture means, to the young-earthers, that God so directed the human writers of Scripture that His message to mankind was recorded with perfect accuracy in the original languages of Scripture--down to the individual words, each and every one of them. Moreover, the doctrine of the perspicuity (or clarity) of Scripture is often used by young-earthers to advocate not only that the central doctrines of Scripture are clear, but that issues concerning history and science are clear as well--indeed, rather obvious.

Old-earthers--at least those who are willing to think about these matters and address them head-on--are unwilling to follow their young-earth brethren in these matters. Despite the detailed biblical genealogical data about how old the various men in the Bible were when they "begat" their sons and how old they were when they died, etc.; and despite the common evangelical Sunday school imagery--based on plain/literal readings of Genesis 1 and 2--that God created the earth and everything in it in six 24-hour days and created Adam from the dust of the earth and his wife, Eve, from a rib in Adam's side; and, once more, despite the common evangelical Sunday school imagery--based on plain/literal readings of Genesis 6-8--that God destroyed the entire world ("world"="globe" in modern terminology) via a cataclysmic flood . . . old-earth creationists say that other images, other understandings, should control our minds.

To borrow the language of their young-earth opponents, the old-earthers permit their understanding of science to impact their understanding of Scripture. They try in various ways to bring their understanding of and belief in Scripture into line with their understanding of science. But one thing they do not do is accept that their understanding of the early portions of Genesis needs to match what their young-earth brethren proclaim. The young-earth-compatible, traditional Sunday school imagery, they say, is inaccurate (or, at least, misleading) with respect to how things "really" happened (from any literal scientific perspective).

And so they seek to modify the imagery--the understanding--of Genesis 1-11 (and other portions of Scripture) with their understanding of science. Put another way, they take science literally and interpret Scripture in various non-literalistic ways (i.e., they interpret the words of Scripture as not conforming literally to reality as we know it).

EXCURSUS: As I discussed in a post over two years ago, among old-earthers there are both "concordist" and "non-concordist" interpretations of the early chapters of Genesis.

The concordist interpretations seek to show how modern scientific teaching is well in line with what the Bible teaches about creation and the early history of the world. ("See, if we reinterpret this word as meaning _______, and if we recognize that this word means _______ [etc.], then there is no conflict at all between science and Scripture!")

The non-concordist interpretations, by contrast, say, in essence, "Look, the biblical record in Genesis 1-11 has no relation to modern science or history. Don't even look for evidence that tries to tie the Bible's teachings in Genesis 1-11 to modern science or history. It doesn't. It 'teaches' everything obnoxious to modern science and history that the young-earthers claim . . . and more. Except . . ." --and they go on to discuss how thoroughly unscientific and unhistorical Genesis 1-11 "really" is compared to all modern understandings of both science and history.

The non-concordists suggest various ways by which evangelicals ought to understand Genesis 1-11--ways that, they say, honor the Bible as God's inerrant, infallible Word (as per the standard evangelical statements of faith) while also containing statements or teachings that don't even come close to according with the truth of history and science as we know it.

I intend to write about these non-concordist views in later posts. The point is, however, that there is no way the hermeneutical/exegetical methods of old-earth creationists--either concordist or (most especially) non-concordist--can be made to align with the hermeneutical/exegetical methods followed by young-earth creationists.

The young-earthers "take the Bible at its word" while the old-earthers find themselves having to insert cautions and provisos here, there, and the next place.

Where does it end? According to the young-earthers, it ends--or ought to end before it begins. For the old-earthers, well . . . we'll get to that later. It definitely does not end before it begins!

So. Where does this leave me?

As I suggested at the beginning of this post, by means of its title and the bulleted list I included: I want to pursue a young-earth interpretation of the Bible . . . for all the reasons stated: Because

• I don't want to drift into unbelief or atheism.
   
• I don't want to read the Bible with a critic's eye.
   
• I want to be able to read the Bible with the expectation that I will learn something of value and hear from God.
   
• I want to enter into worship with wholehearted abandon to the Lord.
   
• I desire to preach the Good News of Jesus Christ without apology, without hesitation.

By contrast, if I follow an old-earth path, I sense I can do none of these things:

• I am likely to follow the myriads who have gone before and find I will drift into unbelief or atheism.
   
• I will read the Bible with a critic's eye.
   
• I will rarely if ever find myself able to read the Bible with the expectation that I will learn something of value and truly hear from God.
   
• I will rarely if ever enter into worship with wholehearted abandon to the Lord.
   
• I will rarely if ever preach the Good News of Jesus Christ without apology, without hesitation.