On being a naive literalist
September 28, 2011
THe last couple of days have seen classic Reformation 21 paradoxes. The combination of Carl Trueman putting the knife in to our multi site friends allied to Steve Nicholl's subtle self promotion couched in 'Start planning for Reformation Day' (which is when and what on earth is it? is it like Pancake Day over here?).
However I would want to take issue with part of Dr Evans piece on creation. I'm not aware of the characters Dr Evans is referring to in his blog. GI Williamson was, I'm sure, a great soldier and I'm all for respecting those who've served in the military. I'm not in favour of policing Presbyterianism so that those who are not 6 day literaltists are kicked out, but I am intrigued by Dr Evans piece.
I am a naive literalist when it comes to the days in Genesis 1 and 2. I do not think that is the point of the narrative, though. I cannot believe that the people on the banks of the River Jordan were really asking the question 'Was it 6 24 hour (60 minute) days?' However, when looking at the rest of scripture, I think the literalist position is the most straightforward and consistent.
At this point when I say this in the UK I am laughed out of court. It seems that nothing is mocked more that 6 literal days 24 hour creation. To believe in an old earth and assume that Genesis 1 and 2 is pure poetry is the norm position; any other is scorned.
I wouldn't want to see consciences bound. I was an observer to a ridiculous Presbytery exam once where one man said 'The first question that I ask, and the first question that should always be asked, is 'Do you believe in 6 literal 24 hour days in Genesis 1 and 2?' If that is the first question we're all going to be in trouble.
I also realise there are some extremist nut jobs in the literalist camp who think that the fossil records are the key to evangelising the western world but I assure you most of us are not so crazy. I would share Dr Evans plea for tolerance; but I expect over the Atlantic here the boot is on the other foot.
However I would want to take issue with part of Dr Evans piece on creation. I'm not aware of the characters Dr Evans is referring to in his blog. GI Williamson was, I'm sure, a great soldier and I'm all for respecting those who've served in the military. I'm not in favour of policing Presbyterianism so that those who are not 6 day literaltists are kicked out, but I am intrigued by Dr Evans piece.
I am a naive literalist when it comes to the days in Genesis 1 and 2. I do not think that is the point of the narrative, though. I cannot believe that the people on the banks of the River Jordan were really asking the question 'Was it 6 24 hour (60 minute) days?' However, when looking at the rest of scripture, I think the literalist position is the most straightforward and consistent.
At this point when I say this in the UK I am laughed out of court. It seems that nothing is mocked more that 6 literal days 24 hour creation. To believe in an old earth and assume that Genesis 1 and 2 is pure poetry is the norm position; any other is scorned.
I wouldn't want to see consciences bound. I was an observer to a ridiculous Presbytery exam once where one man said 'The first question that I ask, and the first question that should always be asked, is 'Do you believe in 6 literal 24 hour days in Genesis 1 and 2?' If that is the first question we're all going to be in trouble.
I also realise there are some extremist nut jobs in the literalist camp who think that the fossil records are the key to evangelising the western world but I assure you most of us are not so crazy. I would share Dr Evans plea for tolerance; but I expect over the Atlantic here the boot is on the other foot.
