By Joseph Maughon
Class of 2010
It is surprising, given the volume of commentary produced in a mere five days (at the time of writing) by the publication of a clarification to Bryan College’s Statement of Belief, that anything more can be said. More than surprising, however, it is unfortunate that more needs to be said.
The Board of Trustees’ action at this time consists of no more than adding the following clarification to the Statement: “We believe that all humanity is descended from Adam and Eve. They are historical persons created by God in a special formative act, and not from previously existing life forms.”
Maybe the clarification should be rescinded; maybe it shouldn’t—the issues of due process and the Board’s powers have already been cogently addressed in the Triangle. But the reactions to the clarification have brought out two things worth discussing.
The first issue lies in the careless assumptions that have been made. The clarification is not an affirmation that no evolution, micro or macro, has ever occurred. It is not an affirmation of a young-earth theory. It is not an affirmation that the six “days” of creation were literal, 24-hour days, or that Genesis 1-2 must be read as a scientific document. Nonetheless, all of these assertions have been levied as the basis of arguments against the Board’s decision.
While various concerns about evolution and young-earth creationism were voiced by the Board (as discussed in the Feb. 19 article), these concerns did not make it into the clarification. They might be voiced in the position paper, which I will presume, for the sake of this letter, will be the binding meaning of the clarification. Many have posited well-spoken concerns as to the potential issues lurking there, and I wholeheartedly endorse admonitions that the Board not exclude people based on nonessential distinctions. But the prevailing way in which critics of the Board have voiced such concerns is by past-tense reference to the clarification’s asserted implications, assuming (for some reason) that the Trustees’ personal opinions are actually part of the narrow language of the clarification. Those implications will be fleshed out by the position paper, but that paper has not yet been released. It is, in fact, being drawn up with what appears to be care and humility: the Trustees “welcome participation from members of the Bryan community” for more than a month, until March 28.
We should not presume, based solely on the personal beliefs the Trustees have voiced, but not legislated, that they are arrogant or imprudent. Perhaps the truth is that the Board drew up such a narrow clarification because they humbly desired that their personal, nonessential beliefs not be a part of it. It is proper for us to offer them guidance on how to best exercise their powers. It is neither just nor biblical, however, to judge them for acts they have not done. Those seeking to build up community by advising the Board against forecasted divisive activity, but speaking with baseless conclusions and pre-judgment, actually do violence to community.
The second issue is hermeneutical. Little biblical evidence has been brought forth by those claiming that tenable Christian beliefs are threatened by the clarification. I have spoken of what the clarification is not. On its face, this is what the clarification is: an affirmation of principles that have guided Christianity for millenia, an affirmation that God created man from no pre-existing life. Until the position paper takes further steps at fleshing out what the clarification means, it is irrational to claim that it says more than than this. Even if Genesis 1 is allegorical, it strains the imagination to contemplate that it does not affirm God’s creation of man, “and not from previously existing life forms.”
“Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground,” says God in Genesis 1, and proceeds to do so.
This “special formative act” is re-affirmed in Genesis 2: “Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground.” It is important to note that this is a different narrative than that of Genesis 1 (for example, God creates man before vegetation in this version), therefore affirming a second time, in a different tale, the special formative act.
The creation story is a carefully-crafted work of poetry. Based on the dual versions of the tale, it would also seem to be figurative to some degree. It certainly does not appear to be a scientific representation. This reveals to us further God’s glory by showing us he is not only all-powerful, and not only loving, and not only just. He is creative, and creative in more than the ways in which a clever inventor is creative. Genesis 1 contains brilliant symmetries! It boasts rhymes that highlight elegant poetic division! Learning that the phrase translated “formless and empty” in Genesis 1:2 is, in Hebrew, a rhyming phrase, tohu wa-bohu, brought a smile to my face of the sort that shows up rarely. That these words serve as a prelude to God forming in three days (annihilating the formlessness) and filling in three days (annihilating the emptiness) shows us that the rhyming phrase is more than cute: it’s beautiful art.
God is brilliantly artistic. But we mustn’t stop there. Hermeneutics is not defined by considering literal and cultural aspects of one part of the Word and then stopping. It requires doing so and then asking, “What more?” Allegory contains truth. Those who read Genesis 1 as allegory would not likely dispute, for example, that it teaches us that God created the earth in some way and that he is all-powerful. The way we come to know that these are certainly Bible-endorsed truths is by comparing Genesis 1 with the rest of Scripture, and making sure our conclusions from Genesis are in alignment with it. A failure to do this is a failure in hermeneutics.
There are compelling arguments that the clarification requires nothing more than adherence to another part of the Statement of Belief: “We believe that the holy Bible, composed of the Old and New Testaments, is of final and supreme authority in faith and life, and, being inspired by God, is inerrant in the original writings” (Statement of Belief 1). Perhaps the following reasoning is something like what is in the minds of the Trustees.
God is capable of flawlessly intertwining poetic and allegorical truth with literal truth. One need only look to the Psalms to see this. Recognition that Genesis 1 is not only figurative, but literal in some regards as well, is recognition of God’s lucent creative power. The literalness of the details affirmed by the narrow language of the clarification is evinced not only by the fact that both Genesis 1 and 2 affirm the special formative act, but moreover by Isaiah 43:27, 1 Corinthians 15:45, 1 Timothy 2:13, and Mark 10:6, where Jesus himself affirms that Adam and Eve were created at the beginning of creation. This is likely but a small sample of the affirmations found in the Bible itself. Though some saints, as early as Augustine and possibly earlier, correctly assert that belief in a literal six-day creation is not necessary, I have yet to hear of any who would hesitate to affirm God’s creation of man in a special formative act.
The Christian believes that personhood is found in relation to God’s image, the imago Dei. The clarification requires only the belief that that image was placed on earth when persons were created in a special formative act by God, which belief is heavily affirmed throughout the Bible and necessary to a proper understanding of it. I can imagine only two problems that one might have with such a requirement. The first would be a belief that God did not create man at all, even through a preexisting species. Because I believe the trouble with this is obvious, I will not address it here.
The second would be a belief that God created man from a pre-existing species. The suggestion that man evolved from other life-forms implies that there were multiple genealogical lines of persons arising at the same approximate time, various lines of which would not include Adam and Eve. Twisting the argument to suggest that Adam and Eve were the only members of a lower life form to evolve into “persons” is neither biblically nor scientifically plausible. Going back to the multiple-lines theory, however: that theory struggles to align with the New Testament. If Adam was but one of many creatures that had evolved into persons, a lot of us are in trouble since Christ is, according to 1 Corinthians 15:45-49 and Romans 5:12-18, representative of Adam and his line. These verses affirm the importance of sin entering the world through one man. Are we to throw them out, or consider them mere allegory, despite their non-poetic context? A certain belief in this regard is not necessary for salvation. Belief in the inerrant Word of the Bible, however, is a facet of salvation whose importance cannot be understated (lest there be any confusion, I am not claiming that those who believe the Bible contains allegory, etc. are not saved. I believe the same.). Signatories of the Statement of Belief have signed on to this belief.
Picking and choosing based solely on what appears to us to be right, with only extrabiblical support for such choices, and tortuous logic or semantics to bypass biblical contradiction thereof, is a dangerous path. Furthermore, such cherry-picking is the embodiment of precisely what the critics of the Board condemn: arrogance. Perhaps there are cogent, sincere, and persuasive arguments in response to this reasoning, but I have not heard any. This letter will proceed, therefore, under the (arrogant?) assumption that the belief that God did not create persons is a dangerous deviation from the Bible, regardless of whether the creation account is taken totally literally. Therefore, as far as this writer is aware, the clarification demands only what is already present in the Statement of Beliefs: a belief “that the holy Bible, composed of the Old and New Testaments, is of final and supreme authority in faith and life, and, being inspired by God, is inerrant in the original writings” (Statement of Belief 1).
These are, in any case, the thoughts of one man. Again, perhaps the Board’s thoughts are similar. This, then, is my suggestion to those who would posit the clarification’s text is but one of many possible interpretations of a book that is considered a “supreme authority in faith and life”: provide to the Board a biblically (and, if necessary, scientifically) plausible argument for an understanding that does not fit within the clarification’s language and comports with Statement of Belief 1. This is a suggestion, not a challenge. While I have heard no such arguments, I cannot assert that they do not exist—though it seems unlikely. There may be those who have already done this in a respectful way. Those, I thank.
I have read accusations of the Board’s arrogance, divisiveness, legalism. If (and that’s a big “if”) there is any truth to these accusations, let us hesitate before claiming that that truth is based on the words of the clarification. It takes great humility to stand up for an unpopular opinion for which your character will be spat upon. And it is arguable that acts that foster a belief in the true, inspired Word of God divide only where temporary division is necessary to preserve unity, of which there can be none in a place that seeks to be both a community of God and a community that does not require its teachers to believe in the truth of the his word. And legalism is not merely a belief in the importance of rules. It is a belief that rules are the means of salvation. The institution of rules to preserve an ongoing and community-wide belief in grace’s necessity, which is compromised when strongly affirmed bits and pieces of the Bible are either favored or thrown out, is the opposite of legalism.
These theology-based accusations are saddening to some degree. Far more troubling, however, are the rest: those that accuse the Board of pride and divisiveness for what it has not done—of requiring belief in a literal six-day creation or anything else beyond the clarification above. This, as of now, the Board has not done. The Board has shown humility, patience, and prudence in its promulgated desire to “welcome participation from members of the Bryan community” for more than a month, until March 28, in developing its position paper. Those who accuse the Board of anything other than what they have done and sought to do are guilty of the things they so strongly condemn: pride and divisiveness. That those who would seek to be a bastion of light engage in what they so strongly condemn is heartbreaking.
I give my thanks to my alma mater’s Board of Trustees for the excellent experience I received at Bryan College, and for their careful treading through this difficult process.
Joseph Maughon belongs to Bryan’s Class of 2010, from which he graduated with a B.A. in English Literature, minor in Politics and Government. He is currently completing his final semester at Regent University School of Law in Virginia Beach, VA and will receive his J.D. in May. He plans to work as a state or federal prosecutor for a time, then seek work with an anti-human trafficking organization.
