As noted in previous issues of this bulletin, some brethren now espouse their belief that the physical world came from a God-guided "Big Bang" several billion years ago. Others deny such theories and maintain their faith in a literal interpretation of the creation account, but seek to justify acceptance of those who advance the God-guided "Big Bang" theory. They say we all believe God did it, so it really does not matter how He did it. In effect, they claim it is "no big deal" whether or not we believe and teach a literal interpretation of the creation account. They advocate an increasing "unity-in-diversity" approach on this issue based on claims that the text cannot be understood or lacks detail necessary to determine its meaning, appeals to accepted brethren in the past who reached differing conclusions on the matter, or expanding Romans 14 to cover the "Big Bang" theory. We know such teaching has been done, but is this teaching really a danger to us here? Or is it only being done far away by people with little or no influence in this area? Those are fair questions that should be addressed with facts.
For the past two weeks, we have shown from Scripture that it does matter what we believe and teach on the issue. We have shown that the non-literal interpretation of the creation account sets the stage for a rejection of other literal teaching in God's word. As noted last week, the logical extension of the same principle is already being used to deny the Bible doctrine of inspiration of the Scripture, to affirm that we should tolerate and accept those in denominations as Christians, to teach that those in Islam and Judaism may be saved while abiding in those religions, and to suggest that atheists may be saved solely by God's grace without coming to faith. Today, we want to examine the teaching by some respected brethren in this area which holds that the interpretation of the creation account is unimportant, as long as we admit God did it. As we do so, please notice that these brethren who claim to affirm the literal truth of the creation account invariably state greater disagreement with those who openly defend the literal truth of the creation account and greater acceptance for those who deny that literal truth. Strange inconsistency, is it not?
When Florida College invited Hill Roberts to speak at four class sessions during the 1999 lectures, he handed out a CD-rom with material affirming a belief in the "Big Bang" theory and billions of years of gradual change as the explanation for how the Earth evolved into a place suitable for life. In the material, brother Roberts stated his acceptance of the same "Big Bang" beginning for the inanimate creation, the same "stellar evolution" to account for development of stars, and the same timetable accepted by those advancing the general theory of evolution. When brethren including this writer expressed alarm about such material being distributed without rebuttal at Florida College, the administration and Bible department defended their decision. Brother Ferrell Jenkins, then chairman of the Bible department, justified the acceptance into fellowship of Hill Roberts and others holding such views during a class session of the 2000 Florida College lectures. After citing cases of brethren in past generations who had differing views on the creation account, brother Jenkins made the following unity-in-diversity plea regarding this subject:
Is there a place for two who strongly believe in creation, but who hold differing views on the days of Genesis? And what about the brother who says he's not sure that that's the solution to the problem? That it hasn't solved it completely in his mind. He believes in creation just as I have told you I do. Now, I think we run into a problem when we say "must," one of these views must be correct. And I've got a good brother friend who said one place that these must be long ages, and I can't say that. But on the other hand, I can't say they must be 24 hour ages. There were some arguments made for that like Exodus 20 and some arguments I didn't have time to deal with that I did have them in my notes here. And you can argue, you know, you can make a good case either way for that.... And there is nobody in our brotherhood who can say, "This is it, and you've all got to agree with my view." Now brethren, that's the history that we come from. And I'm sad to say that those who are younger and who may only be 10 years old or 15 or 20 years old, because it's been always a certain way in your life doesn't mean it always been that way. And its time people who were older spoke up and said, "Look, what goes around comes around." Not to be wishy-washy, not to compromise on any biblical truth, but to say there are just some things so difficult that I may not be able to draw the same conclusion you've drawn on those and then to give that opportunity for people (Ferrell Jenkins, 2000 F.C. lecture class, 2/8/00).
Truth is not determined by what past brethren have believed. To appeal to them as a standard betrays a sectarian concept that disregards the true standard -- the word of God. When one goes to the point of denying that Bible doctrine can be understood alike by all, he has left the basis of the Bible appeal to unity through understanding of and obedience to God's will (Eph. 5:17; 3:3-7; 4:3-6; 2 Pet. 1:3; 2 Tim. 2:7; 3:16-17; 2 Jn. 9-11). Brother Jenkins was my teacher and has my abiding thanks for help and friendship extended through the years, but I grieve at his departure from the defense of truth. His influence advanced the cause of truth for many years, but is now being used in the opposite direction on this issue.
In a recent article, brother Frank Jamerson took issue with those not receiving one "who teaches error about the days of creation." He said such error "would not directly cause a person to sin" (Truth Magazine, March 21, 2002, p. 175). Brother Jamerson fails to see the grave danger present in the departure as quantified in a previous article in this series. In his article, he goes so far as to claim that we "bite and devour one another" by refusing to accept teachers of a God-guided "Big Bang." While I accept the sincerity of his view, I must respectfully note the destructive effects of compromising with and accepting into fellowship those who teach such error. Brother Jamerson preaches in Lakeland and is well-respected among many brethren, but his plea is contrary to the doctrine of God. Should we receive into our fellowship teachers of doctrinal error regarding the creation? Will that error cause one to sin? Does God tolerate the denial of that Bible teaching? How much denial of Bible doctrine should we tolerate? The clear answer of Scripture to such questions stands in stark contrast to the path suggested by brother Jamerson.
In the bulletin of the Skyview church of Christ in Pinellas Park, brother Charles Murray wrote an article entitled "In The Beginning, God Created..." Brother Murray is the local preacher for that congregation and serves as one of its elders. In his article, brother Murray said:
The brevity and lack of detail in the account of creation has caused many problems among both atheists and believers.... But even among believers, this lack of detail has caused some disputes. Brethren are debating whether the days of creation were literal twenty-four hour days as we know them today or whether they represent some time period of a greater length. Some have presented evidence in support of both thoughts.... If God had gone into great detail in His revelation to Moses as He directed Moses to write Genesis, perhaps a lot of these problems would be resolved. But, the simplicity and brevity and lack of detail in the account gives birth to many speculations.... I must honestly admit I do not know the answer to most of the questions that are being asked. But I do know one thing that is certain. God has revealed ALL I need to know to have and maintain a faith in His existence and His creative power. I do not have to know whether or not Genesis is talking about twenty-four hour days to believe that God created the heavens and the earth.
Brother Murray fails to examine the statements beyond Genesis 1:1 which plainly declare the nature of the creation days and the details given about how God spoke the world and its inhabitants into existence. Do we not also need to believe and teach all of the creation account just as we must accept Genesis 1:1? Remember, "The sum of Thy word is truth" (Psa. 119:160). The "sum" of God's truth includes other passages which look back on the creation account showing that Scripture interprets it literally (Ex. 20:9-11; 31:15-17; Psa. 33:6-9; Heb. 4:3, Mk. 10:6; etc.). With all of these clear passages, how could brother Murray not be able to answer whether or not the days of the creation account were literal or not? This writer asked him that question and his reply was as follows: "I believe in the literal twenty-four hour days of creation. I have always believed that, and have never denied this as fact." When asked to explain the disparity between his conflicting statements, brother Murray declined comment and cut off the exchange. Clearly, the two views are not only different -- they are contradictory and mutually exclusive. [To read brother Murray's full article and the exchange with this writer, click here.]
The young man quoted last week remains in the fellowship of the Skyview congregation under brother Murray's teaching and oversight. Is it any wonder? When one justifies the acceptance of those denying the literal truth of the creation account, the principles of unity-in-diversity applied to doctrinal matters will continue down a path of digression. Consistency will demand that one receive those denying the Bible doctrine of inspiration of the Scripture, those affirming toleration and acceptance of people in denominations as Christians, those teaching that Muslims may be saved while abiding in Islam, and those suggesting that atheists may be saved solely by God's grace without coming to faith. Brother Murray has tolerated, accepted and put into practice the full consequences of the unity-in-diversity doctrine. Yes, brethren, this error is a danger in the Tampa Bay area!