The school boards convene, the committees meet, the experts testify. The issue? What shall we teach in our schools? Shall we teach evolution? Shall we teach creation? Shall we teach intelligent design? The sides go back and forth. At the end of the hearings, one side wins. A couple of years later the other side wins. Stickers go on textbooks, and then are removed. One thing is taught to one class, another to the next. And where does all the wrestling back and forth get us?  Who really knows?
Well let’s not even worry about our schools. For perhaps that is not where our primary concern should be after all. Let us worry instead about ourselves and own our understanding of why it matters what one believes about the beginning of all things. If someone asked you why the teaching of creation matters so much to you what would you tell them? Why is it so important that one believe in creation? What does it have to do with anything else anyway? Can’t one believe both in the triune God and evolution at the same time? Why does Creation matter?
Well there are many reasons why Creation matters.
First, our belief in creation matters because it gives evidence to how we view God’s Word. You have just heard the creation account. It is quite simple. There is no doubt what it says. It says God created the heavens and the earth in six literal days. The question is this? Do we trust the bible at its word, or do we require proof before we believe what it says? This is most important question  because, truth be told, we have no proof of many very important things in scripture. We have no proof that God exists, that our sins are gone for Christ’s sake, or that there will truly be a new heaven and earth for us to live in some day.   These central features of our Christian belief are all simply held to because the Word of God declares it to be true. If we cannot trust the bible in Genesis 1 when it says that God created the heavens and earth, why trust John 3:16 when it speaks of his love for us either?
Secondly, our belief in creation is important because it determines how we view our God. The creation story we just read is one of a triune God who is intimately involved in creating and sustaining his creation. It is the story of a God that rejoices in his work. It is a story of a God that cares enough about what he has made to intervene to save it.
The story of evolution if it includes God at all gives us a picture of a God that started a chaotic mess and left the scene to work itself out. It leaves no real reason to believe that God would care for this world at all, certainly no idea that God would come into this world to save it. Only a God intimately connected to his creation and their salvation would dare come in the flesh for it. Why save a bunch of random mutations?
Third, our belief in creation determines our view of this world. The bible says that ever since the fall in Genesis this world has been groaning more and more, getting worse and worse day by day. It says that the only solution to the corruption of this world is its destruction by fire followed by the creation of a new and heaven and earth for the people of God. Evolution asserts this world is getting better day by day mutation by mutation. If says that if we can live long enough, the world will become more and more perfect.
Lastly, it determines how we view humanity. Yes it determines how we view ourselves and everyone around us. If we read Genesis, we learn that humanity ever since the fall comes into this world with a disposition against God. We learn that humanity is born into this world an enemy of God until rescued by the Holy Spirit’s faith creating work in Baptism. No, bible never allows us to view humanity apart from God as fundamentally good. That humanity is at is core good is almost a certain assertion of the evolutionary theory. After all, if we listen to the evolutionists, humans are essentially the highest evolved life form. Therefore, we should have a very high view of them. They should be able to accomplish anything, even their own salvation.
Believing in creation means that we trust God at his word, even when we can’t prove his word true by science. It means we believe that God cares enough about this world and especially about us humans to intervene for our sake. It means we believe that this world is not what God intended in Eden, and that is it getting worse day by day. And finally in means that we understand that humanity is desperate need of divine intervention if it is to be saved.
Evolution paints a much different picture. It requires that we only believe God’s word when it can be proven. It means that we believe in a disinterested God who set up this world as an experimentation of mutations. It means that if we wait long enough this world will become what we want and humanity will be perfectly evolved.
Creation, and the subsequent fall into sin demands that someone must come and set things straight. Either God intervenes and save this world and all humanity or else it simply spirals into destruction. Creation has faith alone in God to save
Evolution has no need of a savior, nor does it desire one. Evolution simply sits back and trusts that things will slowly get better. It has faith in itself to save.
Yes, the question of whether one believes in creation or evolution goes much further than a discussion of what science says or doesn’t say. It goes much further than discussion about fossils and dinosaurs. It even goes much further than deciding what to teach in school.
For the belief one holds about the beginning of all things determines what one think about the present sate of things, and the future sate of things. It can even determine whether one recognizes their need for Jesus or not. And nothing is more important than that realization which God works in the hearts of men.
So let us concern ourselves first and foremost with what we are teaching ourselves and what we are teaching our children even before we worry what the schools are teaching. For if here at church and in the home we teach our children and ourselves the true importance of belief in creation, the fact that it influences how we view most everything, and especially that it influences however view our own need for Jesus, our children will be prepared for whatever they end up reading in their textbooks. For they will have learned that to hold onto Jesus is more important than any other thing they could be taught.
We must truly examine our own thoughts and actions concerning this matter of creation. If we have acted as if the question of what one believes about the beginning doesn’t matter, we must repent of that careless attitude. And if we have advocated teaching creation in school, but failed to teach its importance at home, we must confess our inconsistent actions.
But if we are willing to confess that not only the school and board of education have been in error, we will receive again forgiveness from our triune god. God the Father who created us will give to us His son Jesus who came to save us, by the power of his Holy spirit who is actively sustaining our faith and making us holy. For when we understand our creating God correctly, our forgiving and sustaining God makes perfect sense as well.  For we know of this God from the Word of God, and receive Him in his blessed sacraments.
Why does creation matter? It matters because creation teaches us of our God as he has revealed himself to us in the scriptures. And that God is the only God who can save. Amen.
Adapted from a Sermon Preached Trinity Sunday 2005
Good post. A question. Does it matter, in the same sense, whether one believes in a literal 6 day/24 hour creation or, for instance, a day-age approach? Or is the most important part that one believes it is God who created and all that entails rather than the specific method of that creation?
Tom, I do believe that it matters the “method.”
As I mentioned without science’s modern (as opposed to PM) claims to certainty about the origins of the earth, their would be no “day-age” approach in existence in the church. Only if one buys into evolution as a whole (which is opposed to so many of the central teaching of the scriptures), would one suggest another approach.
Furthermore, people like Richard Hawkins make clear in their writings that logically evolution and theism are at odds at nearly every point.
Third, so much of the bible and even our modern “week” is based on the idea of six days literal creation.
Fourth, if you do not take Genesis 1-2 literally, when do you start? Are Adam and Eve historical? Is the Fall? Is the Flood? is Abraham? Is Jesus? His Cross and Resurrection? This may seem extreme, but if you read biblical scholars who deny creation, they are also quick to deny these other events as well.
Phil,
Thanks for the response. Let me pose these thoughts/questions. i believe that time is a non-factor for God. God seems to exist, live, etc. outside of time (thousand years like a day, day like a thousand years). And yes, he does function within our understanding of time.
How are you making the leap, and generalization, that “ONLY IF one buys into evolution as a whole would one suggest another approach.”?
To your fourth point…just because one doesn’t view creation as a 24/6 process doesn’t mean they aren’t taking Gen. 1 & 2 literally. Which biblical scholars are you talking about? I don’t deny your point that probably some do, but I would view these scholars as very liberal on the other issues you mentioned. (Again, it is probably a matter of your and my definition of “liberal” 🙂 )However, I know of biblical scholars who don’t assume a 24/6 but are commited to the reality of Gen. 1 & 2 happening literally and being ultra committed to the Fall, Flood, Cross, Resurrection, etc. But, again, you seem to be linking a denial of creation based on the method of creation.
Thanks for helping us to remember that creation is ultimately important.
Phil –
I agree with all your points. Isn’t it also true that evolution requires that death and chaos existed in the world prior to the “emergence” of man, and therefore the world would have been in a sinful state before Adam and Eve sinned (if we had evolved and not been created)?
@Tom – As far as the first point, show me one theologian pre-Darwin who suggested day-age thought. While theologians throughout time have been aware of idea of God’s timelessness, none applied it to Genesis. On the fourth, I speak generally, that typically those who begin by denying the traditional understanding of Genesis 1-2 go on to deny other things. There are always theologians who have only taken the first step or two.
BTW, from Facebook, 24 is a literal 24 hours. that is whole concept.
@Andy, yes it does, another great reason.
Phil,
i am not just including “day-age” but any other interpretation (pictorial, framework, etc.) as well. Philo, Clement and Augustine were, seemingly, such persons who did not ultimately adhere to a literal 24/6. And just so i can know where you are coming from: are you saying that those who have taken another approach to Gen. 1-2 are denying creation (as you said above) or that they are simply denying a traditional understanding of Gen. 1-2 (which you said above)? I ask because you made the comment that “only if one were to buy into evolution as a whole” would one suggest another alternative….which seems to me that your first comment of “denying creation” is more, or less, where you would stand with your view on those who take another position. I don’t know for sure that is why i am asking. Thoughts?
Tom, If you are asking if embracing evolution is denying creation to me, the answer is yes. I do not believe theistic evolution is a place where a Christian can stay if they examine the scripture and take it as inspired. It may be in a journey towards creationism, but can not be the final stop. Tell me what you mean by those who deny 24/6 but do not deny creation? Thanks for keeping the dialogue going.
I agree that embracing evolution is denying creation. I think where we may be disagreeing is if embracing a different creation alternative (to the literal 24/6)is, or should be considered, evolution. I, also, have deep reservations about theistic evolution. I take the scripture as inspired, as you do as well, but i know that we both don’t view the “1000” years talked about in Rev. as a literal 1000 years as do some Christ-followers. I don’t think just b/c one doesn’t take portions of scripture as literal you are denying the reality of the event or denying inspiration.
I know Christ-followers who believe God created, was actively involved but that Gen. 1-2 is not a science book whose ultimate purpose is to tell us exactly how God created but rather that it WAS GOD who created. This would have made a lot of sense in Moses culture when they were surrounded by competing stories of who, or what, created all there is. The purpose, according to these folks, is that it presents a radically different creation alternative, and in fact is the right and true one, that Yahweh, the God of this small tribe of people is the one true God who did indeed create the stars, moon, sun, world, people, etc. And so while they may not adhere to a literal 24/6 of creation they passionately believe that God created. In fact some that I know are more passionate about God creating the world and what that means for us today than some i know who simply believe in a literal 24/6 creation model.
To me, i believe that people get it wrong when they start denying that it was God who created, rather than having a different approach as to the specifics of that creation compared to adhering to a literal 24/6…i may disagree with a certain approach over and against another approach but at least they adhere to the God of the universe as being the creator of all things.
But like i said at the beginning it may have to do with our idea of what should or shouldn’t be considered “evolution”.
Thoughts on what i have said?