Bryan Chapell on Creation

I want to pass along a great link to a statement on creation by Bryan Chapell, the president of Covenant Theological Seminary. The statement is a section of the '98-'99 President's Goals and Report. It deals with accusations of liberal leanings brought against the seminary because of the fact that it allows its professors to put forth various interpretations of the creation account in Genesis. Chapell defends this position by noting that the seminary has always held to the stance that a literal 144 hour creation is not the only possible interpretation. He also cites numerous examples of respected, orthodox Reformed theologians who have held to various interpretations of the first chapter of Genesis.

This is a subject of particular interest to me. In my course on Christian doctrine, taught by a Neo-Orthodox professor who is an ordained minister in the PC(USA), we have recently been discussing the doctrine of creation. The stance of the professor is that the creation account is not an attempt to convey a historical account, but rather, it communicates some more abstract idea about God's activity in creation which allows for an evolutionary process to take place. Throughout the class, the assumption has been that a literal view of the creation account in Genesis 1 must be conceived of as a 6 day, 144 hour creation and is necessarily opposed to the discipline of science. This sort of misrepresentation has been extremely frustrating. While I have no illusions that a perspective such as Chapell's (which allows for interpretations of Genesis 1 in ways that acknowledge the historical accuracy and reliability of the creation account apart from a 144 hour creation) would satisfy someone who takes such a stance, it would at least be nice if it were recognized that everyone who believes in the historicity of the Genesis creation account is not a literal 6 day creationist.

While this statement is a bit dated, it touches on a controversy that is far from dead, and it offers some excellent perspective. Aside from the specifics of the creation controversy, Chapell provides excellent insight into the way that doctrinal differences in general should be handled. In tackling issues such as the proper way to interpret and adhere to the Westminster Confession and what aspects of doctrine are non-negotiable for ordained pastors to affirm, Chapell offers these words:

I believe it is fear that is driving some in our church to be interpreting the Confession of Faith so narrowly that even small deviations openly discussed and freely explored for decades are now being taken as sufficient grounds for denying men ordination. While we should have no patience for liberalism (i.e., the denial of any portion of God's Word as absolutely and inerrantly true), neither should we believe that it will aid our church to deny men the opportunity to consider what have been deemed for decades, or centuries, to be legitimate Biblical interpretations that fall within our system of doctrine. Men denied the right to argue Biblically what does fall within historic Presbyterianism will either suppress their opinions for a time or will become facile at wording answers which are true but are nonetheless intended to blur distinctions.

Also, notice Chapell's comment that we should deal with differences in the specifics of creational views in the same way we deal with different millenial views. This is extremely insightful stuff in my opinion. For a good book that touches on this subject, check out God's Pattern for Creation: A Covenantal Reading of Genesis 1, by W. Robert Godfrey, the president of Westminster Seminary in California.