Historical Christadelphian Approaches - 2
← Index of
Early Genesis, A review of historical Christadelphian approaches
- by Bro Ken Chalmers, January, 2016
2. Introduction
In some evangelical Christian communities and parts of our own community, the call to ‘read Genesis literally’ appears to have become both loud and prevalent. Indeed, not only has this view been expressed, but the teaching which is involved with this ‘literal’ perspective, is given a construct which would suggest that this is how we have, as a community, always expressed ourselves from the beginning until now. There almost appears to be ‘historical revisionism’ in progress that would rewrite our community’s history.
This issue does not appear to be new for our community. Bro Alan Hayward expressed the following concern:
“Brethren who prefer to believe in ‘Flood Geology’ and a young universe are entitled to do so. But they should not delude themselves that such views are a part of historical Christadelphianism. They only sprang up in the ‘sixties and ‘seventies as part and parcel of the evangelical revival.....(they) should take care not to give the false impression that this is orthodox Christadelphian teaching. They would do well to make it clear.....that these are merely their own personal opinions”.[1]
As there is significant, current pressure on our community to adopt fellowship positions which are based either on only one view held, or have NOT been part of our historical discussion, and the range of views that have been, and are, held are quite diverse, the purpose of this paper is to simply audit and review our community’s writings on the early chapters of Genesis from the 19th century to the present. The audit reveals the author’s own personal experience over nearly 50 years of discipleship, that matters relating to how to read the early chapters of Genesis have involved interesting and engaging discussion on a wide range of views and theories for all of our community’s history. All of this discussion appears to have taken place in the context of our brethren understanding that these discussions were matters of ‘uncertain detail’ and had no implications for an individual’s fellowship standing.
There is generally no intention of evaluating the strength or weaknesses of the arguments raised, although the final section ‘Conclusions’ sets out a more personal perspective on the matters under discussion. It nevertheless draws on the same writings and views of those who have gone before, in the hope that in the days which remain “before Moses is once again amongst us”, we can preserve our community’s unity and respectful approach to each other in interpreting the wonder of His Word and His Works.
The voices more than 30 years ago that disturbed bro Hayward are unfortunately now more prominent in our community, censorious and loud in their tone and divisive in their intent. The author hopes that this paper and its presentation will allow opportunity for reflection on what should be respectful discussion between brethren about ‘how’ and ‘when’ and their various possibilities.
At times there may be the appearance of ‘repetition’ in references used. In dealing with ‘when was the beginning?’ or an old earth, or a ‘gap theory’, some references mention other related elements. I have endeavoured to use different references, albeit that some have relevance to multiple sections of the paper. One benefit of using different references has been to demonstrate that brethren’s views, in some cases expressed over two or three decades (e.g. bro C. C. Walker) were consistent and unchanging.
It is also noted that several words have been used by our brothers in their writing which might not be part of many readers’ current vocabulary, so I have referenced a Concise Oxford Dictionary to assist as follows:
- Cosmogony — (theory of) the origin of the universe
- Cosmology — science or theory of the universe
- ↑ Hayward, A, “Our Pioneers’ Views on Geology”, Letters to the Editor, The Christadelphian, Vol 120, pages 429,430 (1983)
