Misquoting Augustine Part 2

In part 1 I took a look at a particular quotation from Augustine’s Literal Meaning of Genesis (LMoG) used by theistic evolutionists to argue that it is unwise to read the Genesis creation account in a way that conflicts with current scientific consensus. Francis Collins' Biologos website makes Augustine appear to be a fairly prominent ally in a fairly flexible interpretation of Genesis 1-11.

While taken as a lone quotation, Augustine’s plea that “we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it” may indeed be a valid caution for all who seek to provide any scientific explanation for the fine details of Genesis 1. Theistic Evolutionists use this quote primarily as a rebuke to Young Earth Creationism, but often include in their sights the more “Old-Earth” views of folks like Hugh Ross and even the advocates of Intelligent Design who generally make no reference to Genesis at all. The goal of theistic evolutionists in quoting Augustine is primarily to convince Christians that Darwinism in toto is not incompatible with faith.

But those who quote Augustine in this way usually fail to mention Augustine’s views of the historicity of Adam, the historicity of the fall and the effects of the fall, which are far more central to a traditional position on questions of origins than the age of the earth or the precise mechanism of the initial creation of time, matter, space and energy. As we shall see later, Augustine would fully agree with a number of YEC views on topics pertaining to Genesis 3-11.

What is left out of the references to Augustine by McGrath, Collins, et al, includes a repudiation of his contemporary secular critics of the Biblical text - critics who supposed that Christians who are less in agreement with establishment science are uneducated bumpkins simply for not accepting the current scientific status quo. 

“But since the words of Scripture that I have treated are explained (by Christian exegetes) in so many senses, (literal, figurative, moral) critics full of worldly learning should restrain themselves from attacking as ignorant and uncultured these utterances (the scriptural text) that have been made to nourish all devout souls. Such critics are like wingless creatures that crawl upon the earth and, while soaring no higher than the leap of a frog, mock the birds in their nests above."

Digging into that quote, we see that first he notes that most Christian exegetes are not wooden literalists. There are layers of meaning - literal, figurative or prophetic and moral - that are drawn from the text, meaning that is sophisticated and deep, meaning that goes beyond mere details to key truths that “nourish the soul”. This is very important to advocates of Younger Earth creationism. The questions of where death came from and how death is related to sin are not matters of stubborn literalism, enslavement to enlightenment rationalism or nitpicking about the meaning of a singular Hebrew word. This is a central question about the ultimate meaning of both life and faith. And 

Augustine compares the scientists of his day who mocked the various depths of meaning in the scriptures to hopping frogs who imagine they soar higher than birds!

To be fair, based on what Augustine has written in LMoG, it seems to me that he is simply saying that the method God used in the initial acts of the creation of time, space, light, energy, and of heaven and earth is not something we have a frame of reference for. Not only are land and sea, plants and animals created things, but light, time, and matter and energy are also created things. More to the point, while being created, they may not have been precisely the things we may think of them as being now. The intent of the Author of Genesis in describing these initial acts of creating light, water, earth and heaven is unclear simply because the text is just a bit beyond our scope of vision. What is partially formed light or partially constituted time?

Augustine seemed to believe that creation occurred in a single event and that the days of creation symbolically signify different aspects or phases of creation that are neither actual 24 hour periods nor long ages. Perhaps we could say that since context determines the meaning of words, we could allow there is no context quite like the first events of creation. Augustine seems to be open to the notion that creation of land, water, light, sky, stars and planets took place without relation to a defined period of time, but for Augustine, the best understanding of the text certainly does not imply long, long ages at all (see part 3). Augustine would likely avoid too firm a statement about the meaning of “day”, based primarily on the interpretive difficulties in the text itself, not based on a supposed conflict with current scientific ideas.

More importantly, theistic evolutionists don’t bother to mention a very pointed rebuke from Augustine to Christians who would place secular science above scripture: 

“But more dangerous is the error of certain weak brethren who faint away when they hear these irreligious critics learnedly and eloquently discoursing on the theories of astronomy or on any of the questions relating to the elements of this universe. With a sigh, they esteem these teachers as superior to themselves, looking upon them as great men; and they return with disdain to the books which were written for the good of their souls; and, although they ought to drink from these books with relish, they can scarcely bear to take them up. Turning away in disgust from the unattractive wheat field, they long for the blossoms on the thorn.”

What vivid language! The “learned” accounts of the universe found in “irreligious” views of the science of astronomy are attractive (to the weak) as a blossom, but in reality are a mere thorn! While the text of scripture appears unattractive in comparison to secular wisdom, it is in fact the wheat that nourishes and feeds. What a stunning rebuke! Might this describe the plight of so many young Christians in secular universities and Christian colleges who turn away from the account of Genesis after being exposed to a one-sided and virulently dogmatic naturalism! Might this also describe so many students at ostensibly Christian colleges who are taught what is essentially a baptized naturalism by Christian professors!

In fact, Augustine is rather staunch in his defense of the reliability of the scriptures in the face of scientific theories, stating: 

“When they are able, from reliable evidence, to prove some fact of physical science, we shall show that it is not contrary to our Scripture. But when they produce from any of their books a theory contrary to Scripture, and therefore contrary to the Catholic faith, either we shall have some ability to demonstrate that it is absolutely false, or at least we ourselves will hold it so without any shadow of a doubt.

Read that carefully. Where science and scripture seem to conflict, Augustine insists that time and research will either 1)prove the science false or 2)Christians will hold that apparent science to be false, and he adds the words “without shadow of doubt.” Christians will hold to scripture.

It is assumed in this statement that scripture can be understood in most matters in its own right and may be found to be in conflict with the current views of secular science. Augustine is anticipating that secular science and Biblical revelation may well stand in conflict. When that happens, according to Augustine, the Christian should hold secular science to be false “without any shadow of doubt”.

So his caution to Christians in the LMoG is simple: On the one hand, we should not force the text to mean more than what it says and discredit the faith by presumptuous and poor exegesis. On the other we should not make the text mean less than what it says and use secular opinion to bend the meaning of the text. He simply insists that the intent of the author is the primary goal in interpreting the scripture.

“When we read the inspired books in the light of this wide variety of true doctrines which are drawn from a few words and founded on the firm basis of Catholic belief, let us choose that one which appears as certainly the meaning intended by the author. But if this is not clear, then at least we should choose an interpretation in keeping with the context of Scripture and in harmony with our faith.”

In short, Augustine admits that not everything in scripture is equally clear. Perhaps we do not know precisely what the author of Genesis meant when he writes that the Spirit was “hovering over the waters”. But those matters that are critical to the faith will be clear enough from the text itself. To interpret those passages, the context of scripture and the harmony with the basic tenets of the faith should be the guide – not the conclusions of secular science about events that no human could observe.

Hence, should we not conclude that Augustine would read Genesis 3 in light of Romans 5, for example, rather than in light of the “irreligious views of science”? This would be in stark contrast to theistic evolutionists who would read both Genesis 3 and Romans 5 in the context of naturalistic science. Augustine continues:

“But if the meaning cannot be studied and judged by the context of Scripture, at least we should choose only that which our faith demands. For it is one thing to fail to recognize the primary meaning of the writer, and another to depart from the norms of religious belief.

So, I take it that the “Literal Meaning of Genesis” may be rightly used to suggest that some aspects of any particular view of the origin of time, energy, matter and space should not force the text to say more than it says, primarily in the interpretation of the first few verses of Ch 1. The precise details of the origins of the universe, of the “heavens and earth”, are beyond our vision and the intent of the author of Genesis is not easily discerned. If the text says light was created before the sun, then perhaps “light” may legitimately mean something beyond a “normal” definition of the term. “Time” itself is may be a concept that is flexible because time as we know it was just in the process of being created. The laws of nature, assuming those laws are themselves created things, may not have operated in precisely the way they operate now. We should not be dogmatic about what we cannot see clearly from a few phrases in a single chapter of scripture. His warning should be heeded not only by YEC advocates, but by Old-Earth advocates and theistic evolutionists as well.

But the LMoG cannot honestly be used to imply that Augustine would endorse theistic evolution or anything of the sort. While we may not know the precise methods of ex nihilo creation, nothing in the LMoG suggests that for Augustine the fact of creation is in question or in particular that the events that occurred during or after the initial creation week were anything other than real, historical events. This is where the theistic evolutionists’ use of Augustine falls apart completely. His words are a caution to Christian expositors not to stretch the meaning beyond what the text requires, not a blank check to radically reinterpret the text of Genesis 1-11 in light of secular science or to read it in disregard of the testimony of both the Old and New Testament with respect to the historicity of Adam, Eve and the fall.

To unwrap Augustine’s views of the age of the Earth, of Adam and Eve, of the fall of man and its relation to physical death, his views of the Genesis flood and the tower of Babel, we have to turn from LM0G to his “City of God.”