The PCA has now arrived at the 25th anniversary of its Creation Study Committee Report. As a PCA ruling elder and biology professor at Houghton University, I have a special interest in this report. I’m not interested in a detailed review of the contents of the report or promoting one of the viewpoints described in it. Rather, my purpose is to consider the ways I believe the report has benefited the PCA. 

I love sports, and I think some sports analogies may be helpful here. Part of what makes a game possible and enjoyable is the adherence to rules and boundaries. Often, boundaries are painted onto the field of play to designate what is in-bounds and what is out of bounds. 

At a sporting event, different people are held to different standards. The participating athletes are held to incredibly high standards of strength, skill, and speed. Whereas, being a spectator requires a much lower standard: no weapons or outside beverages. 

Everyone generally agrees that these kinds of differential standards are good and healthy for the preservation of the sport. What we may not agree on is the specific standards. Some people may chafe at the restriction on outside beverages, while others may want more stringent regulation of what people can bring into the stadium. Some people may complain that there are too many rules and want more creativity, whereas others may argue for tighter regulations to enhance player safety.

These kinds of boundaries are also necessary in Christianity. Although only God knows the heart, we need to have some delineation for who is a Christian and who is not. Throughout history, the church has used Scripture to establish various creeds or standards to help separate out different groups of people to the best of our limited ability. 

The Reformed church in general and the PCA specifically have a similar arrangement. We have different sets of standards for church attendees, church members, and ordained leaders. Everyone generally agrees that this is good (and biblical). But when it comes to specifics, how narrowly do we draw lines?  Church members, for example, are not required to subscribe to the Westminster Confession in the way that ordained individuals are. 

One of the most hotly debated issues of the last several decades has been how to interpret language around the doctrine of creation in the Westminster Confession of Faith and specifically, the phrase concerning the world being made “in the space of six days” (WCF 4.1).

In an attempt to address the controversy, a PCA committee was formed in 1998 “to study the exegetical, hermeneutical, and theological interpretations of Genesis 1-3 and the original intent of the Westminster Standards’ phrase ‘in the space of six days.’” 

The report, presented in 2000 to the 28th General Assembly, provided extensive historical review of the issue as well as analysis of the four predominant views in Reformed circles: Calendar Day Interpretation (Young Earth Creationism), Day-Age Interpretation, Framework Interpretation, and Analogical Days Interpretation (these last three would typically fall under “Old Earth Creationism”). 

The Committee noted the following:

• They couldn’t come to a unanimous agreement about the Westminster Assembly’s original intent behind the phrase “in the space of six days;” however, they noted that before, during, and after the Assembly, individuals with a diversity of views were fully accepted as orthodox.
• They recommended against “narrowing” the definition to “six calendar days,” or “broadening” the definition to explicitly include all the aforementioned views as acceptable. They instead recommended leaving the language as it was because it most closely reflected the actual biblical language and historic PCA practice (2313).

The final adopted recommendation is quite short and worth quoting in full: “That since historically in Reformed theology there has been a diversity of views of the creation days among highly resected (sic) theologicans (sic), and, since the PCA has from its inception allowed a diversity, that the Assembly affirm that such diversity as covered in this report is acceptable as long as the full historicity of the creation account is accepted” (2364).

This recommendation passed by majority vote at the 2000 General Assembly, making it an official statement of the PCA. But, it was not added to the Confessions or the BCO, so it remains non-binding. There is still considerable freedom given to individual presbyteries to decide whether a candidate for ordination is doctrinally within the bounds of the PCA confessional commitment.

At the time, the PCA was blessed by the clear and careful work of the Creation Study Committee. But how does the report hold up after 25 years? It is a significant testament to the wisdom and foresight of the committee that the study report remains as relevant today as it was back then. The four major creation positions the committee considered remain nearly unchanged in the elapsed time.

Although the study committee was necessarily and appropriately narrow in its focus and conclusions, I believe there have been benefits from the committee’s report. 

1. The report put the creation days debate in proper perspective. The report reminds us to treat the “length of days” controversy as a secondary issue. As the study committee says, “the debate… is, theologically speaking, a humble one. It cannot rank with the significant theological debates of our time” (2302). We should try to avoid the Phariseeism of placing unnecessarily heavy ideological burdens on people before we allow them entry (Matthew 23:4). 

It’s good that the church actively monitors and assesses our doctrinal boundaries lest they fade and permit intrusions, but there’s no need to draw borders where they aren’t necessary. We can have confidence in God’s revelation in Scripture and nature as well as humility in our propensity to err in our interpretation of Scripture and nature. Confidence leads to unity in critical matters of doctrine. Humility allows for diversity of opinion in secondary issues. 

2. The report reminds us to emphasize the personal and providential rule of God. In its official doctrinal pronouncements about creation, the PCA should continue to focus on the primary cultural battle, namely the battle between two conceptions of origin: an impersonal origin versus a divine, personal origin for all things. The Bible indicates clearly that the one true, personal God is the creator (Genesis 1) and providential ruler over all (Psalm 103:19). Every event from the first moment of creation onward takes place under God’s sovereign control. Materialist evolutionary theory, which ascribes everything to time and chance and not to God, must be repudiated, as the report contends. 

3. The report reminds us that people who share a commitment to biblical inerrancy hold diverse viewpoints on this issue. In discussing each of the four viewpoints, the committee pointed out individual proponents of each. If the PCA were to favor any one view to the exclusion of others, it would necessarily mean ostracizing or even condemning some of the most ardent supporters of inerrancy and biblical authority, and the denomination would be theologically and hermeneutically poorer as a result. The study committee points out what we affirm in the Westminster Confession: “all things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all…” (WCF I.7) (2362). 

Some of you may not be old enough to appreciate how intense the debates and discussions around creation days were in the 80s and 90s. Books were published, debates were held, and organizations started to defend and critique various viewpoints. Since then, the creation days discussion moved from the center to the periphery in the evangelical ecosystem. Yes, there are still vocal advocates for young and old earth positions, but, we aren’t seeing books and articles promoting and refuting positions like we did three decades ago.

All four views outlined in the report are advocated for by men who love the Word of God and have devoted their lives to studying and teaching it. We can disagree with the views people take on this issue without asserting that their view derives from a faulty view of Scripture. 

4. The report reminds us that the length of days is not the most important part of the creation account. Over the past 25 years, we have gotten a better picture of where the slippery slope toward more liberal and heterodox views lies. The committee actually anticipated this slippery slope and unanimously affirmed the importance of several key doctrines that arise or appear in Genesis 1-3:

1. 1. Full historicity of Genesis 1-3 (including a clear definition of “history”).
   2. God’s sovereignty and providence over every aspect and detail of creation. There is no hint of chance.
   3. The unique creation of Adam and Eve as our first parents with Adam as covenant head.
   4. The fallen condition of the world including sin imputed to all humans beginning with the sin of Adam (2362).

5. The report reminds us of the value of personal interaction in the face of disagreement. With today’s exponential growth of media (books, blogs, podcasts, social media, etc.), it is easy to end up in an echo chamber that rewards inflammatory and dehumanizing “us vs. them” thinking, rather than careful and compassionate demarcation and bridge-building. Real-time voice communication (ideally in person) can grease the wheels of agreement (or at least understanding) where impersonal writing falls short. 

To return to the sports analogy, we in the PCA should remember that we’re playing together on the same field, on the same team! Our differences, within bounds, can complement, strengthen, and sharpen one another. We might see the field a little differently, but we have the same goal: to glorify God and enjoy him forever.

It seems therefore appropriate to end with the same closing used by the creation study committee: “Just as the Holy Spirit illuminates our minds as we read His special revelation, so His providence directs the church of Jesus Christ to know the truth of His general revelation. In the knowing, that truth will indeed set us free. Until we know, Christ’s Church must not be divided over what we do not yet know” (2391).

Ransom Poythress is a PCA ruling elder who serves as Associate Professor of Biology at Houghton University and an Adjunct Professor of Apologetics at Westminster Theological Seminary.