The Theological Axiom
A theology that does not culminate in doxology — praise, worship, and awe before the living God — risks becoming mere deology: discourse about God emptied of divine immediacy.
This axiom functions as a theological diagnostic. It does not deny the value of scholarship, literary analysis, or historical study, but asks a more fundamental question: Does this theology finally lead the reader to worship?
The Genesis 1–11 Debate
The question of whether Genesis 1–11 should be read as straightforward, literal history — including six ordinary days of creation, a global flood, and a historical Adam and Eve — remains one of the most divisive issues in contemporary Christian theology.
Those who reject a strictly literal-historical reading often describe these chapters as theological literature, ancient phenomenology, proto-history, or mytho-history. Critics, particularly within young-earth creationist and confessional Reformed circles, argue that such approaches risk draining the text of its doxological power.
From this perspective, Genesis becomes an object of analysis rather than proclamation — a text discussed endlessly but rarely sung, feared, or adored.
Scholars Commonly Associated with Non-Literal Readings
The following scholars are influential in post-2000 biblical studies and theology. While many of them affirm divine inspiration and Christian faith, their approaches to Genesis 1–11 are often criticized as examples of theology that does not naturally culminate in doxology.
Functional and Temple-Cosmology Approaches
- John H. Walton — Interprets Genesis 1 as a functional account of creation, emphasizing order and role assignment rather than material origins. Critics argue this “de-materializes” divine action.
- Tremper Longman III — Describes Genesis 1–11 as theological history heavily shaped by literary conventions rather than strict chronology.
Mytho-History and Philosophical Reinterpretations
- William Lane Craig — Classifies Genesis 1–11 as mytho-history, affirming a historical Adam while rejecting young-earth chronology and literal days.
BioLogos and Evolutionary Creationist Voices
- Denis Lamoureux — Treats Genesis as theological truth expressed through ancient science, not historical reportage.
- Peter Enns — Interprets Genesis as Israel’s theological response to Ancient Near Eastern myths rather than historical narration.
Proto-History, Parabolic, and Academic Approaches
- Gordon J. Wenham — Describes Genesis 1–11 as proto-history: real events narrated paradigmatically.
- John Goldingay — Treats the text as parabolic history, communicating theological truth without historical precision.
- Kenton L. Sparks — Reads Genesis as ancient historiography or fiction, largely incompatible with modern historical claims.
Skeptical and Critical Scholarship
- Francesca Stavrakopoulou — Interprets Genesis as myth rooted in Ancient Near Eastern religion.
- Bart D. Ehrman — Treats Genesis as legendary material, disconnected from historical reality.
The Charge of “Deology”
From a conservative theological standpoint, many of these approaches are criticized as producing theology that excites intellectual curiosity but fails to inspire worship. The concern is not merely hermeneutical, but spiritual:
When God’s acts are rendered symbolic, functional, or mythic, the God who once spoke and worlds leapt into being becomes an object of discussion rather than adoration.
Proponents of non-literal readings respond that deeper understanding of ancient genre and context leads to truer worship. The divide, therefore, is not simply about history, but about the relationship between revelation, authority, and doxology.
The Litmus Test of “Deology”
If a theologian or scholar says, "Genesis 1 is not history," the follow-up question determines if they are a "Deologist":
"Does your view make God bigger and more worthy of praise, or does it make the Bible look like a collection of dusty errors?"
If the result is a dry, intellectual lecture that leaves you feeling "smarter" but less "prayerful," you’ve found a Deologist.