Creation Together: Building Bridges Across the Origins Divide

Last July, I participated in a gathering that brought together Christians from seemingly opposite ends of the origins debate spectrum. Our group consisted of three young-earth creationists and three old-earth/evolutionary creationists, along with a moderator and a pastor serving as an observer. What made this meeting unique wasn’t just its composition, but an underlying purpose: to demonstrate that Christians holding radically different views about creation can still worship and commune together as brothers and sisters in Christ.

The Genesis of “Creation Together”

The premise, as I understood it, was straightforward yet profound. We acknowledged from the outset that we weren’t gathering to change minds or convince anyone to abandon their deeply held convictions. Instead, our goal was to explore something far more fundamental to Christian faith: the possibility and necessity of genuine fellowship despite theological and significant scientific disagreement. This gathering, which was called “Creation Together,” by the organizing host (CORE Academy of Science) emerged from a shared recognition that the church’s ability to navigate disagreement while maintaining unity is crucial for our personal and corporate witness to the world.

The format intentionally moved away from the debate-style encounters that often characterize discussions between young-earth creationists and evolutionary creationists. Rather than positioning ourselves as opponents, we came together as fellow believers seeking to understand each other as whole persons, not just as representatives of particular viewpoints.

Initial Thoughts and Atmosphere

Walking into the gathering, I carried a mix of anticipation and apprehension. Having engaged in origins discussions for many years through my blog and YouTube channel, I was familiar with how quickly such conversations can become contentious. Yet from the first moments, it became clear that this gathering would be different.

The atmosphere surprised me in several ways. First, the level of tension I had anticipated could occur never materialized. Instead of the defensive posturing that often characterizes these discussions, we found ourselves engaging in genuine, open dialogue. Our study of Philippians and shared prayer time set a tone of mutual respect and Christian fellowship that permeated all our interactions.

What struck me most was how the format encouraged us to see each other as complete human beings rather than just defenders of particular positions. We shared meals, laughed together, and discussed our families and ministries. These seemingly simple interactions proved transformative in how we approached our differences.

Finding Common Ground

Perhaps the most revealing aspect of our time together was discovering the extensive common ground we shared beyond our views on origins. We found strong alignment in our theological foundations, particularly in our high view of Scripture and commitment to orthodox Christian doctrine.

As Christians, we shared essential doctrinal beliefs centered on faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, trusting in His atoning death and resurrection for the forgiveness of sins. Our common ground included belief in the triune nature of God—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—as revealed in Scripture as God’s authoritative Word. We affirmed salvation as a gift of grace received through faith alone, not works, and acknowledged the importance of repentance and public profession of faith. Significantly, none of us considered young-earth creationism itself to be a gospel issue, even while recognizing its theological implications. As young-earth creationist Dr. Todd Wood has said in a recent New Creation blog post, the doctrine of creation, while important, stands distinct from the essential gospel message of salvation through Christ (https://newcreation.blog/but-is-it-a-gospel-issue/). This shared theological foundation provided crucial context for our discussions, lowering the stakes enough to allow for genuine dialogue while maintaining the seriousness these issues deserve.

Our conversations revealed that we faced similar challenges in engaging with contemporary culture and shared many concerns about the state of the church and society. Particularly noteworthy was our mutual unease with confrontational apologetics approaches that often characterize origins debates. We found ourselves united in the belief that such aggressive tactics can damage Christian witness, even when employed in defense of what we believe to be truth.

The depth of scholarly engagement among participants challenged typical stereotypes on both sides. From my vantage point it was evident that this group of young-earth creationists demonstrated a sophisticated understanding of scientific concepts. Though they displayed a strong commitment to interpreting data within a young-earth paradigm, all seemed acutely aware of the significant scientific challenges they were attempting to address. A mutual recognition of intellectual integrity helped to create an environment where we could disagree without questioning each other’s commitment to Christ or scholarly rigor.

What emerged was a picture of Christian fellowship that went beyond our differences without minimizing them. We confirmed in this admittedly brief encounter over two days, that it’s possible to maintain strong convictions while still extending grace and friendship to those who see things differently. This realization certainly didn’t make our disagreements disappear, but it did change how we understood their significance in the broader context of Christian unity.

Interspersed throughout our gathering were to me were particularly meaningful moments during our shared study of Philippians, where Paul’s emphasis on unity in Christ while navigating significant disagreements within the early church spoke directly to our situation. This biblical perspective helped us frame my differences within the larger narrative of God’s work in and through His diverse church.

Challenges and Learning Moments

The gathering repeatedly presented opportunities for some tough self-reflection, particularly regarding how we engage with those holding different views. One of the most striking revelations was confronting my own internal struggle between the desire to correct what I perceived as misconceptions and the need to truly listen and understand. This tension became particularly apparent during our discussions of scientific evidence, where years of academic training made it tempting to jump into that form of professor mode in which I’m lecturing rather than engaging.

A persistent temptation in discussions I have generally had with young-age creationists, at least for me, is the belief that if others could just see everything through my lens – if they could follow my thought processes and understand all I understand – they would inevitably arrive at my conclusions. This mindset reveals a subtle form of intellectual pride that can poison genuine dialogue before it begins. At our event, while everyone in our circle likely felt they had crucial pieces of the puzzle figured out, our conversations revealed something more profound: each participant carried both deep convictions and genuine uncertainties. When we moved beyond surface-level assumptions about what others believe based on their associations or positions, we discovered layers of nuanced thinking that defied easy categorization. This recognition of human complexity – that each person’s journey with faith and science contains both certainties and doubts – created space for authentic “iron sharpening iron” discussions that enriched all participants.

What emerged was a helpful lesson in the art of balanced dialogue. Intellectual humility revealed itself not as the abandonment of conviction, but as the recognition that our understanding, while founded on careful study and sincere belief, remains incomplete.

Perhaps the most valuable insight came from observing how theoretical disagreements could coexist with practical fellowship. When we moved beyond abstract debate to discuss our lived experiences as Christians in academia, ministry, and family life, the artificial barriers often erected between different positions on origins began to dissolve. This didn’t make our disagreements disappear, but it did place them in a more appropriate context.

Participating in such an exchange involved considerable risk for both sides. In a culture that often promotes an “us or them” mentality and thrives on false dichotomies, stepping into dialogue with those from opposing viewpoints can be seen as a betrayal by one’s own camp. Young-earth creationists and evolutionary creationists alike risked being perceived as compromising their beliefs or aligning with the “enemy” by those entrenched in their respective communities. For individuals and organizations heavily invested in a singular narrative, such encounters can appear to undermine their foundational positions. However, the courage displayed by participants–and in my mind the biggest risk takers were the young-age creationists–in this event serves as a powerful example of how pursuing truth and unity in Christ can transcend the fear of judgment and polarization. This meeting demonstrated that seeking understanding is not a concession but an act of faith that challenges the divisive norms of modern discourse.

Broader Implications for Church Unity

Our experiment in dialogue holds significant implications for how the church might navigate its various divisions. The origins debate, while significant, represents just one of many areas where sincere Christians find themselves at odds. The principles we discovered about maintaining fellowship amid disagreement could apply equally to discussions about politics, gender roles, or any number of contentious issues currently challenging church unity.

The experience highlighted how personal relationships transform theoretical disagreements. It’s far more challenging to dismiss or demonize someone after sharing meals, prayers, and honest conversation. This transformation suggests a path forward for churches grappling with internal divisions: creating spaces for genuine encounter that emphasize our shared identity in Christ while honestly acknowledging our differences.

Our gathering demonstrated that unity doesn’t require uniformity. The depth of our theological and scientific disagreements remained unchanged, yet we discovered that these differences need not prevent genuine Christian fellowship. This realization carries profound implications for how churches might approach controversial issues without demanding that everyone arrive at identical conclusions.

Response and Reactions

The response to our gathering has been, and likely will continue to be, mixed. Some view such dialogue as compromising essential truth, while others see it as a necessary step toward healing divisions within the church. Having participated in this experiment in Christian unity, I find myself better equipped to address both perspectives.

Ken Ham’s likely reaction to this gathering, as I have reflected back on the experience, would probably be dismissive, viewing such dialogue as compromise. He actively discourages such conversations with compromisers and appears to prevent his employees from such interactions as well considering them to be dangerous. Afterall, to engage with a compromiser in his view it to engage with the devil himself.

Yet our experience demonstrated that meaningful conversation doesn’t require abandoning our convictions. Instead, it demands that we hold them with both firmness and grace, recognizing that our primary identity lies in Christ rather than in our position on origins. But we have to see each other as followers of Christ first to take that first step.

I share these reflections with clear-eyed realism about the challenges ahead. When we are convinced of the truth of our position, we naturally tend to view opposing viewpoints as potentially damaging to the gospel message, leading us to instinctively push away or undermine those who promote different perspectives. While I maintain that certain young-earth creationist ministries, such as Ken Ham’s, ultimately do more harm than good to the gospel’s advancement, I must also acknowledge a sobering truth: there are old-earth creationists who, though I may agree with many of their scientific conclusions, may likewise hinder rather than help the advancement of God’s work through their approach and methodology not to mention so theological misgivings that I have. This recognition requires a delicate balance – maintaining firm convictions about truth while remaining humble enough to acknowledge that the manner in which we pursue and present that truth can sometimes undermine our ultimate purpose of glorifying God and advancing His kingdom.

The broader Christian academic community might view this gathering with cautious optimism. Our ability to maintain substantive dialogue while acknowledging deep disagreements suggests a path forward for other difficult conversations within the church. The key lies not in minimizing differences but in recognizing that our shared faith in Christ provides a foundation strong enough to bear the weight of serious disagreement.

A particularly telling moment came during our discussion of how we engage with our local churches regarding origins issues. Many of us shared similar experiences of navigating these waters carefully, seeking to maintain unity while remaining true to our convictions. This common experience highlighted how our differences on origins often mask significant agreement about the importance of church unity and pastoral sensitivity.

For my atheist readers who often critique religious institutions as inherently dogmatic, this gathering offers a counterpoint. Here were eight PhD scientists and biblical scholars engaging in genuine dialogue despite fundamental disagreements about earth’s age and evolution. Unlike the often-polarized public debates, we demonstrated that Christian faith can create space for serious intellectual discourse while maintaining community. This wasn’t about compromising beliefs – each participant held firm convictions – but about showing that religious faith can coexist with intellectual flexibility and respectful disagreement.

Future Directions and Hope

The “Creation Together” gathering hopefully will open possibilities for future dialogue within the Christian community. I believe the principles we experienced about maintaining fellowship amid disagreement could provide paths forward in discussions about politics, gender, and other challenging topics that currently divide many congregations.

Intentional relationship building emerged as a crucial element for future initiatives. Our experience demonstrated that meaningful dialogue becomes possible when we first establish personal connections and acknowledge our shared humanity. This approach stands in stark contrast to the confrontational model often employed in origins debates, especially those that occur on social media sites including YouTube, where participants frequently talk past each other from entrenched positions.

The good news for everyone Christian and non-Christian alike, is that this form of relationship building can encourage meaningful dialogue among people of all different persuasions. However, the primary point of relationship between this particular group would be out-of-reach of many of those that don’t share the most important touchpoint – fellowship in the community of Christ. It is a whole different level of difficulty for the non-Christian evolutionary biologist to interact in this fashion with a young-earth creationist.

The vision extends beyond just occasional gatherings. What if local churches created spaces for Christians holding different views on origins to regularly interact and serve together? The potential for transformation lies not in grand debates or formal declarations, but in the patient work of building relationships across perceived divides. Such ongoing interactions could help demonstrate to a watching world that Christian unity transcends secondary theological disagreements.

Consider how the early church navigated significant cultural and theological differences while, admittedly not perfectly, maintaining essential unity in Christ. Our current challenges, while serious, are not unprecedented in church history.

Looking ahead, I envision possibilities for expanding this model of dialogue. The key lies in identifying participants who share a commitment to both truth and unity, who can hold their convictions firmly while engaging respectfully with those who disagree. Unfortunately, this is a significant challenge in today’s political and social environment.  We should pray and seek collaborative ministry opportunities could emerge where Christians from different perspectives on origins work together on shared projects, demonstrating that our differences need not prevent us from advancing God’s kingdom together.

Final Reflections

As I reflect on our time together, I’m struck by how this experience has transformed my approach to engaging with fellow believers who hold different views. The gathering challenged me to examine my own preconceptions and pushed me toward a better understanding of how sincere Christians can arrive at different conclusions while maintaining their commitment to Scripture and truth.

I can say that I grew in some unexpected ways. I found myself developing a deeper appreciation for the complexity of these discussions and the importance of approaching them with genuine humility. The experience reaffirmed our need to recognize that effective dialogue requires not just intellectual engagement but also emotional and spiritual maturity.

It can’t be overemphasized that the gathering reinforced that our primary identity lies in Christ, not in our position on origins or any other secondary issue. This fundamental truth should shape how we engage with fellow believers, even amid serious disagreements. When we remember our shared identity in Christ, we can approach our differences with both conviction and grace.

Looking back, I’m particularly grateful for moments that highlighted our common ground in unexpected areas. Whether discussing challenges in our local churches, sharing concerns about current cultural trends, or exploring how to better serve our communities, we repeatedly discovered alignment in areas that transcended our differences on origins.

Future hope lies not in resolving all our differences, but in learning to navigate them faithfully while maintaining Christian unity. Our experience suggests that this is not only possible but essential for the church’s witness in an increasingly fragmented world. The path forward requires patience, humility, and a willingness to see Christ in those with whom we disagree.

To my diverse audience of believers, skeptics, and seekers, I offer this experience as evidence that Christian faith can accommodate serious intellectual disagreement while maintaining community. The strength of our faith lies not in uniform agreement on all issues, but in our ability to love one another amid our differences, grounded in our shared commitment to Christ.

The success of our gathering wasn’t measured by changed minds about origins, but by our ability to worship together, pray together, and recognize Christ in each other despite our differences. This may be the most powerful testimony we can offer to a world marked by increasing polarization and division.

As we move forward, may we demonstrate that Christians can engage meaningfully across the origins divide while fellowshipping and working together to build God’s kingdom.

Blessings to you,

Joel