Recently while preaching on Romans chapter 5:12-21 I mentioned that Paul was not interested in the question of the genetic origins of humans as much as he was in the spiritual origins of sin. Afterwards I got buttonholed by a young-earth creationist (who often have a bee in their bonnet every time the question of origins come up) worried that I had allowed some room for evolution.

I hadn’t talked about evolution, I didn’t even mention it and the reason for that was that it was not the point of the text. It isn’t. The origins of humans may be a relevant apologetic question that the text raises but Romans 5 is not itself about that. There are many books written about it and podcasts debate it. All well and good. But still the focus of the text is not about that question.

But there I was being quizzed about my views on evolution, which I almost never offer, mostly because even showing you understand the perspective usually causes veins to start bulging alarmingly in necks. These discussions with young earthers, and it is always with them, zealous as they are to hunt down any trace of what they think of as unorthodoxy are usually a bit awkward. No one likes an inquisition.

As we tried to find the root of the agitation we went through all the usual suspects about the order of creation, the lengths of days before the creation of the sun, the genealogies and whether humanity is but a few thousand (‘maybe not more than 10,000 years old’) and so on and on. Every refusal of mine to be pinned down only causing greater agitation.

My contention was that trying to answer contemporary questions of science from the early parts of Genesis is a category mistake. Genesis 1 is not trying to answer our contemporary questions about the age of the universe or the exact process by which ‘God made‘ anything except to say that it was God who made it. It might raise those questions but it is making other points.

Which was why I assured him that I would not preach about evolution even if I thought it to be perfectly reasonable. If it’s not what the text is about, it won’t be what my sermon is about. Of course the flip side to that assurance is because I think Genesis 1 is making far more interesting theological points than any scientific ones, my friend won’t hear me preaching young-earth creationism either. Because (and take a deep breath) that’s also not what Genesis 1 is about.

Outside of the sermon in some other setting we could very well have a long and interesting discussion about the methods of interpreting Scripture, whether it is possible to accommodate evolution, and so on and on. All this is helpful, reasonable, apologetically necessary even, but none of those are good enough arguments for it to be the basis of a message to the gathered church. There are many important conversations, studies, debates that the church can and should have but not all of those should be shoe-horned into a sermon.

The sermon is not there to lecture. It is there to proclaim the gospel, make much of Christ and tell the story that God tells from every page.