Creation is the initial doctrine we encounter in opening our Bibles, and it has been the point of initial attack of critics of the Faith. The attack is as old as Christianity, because the early church moved in a Greco-Roman culture deeply committed to an evolutionary perspective. Aristotle as a scientist was deeply interested, as Cornelius Van Til showed us in a telling essay, in freaks because they represented a possible next step in evolution. More than a few of the early church Fathers, being pagan in origin, compromised on Genesis 1.... All attempts to undermine strict six-day creationism have a deadly affect. First they require a different view of the Bible.... These novel kinds of exegesis deny the validity of the Reformation and the view of the Scripture as given to the believer, not the scholar. Second, a denial of six day creationism requires a different view of God.... The issues in six-day creationism are thus more basic than many are willing to admit. The life of the church is at stake. (Dr. R.J. Rushdoony, “The Importance of Six Day Creation,” Chalcedon Report, September 1988)

Can you imagine two theologians more different than Dr. Henry Morris and Dr. R.J. Rushdoony? One was a premillennial dispensationalist, and the other a reformed postmillennialist. But these men shared two things in common.

First, they both held to the orthodox view of the Book of Genesis. Both understood that much of the battle for the Church in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries would stand or fall on whether Christians compromised (thus undermining their worldview and theology) with theories like “local flood,” Gap, progressive creationism, the Framework Hypothesis, or any other attempt to harmonize Scripture with the religious presuppositions of evolutionary scientism. They recognized that, no matter how pretty the package of those who would deny the global flood, in the end, such teachers are “willingly ignorant” (2 Peter 3:5). They both knew that such compromise with the Book of Genesis was a real and present danger to the future of the Church.

Second, they were gracious men who deeply appreciated the other, notwithstanding significant theological differences on matters like eschatology. They held to the “antiquated” view that men of differing opinions could still retain a collegial and loving Christian attitude toward each other, free of posturing, inflammatory rhetoric, and intellectually dishonest characterizations. I personally spoke with both men about the other, and neither had anything but charitable and grateful comments to share. Dr. Rushdoony viewed Dr. Morris as a genuine hero, and Dr. Morris was grateful to Dr. Rushdoony for his early support of The Genesis Flood and unflinching stand on Genesis.

I grew up observing this very same equanimity in the life of my father. Dad (a man of strong opinions and unflinching commitment to principle) spoke honorably about other honorable men, regardless of sharp disagreements he may have had with them on different points. His example remains an inspiration. As to dishonorable men (unrepentant and habitual mockers, scoffers, gossips, slanderers, covenant-breakers, those who turn on their spiritual and blood fathers, etc.) — well, at some point it is best to make no comment at all.

Observations:

1. Prioritization: Both Dr. Morris and Dr. Rushdoony knew how to cut through the extraneous battles over theological esoterica to get to the heart of the battle of the day. They recognized that the departure from the historical, grammatical, normative interpretation of Genesis was not only inherently wrong, but would lead to ten thousand compromises. They were correct. Today we battle evolutionary compromise and its devastating effect on the Christian family. Christians would be well served to quit exerting tremendous energy dividing legitimate strategic friendships by bickering over their pet micro-issues. They would be well served to engage the battle where it is most hotly raging — on the issues which will determine the future of our Church, our nation, and our families. Dr. Morris and Dr. Rushdoony understood this when they stood unified in defense of Genesis.
2. Honorable Sons and Dishonorable Sons: Over the years, I have witnessed professing Christians justify some of the most atrocious and dishonorable behavior on the basis of “theological,” “hermeneutical,” or “strategic” differences. Having convinced themselves of the righteousness of their cause, such men no longer find themselves bound to principles of honor, civility, or academic integrity. Men like Dr. Morris and Dr. Rushdoony provide us with a refreshing alternative to the “league of dishonorable sons.” (As an aside, the sons of both of these men are simply wonderful, model examples of father-honoring men who have made it their life-mission to bring honor to the work of their fathers.)
3. Boundaries of Ecumenicity: The example of Dr. Morris and Dr. Rushdoony also points to the legitimate boundaries of ecumenicity within the camp of believers: Where men are honorable, and where they are Christian brothers that share important, timely areas of agreement, differences of eschatology and interpretive systems do not necessarily have to become an impediment to deep, abiding respect and admiration. Are there practical implications which stem from differences? Huge ones. Does it affect the terms and nature of our cooperative efforts? Of course. But none of these caveats is a justification for incivility or worse.
4. Conspiratorialists: The example of Dr. Morris and Dr. Rushdoony should dispel the simplistic categorizations of men and movements by conspiratorialist theologians of all stripes. The warm regard and cooperative effort on issues of the Doctrine of Creation between men like Dr. Morris and Dr. Rushdoony might lead the conspiratorialist to claim that Dr. Morris was a secret “reconstructionist,” or that Dr. Rushdoony was “a secret dispensationalist,” but neither could be further from the truth. They both shared a biblical, child-like (not childish) understanding of the Word of God and were gifted with the discernment to recognize just what was at stake when Genesis was compromised. What is a conspiratorialist? Conspiratorialists are the type that do Google searches for links between names and who read the bibliographies at the back of books to determine “the true theological agenda” of a man or ministry. While searches and bibliographies reveal helpful information, conspiratorialists, with their penchant for syllogistic reasoning, draw more from such searches than the facts merit. Over the years, we have seen some real whoppers leveled at this ministry by conspiratorialists of every stripe. A classic tact is to assume that our stated appreciation of a particular person is tantamount to carte blanche approval of their worldview and theology. Like the conspiratorialists that they are, these Web warriors wave the banner of their own pet parochial theological causes, then hurl accusations based not on what we say we believe, but what they think we really believe. To support their positions, they weave theological plots and attribute to us viewpoints that we have never stated. While avoiding the plain text of our articles (which do state our position), they seek to connect the dots of guilt by association. The problem is that the dots do not always connect. The real world is both more simple and more complex than the theological conspiratorialists would have us believe. The civility of Dr. Morris and Dr. Rushdoony reveal the beauty and complexity of Christian relationships, as well as the immature and imprecise thinking of the conspiratorialists.

Final Thoughts:

God is calling a generation of patriarchs in the faith to their home in eternity. Their glorious gain is our temporary loss. Who will replace them?

Of course, they cannot be replaced. What can happen is that we can build on the very best legacies and lessons which they have bequeathed to us. They are part of God’s ever-growing great cloud of witnesses, and they call us to join their ranks.

But the life legacies of these men are far more than books written and ministries built. Their life legacies include the character lessons they gave to children and friends which have, in a thousand ways difficult to explain or define, touched hearts and transformed the way we view relationships. For this, I am thankful.