A Strategic Hill to Die On

An interesting expression is that some concept is not a hill to die on. This implies that the speaker does not consider the idea to be all that important, or that it is something a bit interesting but he does not have enough information or motivation to argue it.

Similarly, some people say that the age of the earth is a side issue; it is not a hill to die on. While informed creationists say that belief in recent creation or the age of the earth are not requirements for salvation, they are still important issues.

Edinburgh Castle on Castle Rock, Wikimedia Commons / Scglossop1 (CC BY-SA 4.0)

In settlements and the military, people would want to fortify the higher ground because it was easier to defend. It could be costly for opposing forces to lead a charge up that hill. Conversely, those making the defense should be aware that they are defending the correct hill and not ignoring the importance of another hill nearby. It may be surprising, but defending the hill of the young earth also ties into the goodness of God!

Over the years, I’ve heard it said over and over by old-earth creationists that a young earth is just “not a hill to die on.” They mean that other aspects of defending and preaching the gospel are much more important, and Christians don’t have the resources to waste defending a “side issue” like a young earth. Then one day I realized what was wrong with this approach. This realization came with memories of a place I once visited: a place with a strategic hill at first reckoned unimportant but which turned out later to be vitally important. That place still has a lesson to teach, and the lesson applies to the religious conflict raging around us.

I'd be much obliged if you'd read the rest of "A Hill to Die On." Also see "God’s days vs man’s days?"