The often-missed lesson of the chicken egg argument is that it is virtually never the presenting issue.

Let me lay out the question so that we can see the problem:
Which came first:
the chicken
or
the egg?
At first blush, we can see in the question a simple matter of creation. In fact, it seems to get at the root of how we see the creation of everything: is it realized in a full form, or does it grow from a starting place?

The question then becomes the source of a creepy ideo-philosophical discussion about evolution, because we know better than to think either option fully encompasses the discussion. Obviously, before their was chicken or egg their was a proto-chicken that would evolve into the chicken we know today. This argument has played out in the classroom as children are held hostage in a so-called “war” between creationists and evolutionists. But that further muddies the water away from the original conundrum.

The question of eminence: who gets first crack at the world: seems ridiculously shallow in any context. Isn’t this reminiscent of the disciples in Mark 9:34, arguing over who is the greatest? Or of the audacious request of the Zebedee brothers a chapter later: “Grant us to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your glory”? And to push this analogy even further, do these images not represent an utter ignorance of Jesus’ ministry as well as a rejection of Jesus’ attempts to prepare the disciples for his death?

So what is the question of the chicken and egg really about? I might make this suggestion. Isn’t there a greater question about how these two elements of life served creation in its past, its present, and its future? What place does the egg have in the world and how does that compare with the place of the chicken? Can we not eat both of them? Can we not eat the egg as the product of the chicken? Can we not recognize the efficiency of the production process here?

This makes me think of a similar cliche: “it’s like apples and oranges”. Taken in this light, are they not both fruit? Are they not both edible and useful? And are they not better for us than a Whopper?

Perhaps it is in our nature to spend time in contemplation about the universe and its creation and order. Perhaps it is even useful (in some ways) to argue over the shape and purpose of all that is. But isn’t it of greater use to think about the ministry itself? Isn’t it far greater to speculate on the wonder of creation, rather than seek to define it? Isn’t that the wrong question?