Ken Ham Clueless on Millennials’ Mass-Exodus from Church
Scripture can only be accepted as an “authority” insofar as it is rational to believe it and those presenting it do so in a rationally consistent manner. You cannot accept “authority” simply for authority’s sake. Muslims believe their Koran is an “authority” just as much as Christians believe the Bible is an “authority”. So then how does one determine what “authority” is the correct one? There must be an objective standard other than simply an appeal to “authority”. The institutional church has failed miserably in providing such a rational objective standard, and that is why the current generation is rejecting it out of hand.
~ Andy
A Kinder, Gentler Approach to Tough Questions for Answers in Genesis: Introduction
Last week, this blog/ministry received more pushback in one week than all weeks put together since we launched in 2009. Also, a new crowd has shown up and made their disdain for us known: the Zane Hodges hyper-grace groupies. They can now get in line with the New Calvinists, Old Calvinists, Arminians, Anti-Lordship crowd, and discernment bloggers.
Indeed, in the midst of last week’s firestorm, I do take responsibility for the Ken Ham AIG post. I forget that this blog has been around for six years, and readers are not going to assume prior context. Basically, I have serious issues with Ken Ham that go back several years concerning a mutual acquaintance, and I am afraid that past bias provoked me to pull the trigger on that post without sufficient forethought.
If I would have to narrow this ministry down to one objective, it is to get people to think which at times results in frustration. I too-often forget what the readers are not seeing when I write a post, and that post lacked context on many levels, so it was pulled down.
With that said, I want to revisit the issues raised by the post in the right way. In part one, I concede that the lawsuit by AIG against the state of Kentucky is an issue of incentive and not subsidy (or a grant). In part one which is a pretty good three-way discussion at the Dayton Potter’s House, I explain my revised position on that. But what about the title? Do I really believe that Ken Ham wants a church state? No, but what we also discuss is the huge problem with the vast majority of American evangelicals believing that God’s kingdom is on earth, and how that assumption leads to de facto dominionism. This is why these lawsuits make me nervous.
Look, as I explain in part one, I was almost first in line with my family during the grand opening of the creation museum. But ironically, because of an individual associated with AIG, a person that I actually attended church with, I was forced to go on a journey, and that journey raises serious questions about the answers supposedly delivered by Ken Ham. In light of Ken Ham’s endorsement of Redemptive-Historical Hermeneutics, what is Ham’s true worldview?
In addition, should Christians be investing millions of dollars to prove that Noah built a boat when precious few understand the difference between justification and sanctification? Moreover, was it a boat or a box? And am I making a bigger deal out of that than I should? Perhaps.
You be the judge, but frankly, because of a worldview that Ham has endorsed on paper, perhaps unwittingly, I lost a big chunk of my life which God, by the way, has replaced abundantly, and for that I am thankful. Nevertheless, because of that experience, I have a tendency to take too few prisoners, and I sincerely appreciate those around me who are willing to inflict faithful wounds and not deceitful kisses.
The part one video is being processed. Part two will be next week. We will also discuss the common thread that is putting us at odds with so many: the distinction between justification and sanctification; and that issue’s impact on the gospel.
paul
Nye/Ham Debate Indicative of Christian Cluelessness
Even as I write this, creationist Ken Ham is debating Bill Nye the Science Guy. In fact, we have the debate playing live at the Potter’s House and some who dwell here are watching.
I watched some of the debate and found it most interesting, but yet the huge conundrum looms. If the TANC research institute doesn’t know anything else, we at least know this: Christians don’t understand the basics of soteriology, but yet pounce on these creationist frays like a pride after the kill.
Said another way, they don’t even understand the gospel, but are hell-bent on proving God created the Earth in six days. Ken Ham is right, evolution is a contra gospel, but we don’t even understand our own gospel. Moreover, Christians will fixate on Ham’s scientific lectures with bated breath while demanding milk and cookies in regard to theology and preaching.
This is by design; this is, in fact, Protestant indoctrination. The heroes of our faith were Platonists that rejected all truth by empirical study. Martin Luther believed that the key to spiritual wellbeing is to see all of creation as a gospel narrative for the purpose of revealing our vileness in a deeper and deeper way. Creation and life is a gospel narrative that aids the Christian in self-death. Luther’s primary problem with the Jews was the following: their tradition of emphasis on individual study and reason. Luther stated that reason is an ugly whore who should have dung rubbed in her face to make her ugly. John Calvin and Luther both attributed the idea that the Earth is round to demonic deception. The colonial Calvinist Puritans followed suit by attributing the scientific discoveries of Benjamin Franklin to demonic activity.
Over the centuries Protestants have let their hair down a little and dichotomized knowledge according to the material and spiritual. There is worldly knowledge which has some present practical benefit, but spiritual knowledge must be brought to us by those with special gifts preordained by God. Christians therefore demand truisms to live by and are offended when a teacher insinuates that they can understand the deep things of God. In contrast, the deep science of creationism gives them toys to play with in the sandbox of life. We are experts in creationism, but our lives are no different from that of the world. How unpowered are we? The badge of honor among Christian mothers in our day is their imperfection. The indwelling Holy Spirit can’t enable them to keep a clean and orderly house, but He can save your soul—really, He can, don’t you believe us?
And one should be careful that the argument really isn’t over the mere mechanics of the narrative. On the one hand, yes, God created the Earth in six solar days, but on the other hand, the creation shows forth God’s glory and our wickedness. The story should be interpreted literally in regard to science, but redemptively in regard to reality. God really did create the Earth in six days, but the ONLY reason He did that is to show our wickedness as set against His holiness.
Hence, Christians clamor about to be well studied in the mechanics of the narrative, but don’t know the theological difference between grammatical interpretation and redemptive interpretation. The former assumes that the Bible serves a wide spectrum of purposes for the Christian, especially as wisdom to live a holy life—the latter assumes we can’t live a holy life and the Bible only serves to show us our wickedness in a deeper and deeper way. Every verse is about our sinfulness as set against the holiness of God. That’s the difference between grammatical interpretation and redemptive interpretation.
Most Christians are oblivious to this issue that concerns the very interpretation of reality itself, but they can give you all of the arguments for why the story of Noah’s ark should be read literally in regard to the narrative. But in regard to being confronted about how to apply the Bible to life, a blank stare ensues followed by the muttering of, “Jesus, Jesus, Jesus” or, “We will pray for you” or, “Go to the pastor for a gospel pill.”
And in fact, Ken Ham hobnobs with redemptive interpretists all the time. Most notably, Christian mystic Chad Bresson who has written articles for Ham’s Creation Museum magazine. Bresson is one of the founders of the Earth Stove Society, a New Covenant Theology think tank. The first tenant of NCT according to the ESS is that ALL reality is interpreted through the cross. Ham published an article by Bresson positing the idea that even green grass should have a Christocentric meaning. Any other significant conclusions about green grass are just shadows that obscure the full glory of the Sun (Son).
Let me conclude with this point: job-one is having a firm grip on what the gospel is. Protestant academics will not stand before Christ in your stead—stop acting like that is the case.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
14 comments