When Hams Attack
Recently a friend of mine, Louis at Baker Book House, was the subject of a post by Ken Ham.
Since Louis has been discussing his journey of making peace with evolution on his Church Connection blog, as you might expect Ham’s post was… well lets says “less than complementary.”
And by “less than complementary” I mean Louis was accused of apostatizing from his faith, compromising clear biblical truths, and promoting heresy – so nothing dramatic then.
Here are a couple excerpts.
“You probably have already read the blog of Louis, who reviews books for Baker Book House (including The Evolution of Adam by Peter Enns), but I found it interesting to see the steps to apostasy eroding at this man’s (Louis) faith… Although I hate to see this happening before my eyes, I am reminded of the original sin where Satan tempted Eve with the heretical and evolutionary** ideas of becoming like God and not trusting the words of God completely. We are still falling for these “lies” today.”
“We can clearly see the seeds of doubt leading to unbelief operating in this employee at a Christian book publisher as the influence of compromising with evolution and millions of years takes its toll. We already see the sad result of compromise with a once theologically conservative Christian book publisher now publishing a heretical book like that of Peter Enns.”
This sort of personal attack is a perfect example of why I’m tired of how evangelicals continue to listen to Ham and AIG. There are certainly people I know personally who hold a YEC position graciously and for admirable reasons, but tolerating such vitriolic nonsense is doing nothing to further the Church’s mission or unity..
When I read posts like this I can’t help thinking that for Ham and AIG it’s no longer about debating the science, and its not really even about biblical faithfulness anymore, even if it perhaps began that way.
Now it has become about defending one specific theory about what the bible must be, and militantly protecting the identity, security, power, fame, and yes, money, that come along with promoting that theory by attacking anyone who disagrees.
Louis is anything but apostate or unorthodox, his faith in Christ and passion for the Bible is clear to everyone who knows him. And when someone lowers themselves to disgraceful personal attacks on a man like that, I think it says far more about the fear, and anger, and strong-arm tactics of the person making the attack than any problem with Louis’ journey.
________________________
**[The serpent tempting Eve to believe in an “evolutionary” idea - “And lo the serpent spoke unto Eve and said ‘thou art descended from millions of years of a biological process called evolution’ and Eve, deceived by the serpent, began to share this loathsome error with Adam under the guise of ‘teaching the controversy,’ and they both became atheists.” That’s in there, right?]
“it’s no longer about debating the science, and its not really even about biblical faithfulness anymore, even if it perhaps began that way. Now it has become about defending one specific theory about what the bible must be, and militantly protecting the identity, security, power, fame, and yes, money, that come along with promoting that theory by attacking anyone who disagrees and slandering their good name.”
This is certainly how it appears, and it has been AIG’s m.o. for years. They have no charity or grace towards other Christians who disagree or differ on the issue of origins. It’s tragic, because they force people in an either/or choice that is completely unnecessary — either YEC’s “science”/”true” Christianity or science/apostasy/atheism. It’s a false dichotomy and it’s causing thinking people who embrace science to walk away from the faith.
Exactly! Ham actually wrote a book about how we don’t teach YEC strongly enough, and that’s why kids leave the faith in high school and college, however – and this is something I may write on soon – I think it’s just the opposite.
Presenting that false dichotomy you pointed out, and pressing it on our kids as if it were the point of our faith, is in my opinion a far more likely culprit as to why so many young people think they have to choose between faith and science. Of course they think that! We’ve been telling them that for years in Sunday school and youth group.
I don’t agree with Hamm’s tactics.
However, can we at least concede that the concept of macro-evolution is a major obstacle to our understanding of sin, original sin, and the image of God. Without this framework, it becomes very difficult to answer very important questions: Why am I here? Was I divinely designed, designed to oversee creation, or created by a series of scientific accidents, with God playing more the role of a divine experimenter. Without the foundation of eden, at least in some form, we not only destroy our view of beginnings, but of ends. I believe that God’s plan is restorative, but without a divine creation of humanity, what is our part in any restoration?
“can we at least concede that the concept of macro-evolution is a major obstacle to our understanding of sin, original sin, and the image of God.”?
Absolutely. I’m not saying it’s easy, and in that sense AIG is right to say evolution will not fit comfortably with many of the theological assumptions we’ve made up to this point, particularly in Evangelicalism.
But having the debate about how we can understand evolution in a theologically informed way (and vice versa), is not what Ham is doing. Just Louis’ suggestion that it’s a conversation worth having was enough to elicit scorn, that’s not a conversation or even a debate.
The truth is always a major obstacle to incorrect preconceived notions like “original sin”. (Which, by the way, the Jews and early Christians didn’t believe in, and the Orthodox church still doesn’t.)
Heliocentricity similarly posed major obstacles to church theology when Copernicus and Galileo proposed it.
I have asked my YEC friends to please not support Ham financially in the past. Not to change their opinions about creationism, but please, don’t go to the Creation museum. Please don’t purchase his books. Don’t give him your money so that he can continue to spew lies about people who disagree with him.
Mason,
Your comments are very much appreciated. I have made a “reply to my critics” which will appear in tomorrow’s post. My critics are entitled to their opinion on the state of my faith but why not engage me in a conversation in an effort to win me back? Why not ask what is causing me to consider evolution? I suppose it is easier to simply dismiss me as deceived than to enter into a dialogue.
Yeah Ken. Because Jesus was really clear that if anything was important, it was believing in six day creation and Adam and Eve’s real existence. He just never stopped talking about it. That point of belief was so central to him that all his followers clearly taught the key importance of it in the early church.
What? Or not. *shakes head*
Pingback: My Views on Evolution – A Reply to My Critics « Baker Book House Church Connection