I believe that God often puts a calling on people’s hearts. I remember when I was in high school, sitting in chapel at my Christian school, listening to yet another pastor tell us students that the first thing you should do once you get saved is to go out and witness to someone. A light went off in my head—I remember it distinctly. I thought, “What can they really witness about? They don’t really know anything about Christianity or following Christ yet.”
Not to sound overly dramatic, but I think that was the Holy Spirit putting a calling on my life. I have always wanted to educate Christians about what the Christian faith is all about. So even after two master degrees and a PhD in Biblical Studies, I remained as a high school teacher who took what I learned at the graduate school level and made it understandable to high school students who probably will never take actual courses in Biblical Studies.
The fact is, most Christians simply don’t really know their Bible that well, and they don’t know their Church history at all. If that’s you, don’t get offended—it’s not really your fault. Historically, the Church has never been that good at actually educating Christians about Christianity and a truly Christian worldview.
That’s not to say that everyone needs to have a PhD in the Bible in order to be a good Christian. We all have different gifts, and we’re called to focus on and use those. If you’re out clothing the poor, you don’t really have to be able to explain the doctrine of the Trinity perfectly. That being said, a Christian should want to learn, and be open to being intellectually stretched in their faith. After all, we are to love the LORD with all our heart, mind, and soul. Even though many Christians and many Churches are really good at loving God with all their heart, the whole “loving God with all your mind” thing sometimes gets left behind.
Why I am Not Teaching This Year
I have spent 16 years largely teaching Bible or Biblical Worldview in various Evangelical Christian schools. I loved doing it. I was able to make the Bible come alive for students and make it interesting; I was able to turn them on to Church history so they can understand the Christian faith better; and I was able to tackle really tough and challenging issues in a way that the students felt safe to discuss in an honest and respectful way. I routinely was told by students and parents alike that I was one of their favorite teachers. The low pay was worth it, because I felt I was making a difference.
But I am not teaching this year. Without going into full details, for the second time in my career, I have lost my job because I was deemed a danger to the students and accused of undermining the authority of the Bible. Why? Because I don’t believe the universe is 6,000 years old. My career in Evangelical schools is over because certain Evangelical “leaders” have taken the claim that the universe is 6,000 years old and have put it on the same level of importance as the resurrection of Christ. Mind you, it’s not that I was teaching these things in class; I merely had my own opinion and view. For that, a select few in power decided I needed to go. I was called a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” and was told that I spoke with “the voice of the serpent.”
I never cared much for science, or even the “creation-evolution” issue. My view from my youth, and solidified by my studies, is that the Bible isn’t attempting to give a blow-by-blow account of creation—however long it was, the point that the Bible is making is God did it. Whether it is 6,000 years or 14 billion years, it is irrelevant to the message of the Bible. As far as that issue goes, it was open for debate—have at it. I’m convinced most Christians have the same opinion.
I never thought anyone would actually go so far as to say, “If you don’t believe the universe is 6,000 years old, then you’re undermining Biblical authority, and you’re going to make people doubt about Jesus!” That was just too crazy—no one could ever really think that.
…or so I thought. I turns out, I was wrong.
The Heresy of Ham
Over the past year, I have done extensive reading on young earth creationism and the most well-known proponent of it these days, Ken Ham. I have to be honest—I am horrified by the claims of Ken Ham and his organization. It’s not just that they think the universe is 6,000 years old; they consistently churn out blatant lies, falsehoods, and deceptions regarding the Bible, Church History, and science. Ken Ham routinely savages any other Christian who disagrees with his claims; in his eyes, to question him is to question the authority of the Bible.
Simply put, there is nothing Christian about Ken Ham’s young earth creationism. It is a flat-out heresy. The way heresy takes root is that it preys upon the ignorance of well-intentioned people. And since so many Evangelical Christians sadly don’t know their Bible and don’t know Church history, men like Ken Ham are able to twist and distort everything from the Bible, Church history, and science, and thus deceive well-meaning Christians into thinking that there is some kind of “war” between science and faith. And if you even question him or his acolytes, you are branded a “compromised Christian” who is trying to “smuggle evolutionary thinking” into Christianity.
“Oh it’s not really about evolution or millions of years,” they say. “It’s about the authority of Scripture.” No—it’s really about the tyrannical authority of certain men who are twisting the Bible and using it to promote what can be deemed nothing less than heresy.
Unfortunately, there is a significant segment within the Evangelical church that is being led astray by this heresy. And I’m not even necessarily talking about “evolution” here—for that matter, my view has pretty much always been that evolution happens to an extent—be it micro or macro evolution—but to what extent I don’t really know or care.
I’m talking about how young earth creationist doctrine is distorting the Christian faith and actively hurting anyone who does not blindly tow their party line. I have seen it in full force. It routinely displays the “works of the flesh” that Paul talks about in Galatians 5:20: enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions. It uses Christian terminology and quotes Bible verses, but it walks according to the “course of this world” and the spirit of the age (Ephesians 2:2). It crushes the spirits of sincere believers. It is completely antithetical to the historical Christian faith.
Such a teaching, by setting up a modern-scientific reading of Genesis as its cornerstone, does not have the resurrected Christ as its cornerstone. Therefore, whatever it is building, it is not the Church; it is not the Temple of the Holy Spirit. The very name of Ken Ham’s organization, Answers in Genesis, should tell you something—the answer isn’t in Christ, it’s in a modern-scientific assumption that the universe has to be 6,000 years old.
People like Ken Ham and the supposed Christian leaders who promote his propaganda are blind guides. No matter what anyone says, no matter what I may write, they are never going to be swayed from their belief that Adam and Eve could have, before they ate the fruit, had a pet stegosaurus. If they hear me say that, they will get offended and accuse me of mocking God and the Bible. In reality, I’m not mocking God or the Bible at all—I’m mocking that ludicrous claim that never is in the Bible in the first place. If you don’t believe anyone would really claim such a thing, just check out this movie trailer that Ken Ham and his ilk are promoting. Around the 2:00 mark of the trailer, you actually see a naked Adam petting what looks to be a brontosaurus. For some reason there is a blob of light covering Adam’s butt…even though Adam was naked and not ashamed, a CGI naked butt is apparently just to risque for young earth creationists.
Let’s Look at an Example
In case you are unaware, Ken Ham is building a life-sized “Noah’s Ark” at his creation museum in Kentucky. He’s raising money for it and encouraging Christians to donate to the project because it will “prove God’s Word is true.” Really? HOW? If you really wanted to prove it could be done, get some basic hammers, nails, and saws, take your wife and six kids, and try to build that thing. Don’t use modern technological equipment.
Ah, but Mr. Ham has already anticipated this objection in one of his blog posts! First, he claims the Bible doesn’t say Noah couldn’t have hired workers (who, Ham says, probably mocked Noah the entire time they were helping him build the ark)! I find that highly strange, given the fact that Ham routinely condemns anyone who believes the universe is a lot older than 6,000 years as smuggling man’s speculations into the Bible! He does the exact same thing! The only difference is that when astronomers claim the universe is 14 billion years old, that claim is based on the measurable speed of light that is consistent throughout the universe. Yes, it is a speculative claim, but it is actually based on something observed in the here and now. Ham’s claim, though, is based on nothing.
Second, Ham points to the technological advances we have seen in the modern world over the past 200 years—pretty impressive to be sure. He then says that people today wrongly assume that people back then only had “primitive” items like stone tools. He then claims that there is actual evidence that primitive people had the ability to create sophisticated technology (WHAT? Are you aware of this supposed evidence Ham is claiming? I haven’t seen or read any news stories about this!)
Ham concludes with, “By the time of the Flood, who knows what technology people may have invented? The fantastic technology we enjoy today is the result of an accumulation of knowledge gained over the past few hundred years. Think how far technology has advanced in just 200 years!”
Just think for a moment what Ken Ham has claimed: people living 4,000 years ago probably had sophisticated technological machinery that superseded the modern technology we have today! We have all this cool stuff after only 200 years of the industrial revolution; think of what they probably had after those first 2,000 years!
I’m not making this up—he really is claiming that to justify his rationale that building a life-sized ark in Kentucky somehow proves God’s Word is true. That alone should convince Evangelical Christians that this man is to be avoided at all costs. Yet for some reason, a significant segment of the Evangelical world has been duped by this man’s lies.
I fear for my former students who are walking away from Christianity because they are told that what Ken Ham is claiming is Christianity—no it’s not. It is a heresy. You are right to reject Ham’s “gospel,” because as Paul says, it is no gospel at all. But don’t reject Christ because you’ve been told that Christians have to believe that Noah hired mocking workers who had access to cranes, bulldozers, or any number of advanced technological machinery to build the ark. Use your God-given intelligence and reject such nonsense.
What This Year Holds For Me
This year, therefore, I am being force to sink or swim as a writer. I have a number of writing projects I have been working on, and I am going to try and finish them and get them published. But that is going to take time.
Now, I do not want this blog to focus solely on what I have deemed the “Heresy of Ham,” but I will write on it every now and then. The reason why is because my eyes have been opened regarding how deceptive it is, and it horrifies me to know that many Christians will hear that rhetoric, full of Bible verses and Christian slogans, and think it is promoting historical, biblical Christianity. It is not. It is blinding people to the truth.
What I want to do is to continue to write posts that seek to understand our world better from a truly Christian worldview—I want to write posts on Biblical Studies, Spirituality, Book Reviews, Society and Culture. I want to engage everyone who read this to come to a better and deeper understanding of a truly Christian worldview. Part of that will entail shining the light into darkness and exposing some very dangerous teachings, like young earth creationism.
Here is a list of my writing projects I hope to finish this year. I would appreciate your encouragement, questions, comments, and prayers:
- I have a book about all my funny experiences as a teacher, entitled Getting Schooled.
- I am writing a book about young earth creationism, entitled The Heresy of Ham.
- I am writing a book about western civilization, philosophy, and culture, tentatively entitled, The Ways of the World.
- I am also working on my own translation of the Bible. I am almost done with the rough translation of the entire Bible, and this year I plan to go through it and polish it up.
So that is what is on my plate this year. The best thing anyone could do for me right now is to tell others about my blog so I can build up a following—publishers are more likely to publish an author if he can show he has a big enough platform. So please, make a commitment to encourage five other people to check out and subscribe to my blog. Ask questions, leave comments, and let’s all try to come to a clearer understanding of the truth.
Ken Ham and AiG are the reason why when people hear the word “Christian” they think “Oh, those are the people who believe the world is 6000 years old” instead of “Oh, those are the amazingly generous people who have a peculiar love for everyone and better the lives of those in their community!” If all you maintain from Gen 1-3 is that it took God a literal 6 days to create the universe, then you’ve probably missed the point of the Gospel all together!
“I’m convinced most Christians have the same opinion.” Well that’s good to hear; I was becoming uncertain. Turns out young-earth-creationism is a relatively new interpretation anyway. Not that it matters, because the historical aspect is quite inferior to the message; must Jesus’ parables be based on real historical events for their message to be true? Why, then, should Genesis — particularly the first 3-5 chapters? Most of us have only to bear frustration because of the contentious viewpoint; I’m sorry to hear you actually suffer from it. I’ll keep an eye open for your work once it’s published and pray that it gets there.
Thank you for your commments, Carter.
What I’ve come to realize is that the issue goes much deeper than just the “science” question. If you read my posts on N.T. Wright, it really is about the deeper level of worldview. Ken Ham claims he is defending a “Christian Worldview,” but he is doing so such thing. He has already accepted a dualistic, Epicurean, Enlightenment worldview, and is then trying to argue that Christianity is “true” in the way the Enlightenment has defined truth.
Of course there is history in the Bible–but there is also poetry, law, and other genres. If we truly believe the Bible is inspired, we need to read it on its own terms–and there is no way that God inspired Moses to write Genesis 1-11 to address modern scientific questions. It’s addressing the questions that the Israelites coming out of Israel had. It’s not that Moses was trying to give a historical/biological account of creation and got it wrong, and that modern science has shown this. He wasn’t giving a historical/biological account in the first place.
Yes, I am convinced that most Christians realize that the whole “6,000 years or else” believe is ludicrous. Unfortunately, most simply are too busy with their day to day lives to really study the issue. They rely on their pastors and other leaders–but if those pastors or leaders are pushing the Heresy of Ham, the people in the pews are in a bind. I hope I can generate discussion on this blog, shed some much needed light on the issue, and maybe even get my book published. There are many good books on this issue written by scholars, but it often takes someone who has already studied the subject a bit to understand them. My experience teaching at the high school level, I believe, has given me the ability to take that “stuff” in college and graduate school and make it understandable to the average person in the pew or the average high school student.
Let people know about the blog, and keep giving comments. That’s how this thing can grow. Thanks again.
I don’t know why those last two paragraphs went italicized….lol
Best wishes, Dr. Anderson. Enjoyed having you as a teacher at Shoals! Will look for your writings to come out.
Thanks Derrick…nice hearing from you! I hope you keep up with my blog and keep in touch. I’d love to hear your comments.
This is the first I’ve heard of this ham fellow. I must say it sounds like some of the same “follow me or you’re going to burn” mentality that the JW’s have. Will need to keep an eye out for this in my local churches.
Sadly, I think you’re right. We’re very good at recognizing false teaching “out there,” like with Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormonism, but we are often blind to it when it comes from within the Evangelical community.
My husband and I were outed from several churches in the Methodist and Presbyterian denomination for not drinking the Ham kool aid. I too had a sense of call and was preparing for formal ministry. One church superior ordered me not to contradict church members during Bible study at a church I was serving and not speak up about Ham. The previous pastor had been ousted for standing his ground. I hear you.Loud and Clear. At churches we have attended since, attending a Bible study has become an issue, do we sit and smile silently or speak up knowing if we do we will be considered heretics? We are five churches down the road now. Sad state of affairs. Thank you for speaking out.
Wow…I’m sorry to hear that. Well, all I can say is that now I have nothing to lose. I think going through this is also helping me see the reality of what it means to suffer for Christ. In John 16, Jesus says that his followers will be persecuted, and that those who do it will think they’re doing it for God. I’m not in any way suggesting I’m really being “persecuted” per se. But I have (as have you obviously) suffered the wrath of some modern day Pharisees for sure. It’s about time someone stands up to the bullies who emulate Ham. I think most Evangelicals either don’t know enough to really say anything, or else they don’t want to stir up trouble, so they stay quiet. But at some point people have to see that the followers of Ham aren’t interested in real dialogue. They are really practicing a form of tyranny.
Thanks again for you comments. Make sure you subscribe, and let people know about the blog, and maybe something good can come of it.
As Dr. Anderson notes some may be concerned by the use of the term “heresy” to describe the teachings of Ken Ham. In this assessment of Ken Ham and the so-called “creationists” and “creation-scientists”, Dr. Anderson is not alone.
Catholic Theologian Conor Cunningham says as much in his insightful though difficult book Darwin’s Pious Idea and his more accessible summation the BBC documentary “Did Darwin Kill God?”.
Baptist Theologian James W. McClendon, Jr. also suggests that “creation-science” is a possible “usurper” of Christian minds. MclClendon’s concerns are similar to Joel’s. McClendon writes,
“God as origin is implicitly challenged by any science that proposes a self-sufficient account of the origin of nature or human nature, and this ‘scientism’ is not really opposed, but is willy-nilly reinforced, by the ersatz research called creation science. ‘Creation science’ implies that its own acceptance in churches, in schools, even at law, is indispensible to belief in God as originn of all. Either sort of science, ordinary science or creation science, may tempt the Christian to unwisely place false trust in itself.” (Mclendon, Doctrine: Systematic Volume 2, 1994), page 150 and following.
Other can be cited but here both a theologically conservative Catholic and theologicially conservative Baptist are in basic agreement with Joel.
Another good blog post, Joel.
IWP
P.S. I wanted some italics and couldn’t get any. I think you use up the quota for this blog.
Thanks Ian…The more I read up on Ham, the more astounding and absurd I find YEC claims to be. I’ll be sharing many of them in the future.
I don’t see either of those two theologians using the term “heresy”. If they did then, with respect, I cannot agree.
“In sum, the science versus religion trope is a conveniently contrived invention, not at all based in historical fact. Also, religion is one of the parents ents of science, just as it is the source of secularism. The modern-day creationists and fundamentalists are just that -modern -and like those who advocate Intelligent Design, they hold a heretical, heterodox understanding standing of God and Christianity, wittingly or not.” Conor Cunningham, Darwin’s Pious Idea, (Eerdmans, 2010), 300.
Just to be clear, neither Joel nor I think that simply holding the belief that the earth is less than 7000 years old is heretical or constitutes heresy. Rather, it is the elevation of this non-essential doctrine to the status of creed. Of course, Ken Ham and AiG insist that they do not do so but despite their protests they do in practice.
It is the single-minded focus on this doctrine and the highly suspect hermeneutic and tactics that they use to teach and spread this doctrine that is my primary concern.
A year ago, I too would not have been comfortable using the term heresy to describe the teaching of Ken Ham and the AiG. However, as I have read their materials, witnessed their divisive tactics, and seen the harm their teachings do to the young minds that they claim to be defending, I am now quite comfortable using the term heresy to describe the teachings of Ken Ham and AiG.
In my opinion, Conor Cunningham’s book, though difficult, is the best available work on this topic. Also, I think it is important to know the history of this debate. I highly recommend George Marsden’s “Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism” and “Fundamentalism in American Culture”.
Pace,
Ian W. Panth
http://www.popchrist.com
I was an Christian who became an atheist who became a Christian. I still feel that science is not out to get us as Christians. Scientist view the world around them and use methodology like the Scientific method to explain what they see. Evolution for me is legitimate. I am not the only Christian out in the world to feel that way. I feel people like Ken Ham base to much of their relationship with God on the bible and not enough of it on God. They think that the bible has all the answers. Since when has God given us all the answers? He gave us the only answer we need. Christ. By negating the possibility that God created us in a time period longer then 6 24 hour days is to deny the divinity of God. If God is everything then nothing is out of his bounds. You can’t say he can do everything but then say oh well he can’t or didn’t do that. Is it impossible that Genesis was written, at least the first few chapters, in a way to explain creation to an audience that had no true comprehension of how the natural world worked? When I run into people like this, that are vehement about young earth creation, I just say thats cool and move on. In my experience no matter how well thought out of an argument you make, if you question someone’s God, which is what they automatically think your doing, you will never change hearts and minds.
Hi JBob…I pretty much agree with you. Genesis 1-11 was not written to address 21st Century scientific concerns. The problem with Ham though, is that he’s not really basing his views on the Bible. He is assuming that the early chapters of Genesis is doing science. In that respect, he has turned the Bible into his own idol. One of the common themes throughout the Old Testament, especially in the prophets is, “You become what you worship.” If you worship God, you will become a true human being made in his image, one who can spiritually see and hear. If you worship an idol, you become spiritually blind and deaf because an idol can’t really see or hear. This is what is happening with YEC.
Hey Joel, I’m sorry you lost your job due to douchebaggery. That sucks. I’ve found that folks that are unwilling to listen or shout down dissenting opinions are shakey on their own.
I’ve never heard of Ken Ham, and I’m glad I haven’t. He sounds like he might be a dick.
Having been brought up Catholic, we had a couple excellent priests serve our parish. The most notable was Bill Kelleher, a history buff who happened to be fluent in 6 or 7 languages. His homilies were the best, because he could describe the customs of the life and times of Jesus, and help modern folks understand the subtleties of why the things Jesus did were revolutionary. He wasn’t tied to the stuffy, outdated King James Bible with all it’s inaccuracies and goofy language, but brought us modern explanations translated directly from the Greek and Hebrew texts.
All that aside, at the end if the day, (or the Mass), his final message was, “Love one another.”
Anyway, if you feel like this is what you aughta be doing, you’re probably right.
I suppose the Western World needs more Bill Kelleher and fewer Ken Hams.
Thanks Phil…haha. Well, if you keep up with my blog, you’re going to find out a lot more about Ken Ham. It’s pretty astounding.
Joel, I regret your experience! I am sorry! And, I also do not agree with brother Ham on several of his teachings. Yet, I’d like to encourage/challenge you on a couple of points because your prognosis might do more harm than the disease. The Church is big enough to hold different views respectfully (that is one result of it being called small-c catholic in the great creeds). You err when you call Ham’s teachings ‘heresy.’ That term has specific meaning within historical Christianity; he does not fit the bill. Yet, it opens an important door of conversation: Your conclusions are distinct from Ham’s, but are your methods? Most evangelical sides on these debates use the same tools as the other sides – and are unaware they are doing so. The popular debate on young earth is usually cast as Fundamentalists vs. OT scholars; however, both sides are usually stuck in the same milieu of modernity (maybe over-the-top rationalism, reduction of revelation to extrinsic propositions, neglect of revelation in history, or hyper-assumed reliance on science). Ham thinks his science proves his presuppositions; so does the OT scholar! That gives cause to sit up and take note. You mention Christian history, but what is the normative value of historical Christian thought in your exegetical conclusions? Are we only relying on our exegetical and scientific prowess to come to our conclusions, or does history matter in theology? How do we reconcile the fact that other Christians – even those highly regarded throughout time – have held views similar to Ham’s, while others have not? By calling Ham a heretic, would we not be the modern fundamentalists/schismatics? And what about ecclesial determinations on the topic (e.g., Humani Generis)? What is the normative role of ecclesiology in exegesis? “Church” as a normative authority in exegesis is the lacuna of evangelical thought (Here, check out Ratzinger’s fight he picked – and won in my mind – with OT scholars; e.g., his Intro to Jesus of Nazareth). If we affirm the Nicene Creed’s claim of ‘one Lord Jesus Christ,’ then we must also affirm its claim of ‘one holy catholic and apostolic Church.’ If Ham did not contradict that Creed, I do not think we should banish him as a heretic. I regret your pain, but I dissuade you from biting back with the same ferocity.
Hi Bob, thanks for your comments. I know “heresy” can be seen as a strong term, but I think I am on pretty solid ground. The point isn’t really about the age of the earth. Like I said, thinking the earth is X amount of years old is completely beside the point and irrelevant. It is the fact that Ham is taking that one issue, his assumption that the ancient text is really a modern scientific text, and he is using that as the litmus test to condemn and judge who and who isn’t a “compromised Christian.” I wish Ham would allow respectful dialogue on this topic, but he’s too busy accusing others of “speaking with the voice of the serpent.” It is that divisive mentality that I am calling him on more than anything. When someone is making a living off of bringing division to the Church, that is a serious problem.
In regards to the actual term, “heresy,” I think it does fit the bill. Theologically, he is elevating a view that, in fact, has never been universally held in the Church, and is quite clearly saying that it is the foundation for belief in the resurrection–he is, in fact, placing a modern-scientific reading of Genesis 1-11 over and above belief in the resurrection of Christ. Merely thinking the earth is young is not heresy–it’s an opinion, and yes, there have been Christians throughout Church history who have thought that. But it has never been held up as a fundamental tenant of the Christian faith. But when Ken Ham makes it a fundamental tenant of the Christian faith, and uses that to judge and condemn others who don’t share his opinion, he has ventured into the realm of heresy. In that sense, he is in effect adding to the creed, and making his addition the foundation.
Now if you read much of his stuff, he’ll SAY, “I’m not saying so and so isn’t a Christian if he doesn’t believe 6,000 years,” but then in the next sentence he’ll essentially say that person is actively doing the devil’s work. That is manipulative double-speak. It is really dangerous stuff.
Believe me, I understand what you’re saying–but I’m not accusing him of heresy just out of a sense of being pained and injured. The claims he is making, though, go beyond difference of opinion. When fellow Christians attempt to dialogue with him, and he writes blog posts accusing them of being Samaritans, claiming he is like Nehemiah, and he’s going to “build the wall” and have nothing to do with them…that should tell you something. That’s not the actions of someone trying to build up the Church.
I do have to agree with Bob Andrews. A teacher – or follower – of “heresy” means that a person cannot be considered a Christian and is disqualified for eternal life. The word has a very specific sense, and it has little to do with the level of hubris that a teacher has.
Nor are you a heretic if you reject his viewpoints.
Heresy is “non-Christian” not “mistaken-but-Christian”.
Yes, technically Ken Ham is not a “heretic” because that would involve the necessity of a Church council to review his claims, question him, and then render their decision.
But this points to a larger problem within Protestantism in general–because everyone can claim “Sola Scriptura” and their own private illumination of the Holy Spirit, there simply is no way for the Church as a whole to address false teaching. There’s no unified Church within Protestantism that can address it.
I think, though, given Ken Ham’s expressed rejection of what the Church has traditionally taught regarding Genesis 1-11, and given his claim that is “young earth” is a foundation issue to the Gospel–if there was a Church council conveyed to look into this, I’m pretty sure that he would be encouraged to back off those claims. And I’m also pretty sure he would refuse.
Alistar McGrath defines heresy this way: “a form of Christian belief that, more by accident than by design, ultimately ends up subverting, destablizing, or even destroying the core of the Christian faith.”
Using that definition, I think a case could be made that Ham’s teachings are heretical. I’m not condemning him to hell by calling him a heretic. I’m stating that what he teaches goes against the core of the Christian faith. Whether or not one uses the word “heresy,” I think its safe to say McGrath’s definition could be easily applied to Ken Ham.
Certainly something to consider. And that’s why I’m writing about him–to get people to really consider what he’s saying.
Hi, Joel,
I agree that Br. Ham mistreats the Scripture – as I confess a lot of us do at times. I too am frustrated that he appears stuck in a woody literal interpretation – when the literary genre of select passages screams out for another interpretive form. Yes, our fundy brethren bring divisions or schisms with their stubbornness. They can bring deadly poison to the church at times (I’ve tasted it too!) Yet, schism does not always sleep in the same bed as heresy. To misapply the formal distinctions risks doing the thing that Ham does – divide unnecessarily.
Heresy is not just bad theology or dangerous hermeneutics. Technically, the organized church defines heresy as infidelity to its formalized dogmas (not just doctrines, but dogmas; there is a necessary distinction between doctrine and dogma). Defining these dogmatic articles is a slippery fish to hold onto – maybe impossible at times, but we must try. It certainly includes ecumenical councils and the current Catholic and Orthodox churches – and yes, us wee wittle evangelicals have a voice too. There must be a universal character to dogmatics; otherwise, we do not believe in the Spirit sufficiently. Heresy, then, is obvious departure from dogma which has been clearly defined. Of course, my good Catholic friends identify those tenets distinctly from me in only a few points (e.g., regarding Mary). However, there’s pretty clear identification and universality on most core issues. They almost always are items directly related to “us and our salvation” (Nicea). When Ham crosses those lines, then, Yes, he can be labeled heretic – and our mission is then to “restore” him (Jms 5:19-20). I do not see where he has done that. Maybe he has denied the Trinity or Christ’s deity, or the possibility of divine revelation; I just haven’t spotted that (nor do I want to wade through his lit too deeply). Heresy MUST be understood in the light of formal ecclesiology. Otherwise, the term is misapplied usually.
As with any theology, everyone disagrees with what it means. Defining heresy is no different. Maybe the idea of degrees of heresy would help – a scale of 1 to 10. Ham is in no way an Arius or Nestorius or Pelagius. Or, maybe a distinction between division-schism-heresy-apostasy would help. Just thinkin’ ….
Thank YOU for allowing me to blab on your fine post! Keep up the good work!
PS –(i hit ‘enter’ too soon. :o) sorry!) we cannot reduce ‘heresy’ to what disagrees with Bob;s reading of Scripture – or Bob’s naughty behavior that chases people out of the church. Heresy has a formal element; it formally counters clear, formalized dogma and it is decried formally – after many warnings. Without that formality, we must be slow to call it heresy.
Thanks again Bob…All I can in response is at this point, with only a few post on the subject, I fully realize there is more to cover. If I am successful in writing the book, the argument will be a lot fuller and more detailed. Now technically, you’re right–a single person like me cannot just utter unilateral pronouncements of “heresy” on people. That is the role of Church councils. Athanasius couldn’t just call Arius a heretic; the Council of Nicaea had to meet and decide. But I do think with the way Ken Ham as gone about his ministry and teaching, and there was a formal Church council–let’s say they wouldn’t agree with him. He’d no doubt respond with something along the lines of they are just “man’s traditions” and he as God’s Word, and then call upon them to repent of their compromise.
Seriously though, I will be trying to outline a more detailed case in the book I’m trying to write. If nothing else, at the very least, I don’t think the Evangelical community really understands what the man is teaching. If I can at least shed some light on that, that will be something.
Hi Joel, I am intrigued by your article and have numerous thoughts. I will share just the one, concerning your own translation of the Bible.
I don’t know what your degrees are in, but unless you have multiple lifetimes of training and experience in lingustics, Semitic languages, Greek, etc, then imo it would be a colossal waste of time for you to undertake such a task. You won’t be able to produce anything worth using as a substitute for the versions that are now available.
My PhD is in New Testament exegesis, and while I was asked to produce my own version of the tiny books of 1-2 Thessalonians, and while I think it is good, I would never ask people to rely on my version of them.
Individuals who produce translations usually end up simply picking and choosing between the glosses offered by the dictionaries.
Why not spend your time writing about the theme of new earth creationism?
Blessings, just a thought, Gary
Thanks Gary, I have a MA in New Testament, a MA in Old Testament, and a PhD in Old Testament. That being said, my translation really has just come about over time, as I’ve tried to keep up with my Greek and Hebrew, ever since the mid-90s. It really is a personal project more than anything. By no means would I consider it on par with official translations like the NRSV or the ESV.
The two immediate projects I am working on–the Ken Ham book and the Western Worldview book–are both just extensions of things I’ve ended up teaching over the past eight years. Even those are not particularly in my area of expertise, but life is funny that way. The Lord led me to a place where I found myself interacting with those issues, and I found that although plenty has been written at the academic level, not a lot of it has trickled down to the majority of people in the pews. I’m trying to fill in that gap.
After that, hopefully, I’ll be able to finish my OT and NT Bible curriculum that I developed for high school–and it could serve also as just a general “lay person’s introduction” to a lot of the academic material students who go into graduate school are familiar with.
By all means, continue to share your thoughts!
Joel
Thanks Joel. I took “writing project” as, a book that you planned on writing and then distributing to others, as I assume were the other three in that list.
Blessings, Gary
Someone sent me a link to this page today–I won’t mention whom as I think the person faces some of the same employment pressures you are writing about here. Anyway, I wrote a blogpost back in 2011 which I think makes some related points to what you are discussing here: https://jackheller.wordpress.com/2011/12/04/beowulf-vs-the-tyrannosaurus-rex-or-how-young-earth-creationism-jumped-the-shark/
Hey there Jack, I’ve got to say, as soon as I read you were an English major with no initial interest in science, I thought, “I think I’ve met myself!” Great post and great insights. I particularly like the literary allusions, particularly to Beowulf. I hope you don’t mind, but I shared the post on my facebook page.
No problem.
No problem (I say 5 months later).
Sorry Joel. Sounds like your bitter. People lose their jobs for holding to the Young Earth position too? On top of that they are marginalized, falsely accused of not believing science and called heretics just as you have called Mr. Ham.
Admit it. You have a bias just as he does .
Hey there Bruce, thanks for your comment.
As far as being hurt, of course I am; and of course, when you are treated unfairly in such a way, you do have to deal with feelings of bitterness. But the posts and book I am writing about Ken Ham are not coming out of a place of bitterness. The more I researched what he actually claims, the more concerned I am for Evangelical Christianity. His take on the scientific question of origins is almost secondary to what I am concerned about. I’m not calling him a heretic because he believes the universe is 6,000 years old. I think he’s wrong, of course, but that’s not why I think he’s a heretic. If you are going to make historical and scientific claims, though, you have to be prepared for scrutiny. Ham isn’t: he claims that the speed of light and speed up or slow down at random; he speculates there are time zones in space; he suggests that Noah had access to advanced technology. Do you really think any of that is believable? Do you think he has evidence or can prove any of that? He can’t. So on scientific grounds, he is provably wrong. But that doesn’t mean he is a heretic.
My real concern is how is misuses the Bible. He makes claims about the Bible, and claims they are foundational to the faith, when at no time in Church history has such claims ever been made. The people who put the NT canon together, the people who articulated the foundational creeds of the faith at no time insisted that a modern/scientific interpretation of Genesis 1-11 was a fundamental to the faith. Ken Ham claims it is, and he makes it his mission to condemn anyone who deviates from his young earth creationist position. It is that divisiveness and those claims that have no basis in Church history that convinces me he is a heretic. You might think Genesis 1-11 is thoroughly historical all the way through–that’s fine. I think you’re wrong, but you’re not a heretic. But you become a heretic when you insist that view is foundational to the Christian faith and that without it, you can’t believe in the resurrection. That is what he does, and that should be a major concern for any Christian.
As far as the claim of Ken Ham not believing in science, look into is categories of “observational” and “historical” science. “Historical science” is a made up category he uses to argue that Genesis 1-11 is “historical science.” He actually defines “historical science” as a presuppositional belief about origins that cannot be tested or observed. That definition is not science, plain and simple. You can still not be convinced of evolutionary theory, but you should really see some red flags when Ken Ham makes up a category of science and actually defines that category of science as something that cannot be scientifically observed or tested. That is fundamentally dishonest.
Now I don’t know if you like Ken Ham, or if you just think I’m being too harsh. If you do like Ken Ham, let me encourage you to take a real hard look at what he actually says. If you think I’m just being to harsh, I’m sorry. But if someone is teaching provable falsehoods, if someone is insisting on something being foundational to the faith when at no time in Church history has it ever been considered so, if someone is actively judging and condemning CHRISTIANS who don’t happen to agree with him on his interpretation of Genesis 1-11, if someone refuses repeated attempts to discuss and cordially debate these things, and if someone instead says, “I’m like Nehemiah building the wall, and that Christian who doesn’t agree with me is like a Samaritan, we will have nothing to do with them,” I have to ask, what is one to do? I’ve chosen to shed light on what he actually says. How would you respond to someone like that?
In any case, as forward as that response, I hope you see where I’m coming from a bit more. Please, I’d love it if you subscribed to the blog. I don’t just do “Ken Ham” stuff. I’m going through C.S. Lewis’ “Mere Christianity; I’m analyzing and critiquing the claims of the New Atheist Movement, and there will be other things as well. Of course there will be an occasional Ken Ham post, particularly because I’m working on a book about him. But feel free to keep leaving comments and thoughts.
Thanks, Joel
What I find fascinating about this whole phenomenon is how thoroughly devious it is. Your comments, Joel, in this article are centered on the misrepresentation of the Bible and theology that is prevalent within this young-earth movement. Like you, I am an accomplished scholar, but in science, not the Bible. I find that Ken Ham and the YE leaders in our churches are teaching a completely different science than what we use. Followers are blind to it because they don’t understand how science works. They are easily misled.
Those of us who use the tool of science can see the errors, but we aren’t trusted. Scientists and our ideas are demonized. As a result, the youth who are subjected to these teachings either shy away from a career in the science, where we need God’s guidance, or they are antagonistic and ill prepared to conduct real science when they do decide to pursue it. Lost faith is also often a result, as my own personal journey can illustrate.
Truly, the Enemy has been very cunning indeed!
I think it is more accurate to say that its not that YEC is teaching a “different science,” but that it isn’t teaching science, period. In its attempt to try to “prove” Genesis 1-11 is historical and scientific, they literally make up a fictitious category of science, label it “historical science,” and define “historical science” as “untestable beliefs about the past that are based on one’s presuppositional worldview.” I mean, what can you say to that? IT’S NOT SCIENCE, and it makes a mockery of faith.
Correct. The vocabulary terms are all the same, but the meanings are completely different, as is the essence of the science process coming out of their efforts. I use the analogy that YEC have created a whole alternative set of rules for engagement, call it science when it is not, and then holler persecution when they aren’t accepted within the actual science game. This only reinforces the perception of ‘us and them’, secular vs. Christian, when it is the science being rejected, not Christianity.
And it plays into the whole “Culture war” paranoia.
The modern protestant church, especially the conservative side (my home) does seem to be pretty awful at engaging with real academic issues. I’m often horrified at how flippant my home denomination can be about getting facts right in science (my area of study). It seems like getting to the “right” conclusions is more important than an honest engagement with the facts in a rigorous academic fashion. We definitely need more academics like you around, Joel, who are willing to engage and teach lay people in the church. Idk how it is from the Biblical studies side of things, but I know that from the science side it feels like the voices of the majority of honest Christian scientists are often drowned out by a small minority like Ham who are very loud and very well funded.
Fantastic article. Dealing with YEC propaganda is one of the main reasons I have been turned off by so much of the modern church movement. I come from a reformed presbyterian background and spent roughly 25 years in a PCA church but found that even well educated and intelligent people easily fall for the heresy of Ham.
Here are some of the comments directed at myself and others on a YEC page from Facebook:
That’s amazing. That last bit on the video is revealing. I’ve found that YEC’s real agenda is fighting the supposed “culture war,” and that is pushes more right-wing politics than the Gospel. I’m saying that as someone who has been relatively politically conservative/moderate my whole life. Their agenda isn’t based on science or even proper biblical exegesis. It is based in a fear of “liberalism.”
Anyway, I hope you look around my blog and look at the other posts I’ve written about Ken Ham, AiG, and YEC. Subscribe for free, and you’ll be notified any time I write something. I think you’ll like them. And by all means, feel free to get my book “The Heresy of Ham.” You can get it through Amazon.
Thanks for commenting! Leave as many comments as you like!
Joel
I will get your book on our next Amazon order. I have studied Ham’s scientific heresy quite a bit and have been appalled at his treatment of scientists such as Dr Hugh Ross whom he considers a heretic, but have not delved that much into his biblical heresy, although I know he is steeped in it.
Looking forward to reading it as I just came across your blog and work today.
Blessings.
I just found your book on Amazon. It looks like a great read.
Great! I’ll be interested to know what you think! Written reviews on Amazon always help, too!