Hell and Hamnation Watch

In a post entitled “Are we wrong to call out compromise”* Ken Ham heaps his spiritual wrath on Phil Vischer (of "Veggie Tales" fame) and the Christian philosopher William Lane Craig for their old earth beliefs. (both have been targets of Ham in the past)

Ken has every right to express his (misguided) conviction in young earthism as vehemently as he wishes and one can’t complain if he speaks out when he sees professing believers teaching doctrines that he strongly believes are opposed to his interpretation of Scripture. But it seems that Ken is unable to do this without impugning the consciences and characters of those who would disagree with him.

Like Charles Taze Russell who founded the Jehovah's Witnesses, Ken has a big stake in marketing his views and his organisation. These business interests mean that when it comes to criticising those who disagree with him Ken finds himself caught between a rock and hard place: He doesn’t want to look like a Christian cultist who make their views a salvation test and yet he needs to maintain the strict exclusiveness of his version of fundamentalism which justifies his business interests. Therefore he tries to keep an ostensible but teetering balance between shying away from outright cultish exclusivism and yet keeping up an exclusivist polemic which effectively accuses critics of all but blasphemy. To this end Ken gives much lip service to the paradoxical view that, in his words,  young earthism isn't a salvation issue but an authority issue. Like other sectarians such as the Jehovah's Witnesses he goes on to apply that authority (his, of course) with a strength of language that doesn’t just express his strong belief in young earthism but which assassinates the spiritual character of those who disagree with him.  As I have shown before Ken has a very unpleasant habit of heaping spiritual abuse on old earth Christians. This latest article of his is no exception. 

At one point Ken mentions in his article Charles Spurgeon who, following the majority of mainstream Christians of his day, showed signs that he believed the Earth to be millions of years old. But Ken is so convinced of the persuasive power of his own views and the impressiveness of his organisation that he is sure that if he spoke to Spurgeon, Spurgeon would see the light:

 I think if we were able to give Spurgeon the arguments biblically and scientifically against an old earth today, he would immediately see that believing in an old earth was compromising God’s Word.

Well, Ken, it's easy to put your opinions into the mouth of a long dead person isn't it?  Putting words and ideas into people's mouth's is another of Ken's bad inquisitional habits: He'll put blasphemies into the mouths of contemparies who disagree with him today!  Ken's confidence in the persuasiveness of his own words and organisation reminds me of a confident statement made by the father of  the Jehovah's Witnesses,  Charles Taze Russell, who also made claims to his authority: Viz:

 "People cannot see the divine plan by studying the Bible itself. We find also that if anyone lays the Scripture studies aside, even after he has become familiar with them, if he lays them aside and ignores them and goes to the Bible alone, our experience shows that within two years he goes into darkness. On the other hand, if he has merely read the Scripture studies with their references, and has not read a page of the Bible as such, he would be in the light at the end of two years". (The Watchtower, September 15, 1910)

Let's be clear: According to Ken if you study the Bible and don't come to the same conclusions about the age of the earth as him you are at best a compromiser and at worst a blasphemer - in fact Tom Wright and Francis Collins have been accused of blasphemy by our Ken! 

Raymond Franz, ex-JW, wrote a  book titled "Crisis of Conscience" where he tells of the spiritual abuse of those members of the organisation who eventually found themselves in a place where they were at odds with the Watchtower Society, the JW equivalent of AiG. Viz:

During those two years, the motive character and conduct of persons who conscientiously disagreed with the organisation have been portrayed in the worst of terms. Their concern to put God's Word first has been represented as the product of ambition, rebellion, pride, as sin against God and Christ. No allowance is made for the possibility that any of them acted out of sincerity, love of truth or integrity to God.....An enormous amount of rumour and even gutter-level gossip has circulated among Witnesses, internationally. Faithful Christians with high standards of morality are accused of being wife swappers, homosexuals, hypocrites, and egotists interested in establishing their own personal cult. Older ones are often dismissed as being 'mentally disturbed' or 'senile'.

In the article in point we find Ken, typically, laying on the spiritual incriminations in bucket loads. He accuses  Christians like William Lane Craig and  Phil Vischer of many things. In fact we read that:

* They are eroding Biblical authority.

* They are compromising God’s word.

* They need to repent of their compromise.

* They are the thin end of the wedge of spiritual degeneration: for compromise in one generation generally gets worse in the next generation.

* They, intentionally or not, haven’t done [what is right] with a whole heart.

* They’ve allowed some compromise to creep in, and it undermines biblical authority in their own teaching and in those they serve.

* They are taking ideas outside the Bible to God’s Word and undermining its authority.

* They spread secular, pagan ideas—they originally came from people who rejected God’s Word and sought to explain history apart from God and his Word. Therefore, those who add these ideas into Scripture are compromising with godless, “pagan” ideas. (The basis of this accusation is false. See here)

* They are false teachers.

All these constitute the grave spiritual character assassination of those who don’t follow Ken and his organisation. Ken's  claim to not make his views a salvation test looks like lip service. As we have seen here and in previous posts Ken is doing everything in his power of expression to make young earthism all but a salvation test of contemporary Christians who dare to contradict him.  

Footnote

* See here: https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2021/01/04/are-we-wrong-to-call-out-compromise.