Disobeying The Word of Ham

Perhaps it's just a coincidence but I notice that Ken published a blog post on the 24th February entitled "When in the Biblical Timeline did Satan fall?". He's playing catch up! See *3 in the text.

"This Christian Leader cannot be trusted"
....said Ken

You can be quite sure that Ken Ham, the fundamentalist "Answers in Genesis" theme park supremo, voted Trump in the 2024 US elections (See here). He also appears to have linked his interpretation of the Christian cause with the emerging far-right where, presumably, AiG's supporting and financing community lies. For example in one of his posts where he mentions the persecution of Christians he says:

Will persecution ramp up against Christians/conservatives?

Yes, it may be that persecution will increase, but who are these "conservatives" Ken mentions and why bundle them together with Christians? Can we talk about Christians/liberals? After all, in spite of vociferous tribal squabbling between Christians Christianity is a very broad church (unless one has a fundamentalist perspective), a church which actually includes people from both the "woke" and the "unwoke" tribes. God is good to quarrelling humankind.

I used to think of myself as a conservative; I still do in fact: I largely support capitalism (intelligently regulated), the democratic status quo, the academic & scientific establishment, and I'm a constitutional monarchist. But somehow I don't think I'm the sort of "conservative" our Ken has in mind! I wonder if he would equate my criticisms of his kind of conservative with "persecution"?

Among the "conservatives" Ken alludes to I have an inkling one can find some or all of the following sentiments.... 

1. Aspirations to destroy our argumentative & complex democratic administration on the basis of conspiracy theories about a "deep state". 

2. A highly ideological form of economic libertarianism...such would likely create a political vacuum giving opportunity to plutocratic authoritarians who would enforce their libertarian ideology, thus bringing in draconian regulation by the backdoor. 

3. Seeking to protect cultural Christianity with nationalistic concepts & boundaries.

4. Telling us to shelve the concept of "empathy" because it's too "woke" or "new-age" (See here)

5. Sympathies with the social and market Darwinism of Ayan Rand (*4).

6. There is nothing wrong with raising a question or two over climate science, but many of those "conservatives" are declaring "climate alarmism" as a hoax, a leftist conspiracy, perhaps promoted by China. The result: Climate complacency. 

7. Widespread support for Donald Trump, a pathological liar who appears to have a personality disorder.

There are inconsistencies in this list but in our passionate and polarized culture-war blatant internal contradictions are easily overlooked (*1). Moreover, the far-right are so far-right, that a conservative like myself looks like a "radical woke leftist". But of course Ken isn't thinking of my kind of conservative. In using the term "conservative" Ken is sending out a virtue signal to his constituency - namely, to the far-right Christians who think of  their Trump supporting culture as the only true "conservativism" (and. perhaps, a corollate of the only true, or at least the best form of Christianity); consider for example those otherwise conservative Republicans who oppose Trumpism and who are categorized by the radical-right as "Rinos". ("Republican in name only").

Such are the people who finance Ken's business interests and he can not afford to alienate them because those business interests depend on them (*2). Moreover, it is in the interests of Ken's business to bring to bear the most spiritually intimidating language when he calls down hell and hamnation on influential Christians who hold views which contradict Ken's young earth literalism, a literalism which is the foundational rationale for the Answers in Genesis organization. For just how spiritually bullying he can get even with very devout Christians see here for example; but I'm also going to comment on a recent post by Ken where he bad-mouths Hugh Ross, an influential Christian who believes in an old Earth, and tells us that Ross "cannot be trusted"; once again testament as to just how extreme Ken's language gets even toward devout and very committed Christians. But then this is just what is meant when somebody earns the label "fundamentalist". 

***

Hugh Ross, leader of the old Earth Reasons to Believe ministry promotes the idea that the Bible and Creation are two books of Revelation. Ken is really riled by Hugh's old Earth views as he is any other influential Christians who hold views contrary to the rationale behind his theme park. I would go along with Hugh's old earth views but I don't accept the two books notion myself. That's because no book written in natural language can be read in a cultural vacuum; the interpretation of natural language necessarily employs huge resources from the rest of the created context; from the cognitive, through the cultural to the historical. Thus, in my view the Bible is organically joined to the rest of creation thus forming an integrated body of Revelation; a medium through which signals from the Divine mind are transmitted. But all that's by the by. What I want to do now is critique a paragraph from an article by Ken where he made his accusation that fellow Christian Hugh Ross is untrustworthy.

***

In a blog post titled "Did God give us two books?" Ken asks "Is nature really the 67th book of the Bible?". Ken does not think so because...

SAYS KEN: Nature is cursed. We aren’t looking at the world as God made it. According to biblical history, we’re looking at a creation that was once “very good” but is now cursed with death and suffering (because of sin) and was judged by a global flood. We can’t look at this creation and figure out what happened in the past without the eyewitness revelation of the Creator (given in Genesis 1–11).

MY COMMENT:  Strictly, the Genesis 3:17ff doesn't say nature is cursed, it says the ground and man's working of it is cursed. That's not necessarily the same as saying the whole Earth or the whole Universe is cursed: The ground and man's working of it is the agricultural foundation of all human production and civilization. From Genesis 3:17ff the most we can say is that human production is cursed whether through human sin or through direct Divine declaration. Fundamentalists like Ken also tend to miss that the serpent of  Gen 3:1 suggests that a created but fallen being existed before the fall of man (*3). So humanity did not find itself in a perfect creation before the human fall. 

Romans 8:20ff, which tells us we are in a less than perfect world is ambiguous; it is ambiguous about the cause of this lack of perfection. Is 8:20 referring to God, Satan or man? But Ken doesn't like ambiguity; being a true fundamentalist and young earth literalist Ken bills himself as being blessed with utter certainty. It is this arrogant habit of mind which he believes entitles him to blowhard hard on what he considers to be heretics. 

But whatever! Imperfect though it may be there is so much about the creation which is still very good although man's relationships revolving around the means of production are certainly hindered by the curse of sin. 

Ken's intent, if I'm reading him correctly is that he's trying to undermine Hugh Ross' 67th book thesis by suggesting that the information delivered to us via creation and which informs about deep-time is Hamstrung by the curse. Well, firstly, as I've said, this doesn't follow from the theology of the Genesis fall of man which is not about the creation in toto. Secondly, I myself have no use for the 67th book thesis; that's not how the Bible works; my view is that the Bible and the rest of creation form an organically unified body of revelation via the equation Meaning = Text + Context (where the resources of Context facilitate interpretation). Thirdly, it doesn't follow that because of human sin light signals and many other signals mediated via creation don't testify to long ages. The creation still yields truthful information about its age and this is not Hamstrung by the fall; after all, the messages of creation are likely to mirror God's integrity. 

One other criticism I would like to make of Ken's paragraph above is that it is misleading to say that God was an "eyewitness" to creation because He doesn't have eyes - that is an anthropomorphism. Very likely we perceive creation in a very different way to how God sees it. 

Hence, in conclusion, using Ken's own words found in his post as a template, I think we can say....

Rather than accepting Ken's authoritarian annunciations about the past and forcing them into Scripture, we must always start with Scripture first and allow God’s Word to be our authority.

Footnotes

*1. But see this article on Science & Culture which does identify a right-wing split. 

*2. See for example a post by Ken titled "The most important part of a church service" dated 20th Feb. As usual he complains about the "compromised" church as it attacks Ken's interpretation of Genesis with "the lies of evolution/millions of years".  Towards the end of the post Ken then stresses the need for the financial support of his organization (The emphasis is Ken's): 

"Your prayers and financial support are vital to helping us boldly continue the ministry that the Lord has called us to do — would you prayerfully consider sending a generous gift today at AnswersDonate.com? Your donation of any size will be a great blessing to AiG. 

Thank you for being part of our Answers in Genesis family and supporting us prayerfully and financially. Please know that support is an investment in eternity as we reach as many as we can with the truth of God’s Word and the saving gospel.

 I wonder if AiG is a bit strapped for cash at the moment?

*3. Perhaps it's just a coincidence but I notice that Ken published a blog post on the 24th February entitled "When in the Biblical Timeline did Satan fall?". He's playing catch up!

*4. See for example Darren Beatie who looks to be a social Darwinist. This is the kind of person Ken has helped put in power.

Trump Election Win.

 

In response to the Trump election win in the US I posted the following entry on my FB page:

With the accession to the US throne of D J Trump it seems we are passing into the era of Godfather rule and the rule of the "unwoke". Given Trump's large evangelical following I'm reminded of 1 Samuel 8:7-18 with its clear warnings about this kind of government. Let's hope & pray that it turns out to be lot less autocratic than it looks

Somebody commented that Trump at least had some policies whereas Kamala Harris didn't have much on offer. My reply was that comparative policies wasn't the issue....

I can't comment on policies, good or bad, Democratic or Republican myself; their evaluation is notoriously difficult. I was swayed by the anti-democracy argument: Trump, the arguably narcistic sociopath isn't in it for policy but for power. Policy for him is just a shop front, or a road to power. The only policy he knows is "Trump"! We've seen this sort of thing in history before where a semblance of democratic constitution gets dismantled by a demagogue...Julius Caesar, Hitler, Putin etc. Even worse who is the would-be dictator who is going to follow showman Trump? Buckle up, we could be in for quite a ride when project 2025 gets into gear! Kamala may (or may not) have been a bad policy maker, but that doesn't figure in my broader thinking. Trump is a cuckoo in the nest of Republicanism, a pied piper of US evangelicals.

The Democrats were quick to accept Trump's resounding win and congratulated him on his victory. It is worth comparing that with Trump's denial of election defeat in 2020. Whatever we think of their policies and goals the Democrats have not (yet) attacked the electoral system unlike Trump and many of his followers. There's something very sinister at the heart of Trumpkinism. Those who make comparison between Trumpkinism and those who oppose Trumpkinism on the basis of a policy comparison should wake-up to the herd of T-Rex's that now crowd the room. 

INTERESTING & RELEVANT LINKS

1. John Bolton: Trump seeks fealty, not merely loyalty!

John Bolton sums up Trump’s ideal cabinet picks in one damning word

I also used "fealty" in this post: Views, News and Pews: Well done Mike Pence! But Michael Brown gets a fail.

2. I hope this is just a scare story

'Blueprint of destruction': Experts outline 'chillingly clear' view of Trump's next term

Donald Trump's political career has closely tracked the trajectories of autocratic leaders Viktor Orban and Vladimir Putin, whose rise to power offer a "chillingly clear" picture of where his second term could lead, according to historians.

The former president and his supporters are tremendously hostile to civic institutions like the judiciary, the media, universities, many nonprofits and even some religious groups, and Trump will likely follow the lead of those autocratic leaders in Hungary and Russia by sidelining experts, regulators and other civil servants, wrote New York Times columnist M. Gessen.

3. The Cuckoo in the Republican nest is growing

United by loyalty but Trump's new team have competing agendas - BBC News

Trump warned his second term would mean ‘retribution’. His alarming cabinet picks show he means it

4. This goes together with Musk's "UK civil war" comment

Elon Musk brands UK a 'police state' after care worker jailed for livestreaming riots

It's worth noting that the article linked to above (see quotes below) is from "GB News" a UK right-wing news organization that, I think, takes a favourable view of Trump's UK mate, Nigel Farage. It's not clear to me whether or not GB News is critical of Musk's gross misrepresentation of the UK situation.  Until they deny it, I'm putting my money on GB News wanting to cozy up to the hyper-far-right that Musk represents. 

Elon Musk has branded Britain "a police state" after a care worker was jailed for livestreaming riots in Tamworth.

The tech billionaire made the comment to his 207 million followers on social media after a nine-month prison sentence was handed to 23-year-old Cameron Bell.

Bell was imprisoned after admitting to violent disorder charges for livestreaming a group of masked men making racist comments online during the summer riots.

The woman had joined a gang of hooded men following riots related to events in Southport, capturing the scenes on social media whilst wearing her work uniform.

This latest criticism has added to Musk's growing string of confrontational comments about Britain.

Previously, the billionaire sparked controversy by claiming civil war in the UK was "inevitable" in a post about the August riots.

These comments have followed Musk strengthening his relationship with President-elect Donald Trump, who has announced the tech billionaire will lead a new Department of Government Efficiency.

The department's goal will be to "dismantle" the $6.5trillion US bureaucracy, marking Musk's official entry into Trump's next administration.

5. CRees-SMogg's opinion aired on GB News

Jacob Rees-Mogg takes swipe at ‘godless’ Democrats after abject US election failure: ‘Greatest evil of modern society’

I might not agree with all Democratic policies (e.g., abortion) but they are not Godless. Joe Biden was a catholic of course. Kamala made an appearance at a church during campaigning. But much rather the current "woke" crowd than the brutalities of the unshamedly authoritarian "unwoke" tribe who are out to rule us all and in the darkness bind us. Current unwokness is as much a danger if not more a danger than wokeness. Games theory talks about pragmatic alliances. 

See also: Quantum Non-Linearity: Marx vs. Smith

6. If you want an example of unwoke verbal intimidation, see this.

Ken Ham, Trump supporting representative of the evangelical far-right let's out all the stops in his attempt at verbal intimidation of Christians he doesn't agree with. 

Views, News and Pews: Calling down Hell and Hamnation on Heretics!

7. Very Interesting: Straight out of games theory!

RFK Jr caught on audio comparing Trump to Adolf Hitler and calling supporters 'bootlickers'

8. Something else for Trump to lie about and call "Fake News"

Just how big was Donald Trump’s election victory? - BBC News

Landslide? My foot!

9. Is this a fascist writing for GB News?

Why I believe Elon Musk and a viral petition will force a General Election before long - Kelvin MacKenzie

Is MacKenize a fascist?....

Were I Starmer, or any other Labour politician, I would stop the lip curling about the petition calling for a new General Election which has now hit an astonishing 2.6million.

It reflects an anger on the streets that this government lied its way to power. Lied to the pensioners over energy, lied to ‘’working people’’ over their taxes and lied to business that Labour was pro-growth when in fact it was pro-deceit.

A lot of famous people signed this petition and turbo-charged to where it is today. The most famous of these, by a long way is Elon Musk. He simply said: "The people of Britain have had enough of a tyrannical police state."

Who could argue with that. The Allison Pearson scandal involving Essex police is enough to confirm that. Let’s be honest if she hadn’t had much of the media behind her she could well have ended up in the same prison as those two ladies with their Facebook posts.

Musk’s increasing hostility to what Starmer is doing to the UK is a worry. Although I almost agree with every sentiment I can see Trump is using him as a mouthpiece and that he intends to be tough on us both politically and economically when he moves into the White House in January.

That must be a worry, especially for those who lean to the Right in the UK. We would be in favour of Trump’s policies but against the pain they are causing us personally. It would also give Starmer a platform.

Plutocrat Musk was responding to the thuggish/fascist riots in August whose damage was repaired by a communal effort of peaceful citizens. That, of course is ignored. 

Political and Religious Bullying

Picture from :An Epidemic of political intimidation: Why America suffers from a cult of bullies who refuse to negotiate | Milwaukee Independent

I was fascinated to read a post by fundamentalists theme park manager, Ken Ham, entitled "When it comes to Genesis can we be dogmatic?" and dated 3rd March. This is what Ken is advising us in this post:

Recently on my social media posts, some people have dogmatically expressed that I shouldn’t be so dogmatic about the stand we take on Genesis. They dogmatically claim that I should allow for the views of others who very dogmatically disagree with me. In other words—they want me to hold to their dogmatic position of allowing other views, and therefore I should not hold dogmatically to my view (based on the Bible) that disagrees with them.

Those who make these kinds of comments on my social media feed seem unable to understand that whatever position you hold, you dogmatically hold to that position. To say you allow other views is a dogmatic position that, in essence, claims that someone like me can’t say I have the correct view as that means the other views are wrong.

Actually, dogmatism isn't the problem. There's nothing wrong with being dogmatic about something one believes in: Ken really believes that the huge cosmos is a cosy 6000 years old and therefore one expects him to be dogmatic, especially as he has such large material stakes in this literalist interpretation. But more about the real problem later.

Above Ken is using the self-referencing gambit here and in his usual ham-fisted way has muffed it again. Someone accuses Ken of X and he responds by suggesting that in the very act of accusing him of X the accusers stand guilty of the same flaw.  But in this case it doesn't work: Ken's accusers may well be justifiably dogmatic in accusing Ken of being dogmatic about something one can't actually be dogmatic about. After all, there were no eyewitness to the act of Creation mythologised in the Genesis 1 account (Unless we have a very anthropomorphized picture of a God with eyes!). Many Christians believe that interpreting the Genesis-Day as literally 864,000 seconds long is not justified by the Genesis 1 text which talks of events beyond human witness and quite possibly beyond human understanding. In fact, the vociferous dogmatism of a theme park manager with a career at the head of a multi-million-dollar business-empire whose products rest on the assertion that the Genesis 1 days are 864,000 second long lends little credibility to his emphatic literalist view. Self-praise is no recommendation. 

Ken is wrong to say that whatever position you hold, you dogmatically hold to that position. That doesn't take into account that dogmatism comes in shades of grey: There's "dogmatic", there's "very dogmatic", there's "not very dogmatic" and no doubt all the states in-between. Some beliefs we hold are less dogmatically held than others: For example, I'm pretty dogmatic about the reality of my conscious thought life (See footnote *). In contrast I'm a lot less dogmatic about a very important aspect of my life; namely my Christain faith: Well, some spiritual ultras will probably think  that's evidence of a deep spiritual flaw: That may well be, but it helps to be reminded that in reply to Jesus question "Are you also wishing to go away?" (John 6:67) Peter responded with the minimalist "To whom shall we go? " and then more positively "You have the words of everlasting life" (John 6:68). My reliance is not on my own faith, but the thought God the Father is holding onto me much better than I'm holding on to Him (John 6:44, Romans 8:15). Yes, Truth itself comes in binary on or off states but belief, faith and one's approximations to truth do not. One's dogmatism level varies, so Ken can't assume that people who politely criticize him as "too dogmatic" (whatever that actually means) have the same bigoted attitudes toward the subject in question as he has. 

In the simplified world of Ken Ham, the world is cast into a mold of contrasting states of extreme belief or extreme disbelief; a world of fundamentalist tribal loyalties vs potentially demonic affiliation, a world of sheep vs. wolves, a world where one is a sold-out cheer leader for Ken & company or a hardened, perhaps evil, nay-sayer. Ken thinks everyone in the world must be like him: bigoted and prejudiced in their expression of belief. This is a very similar to the perspective painted by American evangelicalism's Political Pied Piper Donald Trump, (and a man who Ken very likely voted for), a man whose ego naturally polarizes the world into those for him and those against him. Let's also recall here Ken's implicit support for the QAnon mythology surrounding Trump.  The irony is that in believing this polarized picture of the world Ken and Trump have guaranteed it.

We find out just how Ken's "dogmatism" manifests itself when he condemns those Christians who don't believe his young earthist message. He might try to soft-focus his cultish-attitudes by claiming that young earthism doesn't disqualify one's faith but in practice this claim is not true and Ken all but "excommunicates" from the faith those who don't hold his views. See here for more on how Ken treats those he thinks of as antagonists. Ken, of course, has a perfect right to believe his young earthism, even believe it dogmatically; I wish to God it was mere dogmatism.  But to call Ken "dogmatic" is actually to give the word "dogmatic" a bad name: In fact, I'm not sure that Ken's accusers were actually talking about beliefs that Ken has a perfect right to be dogmatic about....For far worse than mere dogmatism, Ken treads the very borders of a cult version of Christianity, a version where any challenge to the party line brings down the most extreme accusations of sins and threats of divine wrath. This intimidatory language is the stuff that the spiritual abuse found in the cults is made of: It is the latter, I suspect, which Ken mistakes for mere "dogmatism"!. Ken also mistakes tolerance with relativism. Viz:

To say you allow other views is a dogmatic position that, in essence, claims that someone like me can’t say I have the correct view as that means the other views are wrong.

No, Ken! To allow other views on Genesis, even if dogmatically expressed, even though one believes them to be wrong, doesn't mean one subscribes to a form of relativism: Rather it's about having respect for the conscience of those with differing opinions on the content of Genesis and not attempting to intimidate them with slanderous spiritual accusations. Cult leaders and cult followers just cannot believe that those who disagree with them do so for anything other than malign hidden reasons and underneath it have guilty consciences. They therefore have no compunction about slandering the motives antagonists. But if Ken persists in being a nasty spiritual bully...well, two can play at that game; so let me say this: Ken has wrongly mistaken his nasty bigoted mindset for mere "dogmatism". 

Highly sectarian religionists have a tendency to think that other far less sectarian Christians think just like themselves and are really just another cult albeit cults in the bondage of severe error. One sectarian I had contact with confidently told me this.....

The bottom line is: Anglicans, Baptists, Methodists, Pentecostals and Presbyterians are ALL sects of Christianity; they might profess to be one, to love one another and be part of the Body of Christ; but secretly and behind closed doors: A. They don’t like each other and condemn one another. B. They all have their own slant and interpretation of scripture, for which their individual denomination is based...and C. They refuse to have deep, meaningful and spiritual fellowship.

That is a profoundly distorted view of mainstream Christianity and is evidence of the fantasy world the cult member is immersed in. The average cult member puts all their eggs in one basket and stakes all on a single manifestation of Christian community. Likewise Ken has staked his career on AiG and therefore he's under-pressure to not just make dogmatic statements about his beliefs but to intimidate those Christians who are not as sold-out and dogmatic as he is. 

 ***

One thing I am pretty dogmatic about is this: Ken Ham has become cultish in his thinking, a Trump voting politico-religious bully prepared to call down hell and hamnation on his antagonists without compunction whether they be atheists or non-sectarian Christians (See here). And yet young earthist beliefs need not go together with this religious badgering: See for example here where Christian Hank Hanegraaph contrasts Ken's aggressively expressed dogmatism with young earthist Paul Nelson. Ergo, young earthism need not necessarily entail the high-sectarianism of Ken's spiritually intimidating hard-sell linked to the financial interests of the theme park he runs. Another fundamentalist who expresses himself similarly to Ken is Kent Hovind.  

The Milwaukee independent article I have linked to at the head of this post is actually about political bullying, but many of its points port to the world of sectarian cult Christianity especially as in America nowadays large swathes of Christian evangelicalism are (too strongly) linked to the politics of hard nationalism.  The methods of the Adolf Hitlers, the Vlad Putins, the Donald Trumps, and the Ken Hams of this world sharply divide people by exploiting a mix of confusion, grievance, alienation, disaffection, discontent and fear. These pundits are the "great simplifiers" of life as they paint a fantasy world that is sharply divided between good stock and evil stock, the latter being the whipping boys who are to blame for all that's wrong with the world and onto whom one's hatred and fears can be pinned. 

Relevant Link

Views, News and Pews: Fundamentalist Publicity Sects. (viewsnewsandpews.blogspot.com

ADDENDUM 22/03/2022

In a post titled  Should Christians Send their Kids to Public Schools?, (dated 21ts March) Ken clearly comes out in favour of a "No!" to this question. He doesn't actually say "No!" any more than he has said "Vote Trump" even though it's clear that he very likely voted Trump. This aversion to a state education further reinforces Ken's cult credentials: A cult needs as much time as possible to indoctrinate its young people and therefore Ken wants his young people out of state schools. The Jehovah's witnesses are also averse to the state school system and don't recommend that their young people attend university, probably because it takes them out of the cult context.

I was very interested to see this post on PZ Myers blog: It seems that the atheists have spotted Ken Ham's increasing extremism and his drift toward the far-right. In this connection I was particularly interested in the remarks about AiG's link to a far-right web publicist(s) who has gone under the names of "Harry F Sanders III" and "Emory Monagh". This person (or persons), it is alleged, has all but advocated right-wing violence and antisemitic conspiracy theories. This fits together well with Ken's implicit support of Trump and QAnon.  Given these rather serious charges Ken has some explaining to do. (I'm not holding my breath waiting for it!)

Footnote

*  There are those who believe any claim to a conscious first-person perspective is an illusion. I regard such an opinion as stupid and a result of being fooled by the linguistic imprecision of natural language, a language which can always be cast into a third person mode.

Calling down Hell and Hamnation on Heretics!

 

Ham's Heretics: Wright and Collins!

The above is an online duet by famous Christian scholars Tom Wright (Theologian) and Francis Collins (Scientist). It is titled "Genesis" and Wright and Collins use it to affirm their belief in both Genesis and evolution. I have to confess I haven't listened to the song just in case I find it overwhelmingly cringe-worthy. In any case as the specialism of this blog is really all about a miscellany of fire and brimstone fundamentalists, sectarians, cultists and the religious lunatic fringe etc, the devout, thoughtful, scholarly and mild mannered Wright and Collins hardly fit into these categories! In fact although I don't necessarily agree with their position on evolution my perception is that the following inscription found in St Stephen's church in Norwich, describes them well; and that's saying something; fame, admiration and status can be difficult to handle;

A scholar without pride, a Christian without bigotry and devout without ostentation

Neither will I be commenting on evolution or whether it is possible to reconcile evolution and Genesis. Instead, much more in line with this blog's interest in catching strange fish is the highly partisan and holy-than-thou fulminations of the kind we find in the all too typical outburst of Ken "Hell & Hamnation" Ham who screams down divine wrath on Wright and Collins*. One can well feel the spirit of the inquisition at work in Ham's response as he slanders W & C by stuffing words of blasphemy into the mouths and minds of all those he accuses.  As per below I've used bold type to emphasise Ham's baseless, fallacious and extreme spiritual incriminations:

HAMNATION: BioLogos (the leading “evolutionary creation” group) recently released a video titled “Genesis” that says, “Oh, I believe in Genesis,” while they demonstrate that they don’t actually believe in Genesis.   ...........  Genesis and evolution simply don’t go together—the biblical account of creation (which isn’t just taught in Genesis—it’s confirmed throughout Scripture) and the naturalistic explanation for the existence of earth, life, and the universe are utterly opposed to one another.

MY COMMENT: Ham should really have put it like this They demonstrate that they don't believe in my interpretation of Genesis. In my opinion Genesis and evolution cannot be put together. But qualified and measured statements like that don't make for the convinced sensationalist sales talk needed by a  fundamentalist theme park manager who must make a show of hard selling his line of thought. Also, as I have said on many occasions "evolution", as currently understood, is hardly "naturalistic" (what ever "naturalistic" means) in that it demands very unusual up-front physical constraints to work. In fact under no circumstances can a logically contingent world such as ours ever be "natural";  God, having the property of Aseity, is the only entity that is "natural". 

HAMNATION: So if someone says they “believe in Genesis,” but they also believe in evolution, then they don’t really believe in Genesis. They’ve taken man’s ideas from outside Scripture and added them into the Bible. Millions of years and evolution don’t come from the Bible—they come from the mind of fallen man, and N.T. Wright, Francis Collins, and others are using those ideas to interpret Scripture. Really, they’re setting themselves up as the authority over God and his Word, and they are a blight on the church.

MY COMMENT: Once again a narrow minded and sales-talking theme park supremo isn't going to get involved with measured subtleties like meaning = text + context, an equation which implies that the Bible can never be absolutely self-interpreting. It is the knowledge base we bring to the Bible which brings it alive, either rightly or wrongly (hopefully the former). But of course Ham is spiritually conceited enough to think he's got a direct line to God absolving him of any epistemic responsibility for its interpretation. It is Ham who is setting himself up as an authority over God and his word.

HAMNATION: It would appear that by singing “DNA, shaping creatures from the dust and clay” that DNA — not God — is doing the work of creation. This would be consistent with an evolutionary worldview in which DNA (the molecule of heredity) is supposedly responsible for all the life we have today. This idea is, quite frankly, blasphemous. It steals the glory that belongs to God—and God alone—for what he has created. DNA didn’t create creatures. God created DNA (an incredibly complex information system) when he created life.

To say that God used evolution to create and then to sing this line is incredibly inconsistent . . . and hypocritical. An all-wise Creator doesn’t use the inept, bumbling process of trial-and-error (and death, bloodshed, and disease) that is evolution to create. Instead, he speaks and it is so.

 MY COMMENT: Even if evolution as currently conceived is the explanation for natural history it is misleading to claim that DNA is responsible for all the life we have today: Instead we would have to trace the causes of evolution back to the physical regime that only omniscience could create knowing its likely outcome. So Ham is factually wrong here, although I can see why a dualist mindset like his will think in the dichotomised terms of "God did it" vs "Evolution did it" and then use that canard as the basis for accusations of heresy.  But although I can offer Ham some leeway here he's not got the kind of personality that is going to give allowance for the mitigating circumstances effecting those who disagree with him - rather Ham is going to charge them with heinous sins of hypocrisy and blasphemous and no appeal accepted. I have an inkling that  as Wright and Collins are both respected members of the secular academic establishment this has got something to do with Ham's outburst; the Christian evangelical Trump voting right-wing are very suspicious of "deep government" institutions in any guise, tax funded academia included. And let's not forget that Trump has fueled the fires of suspicion by making friendly noises toward Alex Jones and the QAnon conspiracy theorists. Trump, the would-be dictator, like Ham, has a need to discredit and bypass the institutions of society and appeal directly to his support base.

Although I have reservations about standard evolution myself, I wouldn't want anything to do with Ham's ignorant and mindless inquisitional style condemnation of Wright and Collins.

HAMNATION: And not how Wright and Collins mean when they sing “for he spoke and it was so”—they mean God spoke and over billions of years, natural processes, guided by God, bumbled about creating life on earth as millions of creatures that didn’t quite turn out died out, dying and suffering, killing and eating, paving the way for new, more advanced lifeforms to emerge. No, when the all-wise, all-powerful Creator speaks—it really is so, just as it says in Genesis.

MY COMMENT: Once again Ham is over stating the random "bumbling" element of evolution and wrongly thinking of it as a "natural process". In any case chaos, suffering, fall and evil predate man; that's what the appearance of the serpent in Genesis 3 teaches us.  

HAMNATION:  They sing that God is grace and love, but they are really attributing millions of years of death, suffering, disease, and bloodshed to God. By saying God used evolution, they are really saying God—not our sin (which is what the Bible teaches)—is the author of death and the brokenness of creation. That’s not the loving and gracious God of the Bible! God sent his Son to pay for this brokenness and rescue us from the mess we caused because of our sin in Adam.

Genesis describes the paradise of Eden as the first home for humanity—before Adam and Eve’s sin broke creation. But in Wright and Collins’ view, Adam and Eve are standing on layers of sediment filled with fossils (the remains of dead things). This means, in the evolutionary view, they are standing on the evidence for millions of years of death, suffering, disease, and bloodshed. How’s that for a “bliss” that we miss? What kind of paradise is that?

 MY COMMENT: As is common with some fundamentalists Ham neglects Satan's fall and the chaos beast - but actually in a sense so does the Bible but for the right reasons. Viz: That the central and primary message of the Bible is the plan of salvation for humanity and not Satan's fall; the latter is mere context even though it alludes to an important cosmic event; this event is not allowed to upstage the Glory of Christ which is the central message of the Bible (Phil 2:1-11). Moreover, like other toy-town fundamentalists Ham fundamentally understates the problem of suffering and evil by glibly (and wrongly) tracing too much back to the Adamic fall.  

Although Adam did screw things up big time for humanity, a claim to be the originator of the Serpent and cosmic chaos is too big a claim for (wo)man. 

 

HAMNATION: ....BioLogos and those affiliated with them are leading Christians into error. Wright and Collins need to repent of their compromise with the pagan religion of the day, repent of not believing God’s Word, and repent of encouraging others to compromise God’s Word. They may sing, “Oh, I believe in Genesis,” but what they really mean is, “Oh, I believe in man’s ideas about the past and have added them into Genesis.” They would do well to heed God’s Word, “let God be true but every man a liar” (Romans 3:4 NKJV).

MY FINAL COMMENT: Notice that Ham automatically gives no credence to the consciences of Wright and Collins or concede that in their own very scholarly minds they have satisfactorily reconciled evolution and Genesis; like other fundamentalists Ham assumes that Wright and Collins secretly understand the Bible in the way that Ham does but are knowingly suppressing it; fundamentalists (by definition) assume their interpretations are "plain" and beyond doubt. This is  the assumption made by all fundamentalists (by definition) that I have met from the Watchtower through the Children of God to Ken Ham.  Ham is effectively accusing Wright and Collins of wilful, knowing sin. Such is the wrath of a Trump voting right-winger who fears and looks askance at the academic establishment, especially if, like Wright and Collins, they claim God's salvation! 

Ham's word is not to be identified with God's word but simply the word of Ham. He's used Romans 3:4 in exactly the same way the Watchtower use it of those who contradict Watchtower teaching. In any case it's worth noting the parallels between AiG and the Watchtower. Ken Ham is a theological dunce who has failed to draw out the anti-pagan lessons of Genesis 1 and instead distorted it with his town-toy "anti-science" and a pagan dualist outlook. He should apologise to Wright and Collins for his baseless and fallacious accusations of heresy.  Unfortunately. however, I see in Ham the spirit of the inquisition, a spirit which follows rules and fails to take cognizance of consciousness. 

***

Postscript

In a recent bizarre web encounter I have had with a fundamentalist who is plumbing the depths of unreason I actually started to feel that relatively speaking Ken Ham is quite a reasonable bloke! That AiG in comparison can seem a moderate outfit goes to show how far some parts of evangelical Christianity (if it's fit to be called that) have gone down the road of utter intellectual debasement and lunacy. In fact so much so in this case that I found myself recommending an article on AiG to the fundamentalist concerned! But more about that weird encounter another time!

Relevant Links:

https://viewsnewsandpews.blogspot.com/2017/02/holy-bad-mouthing.html

https://answersingenesis.org/culture/believe-in-genesis-sing-two-scholars-who-dont-believe-in-genesis/

In the post below Ham attacks William Dembski and William Lane Craig, both of a mainstream evangelical persuasion. It's a sign of how Ham's theme park sales interests have pressured him into taking up an extreme position and is over-selling his fundamentalism.

https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2010/07/19/which-southern-baptist-professor-proposesteaches-this/

Viz: 

A significant portion of my presentation will center around the teachings of William Dembski and others (such as William Lane Craig associated with Talbot Theological Seminary and Biola University) who sadly contribute to the loss of biblical authority in church and culture.

Footnote:

* See here: 

https://answersingenesis.org/culture/believe-in-genesis-sing-two-scholars-who-dont-believe-in-genesis/

ADDENDUM 20/04/21

The FB post by Ken Ham below comes close to accusing Christians like N T Wright and Francis Collins of idolary. It further adds to Ken's cultic credentials. (Click to enlarge).

Agreeing with Ken Ham (!)

Ken has at least screwed his head on tightly for this one!

My first reaction when reading this post by Ken Ham was to agree with him. Here's what he says:

 

As employees are increasingly working from home during COVID-19, online meeting apps, such as Zoom, are being used more frequently than before. Well, these two academics (one from Michigan State University and one from the University of Colorado, Denver) are worried that the use of these online meeting platforms is "a ripe setting for unconscious bias.” Why? Because someone, they say, might put their wedding photo—of a man and a woman—as their virtual background and “unintentionally reinforce the idea that marriage is most fitting between opposite sexes.” (Actually, the only true marriage is one between a man and a woman! See Genesis 1:27, 2:24, and Matthew 19:4–5). 

What if someone put up a “wedding” photo of a gay “ceremony”? Would that be ok? Wouldn’t that be a “microagression” against those who reject gay “marriage”?

And what would they call it if an employee had a Bible or a picture with a Scripture verse on it in their background? No doubt a macroaggression!

Yes Ken, if your facts are right*, then you have a point! So, in just being ourselves we can be accused of microaggression! This meddling hegemony in people's lives is born of a paranoid line of thinking and reminiscent of the fears that drive the nastiest apocalyptic imaginings of many a fundamentalist - so often with the latter I can only meet their florid accusations of malign motive with the utmost surprise of "However did they manage to work that conclusion out?". In fact I've also had that sort of thing from the people of whom Ken is complaining: e.g. I've been accused of exercising "white male privilege"!  But unlike Ken I would see this as less to do with a plot to consciously oppress Christians rather than with a world view haunted and stalked by fear. Fear provides fertile ground for conspiracy theorism. Fear provides fertile ground for hatred.  When allied to tribalism fear provides fertile ground for strife. 

Footnote:

* Beware of Ken's handling of the facts. See here:

https://viewsnewsandpews.blogspot.com/2018/01/the-distorting-lens-of-fundamentalism.html

and here:

https://quantumnonlinearity.blogspot.com/2017/02/history-no-more-like-hamstory.html

Prosperity Christianity Part IV and Covid-19.

They might be easy to do (Divinely speaking!) but they are not

so easy to find!

The previous parts of this series can be found as follows: Part I, Part II & Part III

I had intended Part IV to be about the tragic case of Bill Johnson's Bethel church's unanswered prayers for a resurrection. But since then there has been this post on PZ Myers' blog which showcases the following Tweet:

Right-wing pastor Rodney Howard-Browne of The River Church in Tampa Bay believes the coronavirus is a “phantom plague” designed to terrify people into receiving vaccines that will kill them.

Here, he asks congregants to turn around and greet each other. pic.twitter.com/yjS1f8lLT9

— Mark Elliott (@markmobility) March 17, 2020

The Tweet reads: 

Right-wing pastor Rodney Howard-Browne of The River Church in Tampa Bay believes the coronavirus is a “phantom plague” designed to terrify people into receiving vaccines that will kill them. Here, he asks congregants to turn around and greet each other.

Howard-Browne, of whom I've been aware for a long time, makes it into my criminally insane abominable Christian category; no two ways about it: He has a CV that few Abominable Christians could rival: Viz: Conspiracy theorist, hardened right-winger, Christian Gnostic elitist, ex-Benny Hinn lieutenant, laughing mania pied piper, father of the Toronto Blessing and finally, it is said that Browne tells Christians who criticise his laughing mania blessing they are going to Hell. More about the antics of this nasty pastor can be found at these links:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodney_Howard-Browne

https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/rodney-howard-browne-used-his-sunday-service-to-spread-coronavirus-conspiracy-theories/

The reason why I link Browne to the Bill Johnson affair will become clearer as we proceed. For a start, as we have seen, Bill Johnson traces his blessedness back to Browne's legacy: Namely, the Toronto blessing.

PZ Myers entitles his blog post on Browne Christians are Selfish Awful People. That's just a little bit sweeping and unfair given that many, if not the majority of Christians, would utterly disown Browne; its like using the legacies of Stalin, Mao, Pol-pot, & Marxism to accuse all atheists of being selfish and awful. Moreover, Myers general categorisation is comparable to Browne's declaration that Christians who don't tow his line are Hell bound. It's also on a par with fundagelicals who accuse many otherwise good atheists, gay people and even fellow Christians of heinous sin for just being who they are. For fundamentalists of all flavours there is no middle ground; a miss is as good as a mile. This moral one-upper-ship is just the kind of thing that is readily used as a pretext for the persecution of those you disagree with; no matter what the details of their personality they are regarded as partakers of the same poison and therefore can all be written off as selfish and awful. This lack of discernment, found among both atheists of a "Stalinist" mentality & Christians who lean heavily toward hardened fundamentalism, doesn't take into account that people reinterpret and cherry pick "doctrines" in a way that is a function of their personality and experience and this reveals much about them as people. The "poisoned doctrine" paradigm doesn't make fine distinctions and is dehumanising. To be fair however there is some discussion on Myers' comments thread as to whether it is right to dump all Christians into the same league as Browne. Besides it is quite possible that the grumpy Myers needed to blow off some steam when he wrote his blog; after all, even as a Christian I find myself utterly repelled by Browne's  reprehensible views.

As I have already said, Bill Johnson traces he ministry's success back to the Toronto Blessing and therefore effectively back to Browne's laughing mania phenomena.  But in spite of that, in an official press release from Bethel chirch we can read the following:

As of Monday, March 16, 2020, all ministry gatherings and weekend services at Bethel campuses are postponed until further notice. Instead, Bethel will offer several online opportunities for members, attenders, and students to be a part of, including church online at www.bethel.tv streaming at 8:00 AM, 10:30 AM, 1:00 PM, & 6:00 PM PDT on Sundays moving forward.

Sensible people! I wonder what Browne, effectively a big influence on Johnson, would have to say about that! 

Finally in the same press release  I found the following a little bit ironic:

Changes to Bethel School of Supernatural Ministry: Bethel’s ministry school (BSSM) has decided to transition fully to online school sessions to continue to foster safety and health in the community. All in-person classes and gatherings at all campuses are postponed until further notice.

We have some disappointing news: As of March 10, 2020, Bethel School of Supernatural Ministry (BSSM) has cancelled all student missions and ministry trips between now and graduation, both domestic and international.

The Mouth of God (??)

In a post entitled "Good Morning Christianity"  evangelical atheist PZ Myers publicises an example of the devout badgering he gets:

Click to enlarge

Here's Myers' not entirely surprising response:

This is how some Christians think they’ll win hearts and minds for their religion. It’s pretty much typical for what I wake up to every morning.

There’s a phrase these fanatics like to use: “hardening the heart against God”. I’ve been dealing with this stuff for decades, and they’ve succeeded in turning my heart into a gristley, fibrous lump of black contempt for religion. Thanks, gang, I wouldn’t be the atheist I am today without you!

I would also remind my fellow atheists now that reversing this tactic against them will not persuade them that your intellectual rejection of the supernatural premises of religion is valid, either.

I suppose I ought to allow the possibility that Myers has landed himself a troll here, but I don't think so; It's entirely consistent with some of my experience of the slighted fundagelical and the threatening spiritual abuse (s)he can direct toward outsiders whether atheist or Christian;  (See also here). So, if even I have had more than enough aggravation from fundagelicals you can be sure that Myers would have! The Christian evangelist Myers has picked up sounds more like the proud, cruel, and slandering voice out of hell than the voice of the Father of many prodigals!

Myers would no doubt regard me as an utter nincompoop for being a Christian (which I can hardly blame him for given the state of the above quote). But that's a relatively minor personal slight which, as far as I concerned,  isn't sufficient warrant for him to become fuel in the fires of eternal damnation: Rico Tice can say what he likes. Fundamentalists tend to fall for a spiritual conceit whereby they project their own very considerable offence at being slighted onto the Almighty Himself.

It's no surprise that persons who have little compunction about registering the nominal rejection of Christ as clear evidence justifying the eternal tortures of hell, should have little inhibition in proactively and aggressively accusing those they consider beyond the pale of having committed the most heinous of sins. For myself I would certainly bulk at equating nominal rejection of Christ with an authentic rejection. After all, Christians like "asparagusman" are hardly projecting the authentic Christ of the Samaritans and the God of prodigals. So who knows, if Myers doesn't have that promised heart-attack before I pop off, I'll put a good word in for him when I pass through the pearly gates.

Character Assassinators

Cowboy Bob knows the answer to that!

I get an emailed newsletter from an atheist called Ashley Haworth-Roberts who spends much of his time harrying the anti-science Christian fundamentalist culture. As I am a researcher of sectarian brands of Christianity I find that Ashley actually succeeds in drawing my attention to a lot of useful material. In one of his latest newsletters he quotes a Trump and Ken Ham supporting fundamentalist who calls himself "cowboy Bob".  What interested me was the following quote from the cowboy's blog. It's an indication that for at least some of the Christian right-wing young earthism is a faith test, a test you fail if you don't go along with their young earthist views  Here's the quote with my emphases:

Some folks reject the Bible's authority. We expect that from atheists and other non-believers, but there are professing Christians who also downplay the Word of God. Scripture plainly says that everything was created in six days. Instead of humbling themselves and submitting to Christ, they light a shuck out of there and head for the comfort of riding the owlhoot trail. (Cowboy speak for "outlaws") They are degrading Scripture.

Why would a supposed believer want to compromise? It seems to me that these owlhoots don't want to look like one of those people who reject deep time, so they seek the praise of men rather than God. Another reason is that they want to accommodate atheistic views of science and their interpretations of evidence so they can allow for evolution. Some of these alleged Christians get a notion to add millions of years to the Bible by pretending it doesn't mean what it clearly says. 

People who try to compromise with theistic evolution, old earth creation, and hybrid creation accounts do not accomplish anything of value. Indeed, such tinhorns mock God, his people, and Scripture. Do they really believe? Their insistence on eisegesis over exegesis**, ridicule of Bible-believing Christians, and giving comfort to enemies of God causes me to lack belief that they do so.

(See http://www.biblecreation.com/2019/02/making-hybrid-creation-stories.html)

It never occurs to people like this that even on a literal interpretation Genesis 1 is hardly a description of the process of creation for it says very little about the details of this process; that is, the actual sequence of events that the commands of God entail. The Genesis 1 narrative, by all accounts, is (necessarily) a mere summary of an immense burden of creative activity  See here.

But what I would like to focus on here is the fact that the above quote reveals just how full of assumptions the cowboy is about  the underlying motives of those Christians who don't agree with him: The cowboy is quite sure that Christians who beg to differ are harbouring malign ulterior anti-Christian attitudes. Moreover he, like other young earthists, is unlikely to make known that his views actually originate from the 1960s, a time that Ken Ham thinks of as the young earthist reformation.

The character deformation implicit in the cowboy's words allied to his all too obvious profound suspicions of Christians beyond the pale of his subculture are of-a-piece with the right wing & fundamentalist affinity for paranoid conspiracy theorism: Let's not forget that Trump and professional Christian conspiracy theorist Alex Jones have in the past engaged in mutual support. 

As the Watchtower egged on its followers to believe that 1975 was going to be the likely end of this system of things and then claimed that it never made a prediction, so likewise we can see how Ken Ham is egging on the cowboy's behaviour and yet turns round and tries to claim that he's not making young earthism a salvation issue...... Oh yes he is!. 

Apart from research purposes I would warn reasonable Christians to avoid engaging with people like the cowboy (along with fundamentalists in general).  As we can see one doesn't start on a level playing field with them. Reasonable Christians (who are in fact in the majority, I'm glad to say), in fundamentalist eyes, are the lowest of the low, traitorous apostate spiritual outcasts on the "owlhoot" trail! Fundamentalists like the cowboy are so full of a priori suspicions & potential recriminations that the trusting and mutually respecting relationship  needed for constructive dialogue just isn't there to start with. Interaction with them just catalyses further accusations, slandering, anger, aggravation and polarisation. However, it helps to realise that these people are not out to intentionally deceive, but their pathological paranoid vision of the world is very real to them; it takes a long time and a lot of effort to deconstruct that world view.  Unless one is specifically lead to engage these kinds of rabid sectarians there are better things Christians can occupy themselves with!

Relevant links
As the following links suggest there are parallels here with a sect like Jehovah's witnesses.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzLwnl6qE_yeemhBVURGSExVaFE/edit?pli=1

http://viewsnewsandpews.blogspot.com/2018/05/fundamentalist-publicity-sects.html

Footnote:
* I doubt the cowboy would be able to tell us much about the relationship between "eisegesis & exegesis" and the difference between "notation and connotation".