Disobeying The Word of Ham

 

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

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!

Among the "conservatives" who Ken does allude 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 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.

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 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.  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. See here for another 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 he "cannot be trusted".  

***

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 mental, 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. 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 habit of mind which he believes entitles him to screw down hard on what he considers to be heretics. 

But whatever, imperfect though it may be there so much about the creation which is still very good although man's relationships revolving around the means production is 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's 67th book thesis by suggesting that the information delivered to us via creation 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 a unified body of revelation via the Meaning = Text + Context equation. 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 see creation in a very different way to how God sees it. 

Hence, in conclusion, using Ken's own words 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.

Footnote

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