Not super pleasant (to put it mildly), but educational . . .

My last two posts (here and here) have obviously generated quite a bit of discussion--more, I think, than any posts on this blog have generated before. I am sure it is all thanks to Ken Ham. I didn't particularly enjoy his post, but I thank him for it, anyway. Thank you, Ken.

A strong reason for thanksgiving: The discussions that have followed have helped me to learn; they have enabled me to say some things I have never said before (see the “other matters that I think need to be addressed," below; I have never expressed what I say in items #1 and #2 of these "other matters"; and I think I have never expressed so clearly what I attempt to say in item #3 [again, within the "other matters" portion, below]).

As I read the comments of various posters on a thread in HomeSchoolReviews.com, I felt led to write and post the following:

I received a Google notification that this conversation was happening. So I came over, read many of the posts, and thought I should probably sign up on HomeSchool Reviews so that I could speak. Especially since it was my post to which Mr. Ham was replying.

A few points of clarification:

* SONLIGHT did not call Ken Ham "Pope Ham." *I*, John Holzmann, called him a pope. I did so in my personal blog (a Google Blogger blog) "John's Corner" (http://johnscorner.blogspot.com).

* If my comments reveal my character (or Sonlight's character, if you are determined to drag Sonlight into the matter, despite the fact that the company had nothing to do with my post), I ask that you

1) please look at my response when I was made aware of my wrong-doing. (I have apologized.)

2) please consider the provocations that elicited my inappropriate response. (Mr. Ham has made false statements about me on numerous occasions dating back to 1999. He has made false statements about Sonlight Curriculum as well.)

3) consider whether you REALLY believe my behavior, per se, is (or was) as heinous as some have made it out to be. Let me reiterate: I BELIEVE I WAS IN THE WRONG. I shouldn't have stooped to name-calling. But if you believe my name-calling is as heinous as some seem to believe it was, I am astonished that the Christian homeschooling community has not risen in indignation over Mr. Ham's name-calling and his sponsorship--in his magazine and on his website--of IDENTICAL language to that which I used. (I could talk about OTHER language. But let us focus solely on the “pope” idea. [NOTE: I was not aware of this until I happened to bump into the article yesterday. But . . . ] For IDENTICAL language used by Answers in Genesis, see the article "Evangelical Popes" (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v7/n2/evangelical-popes).)

*********

What I have just written speaks, I believe, to the primary matters that seem to be of concern with respect to my POST.

HOWEVER, there are other matters that I think need to be addressed.

* The matter of "compromise" and "error" and, at least as importantly, the "Gospel" and "authority" questions Mr. Ham raises.

1) I would like to note that I hold Mr. Ham in very high regard for his repeated--CONSISTENT--"banging of the drum" about the fundamental issues related to Gospel and authority that can arise if one attempts to correlate a “straightforward” reading of Genesis 1-3 (as Mr. Ham--and, I'm sure, most readers here--would define “straightforward”) with the views of most modern scientists. As Mr. Ham told me about 14 years ago (I'm not going to quote him, because I'm recalling this from memory, and I don't have a perfect memory; but, he said something like), “You will find that there is no solid foundation with an old-earth view. They don't have a consistent view of the Bible. The Biblical narrative doesn't hang together under an old-earth view.” --Something like that.

I have to say that, in general, I AGREE WITH HIM. What I have found is that most old-earthers take the “scientific” view and kind of wave their hands over the Bible and say, “I don't know how it all goes together, but I believe the Bible and I believe science. And so . . . (I am an old-earther.)”

But I have been uncomfortable with such a position.

THEREFORE,

2) I agree with Mr. Ham that, if someone is going to teach old-earth (creationism or evolutionism or anything else), and they are going to claim to be Bible-believing Christians, then they should deal with the problems. They should address the kinds of things about which Mr. Ham keeps banging the drum. They SHOULDN'T simply “wave their hands.”

As different people in the homeschool community have made clear to me, our view of Genesis 1-11 will affect how we teach history (is there history before 4004 BC . . . or not? Are Adam and Eve to be included in our regular history course . . . or “only” in Bible? . . . If we include them only in a Bible program, aren't we indicating that they aren't part of regular history? Etc.); it will affect how we teach science; it will affect how we teach the Bible itself. . . . --These are not mere “hand-waving” kinds of matters!

HOWEVER,

3) In the same way that (most of us, anyway!) seem to be able to at least let each other pursue our own beliefs and practices without charging each other with “compromise” and “error” and an unwillingness to bow to the authority of Scripture when it comes to matters like women wearing head coverings in church; or when it comes to how we observe (or fail to observe) the Sabbath; or “dresses only”; or baptism; or the end times; so I believe it ought to be here, with respect to our views on how we should interpret Genesis 1-11.

I am NOT suggesting people should not discuss these matters (anymore than I would suggest we ought not to discuss head coverings, Sabbath observances, our manner or dress, baptism, end-times prophecy, or anything else).

What I am attempting to say is that . . .

IN THE SAME MANNER as we are able to discuss these matters without charging one another with compromise and error with respect to our fundamental view of Scripture (i.e., when we disagree with one another, we don't charge those on the opposite side with the obvious sin of calling the authority of Scripture into question!) . . . so, here, with respect to our interpretations of Genesis 1-11.

I believe we should CHALLENGE each other to think through the implications of our views (like the people who pointed out that a person’s view of Genesis 1-11 is going to impact their view of history). We should raise all of the kinds of issues and concerns that Ken Ham consistently raises. ASK people of another opinion how their views square with the idea (say) of death before the fall. ASK how they interpret Romans 5:12ff. DISCUSS how we view these passages and why.

I believe we do the body of Christ damage when, rather than behaving in this way, we take the far more offensive road and call anyone who disagrees with us “compromisers” or “snakes in the grass.” This shuts off communication. It divides the church. It precludes useful discussion and the opportunity to learn. (Participants on neither side of a “conversation” in which we are being told we are either imbeciles (or such terms; I am thinking of less pretty comments probably more likely to come from the mouth of an old-earther, though I have heard young-earthers use similar verbiage with respect to those with whom they disagree!), or a “conversation” in which we are being told we are “compromisers” (etc.): Participants in those kinds of “conversations” don't usually wind up actually conversing! And we don't benefit one another.)

I want us to provide room for one another to hear each other out, to be challenged, and to grow in the grace and knowledge and wisdom and powerful work of Christ in the world.

Let us, as the founders of the United States once said, “hang together” . . . that we might not “hang separately.”

Blessings!

John Holzmann

The conservative (evangelical/fundamentalist) Christian homeschool pope

Edited to add (7/5/2013):  After being "called" on calling Mr. Ham "Pope Ham," I have apologized publicly. (I [Edited 7/9/2013]still need to go went to him personally/privately on Friday, 7/5/2013.) I have also been able to state--I think more clearly than ever before--not only why his article bothered me so much but, far more importantly, what I appreciate about him and how and why I wish he would alter some of his methodologies. You can find that post here.

*******
In the latest Answers magazine (p. 35), Ken Ham, president of Answers in Genesis, claims that Sonlight’s treatment of old- and/or young-earth and/or evolutionary creation is not balanced:

Already, two publishers—Sonlight and Christian Schools International—don't openly support a young-earth position. They claim to offer a "balanced" treatment, but it isn't.

He adds no commentary that would bolster his position. He simply makes the claim.

Note: In his primary article, Ham references an Atlantic magazine article that spurred a Christianity Today article where Sarita and I are quoted which, in turn, speaks of Sonlight as “an exception” to the curricula that emphasize young-earth creationist views to the exclusion of others. The Atlantic article mentions Christian Schools International; it doesn't reference Sonlight. However, the author of the CT article writes that

Sonlight . . . offers a diversity of homeschool curricula that allow parents to teach various theories of origins. "The YEC position is strong and ingrained in the homeschool movement," said Sonlight president Sarita Holzmann, who homeschools her children and believes in a young earth. "That might be to our detriment." She says students need to be able to evaluate different positions.

The author and/or editor of the article made several obvious mistakes in her comments about Sonlight.

For example: When it comes to origins, Sonlight only features young-earth creationist books and provides virtually no counter-balancing arguments against anything that those books say. The curriculum does include a few books in areas other than science that obviously assume an evolutionary perspective. The fact that the company simply carries those books seems to have led to its being banned from the Christian Home Educators of Colorado conference.

But rather than actually presenting full-blown arguments for the various theories of origins (as the CT article seems to suggest it does), wherever non-young-earth or pro-evolutionary references occur in its texts, Sonlight either refuses to assign those pages or it dutifully offers young-earth creationist "arguments" against the pro-evolutionary content.

Meanwhile, Sonlight does offer some mild notes of encouragement to non-young-earth-creationist parents as it "permits" or even "encourages" such parents (along with the young-earthers) to teach as they see fit.

But the fact is, there is little if any content in the curriculum that would enable students truly to "evaluate" positions other than young-earth creationism.

Indeed, even outside its curriculum, while in the past the company carried a few titles in the back section of its catalog that questioned a young-earth perspective, those books disappeared from the catalog several years ago.

Still, that, apparently, is not good enough for Mr. Ham.

Considering what Sonlight actually does, I would dearly love to know what Ham thinks “balanced” looks like. I am particularly curious because of what he says in the main body of his article (p. 34):

Does [what I have said] mean that homeschooling parents should never expose their children to evolutionary ideas? Of course not. Homeschoolers certainly need to address different views about origins and other controversial issues in their teaching, but they need to do so in the clear context that God's Word is truth and compromising views are error!

Ahh! That last phrase actually answers my question, doesn't it?

If I'm reading him accurately, a “balanced” presentation, from Mr. Ham's perspective, means one that not only “openly support[s] a young-earth position,” but vigorously opposes any other. And Sonlight doesn't oppose alternative perspectives vigorously enough. It offers too much legitimacy to such alternative positions.

You see, the truth is, Sonlight mildly--almost to the point of silence--does "address" different views about origins by simply defining viewpoints other than the young-earth perspective and acknowledging that some Christians hold these viewpoints. Moreover, it acknowledges that some Christian homeschoolers might hold such views and suggests that they can feel free to teach them.

And that, apparently, is too much for Mr. Ham.

Because the truth is, from everything I have seen, Sonlight nowhere offers opportunities within its curriculum--i.e., from within the books it carries or from its Instructor's Guide notes-- . . . Sonlight nowhere offers opportunities for opponents of the young-earth perspective to speak for themselves. It simply acknowledges that some parents might believe differently and suggests that they can teach as they see fit.

And that is what Ham and people like him disapprove. Sonlight does not come out strongly enough with statements to the effect that views alternative to or opposing a young-earth perspective are clearly "compromising" and "in error."

*****

It strikes me: Ham seems to view himself much like a Pope. He has a lock on the Truth. He speaks definitively and infallibly concerning how the Bible is to be interpreted. Like religious leaders of yesteryear who were willing to burn at the stake those who held differing opinions about baptism; or like those even today who break fellowship over different perspectives on eschatology (pre-, post-, or a-mill; preterist; or whatever), so Mr. Ham seems bent on ensuring his followers remain separated from those with whom he disagrees.

If you agree with Ham about the age of the earth and the basic young-earth viewpoint, that's okay, but not good enough.

If you teach a young-earth viewpoint, that's not good enough, either.

You must never suggest that you "merely" believe in young-earth creationism. You must adamantly assert that young-earth creationism is true: THE truth. Indeed, you will have gone too far over to "the other side" if you even contemplate the idea that those with whom you disagree might have some potentially good reasons to view the Bible from a perspective different from yours, because--so Pope Ham has decreed--anyone who holds a view different from yours (i.e., different from Ham's) is, simply, wrong, "compromising," "in error." End of discussion.

Whew!

Perspectives on an Evolving Creation, 4c - God's Two Books, Part III

#8 in an ongoing series on Perspectives on an Evolving Creation edited by Keith B. Miller. Previous post in this series: Perspectives on an Evolving Creation, 4b - God's Two Books, Part II. First post in the series: Perspectives on an Evolving Creation, 1 - Introduction.

It took a while for me to realize I had forgotten an important point I had intended to make in my last post in this series.

What I had intended to note--and forgot to mention--is a valid observation Dr. Danny Faulkner of Answers in Genesis makes concerning a fundamental imbalance between Science and Scripture. Specifically (in criticism of some things Hugh Ross says), Faulkner comments:

Ross argues as follows. There are two books: the book of nature and the Bible. God is the author of both, so both must agree. So far this seems reasonable.

Then Ross subtly equates science for [sic] nature, from which one could infer that science and the Bible should be equated in authority.

Most of Ross’s intended audience would have abandoned him had he made such a claim, because this is precisely the sort of equation that most liberals have made. Science is the (man-made) way that we have to study nature. If Ross wants to make the correct analogy, it should be to exegesis, which is the (man-made) way of studying the Bible.

I want to applaud Faulkner's observation about science and exegesis. He is absolutely correct. They are the correct/true corrollary entities. Science is not a good analog for Scripture (or the Bible) anymore than exegesis is a good analog for creation or the physical universe.

Moreover, Faulkner is correct to point out that we need to keep clear about the distinction between science and the physical realm (God's creation) on the one hand, and exegesis (or biblical interpretation) and the Bible itself on the other.

"Science is to creation as exegesis is to the Bible" and "Scripture is to exegesis as the physical universe is to science." But it is absolutely inappropriate to suggest that "Science is to creation as Scripture is to exegesis" or "exegesis is to Scripture as the physical universe is to science." These latter proposed equivalencies are exactly backwards.

So, assuming Ross makes the error Faulkner attributes to him, Faulkner is correct to call our attention to it. [By the way: I can see how Ross could equate science to nature. He could do that (legitimately--though potentially dangerously!) if he used the word science as a synecdoche for nature (or vice versa).]

But/and/so let us look at how the young-earth spokespeople distinguish--or fail to distinguish--Scripture from interpretations of Scripture. And as they distinguish--or fail to distinguish--these two: What do they say--or, at least, imply--about the possibility properly to interpret Scripture?

My sense: To the extent that their suggestions are correct that true (accurate, useful, informative) science is impossible, to that same extent they are really saying that true (accurate, useful, informative) exegesis is also impossible. Conversely, to the extent that they say true (accurate, useful, informative) exegesis is possible: to that same extent, they should be telling us that true (accurate, useful, informative) science is also possible. If they can have the one, then they should be able to have the other; if they can't have the one, then they should not be able to have the other, either.

But you tell me.

Dr. Faulkner notes (as I have quoted in the last two posts of this series; and these comments are in the same article in which Faulkner criticizes Ross):

Scripture teaches that the creation is cursed (Gen. 3:17—19, Rom. 8:20—22), but Scripture itself is ‘God-breathed’ (2 Tim. 3:15—17). So how can a cursed creation interpreted by a fallible methodology of sinful humans determine how we interpret the perfect, unfallen Word of God?

Please concentrate, here, with me. I'm not sure I can interpret accurately whatever-it-is he is attempting to say.

It sounds to me as if Faulkner is intending to suggest that, because God's Word is perfect, therefore, somehow, that means we sinful human beings, using a fallible methodology, are able accurately to interpret the perfect, unfallen, "God-breathed" Word of God.

Is that what he's saying? If so, then I would like you to consider the other half of this "equation."

If it is true that because God's Word is perfect, therefore, somehow, that means we sinful human beings, using a fallible methodology, are able accurately to interpret the perfect, unfallen, "God-breathed" Word of God; is it then also true that, because the creation is cursed, therefore we human beings are absolutely unable accurately to interpret whatever-it-is we may want to discover about our world? (I mean, really. Forget the talk about fallible methodologies and human beings being sinful. At root, really, isn't Faulkner saying that it is the fallenness of creation, on the one hand, and the perfection of God's Word, on the other, that makes all the difference when it comes to our ability to interpret either of these things accurately? . . . If so, then where are we to go with disagreements like the one we saw between Dr. Bouw and Dr. Faulkner?

Consider, then, too, the questions raised by Dr. Morris of the Institute for Creation Research about human capabilities properly to understand or interpret much of anything:

Can man, with a brain and reasoning powers distorted by the curse . . . accurately reconstruct the history of the universe? . . . Or is man and his mind locked in the effects of the curse--a poor reflection of the once glorious "image of God"--now blinded by sin and the god of this world, seeing things through a glass darkly?"

Am I understanding Morris accurately when I say he appears to be asking rhetorical questions whose answers, he wants us to believe, must be "no"? Moreover, do his questions--and answers--equate to this: "Humans' brains and reasoning powers are so distorted by the curse and our minds are so blinded by sin and the god of this world that we are incapable of interpreting anything accurately"?

If I am wrong, then what is he saying? I don't see any other possible interpretation than the one I have just put forward.

But if my interpretaton is correct, then that leaves me wondering: Where does he think that leaves us with respect to Scripture? If we can't properly interpret anything else, then how and why does Morris think we can properly understand and/or interpret the Bible?

If Morris wants to reference a verse like John 16:13 (in which we read that Jesus said He would send His Spirit, the Spirit of truth to guide His disciples into all truth), I would want to ask:

1) If we are to believe his pessimistic view that all humans' brains and reasoning powers are so distorted by the curse and our minds are so blinded by sin and the god of this world that we are incapable of interpreting anything accurately: then why should we believe Morris' interpretation of John 16:13 (or whatever Scripture he actually is referencing)? And,

2) If the Spirit of truth, meant to guide us into all truth, is able to overcome our curse-caused blindness and/or distorted perceptions with respect to the Bible: why can that same Spirit (meant to guide us into all truth!) not also help us overcome those same limitations with respect to the physical world? And,

3) Why shouldn't our God-informed interpretations of His creation not help us interpret His Word . . . every bit as much as our God-informed interpretations of His Word should help us interpret His works (His creation)?

Finally, however, let us consider Ken Ham's comments:

Why would any Christian want to take man’s fallible dating methods and use them to impose an idea on the infallible Word of God? . . .

This is the crux of the issue. When Christians have agreed with the world that they can accept man’s fallible dating methods to interpret God’s Word, they have agreed with the world that the Bible can’t be trusted.

--I have already called into question Ham's final suggestion that evangelical "two-books" advocates believe or promote the idea that the Bible can't be trusted. Perhaps some self-proclaimed evangelical somewhere has said the Bible can't be trusted. And, as Davis noted, I guess it could be said that, at least in one sense, Calvin suggested the Bible can't be trusted. ("See, for example, [Calvin's] comments on Ps. 58:4-5, where he doubts that snake charming is genuine, although those verses liken the wicked to deaf adders that do not respond to the charmers.")

But more significantly, I would like to return to one of the key points for which I lauded Faulkner earlier in this post: the important matter of maintaining cognizance of the fact that the interpretation of a thing (i.e., science in relation to physical phenomena and exegesis with respect to the Bible) . . . --The interpretation of a thing is different from the thing being interpreted. Science is not the same thing as the physical universe or physical phenomena within the universe; nor is exegesis or an interpretation of Scripture the same thing as the Bible.

Yet what does Ham say? When Christians interpret God's Word in a certain manner, they are saying thereby--by their interpretation (NOTICE: not by a statement to this effect, but by the fact of the method of their interpretation!)-- . . . They are saying that the Bible can’t be trusted.

Right? Isn't that what Ham says? "If your interpretation doesn't agree with mine, then--because of your interpretation, because you have disagreed with me--you obviously don't believe the Bible can be trusted."

And if that's what he is saying, isn't he confusing the Bible with a certain interpretation of the Bible?

Put another way: "If you disagree with my [young-earth] interpretation of Scripture, then you are not merely disagreeing with my interpretation of Scripture; you are disagreeing with the Bible itself."

Right? Isn't that what he is saying?

If I am misinterpreting Ham, please help me see where I have gone wrong.

But if I am interpreting him correctly, then please pay attention to the following.

In the same article from which I took my other quotations from Faulkner, Faulkner writes,

It is not clear whether Ross consciously made this slippery switch [equating science with nature]. More likely, this swap escaped his notice. If that is so, then such a logical fallacy would cast doubt on his competence.

Okay. Fair is fair. Following Faulkner's reasoning with respect to Ross' equating science with nature, then what are we to make of Ham when he equates his interpretation of Scripture with Scripture itself?

Again, I'll leave the answer to that question for you to think about on your own. [--Or maybe not. Let me make the same comment, here, that I made concerning Ross: I can see how Ham could equate the exegesis of a passage of Scripture with the Scripture itself. He could do that (again, legitimately--but with serious potential danger!) if he used the word Scripture as a synecdoche for biblical interpretation (or vice versa). --We must beware the dangers of thinking our interpretations of Scripture are as infallible as the Scriptures themselves. We must similarly beware the dangers of ever imagining our science expresses a definitive understanding of nature.]

As for me, I'm driven back to a (slightly modified--Thank you, Dr. Faulkner!) version of what I wrote seven or eight years ago:

Our . . . science and our [exegesis], I believe, ought to work together in a virtuous cycle of interactive and mutual correction.

[Our interpretation of] Scripture, in that sense, is made to submit to science. But science, too, is forced to submit to [our interpretation of] Scripture. [The] Scripture[s themselves], ultimately, must have the last word. But when do we know we have made it to the end? When do we, as limited, fallible human beings, know that we have fully and accurately comprehended what the Word of God is saying? --I think we will never arrive at that destination until we stand before God face to face. Until that day, we will continue to "see in a mirror, dimly" (1 Corinthians 13:12). And for as long as that remains true, we ought to conduct ourselves with appropriate humility and grace . . . before both God and man.

May we all--young- and old-earth creationists, God-spoke-it-into-existence-in-the-moment-He-spoke-it creationists as well as God-spoke-it-into-existence-over-millions-of-years creationists . . . --May we all conduct ourselves with appropriate humility and grace: humility and grace before God, humility and grace toward one another, and humility and grace in light of the data before us--the data of Scripture and the data of the physical universe in which we live, the book of God's Word and the book of God's Works.

Perspectives on an Evolving Creation, 4b - God's Two Books, Part II

#7 in an ongoing series on Perspectives on an Evolving Creation edited by Keith B. Miller. Previous post in this series: Perspectives on an Evolving Creation, 4a - God's Two Books, Part I. First post in the series: Perspectives on an Evolving Creation, 1 - Introduction.

In my last post in this series, I attempted to summarize the thoughts of a number of leading Christian thinkers down through the centuries in reference to the idea of "God's two books." All of these thinkers seemed to believe that scientific inquiry and biblical study should inform one another. I closed my post with representative quotes from three leading modern young-earth creationist spokespersons. All of them seem to disagree with their spiritual forebears, and to disagree with them sharply.

My purpose, here, is to summarize why I believe their objections to the two-books idea are illegitimate.

I reject their objections for at least the following reasons:

1. Because their primary claims against the two-books doctrine are simply false.
    
2. Because, it is my observation, these young-earthers themselves (I am happy to report!) permit data external to the Bible to help them interpret the Bible. But that means they are behaving in a hypocritical manner when they raise these kinds of charges against their two-books brethren.
    
3. Because the fears I expressed in my Young- and Old-Earth Creationists: Can We Even Talk Together? essay seven or eight years ago are coming true more and more. Their anti-two-books teaching is producing the evil fruit of unnecessary division within the body of Christ. More and more people are being cut off from fellowship with brothers and sisters in Christ . . . for reasons as inappropriate as these.
   
   And, finally,
    
4. Because these men's claims cut them off from many of their own--and their audiences'--leading spiritual forebears. In seeking to be so "pure," they deny their own spiritual heritage and history.

Let me remind you again of what the young-earth creationist leaders have said about "God's Two Books."

John Morris of the Institute for Creation Research:

Can man, with a brain and reasoning powers distorted by the curse . . . accurately reconstruct the history of the universe? Should his historical reconstructions be put on a higher plane than Scripture? Or is man and his mind locked in the effects of the curse--a poor reflection of the once glorious "image of God"--now blinded by sin and the god of this world, seeing things through a glass darkly?"

Dr. Danny Faulkner:

Scripture teaches that the creation is cursed (Gen. 3:17—19, Rom. 8:20—22), but Scripture itself is ‘God-breathed’ (2 Tim. 3:15—17). So how can a cursed creation interpreted by a fallible methodology of sinful humans determine how we interpret the perfect, unfallen Word of God?

And, then, finally--and preeminently--Ken Ham, president of Answers in Genesis:

AiG’s main thrust is NOT ‘young Earth’ as such; our emphasis is on Biblical authority. Believing in a relatively ‘young Earth’ (i.e., only a few thousands of years old, which we accept) is a consequence of accepting the authority of the Word of God as an infallible revelation from our omniscient Creator. . . .

Let’s be honest. Take out your Bible and look through it. You can’t find any hint at all for millions or billions of years. . . .

[T]he reason [many well-known and respected Christian leaders] don’t believe God created in six literal days is because they are convinced from so-called ‘science’ that the world is billions of years old. In other words, they are admitting that they start outside the Bible to (re)interpret the Words of Scripture. . . .

[By contrast,] I understand that the Bible is a revelation from our infinite Creator, and it is self-authenticating and self-attesting. I must interpret Scripture with Scripture, not impose ideas from the outside! . . .

[A]s a ‘revelationist,’ I let God’s Word speak to me, with the words having meaning according to the context of the language they were written in. . . . I accept the plain words of Scripture in context. . . .

And the fact is, every single dating method (outside of Scripture) is based on fallible assumptions. There are literally hundreds of dating tools. However, whatever dating method one uses, assumptions must be made about the past. Not one dating method man devises is absolute! Even though 90% of all dating methods give dates far younger than evolutionists require, none of these can be used in an absolute sense either. . . .

Question: Why would any Christian want to take man’s fallible dating methods and use them to impose an idea on the infallible Word of God? Christians who accept billions of years are in essence saying that man’s word is infallible, but God’s Word is fallible!

This is the crux of the issue. When Christians have agreed with the world that they can accept man’s fallible dating methods to interpret God’s Word, they have agreed with the world that the Bible can’t be trusted. They have essentially sent out the message that man, by himself, independent of revelation, can determine truth and impose this on God’s Word. Once this ‘door’ has been opened regarding Genesis, ultimately it can happen with the rest of the Bible.

False Charges

I want to call your attention to some of the more "damaging" things these men have to say about their elder brothers in Christ. And I want you to consider whether their (at least implicit) charges are valid. Are the charges they level against people who seek to balance science and Scripture legitimate? Are the behaviors these young-earth creationists say people who try to use science to inform their interpretations of Scripture: are these the behaviors in which Calvin and Galileo and Kepler and Hodge . . . and so many others . . . engaged in?

Ken Ham:

• They "agreed with the world that the Bible can’t be trusted."

--Is that what these men did?

• They "sent out the message that man, by himself, independent of revelation, can determine truth and impose this on God’s Word."

--Again: Is that what any of these men did?

• They said that "man’s word is infallible, but God’s Word is fallible."

--True?

• They "start outside the Bible to (re)interpret the Words of Scripture."

--Really? Those were Calvin's and Hodge's hermeneutical principles?

• They refused to accept "the authority of the Word of God as an infallible revelation from our omniscient Creator."

--Calvin? Hodge?

John Morris:

• They put their "historical reconstructions . . . on a higher plane than Scripture."

--Is this an honest evaluation of where these men were coming from? Their attitudes and behaviors with respect to Scripture?

I dare say the correct answer to each one of my questions is No. Neither Calvin, nor Galileo, nor Kepler, nor Hodge--nor many, many others down through the centuries who have said that we must interpret the Bible not only "by itself" but also by science: NONE of these people--these faithful Bible-believers-- . . . NONE of these people ever suggested that the Bible can’t be trusted.

Oh, yes; no doubt: they did suggest--no; in fact, they taught--that some interpretations of Scripture can't be trusted. And they taught that certain evidence from the natural world ought to change our interpretations of Scripture. But I know of no sayings of any of these men that would lead me to suspect that they believed the Bible itself was untrustworthy . . . as Mr. Ham suggests they must.

I have seen no evidence that any of these men "sent out the message that man, by himself, independent of revelation, can determine truth and impose this on God’s Word." No. I have only seen them advocate a careful interplay between interpretations of Scripture and interpretations of natural phenomena: let the one impact the other . . . and vice versa.

"Man’s word is infallible, but God’s Word is fallible"? --Preposterous!

"Start outside the Bible to (re)interpret the Words of Scripture"? --I don't think so! . . . Oh, yes, there is evidence, external to the Scripture, that may make it very clear to us if or when certain words of Scripture ought, perhaps, to be interpreted differently than the "plain reading" seems to indicate. (More on that in a few moments.) But that any of these men held it as an axiom of Scriptural interpretation that they should start outside the Bible to (re)interpret Scripture? --Again: I don't think so.

They refused to accept "the authority of the Word of God as an infallible revelation from our omniscient Creator"? --I don't think Ham could provide a shard of proof.

So I object to the young-earthers' charges, first, because they are simply false.

But I object to them on other grounds as well.

Hypocrisy

Ham and friends make this big deal about being so "above it all" in their manner of handling the Bible.

Yet, as I discovered those many years ago when I wrote my paper about young- and old-earth creationists being able to talk together, they themselves don't live up to their bold proclamations. They themselves have adopted a post-Copernican view of the structure of the universe, permitting modern science to help instruct them about the meaning of passages like Joshua 10:12-13 (where Joshua commands the Sun to stand still) and Hebrew words like raqiya‘ (translated as "firmament" in most older versions of the Bible, and "expanse" in most modern translations; see Is the raqiya‘ (‘firmament’) a solid dome?).

As I write in my Young- and Old-Earth Creationists: Can We Even Talk Together? essay:

Russell Grigg . . . notes in his essay, "Joshua's Long Day" (found on 9 September 2002 at the AIG website: www.answersingenesis.org/docs/243.asp [available now--in 2009--at their former partners' site: http://creation.com/joshua-s-long-day--JAH]), that Joshua 10:12-13 "uses the language of appearance and observation"--i.e., describes the apparent movement of the Sun from the perspective of an Earth-bound observer rather than from the beyond-this-world perspective of God.

Or as Dr. Danny Faulkner writes in the introduction to his essay "Geocentrism and Creation" (accessed 8 March 2005 at www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/geocentrism.asp), "[T]he Bible is neither geocentric nor heliocentric."

That's what these Young-Earth creationists say. But how do they know these things? On the basis of Scripture? Or on the basis of science (i.e., "man's fallen wisdom") being brought to bear upon Scripture?

As you read his article, Dr. Faulkner's arguments sound reasonable and convincing. Indeed, I think he is "right on."

But try using these arguments with members and supporters of The Biblical Astronomer (TBA; also known as the Association for Biblical Astronomy)! Listen to what those brothers and sisters have to say. Their arguments against Copernicanism and against "compromisers" and "Biblioskeptics" like Dr. Faulkner sound remarkably like the arguments I have heard many [non-geocentric] Young-Earth creationists use against their Old-Earth brethren.⁵

Anyone who suggests the Earth is not at rest in the center of the universe, say TBA supporters, has abandoned the clear teaching of God's Word. Indeed, they say,

[T]he Bible's authority is weakened by [any other view]; . . . the Bible teaches geocentricity. Geocentric verses range from those with only a positional import, such as references to "up" and "down"; through the question of just what the earth was "orbiting" the first three days while it awaited the creation of the sun; to overt references such as Ecclesiastes 1, verse 5:

The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.

Perhaps the strongest geocentric verse in the Bible is Joshua 10:13:

And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

Here the Moderator of Scripture, the Holy Ghost Himself, endorses the daily movement of the sun and moon. After all, God could just as well have written: "And the earth stopped turning, so that the sun appeared to stand still, and the moon seemed to stay. . . ."⁶

To suggest that the Bible does not teach geocentrism is tantamount to saying that human science is superior to God's Word, say the TBAers. While "everyone since Adam can understand that Isaiah 55:12 is a literary device [Isaiah 55:12 speaks of the trees "clapping their hands"], . . . there is not a clue to tell those before Copernicus that Joshua 10:13 is not to be taken literally."

Indeed, the Church's entire modern slide away from faith is directly traceable to the seed sown by faithless (or, at least, misdirected!) men like Copernicus:

[E]ither God writes what he means and means what he writes, or else he passes off mere appearances as truths and ends up the liar. The ultimate issue is one of final authority: is the final say God's or man's? This is brought home again and again by humanists, such as the twentieth-century philosopher Bertrand Russell and astronomer Ivan King, who point to the church's abandonment of geocentricity as having "freed" man from the ancient God-centered outlook on life to the modern man-centered outlook. . .

The Copernican Revolution, as this change of view is called, was not just a revolution in astronomy, but it also spread into politics and theology. In particular, it set the stage for the development of Bible criticism. After all, if God cannot be taken literally when He writes of the "rising of the sun," then how can He be taken literally in writing of the "rising of the Son"?

To summarize the geocentrists' position in the most succinct manner possible:

[T]he reason why we deem a return to a geocentric astronomy a first apologetic necessity is that its rejection at the beginning of our Modern Age constitutes one very important, if not the most important, cause of the historical development of Bible criticism, now resulting in an increasingly anti-Christian world in which atheistic existentialism is preaching a life that is really meaningless.

To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. -- Isaiah 8:20

[Accessed 10 January 2006 at www.geocentricity.com/bibastron/credo.html.]

If you are familiar with the kinds of arguments that our brothers and sisters at Answers in Genesis use, you will recognize some powerful parallels here.⁷ Indeed, internally, I find the TBA presentation quite a bit more attractive, on its surface, than I do those who would suggest, as Dr. Faulkner does, that the Bible is "neither geocentric nor heliocentric."

To reference the TBA author once more: how could any ordinary Christian have interpreted the Bible in the manner Dr. Faulkner suggests . . . unless and until s/he had been influenced by Copernican doctrines? Who would have even imagined thinking in non-geocentric terms prior to the Copernican Revolution? So, in a sense, isn't it true that Dr. Faulkner is "setting science above Scripture"?⁸

---

⁵ See, for example, "Creation Compromises," found on 12 January 2006 at www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/compromise.asp [closest equivalent available on 15 March 2009: www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/creation-compromises], and "Geology and the young earth: Answering those 'Bible-believing' bibliosceptics," found on 12 January 2006 at www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i4/geology.asp[, but available as of 15 March 2009 at http://creation.com/geology-and-the-young-earth-creation-magazine]. Return to text.

⁶ Unless otherwise noted, the above and future quotations from TBA sources are from "Why Geocentricity," an essay found at www.geocentricity.com/geocentricity/whygeo.html {accessed [15 March 2009]). Return to text.

⁷ For example, Russell Grigg charges that anyone who disagrees with his interpretation of Genesis 1 is "using humanistic evolutionary scientific opinions to determine the meaning of the Bible, rather than vice versa." —Russell Grigg, "Morning has broken . . . but when?" Found at [http://creation.com/morning-has-broken-but-when 15 March 2009]. Return to text.

⁸ It turns out that Dr. Gerardus D. Bouw, the head of the Biblical Astronomer, has now written a scathing response to Dr. Faulkner's attack that takes this very tack:

In examining Faulkner's case against geocentricity we found that his insistence that the Scriptures do not present a geocentric universe is not founded on any reason other than his opinion. In effect, his view is founded on the assumption that the proper interpretation of the Bible in the realm of science may await future discoveries by science. . . . Given that the geocentric model is pure physics, mathematically tractable, and realistic, and consistent with Scripture, we conclude that the creationist's desire to reject it can only be for the sole purpose of appearing intellectual and acceptable to the world, which desire is enmity with God (James 4:4).

As of [March 15, 2009], you can find Dr. Bouw's article at www.geocentricity.com/ba1/fresp/index.html. Return to text.

But besides this (what appears to me to be) patent hypocrisy (the young-earthers themselves obviously do turn to science to help them understand their world and how to interpret Scripture . . . not only here, when it comes to geocentricity, but also (as I have noted), as the Haarsmas point out, in terms of their meteorology, embryology, and, I'm sure, many other areas of scientific investigation. [Indeed, when it comes to meteorology and embryology, I can't imagine they would "even" speak of "the language of appearance and observation." I may be wrong; I have not read anything from a young-earth creationist concerning meteorology or embryology. But in reference to the Scriptures that speak of the storehouses and floodgates of heaven where the rain and snow and winds are held and released (Genesis 7:11; 8:2; Deuteronomy 28:12; Job 38:22; Psalm 135:7; Jeremiah 10:13), or in reference to a passage like Psalm 139:13 where David speaks of having been "knit together" in his mothers' womb, I expect young-earthers would say that the Bible is speaking metaphorically or figuratively. --But, again, the only way anyone could come up with any such interpretation of such passages is "with a brain and reasoning powers distorted by the curse" (Morris), "by a fallible methodology of sinful humans" (Faulkner) "impos[ing] ideas from the outside" on the Word of God (Ham).]

As the Haarsmas point out, God's Word, the Bible, doesn't tell us about "how water evaporates from the ground level, rises to where the air is cooler, and condenses into water droplets that form clouds." Nor does it teach us about "how cold fronts and warm fronts and low pressure systems bring rain" (Origins, p. 8).

They are definitely not merely "interpret[ing] Scripture with Scripture." Indeed, that's one of the points that the Haarsmas and Glover make in their books: the issues we are dealing with here--with respect to cosmology, the age of the earth and the mechanisms by which God created all the things we see--are really little different from the issues we have to confront every time we think about the verbal inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture:

If they want to teach us how we ought to limit the use of science in our interpretation of Scripture, fine. Let them do that. But for them to make these kinds of blanket, condemnatory statements about others . . . and then to engage in that very behavior themselves! . . . It's not right.

Illegitimately Cutting Others Off From Fellowship

Despite whatever finer points may be placed upon the base of these kinds of charges, the fact is, Christians are "buying" this kind of hypocritical falsehood, and, as a result, scorning and ostracizing faithful brothers and sisters in Christ. For merely questioning the young-earth interpretation of Genesis 1ff, I have, myself, received rather shocking statements of repulsion from brothers and sisters who, until that moment, had been kindly disposed toward me.

And I have received testimonies of many people who claim that they have to hide their old-earth convictions for fear of being thrown out of the fellowship groups of which they are a part. "We just hold our peace so as to not rock the boat. If I were to say anything, I know we would never hear the end of it. It wouldn't be worth the price. So I keep my mouth shut, even though the leader of our group makes the most outrageous remarks [in favor of young-earth creationism]."

Sonlight Curriculum itself first faced the prospect of being banned from CHEC due, first, to the "warnings" it received from Mr. Ham and those who listened to him--"warnings" of my supposed championing of the idea that man and his fallen wisdom should be placed on a higher plane than Scripture. Having been "warned" in this manner, they then saw some "evidence": Sonlight carries books that include pages (for example, 2 or 4 pages out of a 160-page book) that are obviously based on an evolutionary perspective.

Was Sonlight promoting evolutionism by carrying such books?

Absolutely not!

1. The company never scheduled those pages for reading.
2. The Instructors Guides always included commentary on those pages written from a young-earth perspective.
3. While any one Sonlight course might include a total of four to six pages that could be said to be "pro-evolutionary" (in a curriculum composed of well over a thousand pages), that same program would also include full books written very explicitly and specifically from a young-earth perspective.

But none of these things was good enough. Sonlight was "pro-evolution" and/or "pro-old-earth" and, therefore, worthy of being discriminated against by the self-appointed "keepers of the [young-earth] faith."

Cutting Themselves and Their Followers Off From Their Spiritual Forebears

I think this last issue is what motivated me, in January, to begin this recent foray into looking at evolutionists' [and, more particularly, Christian evolutionists'] arguments in favor of the theory.

Honestly--frankly--I have never really studied evolution prior to a few months ago.

I heard something (though I have no idea what) about the theory back in high school.

I have read all kinds of young-earth/creationist books that have told me what evolutionists believe (and, most importantly, why they are wrong). But--to my shame--I have never read any sustained "arguments" or presentations of data by thoroughgoing evolutionists themselves.

And then I heard about Francis Collins, former director of the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), who led the successful effort to complete Human Genome Project (HGP) which mapped and sequenced the entire human genome. I heard that he is a committed, Bible-believing, evangelical Christian . . . who is also fully convinced of the truth of evolution.

"Why is he not held out as a Christian whom our children might want to emulate? Why do we never hear of him?" I asked myself. "If we homeschoolers want our kids to pursue culture-leading careers in science, why would we not hold him up as an example?"

And, of course, I knew why: Because the Christian homeschool community in America is largely in thrall to the young-earth creationists. And they will not permit non-young-earth creationists to speak publicly as paragons of Christian virtue or achievement and also as what they are--people who believe in an old earth and/or evolution.

"So why not? Indeed, What does Collins actually say?" I honestly don't know, though I can hazard a guess, based on some very limited reading I have done on a couple of threads in the Sonlight Lifelong Learners forum and in Daniel J. Fairbanks' Relics of Eden: The Powerful Evidence of Evolution in Human DNA.

[Before I got to Collins' The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, someone told me about these other books I've been commenting on: the Haarsmas' Origins, Glover's Beyond the Firmament, and Miller's Perspectives on an Evolving Creation.]

Meanwhile, however, I have been deeply disturbed by other discoveries I have made concerning other faithful Christians--many of them spiritual forebears to the modern Bible-believing fundamentalists and evangelicals . . . modern Bible-believing fundamentalists and evangelicals who, if they were consistent in their ostracism of people who disagree with their young-earth views and were aware of these forebears' (old-earth and/or evolutionary) views, would need to shun any association with them . . . just as they shun their modern old-earth and/or evolutionary brethren.

My view: Such an outcome would be grievous in the extreme.

[You wonder about these spiritual forebears? To whom might I be referring?

How about J. Vernon McGee, former chair of the Bible department at the Bible Institute of Los Angeles (currently Biola University), a visiting lecturer at Dallas Theological Seminary, and, most famously, as founder and primary teacher of the Thru the Bible Radio Network?

Of course, some are convinced he was an apostate. (But then, according to these same people, just about every Christian leader you might admire is similarly going to hell.¹)

But if you think someone who taught--without censure--at both BIOLA and Dallas Theological Seminary just might be worthy of some respect, consider McGee's teaching as quoted by Tim Martin and Jeff Vaughn in their disturbing book Beyond Creation Science (BCS):

The first eleven chapters [of Genesis] cover a minimum time spans of two thousand years - actually, two thousand years plus. I feel that it is safe to say that they may cover several hundred thousand years. I believe this first section of Genesis can cover any time in the past that you may need to fit into your particular theory, and the chances are that you would come short of it even then.

--BCS, p. 95, referencing J. Vernon McGee, Genesis Chapters 1-15, "Thru the Bible Commentary Series," Volume 1 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1991), pp. xliii-xliv.

Who created the universe? God did. He created it out of nothing. When? I don't know, and nobody else knows. Some men say one billion years ago, some say two billion, and now some say five billion. I personally suspect they are all pikers. I think God created it long before that.

--Ibid., referencing McGee, op. cit., p. 59.

Martin and Vaughn comment:

McGee . . . held to the common old-earth view for decades during his early radio career.² He even openly mocked the suggestion that the date of creation was around 4000 BC:

In our day there is so much misinformation in the minds of intelligent human beings. For example, before me is a clipping from a secular magazine from several years ago. It posed a question, then answered it. First, the question: "What, according to biblical records, is the date of the creation of the world?" Now listen to the answer that was given: "4004 B.C." How utterly ridiculous can one be?

--Ibid., pp. 104-105, referencing McGee, op. cit., p. 58.

For full disclosure, let me note that at some point later in his career (and Martin and Vaughn note this as well--see op. cit., p. 105), McGee came to appreciate Whitcomb and Morris' The Genesis Flood, the book, more than any other, I believe, that launched the modern young-earth creationist movement. Moreover, despite the pro-old-earth rhetoric I've just quoted, as far as I can tell, at no point was McGee an evolutionist. Indeed, he proclaimed:

This idea that man has come up from some protoplasm out of a garbage can or seaweed is utterly preposterous. It is the belief of some scientists that evolution will be repudiated, and some folk are going to look ridiculous at that time.

Evolution is nothing in the world but a theory as far as science is concerned. Nothing has been conclusive about it. It is a philosophy like any other philosophy, and it can be accepted or rejected. When it is accepted, it certainly leads to some very crazy solutions to the problems of the world, and it has gotten my country into trouble throughout the world.

--Thru the Bible with J. Vernon McGee, Genesis 6:4 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers) 2000, c1981.

So please don't take me to be suggesting more than I have. I am not attempting to make McGee into an evolutionist. I am not attempting to make him into an anti-young-earth-creationist. I am merely attempting to point out that he was most definitely not a hard-core young-earth-creationist and, at points, he was rather outspoken in his old-earth beliefs.

And I want to ask the question: Should we banish him from consideration as a full-faith-and-credit, Bible-believing, God-honoring, fellowship-deserving brother in Christ?

McGee was just one well-respected spiritual forebear whose old-earth/non-young-earth-creationist views I came to find out about in the last few months.

What about Spurgeon--to whose views I was only introduced about a month ago . . . and whose views, I believe, are being hidden and distorted by our brothers at Answers in Genesis?

And Warfield, that champion of biblical inerrancy recognized "even" by young-earth creationists,³ whose teaching on the subject of evolution is summarized by Noll and Livingstone as follows:

Warfield's strongest assertion of evolution was theological and came in a lengthy paper on Calvin's view of creation from 1915. Warfield ascribed to Calvin what was doubtless his own view as well: "[A]ll that has come into being since [the original creation of the world stuff]--except the souls of men alone--has arisen as a modification of this original world-stuff by means of the interaction of its intrinsic forces. . . . [These modifications] find their account proximately in 'secondary causes'; and, this is not only evolutionism but pure evolutionism." . . .

[Warfield adhered] to a broad Calvinistic conception of the natural world--of a world that . . . reflected the wisdom and glory of God. . . . [W]hile Warfield consistently rejected materialist or ateological explanations for natural phenomena (explanations that he usually associated with "Darwinism"), Warfield just as consistently entertained the possibility that other kinds of evolutionary explanations, which avoided Darwin's rejection of design, could satisfactorily explain the physical world.

In several of his writings, Warfield worked carefully to distinguish three ways in which God worked in and through the physical world. . . . "Evolution" meant developments arising out of forces that God had placed inside matter at the original creation of the world stuff, but that God also directed to predetermined ends by his providential superintendence of the world.

At least in writings toward the end of his life, Warfield held that evolution in this sense was fully compatible with biblical understandings of the production of the human body. "Mediate creation" meant the action of God upon matter to bring something new into existence that could not have been produced by forces or energy latent in matter itself. . . . The last means of God's action was "creation ex nihilo," which Warfield consistently maintained was the way that God made the original stuff of the world. It also seems that . . . Warfield held that God created each soul directly ex nihilo. . . .

The key for Warfield was a doctrine of providence that saw God working in and with, instead of as a replacement for, the processes of nature. . . .[Thus, for example,] in his eyes, physical healing through medicine and the agency of physicians was as much a result of God's action (if through secondary causes) as the cures claimed as a direct result of divine intervention.

--Perspectives on an Evolving Creation, pp. 68-70

What are we to make of Warfield? Again I ask: Should we banish this man from consideration as a full-faith-and-credit, Bible-believing, God-honoring, fellowship-deserving brother in Christ, indeed, even, a man whom we should gladly honor as a worthy teacher in the church?

If not, then on what grounds can we acquiesce--with respect to other people today--to John Morris' pronouncement that,

I . . . am uncertain about young-earth creationism being a requirement for church membership; perhaps it would be proper to give new members time to grow and mature under good teaching.

But I do know one thing: Creationism [what he clearly defines as "beliefs in creation and a young earth"--JAH] should be a requirement for Christian leadership! No church should sanction a pastor, Sunday school teacher, deacon, elder, or Bible-study leader who knowledgeably and purposefully errs on this crucial doctrine. [Most emphases added--JAH]

If we are to ban people like Warfield from leadership in the church, then what are we to say of our spiritual heritage and what are we to make of the self-anointed "keepers of the faith" who, on the one hand, will condemn such a man, but, on the other, reference him with approval when it serves their purposes?

Sorry. I think we do have Trouble in River City . . . and it doesn't start with "T" nor rhyme with "P" nor stand for "Pool." It's something very much deeper. And, sad to say, I'm afraid a lot of it stems from what I am unable to discern as anything other than false and hypocritical claims emanating from brothers (and, I expect, sisters!) in the anti-old-earth/pro-young-earth, anti-evolutionist/pro-spoken-into-instant-full-blown-creation camp against brothers and sisters who are unable to affirm that "God created the heavens and the earth" in quite the same way that these brothers and sisters do. Oh, they affirm, without hesitation, that God created the heavens and the earth. "I believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth." They simply believe--on the basis of a thoughtful review of the evidence from both of God's books, that when He spoke the world--and all that is within it--into existence, it didn't happen to appear in quite the way that their young-earth creationist brethren imagine it did.

It happened. God did it. But "just" not in the way that their brothers and sisters in the young-earth camp think He did.

And for that, apparently, false and hypocritical as the charges against them may be, they are to be condemned and shunned, and/or their real teachings rewritten or blotted from memory.

How sad!

---

Late addition (3/19/09 at 8:35 AM): For a positive exposition of how to approach the "two books," I would like to recommend How should we interpret the Two Books of God, in Scripture & Nature? by Craig Rusbult, Ph.D.

---

¹ The list includes, among many others, Billy Graham, James Dobson, John MacArthur, Tony Evans, Chuck Smith, Chuck Swindoll, Harold Camping (Family Radio), John Piper, Charles Spurgeon, Jack Hayford, Ray Comfort, Chuck Colson, C. S. Lewis, Hank Hanegraaff, "or any of the like." Go the the "A True Church" website for the complete list. Return to Text.

² Martin and Vaughn comment in an endnote at this spot:

McGee believed in the gap theory. He rejected evolution and yet had no problem with a millions-of-years-old earth. For example, he writes: "When Adam was told to replenish the earth, we assume that there had been living creatures - I don't know what to call them - before Adam. They apparently were living creatures of God's creation; anything I could say beyond that would be pure speculation." McGee, Genesis Chapters 1-15, p. 144. McGee's book is filled with statements like this. The most obvious can be found on pp. xliii, 55-60, 113, and 117.

Return to Text.

³ See Whitcomb & Morris, The Genesis Flood, p. xx. Return to Text.

Mark Looy replies . . .

Mark Looy is CCO [Chief Communications Officer] for Answers in Genesis, as he said in his comment about my post yesterday (search for "Mark Looy"). I wrote a response to his comment (search for "Dear Mr. Looy"). And he has now sent an email reply.

I am sorry he did not also respond in public. I think, considering the charges he leveled against me and "other [unnamed] Christians," and considering my response, he really owes us all a more open, public reply. In hopes of eliciting such a reply, I am posting his response . . . and my reply to him. . . . I will then email him directly as well so there can be no question that I have operated openly and fairly with him.

From Mark (9:24 AM MST):

John,

Thanks for the largely irenic response. The opening paragraphs were encouraging to read.

With respect, Proverbs 18:13 applies to situations when someone has come to a conclusion without hearing the other side. The passage shouldn't be applied to the problems we may have with your materials’ interpretations of Genesis. You see, we know what you teach and how you defend it, and thus we are not jumping to a conclusion -- which Proverbs 18 admonishes against.

Thus a book review, web review, or other public comment about a person's materials in which we might see some problems is not contrary to Proverbs 18. If we believe that incorrect teaching has been presented (e.g., death before the Fall, which has implications on the atonement/Gospel message) in a public way, and we are fully aware of the position being presented, we are not violating Proverbs 18 when we caution people not to get a particular resource.

Let's try to meet soon. For example, when your travels take you eastward, please plan on connecting through the Cincinnati Airport (a major Delta hub), and I would personally pick you up, give you a tour of the Creation Museum (just two exits from the airport), we can chat, and then return you to the airport to continue your journey.

I hope this can be arranged soon (or, if in one of my travels westward, I could meet with you). But I truly hope you can tour our museum one day soon, meet some of our staff, and communicate face to face as opposed to web postings and emails. Thank you.

Regards,

Mark

And my response:

Dear Mark:

Thank you so much for replying.

Since your initial charges against me and the "other Christians" were so public, as I indicated in my email to you, I posted my response on my blog, expecting that you would continue the open dialog. It seems a bit unfair to all parties concerned that you would not continue the discussion publicly.

Therefore, I am posting your reply, and this, my response to you, in a new blog post. I will--and I'm sure readers of my blog, too, will--appreciate hearing your perspectives in that forum.

********

Specifically, in response to what you wrote:

As I read your reply it struck me that we must be speaking past one another.

You said,
Proverbs 18:13 applies to situations when someone has come to a conclusion without hearing the other side. The passage shouldn't be applied to the problems we may have with your materials’ interpretations of Genesis. You see, we know what you teach and how you defend it, and thus we are not jumping to a conclusion -- which Proverbs 18 admonishes against.

And that's what's got me so confused. Because I wrote what I did to you this morning precisely because, in fact, Mr. Ham and Answers in Genesis demonstrated on numerous occasions that you-all absolutely did not know what you were talking about and you did jump to [false] conclusions on numerous occasions . . . --Unless you want to confess that the lies spoken about me and about Sonlight Curriculum were the result of malicious intent. . . .

I would prefer to assume the former rather than the latter. But if you are inclined toward the latter interpretation, I am sure I would be gratified to hear your confession in behalf of AiG. . . .

Proceeding on the theory that there was no malicious intent, but that Mr. Ham and Answers in Genesis "simply" hadn’t yet adopted the policies you described yesterday: It was very obvious that, back in 2000-2001, Mr. Ham (and AiG) did not know what I (or Sonlight) taught; and he and AiG were jumping to [false] conclusions. Indeed, Mr. Ham and AiG "bore many [false] tales" about me and about Sonlight. And, even worse, it took numerous pleas on my part to get Mr. Ham even to acknowledge his behavior, much less to quit engaging in it.

So that's why I wrote to you as I did this morning:

[H]as AiG now dedicated itself to act--as it has most definitely not acted in the past--so that it no longer (and will no longer) discuss the views or practices or beliefs or teachings of those with whom it believes it is in disagreement . . . unless and until it has, as you said, done "the Proverbs 18 thing"?

[A]re you saying AiG has now dedicated itself never to "use a public arena like the worldwide web [and/or magazine articles and/or homeschool conventions and/or radio programs and/or seminars, etc.] to denigrate other Christians/ministries for [any shortcoming that AiG believes it has discovered] without first contacting those persons (or ministr[ies]) to get [their] perspectives--and thus hear all sides before coming to a conclusion (per Proverbs 18:13)-- and certainly before going public"?

Please, Mark.

When Ken Ham "warned" homeschool audiences around the United States in 2000 that I was teaching--and (even more preposterous) that Sonlight was teaching--old-earth creationism: he was speaking flat-out lies. I was not teaching old-earth creationism. I had never taught old-earth creationism. And Sonlight, a company of which I am a minority shareholder (I co-own--and co-owned back then--with my wife and our kids); and, moreover, Sonlight, presided over by my wife (who is president)--my wife who is "even today" committed to a "literal six-day" young-earth creationist interpretation of Scripture-- . . . Sorry. Sonlight wasn't even beginning a process of moving toward old-earth creationism. It hasn’t moved toward old-earth creationism even today--eight or nine years later.

But, you see, it is not only the truth that Mr. Ham failed to discover the facts about my teaching and Sonlight's teaching, but it is also true that I appealed to Mr. Ham several times to please stop talking about me and about Sonlight in the manner different witnesses kept telling me he was referring to us in public. I warned him that, based on the testimony of witnesses, his comments were false and he ought not to be making them.

But when I specifically protested to Mr. Ham to stop speaking inaccurately about me, and when I told him exactly how and where he was misunderstanding and misrepresenting me, he first of all denied saying anything about me (though, as I have said, numerous witnesses testified they had heard him talk about me in public speeches at numerous homeschool conventions). Then he agreed he may have said something about me or Sonlight Curriculum "in passing," but he assured me he had not said what the witnesses claimed he had said. Things finally came to a head when a witness--a committed young-earth creationist, but a committed truth-teller as well--protested to him directly: "That is not what John Holzmann teaches!" He denied saying what she said he had. She was so incensed at his denials that she purchased a copy of the tape of the presentation she had heard, and listened to it until she found the offending statement. She then sent me a copy of the tape cued to Mr. Ham's specific comments . . . and recounted the history of her so-far fruitless protests.

At that point, when I protested to him again, but now with tape in hand, he still refused to make amends. At least not right away. After all, he was really busy, and he was only a day or two away from having to leave for Australia, and he wouldn't be back for two or three months. He did promise, however, to do some research on the matter when he returned. . . .

I don't know, Mark! How would you respond? "What kind of 'research' do you need? Sir! I've sent you the tape. Here's what you said. It's false. Please retract it."

It took many more months, but eventually he did admit he had misspoken.

But the damage had been long done.

Happily, however, I have never heard of him mentioning me again in public.

That has been very nice.

But still, I think my questions from this morning are pertinent. And I would dearly love to get some straight answers. Because, unlike you, I don't believe Answers in Genesis acts in accord with the principles you laid out for everyone else. And I think you--and the readers of my blog--should know the grounds on which my beliefs were formed.

Let me begin with the specific claims Mr. Ham made about me and about Sonlight Curriculum on the tape my friend purchased. It was from the Gulf Coast Home Educator's Conference in June of 2000. And Mr. Ham said, specifically (transcript from the tape): ". . . Hugh Ross has an organization called Reasons to Believe . . . --He's greatly influenced the person who owns Sonlight Curriculum, by the way, who now tells you you've got to believe in billions of years. . . ."

As I noted to Mr. Ham at the time: His assertions were baseless. And inaccurate.

1. I am not and never been a great fan of Dr. Ross. If anything, I have been critical of his work--especially his exegesis. So I have no idea to what Mr. Ham could have possibly been referring. I am aware of absolutely nothing in my view of origins that may have come from Dr. Ross.
   
   I am willing to be friendly toward Reasons to Believe. I recognize them as Christian brothers and sisters. They have been friendly toward me and prayed for me and have offered emotional support during some very dark periods in my life. I am extremely grateful for the RtB staff's friendship. But when it comes to "influence," I'm sorry, Mr. Ham was creating a connection whole cloth from nothing.
    
2. I am not, nor have I ever been "the" person who owns Sonlight Curriculum. Indeed, there has never been a single owner of Sonlight Curriculum, Ltd. So, again, Mr. Ham was speaking without knowledge when he spoke of "the" person who owns Sonlight Curriculum. There never has been such a person. So, once more, we find he was "bearing [false] tales" (to use a phrase you attempted to use against me and others in your email this morning).
    
3. I have never told anyone what they "have got to" believe (or, as Mr. Ham attempted to "clarify" once he finally did engage with me on the matter: I have never told anyone what they've "gotta" believe. [I will confess, the distinction between those two phrases isn't wholly clear to me. But Mr. Ham wanted to make sure I understood he was speaking in the "softer" sense of "gotta believe" rather than the "harder" "got to believe." . . . Whatever. --I don't think either phrase comes anywhere even remotely close to what John Holzmann has ever said. Certainly not about the matter of Earth's age or the mechanisms of creation. . . .]

But moving on from the tape and the homeschool convention speeches. I mentioned this morning the matter of AiG's practice, for a while, of "warning" potential Sonlight customers away from buying Sonlight Curriculum. I said that I called the AiG office to get the story first-hand: "What are they saying about Sonlight?"

When I called, no one suggested even a hint of doubt about AiG's knowledge of what Sonlight's future development plans were with respect to its science and/or history curricula related to origins. No. When I spoke with Dave Jolly, he was more than happy to tell me that AiG was warning people to stay away from Sonlight "because Sonlight is changing all of its curriculum to teach from an old-earth perspective." Somehow, he knew! (Y'know. Kind of like your comment this morning about how "Proverbs 18:13 applies to situations when someone has come to a conclusion without hearing the other side" but that doesn't apply to Answers in Genesis because you-all "know what [I--or Sonlight] teach[es] and how [I or Sonlight] defend[s] it, and thus [you know you] are not jumping to a conclusion." --The arrogance of such claims to such absolute knowledge blows me away, Mark! Proverbs 18:13 applies to everyone else, but not to you and your organization?)


The problem is, Dave Jolly had no idea what he was talking about. Because Sonlight was not in the process of "going old-earth," and, even today, it has not transitioned in any way into teaching any kind of old-earth perspective. And if it has, my wife, the president, would dearly love to know about it!

I know Sonlight doesn't teach origins exactly the way AiG would prefer. But it is by no means an advocate of old-earth creationism nor of evolution!

So, once more, I believe my questions from this morning remain valid, and I would dearly love to hear your reply:

Beyond expressing your discomfort with how you believe I and, apparently, others behaved ourselves over the last two days,

• Are your pleas also a declaration of a change of heart and change of policy on the part of AiG with how it treats--and plans to treat--those with whom it believes it is in disagreement? I.e., has AiG now dedicated itself to act--as it has most definitely not acted in the past--so that it no longer (and will no longer) discuss the views or practices or beliefs or teachings of those with whom it believes it is in disagreement . . . unless and until it has, as you said, done "the Proverbs 18 thing"?
  
  Put another way, are you saying AiG has now dedicated itself never to "use a public arena like the worldwide web [and/or magazine articles and/or homeschool conventions and/or radio programs and/or seminars, etc.] to denigrate other Christians/ministries for [any shortcoming that AiG believes it has discovered] without first contacting those persons (or ministr[ies]) to get [their] perspectives--and thus hear all sides before coming to a conclusion (per Proverbs 18:13)-- and certainly before going public"? . . .

. . . [I]f this is so,

• I would sincerely appreciate learning from you how AiG works these things out in practice. I mean, for example, how do you make sure you have contacted your presumed opponent? How much time do you give him or her or them to respond? How many rounds will you go with him/her/them in private before bringing the issue out into the public sphere? . . .
  
  If Answers in Genesis has established those kinds of policies and practices, would you please share them with us? Truly. I cannot guarantee I will adopt all of them myself. But I think your open leadership and guidance in these matters could--pretty much as you implied by your email--go a long way toward revolutionizing relationships among Christians for the good.

Thanks so much!

Sincerely,

John Holzmann

ETA at 6:38 AM MST, 3/1/09:

I have now sent Mr. Looy the following email follow-up to the above:

Mark:

I feel badly that I didn't reply to your suggestions about meeting face to face, nor to your gracious offer of hospitality if I'm ever in the Cincinnati area (or can arrange to get there!).

I would be delighted to meet and talk with you--or anyone else at Answers in Genesis--face to face whenever the opportunity affords itself. That will be great.

I don't often get out your direction. I do occasionally fly further east, but I have yet to have had Cincinnati serve as a hub for any flights I have taken. I will, however, keep your offer in mind. I hope you will keep your suggestion in mind as well: that if you're ever in the Denver area, you will look me up so we can meet. I think that really could be profitable for the Kingdom. (At least I hope and pray it might be.)

I want to comment just a bit more on some of the things I said late last night.

I recounted a part of the history of AiG's behavior toward me and toward Sonlight primarily because it seemed, for some reason, that you were unaware of it. You spoke so strongly--in public--about what you perceived as my (and others') failures toward you. Your protests "just" seemed so ironic; I wondered if you could help me overcome that deep-seated feeling that you were attempting to hold me to a much--much--higher standard of behavior than that to which you and your organization seem(ed), to my mind, to demand of yourselves. And I wondered (and wonder) why.

And, if you believe AiG does not hold itself to a lower standard, I was hoping (and still hope) you will help me understand.

You said, apparently in justification of some of your organization's comments about me or about Sonlight (I do not know specifically which comments you might have been referring to, since none of those I specifically mentioned fit the description) . . . --You said, "a book review, web review, or other public comment about a person's materials in which we might see some problems is not contrary to Proverbs 18. If we believe that incorrect teaching has been presented . . . in a public way, and we are fully aware of the position being presented, we are not violating Proverbs 18 when we caution people not to get a particular resource."

All right. I'll "buy" that. But/and/so . . . I don’t understand why that "exception" doesn't apply to my comments, in my web log review of AiG's inaccurate presentation of Spurgeon's sermon. Obviously, not only did I believe that "incorrect teaching ha[d] been presented in a public way," but you agreed.

So if Proverbs 18:13 does not apply to you and to your firm under those circumstances, on what grounds do you demand that I and other unnamed Christians should apply it to ourselves? It just doesn't make sense.

Well. I think you understand my concerns. And I look forward to hearing back from you.

Sincerely,

John Holzmann

Digging and re-digging wells

Sarita and I received a fund raising appeal letter last week from Ken Ham, President of Answers in Genesis, the young-earth creationist organization that, according to its public-relations materials, is dedicated to equipping the church "to uphold the authority and accuracy of the Bible from the very first verse." [I quoted their PR because in its IRS Form 990 filings, it describes its purpose--or, at least, the purpose of some of its major tax-exempt activities--in somewhat different terms. There you'll read (on pp. 21 and 22, Statement 9, concerning the organization's "Ministry Outreach (Seminars)" and "Ministry Outreach (Radio)) that it seeks "to educate the public/church about scientific, moral and social issues regarding a literal interpretation of the Bible" or to speak on "a wide range of topics related to a literal interpretation of the Bible."]

Personally, I have questioned AiG's interpretation of Scripture at various points. Now, having seen their statements that indicate not merely a concern for the authority of Scripture, but, actually, for a literal interpretation of Scripture, I think I understand how and why we have come into conflict.

But despite the conflict, I have to say I appreciate AiG's commitment to the authority of Scripture first, above all else. So often--I agree with them: modern Christians want to fiddle with Scripture or fudge their interpretations in some kind of false hope that they might "gain a hearing" among unbelievers.

And so I find myself agreeing with Mr. Ham when he writes letters like the one Sarita and I received last week:

I wonder if you had the chance to read the New York Times editorial "The Cons of Creationism" on June 7. The very first line was, ''When it comes to science, creationists tend to struggle with reality."*

The editorial went on to describe belief in a Creator as "nonsense" and to claim that teaching about God belongs only in "church and social studies courses," and to falsely define "science" as "naturalism."

Remember back in Genesis 26:18, when Isaac re-dug Abraham's wells (the ones stopped up by the Philistines) and then went on to dig new wells? I couldn't help thinking of this passage as I read this Times editorial.

You know how often Scripture uses water to symbolize the grace of the Spirit of God. The author of the editorial is clogging up the well of the Word of God, denying our children access to life-giving truth by banning the biblical God from the public school system where their thinking and worldview is formed!

It is important to understand that those who blast creationism, as this New York Times editorial does, are not just against people believing in a literal Genesis account of origins. They are against the very first verse of the Bible, and if that verse is not true, none of the Bible is true. If "In the beginning God created the Heavens and the earth" is false--so is the Christian faith. . . .

We must re-dig the wells of God's Word so our children will be able to drink from those life-giving springs all their days!

At AiG, we challenge Christians concerning compromise and challenge churches to get back to the authority of God's Word-re-digging wells. And as we provide resources through books, DVDs, radio programs, the Internet, and the Creation Museum, we are digging new wells so the water of the Word will flow freely through the nation and around the world. . . .
Now, I encourage you to re-dig wells and dig new ones of your own. We each need to work in our own homes and churches. If we're honest with ourselves, the "Philistines" have invaded here, too.

The wells have been stopped up. Many church leaders, Christian college and seminary professors have compromised with evolution/the age of the earth and thus undermined the authority of the Word. Many homes don't have dads as the spiritual leaders anymore. Parents are neglecting the call to teach their children to stand on the authority of the Word and equip them to defend their faith in today's world.

And, as you consider your family's education, think about how you can ensure they will experience that cleansing water of the Word and be equipped to stand firm in the spiritual battle for children and teens. . . .

* New York Times, "The Cons of Creationism," June 7, 2008.

I'm impressed, too, when Ham writes as he does in the latest Answers Update, about a difficult question raised by a secular reporter. The reporter asked, "Do you believe Muslims are going to hell?"

Ham says he replied, "My authority is the Bible--God's Word. God tells me in His Word that 'unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God' [John 3:3]. We are also told in Romans 10:9 'that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead, you will be saved.'"

I concluded: "So, whether you're a Baptist, Catholic, Presbyterian, Muslim, or Hindu--if you're not born again as the Bible states, and have not received the free gift of salvation in Christ, the Bible clearly teaches you will not spend eternity in heaven with our Creator and Savior. You will be in hell separated from God--forever."

I also shared a number of other verses, such as:

"Jesus said to him, 'I am the Way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me'" (John 14:6).

"Jesus said to her, 'I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live'" (John 11:25).

And, "I [Christ] am the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved" (John 10:9).

Would that more Christians knew how to answer succinctly and directly--and without unnecessary offense--such direct questions from the watching world!