Ken Ham: Church in UK in mess because of non-literal reading of Genesis
Ken Ham of the infamous Answers in Genesis outfit, has a blog post blathering on about the UK Church being in trouble and in a mess, because we’ve rejected a literal interpretation of Genesis.
Ham’s blog post was prompted by a superb article that appeared in the Christianity Magazine written by David Instone-Brewer – Baptist Minister and senior research fellow at Tyndale House, Cambridge.
As I feel in the mood to confront Ham directly – face to face – and inform him in no uncertain terms that our churches here in the UK are not in a mess, nor in trouble, I think I’ll take him up on his kind offer to attend an ‘appreciation dinner’ with him.
Unfortunately, it would appear from his website that this wondrous privilege would set me back tens of thousands of dollars and I would have to become a member of the Genesis Legacy Society.
Never fear however, I have a cunning plan. I shall simply send $1,000 to a high profile ‘faith and prosperity’ ministry, patiently await my 100-fold seed return and then stuff my face with Ham.
Tags: Education, Science & Medical
August 22nd, 2011 at 9:39 pm
Sadly the general condition of the whole church is now postmodern, indeed postmodernity, following modernism has ravished and entranced the church. There are now only small groups and pockets of the faithful, indeed God always has His remnant. But it surely does appear to be getting smaller. The Church Catholic is under siege! (I think of 2 Tim. 3:5 ; 10-17) Following the doctrine and manner of life of a St. Paul began even in the First Century Church, how much more today!
*However, the age of the earth is not really a question of the Scripture. It does appear that an Old Earth creation fits more to the genre and Text of the Holy Scripture.
August 22nd, 2011 at 10:37 pm
I cannot understand why Ken Ham and the team at AiG persist in promulgating misinformation and untruths.
Christianity does not need AiG or Ken Ham to survive in the 21st Century. On the contrary, they do great damage to the image of Christianity. It’s easy to asssume as an uninformed outsider that Ken and AiG represent mainstream Christian views, because they get so much air time. Shouldn’t Christians make ever greater efforts to distance themselves from this? Why cannot senior mainstream church leaders repeatedly make it clear to him how much damage he does?
August 22nd, 2011 at 11:06 pm
So what’s his excuse for the US church?
August 23rd, 2011 at 8:25 am
Oh dear, another person gets an honourable mention by Ken Ham! I haven’t had one for five years now.
It is so sad that many Christians do not see that all forms of creationism are a complete nonsense, contrary to scripture (and tradition) and a bad science and deceitful in the process.
August 23rd, 2011 at 2:22 pm
How can you call yourselves Christians if you don’t follow some simple truth?
Big words and throwing mud is not what Jesus did! He corrected and showed the way to anyone who would hear. Either we as “Christians” believe the Bible or not.
Thank you for the reminder of why I do NOT call myself a Christian anymore, you have nailed it!
August 23rd, 2011 at 11:08 pm
Thank God I am a “Christian” by the grace and glory of God alone! In fact, this is the only kind of real Christian!
August 25th, 2011 at 4:05 pm
Christians do not (traditionally) believe the bible. They believe the word of God which is contained in the bible. There is an element of interpretation involved and this varies with which part of the church you come from.
I think the problem is that people in the YEC camp don’t realise they are interpreting the bible via a tradition they have bought into. For example, most of them demand that Revelation has to be interpreted metaphorically, but Genesis literally. This shows that its interpretation via a (quite recent) theological tradition rather than a “literal” meaning speaking from the text.
Some fundamentalists don’t relaise how recent their thology is and have no grip on history. I should say though that a South African tourist got quite angry with me when I mentioned that John Knox was a catholic priest. She claimed he was never a catholic and that not all christians were catholics in those days. Obviously no need for a reformation there then!