Some months ago, I wrote a post in which I accused Ken Ham of being a fibber.
I am not above changing my views to accommodate new facts (I’m not a young-earth creationist, after all), so I feel obligated to share with you an article at Answers in Genesis’ website in which the unthinkable happens: Ken Ham tells the truth.
No longer do people like me have to speculate, infer, imply and otherwise intimate that Ham is an arrogant and self-righteous prig, who believes young-earth creationism trumps the gospel and fancies himself to be in a lonely and Quixotic battle against anyone who finds reason to see allegory in Genesis; in this article, he makes that quite plain all by himself.
Haarsma’s article was a concerned yet cogent and respectful letter addressing Ken Ham’s views of both her organization and Hugh Ross, of the old-earth group Reasons to Believe. Haarsma quite accurately details where the three organizations differ, but points out the much larger common ground that exists between them, namely, a shared belief in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and his saving work on the cross (this is also known as “the gospel,” or “the only thing that really, really, really matters, when it comes to the Christian faith”).
All three organizations love the Bible and strive to follow Christ. While we disagree significantly on how best to interpret the Bible and the scientific evidence, we would agree that these are secondary issues to the gospel. We are all still believers together. Can we refrain from so quickly calling each other “compromised Christians” or flat-out “wrong”?
Sounds fair to me. So what does Ham think? “No thanks,” he says.