A Brief Series on Ken Ham’s Book, “How Could a Loving God?” (Part 3: Accepting Suffering, but no, Ken, We’re Not Going Back to Eden)

Ken Ham’s book, How Could a Loving God? addresses the topic of theodicy: how can one reconcile the idea of a loving God when there is so much suffering and death in the world? In my previous two posts, I have given a brief overview of each chapter in his book and have critiqued the first three chapters. In this post, I will take a look at chapters 4-8.

Chapter 4: A Voice from the Past
In chapter 4 of the book, Ham relates the contents of a taped sermon by his brother that he had found after his brother’s illness had taken hold of him. The gist of the sermon can be summed up in this statement: “There is not a person in the world who will not die before the Lord Jesus comes again…. Death is the ultimate ‘sickness’ that we all have to face as a result of sin. The apostle Paul saw illness and sickness as normal living in a world that has been ruined by sin.”

At the most basic level, that statement is correct: sin, sickness and death are a normal part of this world. Strange as it may sound, both Ken Ham and I are in agreement on this—that is precisely what Genesis 3 is getting at, and this is precisely what the entire Bible bears witness to. As Ham says, “The normal effects of the Curse will always be realized; that’s what we are to expect. Sooner or later, through disease, decay, or disaster, the bodies we live in will die and perish. ‘For you are dust, and to dust you shall return.’” But where Ham and I obviously disagree is his insistence that there was ever a time before this current state of things that creation was perfect. And that insistence is the cornerstone of his entire theological outlook and worldview. In fact, he is fixated on it.

But really now, how does that affect anything in the present? I distinctly remember when the lightbulb went off in my head on this issue. I was in my first semester in graduate school at Regent College and taking a systematic theology course from none other than J.I. Packer. I had decided to do my research paper on the topic of Original Sin. Without going into detail about everything in the paper, I remember thinking, “It doesn’t really matter where sin might have originally come from. When it comes to my situation, it doesn’t matter whether or not Adam and Eve were two historical, perfect people who then “fell” from that perfection. The fact is, I am not, and never have been perfect. I am sinful because I sin.

This fixation of an originally perfect world, and of a subsequent fall from that state of perfection, also leads Ham into what I feel is a very dark, dare I say Calvinistic, view of humanity. He writes: “I was led to a conclusion that reflected God’s perspective rather than my human one. Did Rob deserve to suffer the way he did? The answer is ‘yes.’ When you think about it from a Christian perspective, we all deserve much, much more than the suffering afflicting Rob. Because of our rebellious condition, we don’t even deserve to live.”

We deserve to suffer because of our sin and “rebellious condition.” This is precisely the theology of Job’s friends. As God told Eliphaz, “My anger burns against you and against your two friends, for you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has” (Job 42:7). This kind of theology might sound pious, on the surface, but in reality, it is utterly wrong. Sadly, though, far too many Christians have this view: “You’re suffering? Well, what did you do to tick God off? What’s your secret sin? Why don’t you have enough faith? You really deserve it, you filthy, sick wretch!” Let’s be clear, as Job 42:7 says, that kind of “piety” kindles God’s anger.

Chapters 5-6: Beyond the Grave and Beauty from Ashes
Strangely enough, despite ending chapter 4 on such a theologically erroneous note, Ham makes a few true statements in the next couple of chapters. The first one is this: “Rather than facing the reality of the grave, however, many people still get caught up in philosophical questions that keep them one step away from having to deal with their own mortality.” Again, this is actually true. Most people don’t want to face the reality of death. People tend to fill their lives with anything—not just philosophical ponderings—that helps them avoid facing this reality.

Despite that, as is usual with Ham, he soon slips back into his own diversion that is the bedrock of AiG and makes an appeal to his readers to write to AiG if they are having difficulty reconciling Bible/science issues. As I mentioned in my previous post, it just strikes me as supremely odd that, despite saying that wrestling with the issue of suffering and death is ultimately a philosophical question, that Ham routinely conflates philosophy with science.

Another point that Ham makes that is actually insightful and true is that, to quote Romans 8:28, “God causes all things to work together for the good.” Consider what he says in these two statements: “So what this passage [says] is that God causes all things—even evil events—to occur for reasons that are morally commendable and good. … This is just to say that God has planned evil events for reasons which are morally commendable and good.” And, “In most situations, when we look at evil with the big picture in mind, God’s working for good will be visible—even when we can only glimpse small slivers of His light in the midst of the darkness.”

I’m not sure that Ham realizes what he said in those statements. The early Church Father Irenaeus said something similar when he argued that God had not created an originally “perfect” world, that Adam and Eve were not “perfect,” and that their (and our) sin and disobedience were necessary for them to come to a true knowledge and love for God: “How could man ever have known that he was weak and mortal by nature, whereas God was immortal and mighty if he had not had experience of both? To discover his weakness through suffering is not in any sense evil; on the contrary, it is good not to have an erroneous view of one’s own nature… The experience of both [good and evil] has produced in man the true knowledge of God and of man and increased his love for God” (Against Heresies V. 3.1).

Of course, strangely, Ham probably would disagree with Irenaeus on this point, for Irenaeus is basically saying that human sin and suffering are necessary parts of God’s ultimate plan to transform humanity into something greater than their original state. Ham, on the other hand, is saying that the original creation was perfect, human beings screwed it up (and thus deserve to suffer), but that God is still able to use those “screw ups” to get things back to their original perfection. It is crucial to understand this difference, for it makes all the difference in the world. I’ll expand on this in my last post.

Chapters 7-8: Bowing the Knee and Now but Not Yet
As with the previous two chapters, although Ham’s ultimate conclusions are so very wrong, he nevertheless makes a number of true statements in the midst of his theological mess. The first oddly disturbing thing in these chapters comes when Ham relates a conversation he had with his mother as they were struggling to accept his brother’s illness. Ham tells us that his mother got upset because, “the liberal pastor down the street who teaches against the Bible and the inerrant Word of God is healthy as an ox. And look at my son who stood on the authority of the Word of God and he is suffering a horrible brain disease!” That statement would make Job’s friends roar with approval, no doubt. I’m certainly no liberal (although I’m sure Ham would say I am, because I’m not a YECist), but that statement creeps me out.

But what is even more creepy is that Ham comforted his mother by assuring her that that liberal pastor would die too. Now, in all honesty, that might give the wrong impression—Ham’s point was that we need to accept the fact that everyone—his brother, that liberal pastor, everyone—would die, precisely because, “Death and suffering and disease are normal in an abnormal world and we live in an abnormal world because of sin.” Therefore, Ham says, we, like Job, need to just accept that fact that suffering and death are part of this world.

He then comes to a remarkably coherent conclusion by quoting J.I. Packer: “Here, then, we begin to see one of God’s great and eternal purposes for our ongoing suffering: Pain and death cause us to look to God in dependence—a merciful response to the independence we seek through sin. This is, indeed, a central theme of the Word of God.” Again, this is wholly true, wholly biblical, and pretty much what Irenaeus taught back in the 2^nd century. I might argue that this particular statement by Packer doesn’t go far enough (I’ll elaborate on this in my last post), but the point stands: Ham is correct in quoting this.

And yet, he still manages to get the big picture wrong, because he sees Genesis 1-3 as being a historical account of an originally perfect creation. As he states in his last chapter, the “answer” he gives for suffering is basically this: “Read Genesis 1-3 as history! Originally, there was a perfect creation, but Adam and Eve sinned—and that’s why there is suffering and death. It’s their fault, but it’s your fault too! You really deserve suffering and pain! But don’t worry, God is going to use even your screw ups to get things back to how they were originally. All those so-called Christian leaders who don’t believe the book of Genesis [i.e. don’t read Genesis 1-3 as literal history]—they don’t have the answers!”

That’s Ham’s answer. That’s his understanding of the beginning—and because he gets it wrong, his understanding of the end is wrong also. And because his understanding of both the beginning and the end is wrong, his answer to the problem of suffering and death is wrong as well.

He ends his book by discussing the Christian concept of the now and the not yet. Biblically, what this means is that (A) we are living in the present, “old age” in which death reigns; (B) with the coming of Christ, who defeated death, and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, the future “new age” of the Kingdom of God has broken into the present “old age,” and therefore (C) although we are still living in the present “old age” now, we have been given a taste of that coming future “new age” that is greater and better than the old age, and that will one day come in full…but that consummation is not yet.

Ham though gets all that wrong by claiming that the now and the not yet is about God taking everything back to an original perfection. He writes, “The Bible tells us that sometime in the future we will see a restoring of the harmony that existed in Eden once again.” And again, “The standard to which we will return is the one that existed so long ago in Eden. Everything will be in balance once again—the groaning of creation will cease the righteousness that is equated with peace and harmony with the animals and man will be the norm again, just as it was before sin.”

I’m sorry, but the “good news” of the Gospel is not that God is going to bring everything back to an original Edenic state. The answer to suffering is not, “There was an original perfection, Adam and Eve’s sin ruined that perfection, you deserve suffering and torture because you sin too, but don’t worry—if you put your faith in Christ, you’ll eventually be brought back to the original state where you are a naked, vulnerable vegetarian who doesn’t know the difference between good and evil—that’s perfection!”

If that isn’t the biblical answer to the reality of suffering and death, what is? I’ll try to unpack it—or at least try to explain how I’ve come to understand it—in my last post.