On May 21, 2014, Ken Ham wrote, “Textbook Misleading Many Seminary and Bible College Students,” in which he lambasted Millard Erickson, a well-known conservative Evangelical systematic theologian. If you have taken any kind of theology course at the college or graduate school level, you’ve probably heard of him. In any case, Ken Ham took issue with Erickson, not because he particularly embraced theistic evolution, but rather because he didn’t endorse six-day creationism enough in the third edition to his systematic theology book.
Ham began his post by lauding Erickson, calling him “one of the greatest evangelical theologians of our generation.” That being said, Ham wasn’t too thrilled that Erickson didn’t give enough props to YEC in the third edition of his Christian Theology. Ham complained that Erickson’s chapter on creation wasn’t any different than what it was in Erickson’s second edition that came out in 1998. Specifically, Ham was upset over Erickson’s treatment of the global flood theory. In Erickson’s book, he referred to the 1923 book by Seventh Day Adventist George McCready Price, but failed to mention John Whitcomb and Henry Morris’ 1961 book, The Genesis Flood. Ham wanted to know why Erickson didn’t mention the book “that launched the modern creationist movement.”
This admission that young earth creationism is a movement that began with Henry Morris’ book in 1961 is significant, in that it flatly contradicts his claim that Christians have always been young earth creationists throughout Church history, up until Darwin and his “godless evolution” came on the scene in 1859. If YEC started in 1961, then it couldn’t have been the position of the Church throughout history. You can’t have it both ways: you can’t claim that YEC has been the predominant view of Christians throughout history, and then turn around and claim that Morris’ book “launched the YEC movement” in 1961.
Ham also took issue when Erickson said, “The age of the universe is a topic that needs continued study and thought” (p. 352), because Ham was angry that Erickson didn’t devote more of his chapter to YEC literature. To Ham, this smacked of suspicion. WHY didn’t Erickson devote more time to YEC? To Ham it was obvious: “It is hard not to conclude that he has deliberately avoided that literature. Why has he? I suggest it is because he has uncritically accepted what the majority of scientists say about millions of years.”
There is another possibility, of course. Perhaps Erickson really has critically thought about the issue, and has decided that Ham’s view is so ridiculous that it has no part in critical systematic theology book. That might sound harsh, but it probably is true. Erickson’s job is to critically analyze the various aspects of systematic theology. For Ham to accuse this leading Evangelical systematic theologian of uncritically accepting a certain theological view regarding Genesis is simply laughable.
Ham wasn’t done with Erickson, though. He proceeded to accuse Erickson, the man whom he had earlier called, “one of the greatest evangelical theologians of our generation,” of producing a book that is “misleading many evangelical seminary and Bible college students not only in America but through translation in other countries as well.” Wow…I’m sorry, but Ham can’t have it both ways. If Erickson’s book is misleading Christians, then he can’t be a great evangelical theologian, can he? As we have already seen, though, this kind of manipulative argumentation is just par for the course for Ken Ham.
Ham ended his post in a shocking, but albeit not surprising fashion: with condescension and judgmentalism. He wrote, “Dr. Erickson needs to do his homework in creationist literature, repent of his erroneous teachings on creation and the age of the earth and his ignoring of creationist writings, and then he needs to do a fourth edition to his theology text to affirm faith in the literal truth of Genesis. Join me in praying that he will do so.”
Yes, Ken Ham has proclaimed it! Millard Erickson must repent, and then write a fourth edition that affirms Ken Ham’s heresy! If that is not mind-boggling arrogance, I don’t know what is.
Yet another theologian to feel the self ascribed righteous anger of Ken Ham. I wonder if anyone at AIG has ever stopped to wonder why virtually every theologian and scholar who has studies Genesis has taken a measured approach to the YEC paradigm. I have heard Terry Mortenson, go down a long list of what he called great theologian like Lewis, Sprugeon and Warfield and then state that the one place they compromised was on Genesis. If so many great upstanding Christians who have shown amazing ability to stand for the truth and expound the meaning of scripture had trouble coming to the YEC view of Genesis shouldnt’ that suggest to them that they might ask themselves if they have it right? Every time Ham or Mortenson goes on one of these rants they are basically saying they are better than all these other theologians.
I agree…it goes back to what will be the underlying “thesis” of my book: men like Ken Ham are Bible idolaters, and, like the Bible itself says, you become what you worship. Idolaters are blind and deaf like the man-made idols they have constructed, and therefore are unable to see or hear the truth clearly.
I really think that Ham CANNOT see what you have just explained. It is just astounding.
I have not checked the books on my shelf but as I think about them I cannot recall any systematic theologies that I have read spending much (if any) time on YEC. If J.I. Packer mentioned it at all in his course, then it could only have been in passing but I don’t recall him ever doing so.
What Ham is interpreting as an essential doctrine that ought to be thoroughly presented is actually a secondary issue that can be dealt with in passing. Ironically, Ham is making it an essential issue eventually he will force the hand of evangelical systematic theologians. They will mention it alongside Arianism, Sabellianism, Pelagianism, Montanism, etc. Hamism. 😉
Well, here’s hoping that my book gets that “heresy ball” rolling!
I’ve seen this kind of thing before. YEC Christians rather arrogantly assuming that everyone within Christianity should think like them, that their largely made-up claim are on a par with peer-reviewed science, and that if Christians hold any opinions that question YEC dogma then those Christians views count for nothing and should be treated with suspicion bordering upon contempt.
PS The remark “that launched the modern creationist movement” was originally made by Terry Mortenson.
PPS Yours truly noticed the Ham blog when it was first posted:
http://forums.bcseweb.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=2967&p=49238&hilit=erickson#p49238
Appreciate the reflection here. Ham, like others, who take a shrill defensive reaction, suggests they haven’t come to terms with the principle to not go beyond what is written. The Apostle Paul was discerning in this application to not be too narrow (or too wide) in the parameters of interpretation/application. Finding the right parameters frees you to explore without fear. If people don’t learn this freedom they become fragile in their position. Either they will abandon faith altogether when they are shown it is false. Or, they will become arrogant and aggressive to protect a structure their ego can’t handle being tested. Unfortunately they use faux exegesis as a mask. Freedom has a tone, I have discovered. Peace, joy, hope, and love seem to surround it. I’m yet to see those in Ham’s discourse. Its been a while since I read Erickson, but I don’t remember him articulating the genre of ‘mytho-history’ (see William Lane Craig and others). This seems to be the right frame for Genesis 1-11 that allows for varying positions without abandoning key beliefs/doctrines that are connected with origins.
Well said. I completely agree, especially the part about having things like peace, joy, and hope be the “tone-setters” in one’s tone and argumentation.