Ken Ham, Virgins, and the Shutting of Doors (Part 2)

In yesterday’s post, I addressed Ken Ham’s use of the Parable of the Ten Virgins in Matthew 25, and his claim that Christian pastors and academics who don’t support his young earth creationism were not only like the “five foolish virgins,” but were, in fact, false prophets. I gave a brief overview of Matthew 21-27, the larger context in which we find the Parable of the Ten Virgins. Given that, I concluded that Ken Ham is obviously not interpreting the Parable of the Ten Virgins correctly. Quite the contrary, Ken Ham’s willy-nilly use of the Parable of the Ten Virgins is careless, ripped out of context, and completely misused.

The Difference Between Exegesis and Application
Now, it is obvious that most people will tend to take parables like the Ten Virgins and interpret it in some sort of general way, along the lines of, “When Jesus comes back there will be some people who called themselves Christians who will actually be rejected because they really weren’t.” That is completely fine. And for that matter, I am sure Ken Ham would defend himself and say, “Well, I’m not trying to exegete the parable, I’m just doing the same thing: applying it to something today.”

But that’s not what he’s doing. While there certainly is a difference between actual biblical exegesis of a certain passage and the application of that passage for today, it should go without saying that the application should flow out of the original, intended message, and not completely ignore it. Therefore, to properly apply the Parable of the Ten Virgins, you have to make sure your application in some way coincides with the original message.

So let’s do that: when one looks at the parables in Matthew 25 (as well as the ending of the Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24 that leads into chapter 25), what do the “bad servants” all have in common? Well, they spend their time beating and oppressing their fellow servants, they’re not prepared for their master’s coming, they squander their opportunity to use their talents wisely, and they don’t care for the least of these.

Now, Ken Ham has compared the five foolish virgins in that parable to Christian leaders and academics who don’t accept his young earth creationist claims, going so far as to even condemn them as “false prophets” who are leading people to hell. So let’s ask: is that a valid application of the parable?

In a word, “No.”

To illustrate, let’s put a face on Ken Ham’s accusation—let’s use NT Wright. Does he resemble the “bad servants” in any way? Has he oppressed or beaten any fellow Christians in any way? Is he “not prepared” for Christ’s coming because he doesn’t subscribe to young earth creationism? Has he squandered his talent as a biblical scholar? Does he neglect the poor and needy? The answer is “No” on all counts.

And so, Ken Ham’s application of the Parable of the Ten Virgins is worthless because he clearly has never taken the time to actually reflect on what the parable itself is really about. His problem is thus he applies a passage he knows nothing about, and uses it in a very specific manner in order to condemn and bludgeon certain Christian pastors and academics who “deny the literal Fall and dismiss a sin nature inherited from a real Adam”—which Ham interprets as “denying the true, saving gospel.”

This is not a case of simply bad exegesis leading to poor application. This is a case of ignoring exegesis altogether in order to twist Scripture and misapply it to attack your enemies. Since this is what Ham is clearly doing, I think we can properly apply both the parable of the Sheep and the Goats, as well as Jesus’ words at the end of the Olivet Discourse to Ken Ham. This is a perfect description of what his organization is all about: beating, condemning, and judging fellow Christians on a routine basis. Far from actually honoring biblical authority, Ham actually plays fast and loose with biblical context in order to condemn anyone who disagrees with his (let’s put it kindly) highly suspect interpretation of Genesis 1-11. But this shouldn’t be surprising, for Ken Ham respects neither the Bible nor any Christian who disagrees with his young earth creationist claims. He is, for all practical purposes, a goat.

The Doors! The Doors!
In any case, the main illustration Ham uses in his post is that of doors. He states,

“These church leaders and academics outwardly profess to believe in Christ, but like the false prophets of Jeremiah’s day (e.g., Jeremiah 23:9-40) and the Pharisees of Jesus’s day (Matthew 23:11-36), they are leading God’s people astray. One day they will find that ‘the door is shut.’”

He then makes an appeal to the reader, and says he is praying that none of them will be counted among the “foolish virgins” and have the door of heaven shut to them: “Make sure your heart is truly right with God, that you are truly born again and believe God’s Word.”

And then there’s the door of Noah’s Ark. Ham points out that because Noah was righteous and built the Ark, that he and his family were saved from a “watery judgment.” When God shut the door to the Ark, Noah was saved, but everyone else suffered judgment. Not surprisingly, Ham sees himself as Noah…heck, he’s even built his own ark! And, not surprisingly, he sees Christian leaders who reject his young earth creationist claims as false prophets “who profess that their hearts are committed to the true God, but are really false teachers. Outwardly they were prophets/teachers, but inwardly, their hearts were not right.” Therefore, as Ham states, such false teachers “will not be on board today’s Ark of Salvation, Jesus Christ, when He comes again (this time in judgment). The door will be shut to them.”

If all that isn’t enough of a blitzkrieg, Ham then shares this cartoon.

Put all this together, and you get the following:

• Jesus is the open door to salvation
• Ken Ham is a righteous preacher, like Noah
• When God “shuts the door” to the ark, Ham will be saved and many Christians leaders and academics will suffer judgment because they’re false prophets who are leading people through the door to hell

That is quite an accusation, isn’t it? Ham has ripped Matthew 25 out of context in order to, quite literally, condemn “Christian leaders and academics” to hell, not because they are promoting sin or rejecting any fundamental teaching of the Christian faith—but because they don’t subscribe to Ken Ham’s young earth creationism.

Think about that…just let that sink in.

There is actually another Bible verse that uses a door metaphor that I think is quite applicable to this kind of Pharisaic manipulation of the Scripture and condemnation of others: “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you lock people out of the kingdom of heaven. For you do not go in yourselves, and when others are going in, you stop them” (Matthew 23:13).

If Ken Ham is going to contemplate doors, perhaps he should reflect on the door he routinely locks.

Let’s Conclude and Engage in Double-Speak!
Even after all that, Ham isn’t quite done. After writing an entire post in which he unleashes judgment on Christian pastors and academics who disagree with him, after calling them “false prophets,” after saying they have rejected the truth of God’s Word, after saying they probably aren’t truly saved, after saying they will suffer God’s judgment, and after saying they are leading people to hell…Ham concludes with this:

“…an increasing number of ‘Christian’ academics and pastors who may intellectually believe in God, but inwardly (and only God knows), their hearts may not be right with God—like the “foolish virgins.” Certainly, only Jesus, who is the Word, can ultimately judge their hearts (Hebrews 4:12). Now I am not saying that if a person denies the creation account of origins and believes in evolution/millions of years, he or she can’t be truly saved.”

Yes, that’s right, after adding that such (let’s put it in quotes because we really don’t believe it) “Christian” academics and pastors may only “intellectually believe,” and that inwardly their hearts aren’t right with God—Ken Ham turns around and actually says, “Now, I’m not saying they’re not saved! Only God knows! Only Jesus can judge!”

But then (yes, again!) Ham turns around again and calls upon his readers to “pray for these academics and pastors in Christendom who are leading so many people astray. Pray that the Lord will convict them to make their hearts right with God while the ‘door’ (the Lord Jesus) is still open. Remember, “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.”

Pray tell, how can one (a) condemn certain people as “false prophets,” then (b) say, “I’m not saying they can’t be saved; only Jesus can judge, and then (c) call on people to pray that the Lord will convict the hearts of those false prophets “while the door is still open”? If you say (c), then, newsflash, you’re judging them to be not saved!

That sounds like really manipulative double-speak.

…But Then Again, Maybe Not?
Oh…wait a second. Let’s read what Ham wrote again. I think I get it: “I’m not saying he or she can’t be truly saved.” And “while the ‘door’ is still open.”

Do you see it? Yes, Ham isn’t saying someone like N.T. Wright or Francis Collins can’t be saved because they “believe in millions of years.” After all, the door is still open to them. But, according to Ham, they are—in the present tense—“false prophets,” and therefore aren’t currently saved…because they “believe in millions of years”!

I get it now.

I was going to end this post by calling upon my Assemblies of God roots to say that Ken Ham’s manipulative double-speak was directly from the pit of hell, but I don’t think that would be correct. While what Ken Ham does is certainly is manipulative, it’s actually not double-speak: he’s not condemning people, then turning around and saying, “I’m not condemning anyone.”

Oh, he’s blatantly condemning people, that’s for sure: NT Wright, Francis Collins, Peter Enns, Karl Giberson, CS Lewis, JRR Tolkien, and I (hey, how often do I get the chance to put myself in such infernal company?)—Ken Ham has judged us all to be false prophets and teachers who are going to hell because we don’t think God meant Genesis 1-11 to be read as a modern historical/scientific account of the creation of the material universe. For Ken Ham, rejecting his young earth creationist claims amount to a sin against God, and thus is deserving of hell.

But what he then says is, “Only God can judge, so pray for these people before it’s too late! They’re going to hell, so pray they repent of their sin of rejecting my young earth creationist claims!” So he’s actually not engaging in double-speak—but he certainly is engaging in manipulation and deception. And he’s certainly twisting Scripture in order to beat down fellow Christians. In that respect…is it too much to think that what Ken Ham is doing really is coming from a place of outer darkness, where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth?

Conclusion: Pharisees, Again
When it comes to evolution or the proper interpretation of any biblical passage, there will always be discussion and debate, as there should be. That’s how we learn. But what I’ve tried to emphasize time and time again is that every clear-thinking, God-honoring Christian should be tremendously concerned with the manipulative tactics, rhetoric, and deception that Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis regularly engage in, all in the name of Christ. His actions are that of a modern Pharisee, pure and simple. It’s time he is exposed for what he is.