Suffering, Death, and Ham: A Brief Series on Ken Ham’s Book, “How Could a Loving God?” (Part 1): An Overview

This week I am going to look at Ken Ham’s book, How Could a Loving God?: Powerful Answers on Suffering. It is a relatively short book (192 pages) that Ham wrote back in 2007 on the topic of suffering—namely, that age-old question, “How could there be a loving God if there is so much suffering and death in the world?” or as Ham puts it in his book, “Why would a loving God allow, or even cause, such pain, decay, and death?”

I am doing it for two reasons. First, as much as I disagree with Ken Ham about, well, virtually everything, this book is, in fact, rather revealing when it comes to much of Ham’s motivations and reasons for his YECist convictions. In the book, he tells the story of how his brother suffered from frontal lobe dementia, and how Ham and his family tried to cope with his brother’s battle with, and eventual death because of, that debilitating disease. In short, the book humanizes Ham, and I think it is a good thing to remember when critiquing and criticizing the way Ham goes about pushing YECism.

Secondly, by addressing what Ham says about the topic of suffering and death, it provides me a way to discuss what my views on this topic is as well. Let’s face it, the question regarding how there could be a loving God in the face of so much suffering and death in the world is a really big question. It is one that most Christians simply avoid, precisely because it is such a difficult question.

With that said, I hope the next post or two…or three (we’ll see how it goes) prove to be challenging and though-provoking.

An Overview of How Could a Loving God? by Ken Ham
What I want to do in this first post is provide a simple overview of Ham’s book. I will then spend another post discussing what I feel is right and wrong about Ham’s attempt to answer that difficult question regarding suffering and death in the world.

The book itself comprises of eight chapters. Interspersed throughout each chapter, Ham shares the personal story of his brother who suffered from frontal lobe dementia. Chapter 1, entitled, “And It Was Good,” starts (quite predictably) with the assertion that a mere 6,000 years ago, God created in a literal six days a perfect Eden. And now, when we look at everything in creation, it isn’t beautiful at all—everything is maimed and mangled as a sign of God’s judgment. Although I will address why that is a wrong way to look at both Genesis and the created order, I do want to point out one thing that Ham says in chapter 1 that is actually true. Namely, Ham states that most Christians don’t really know how to address the issue of pain and suffering in the world. We tend to ignore it or throw out platitudes, but we really can’t in the long run. On this point, Ham is right.

In chapter 2, entitled, “Only Time and Death?” Ham says that the question of “How could a loving God allow pain and suffering in the world?” is ultimately a philosophical problem. He then spends the rest of the chapter focusing on the “secular-humanist worldview,” which he deems “man’s view,” and equates it with (A) The Big Bang theory (the actual theory, not the TV show), and (B) Evolution. His conclusion is that the “secular-humanist worldview” has no answer to the questions of evil and suffering.

In chapter 3, entitled, “The Big Picture,” Ham presents what he considers the correct worldview based on Scripture, and he focuses on the AiG presentation of the “Seven C’s of Creation.” In short, what Ham presents in this chapter is the typical YECist claims: (A) there was a perfect creation, (B) the first two human beings sinned, and (C) that is not only why we are sinful, but also why we have things like tsunamis and cancer. In addition to that, when telling a personal story about his brother (before he suffered from frontal lobe dementia) confronting an administrator at an Australian theological college over the issue of evolution, Ham reflects another YECist claim: if there was no original perfect creation, then that  would mean that God created an imperfect creation of which sin and death was already a part—and that would make God an ogre.

In chapter 4, entitled, “A Voice from the Past,” Ham tells of a recorded sermon by his brother that he had found after his brother had died. The long and short of the sermon was that we shouldn’t be surprised when we encounter pain and suffering in this world, because pain, suffering and death are part of this world. Even though Ham ends up taking this sermon down a very dark, dare I say, very Calvinistic, alley, the basic point of the sermon is actually correct: pain, suffering and death are a part of this world—deal with it.

In chapters 5-6, entitled, “Beyond the Grave” and “Beauty from Ashes” respectively, Ham continues to reflect on the reality that death is a part of this world, as well as gives some thoughts on how God, in his sovereignty, is able to evil and suffering for His ultimate purposes.

In chapter 7, entitled, “Bowing the Knee,” Ham relates the struggles that his family, particularly his mother, had in dealing with the deterioration and death of his brother, and in chapter 8, entitled “Now, and Not Yet,” Ham brings everything back to a literal reading of Genesis 1-3 and claims that, rather than giving in to fatalism and despair, that Christians can be reassured that the hope of Christianity is that God would one day restore everything to the original perfection of Eden…and that we would all be vegetarians again.

That’s the book in a nutshell. My general reaction to the book can be summarized in three statements: (A) The personal story of Ham’s brother, and the struggles they went through as s family, humanizes Ham and deserves our sympathy; (B) Ham’s insistence suffering and death exist are a part of this world is something that more people have to accept—it is a dose of cold, hard, reality; but (C) Nevertheless, here’s another dose of cold, hard reality: the “biblical worldview” that Ham presents is simply wrong and misguided at virtually level.  

The Problems with Chapter 1
It goes without saying that Ham’s attempt to root the question of suffering within his literal-historical reading of Genesis 1-3 is flawed from the start, for he begins with an undeniable unbiblical assumption: that God’s original creation was “perfect.” Ham writes, “I believe that we are incapable of imagining the perfection that existed in Eden at that time. The harmony, the beauty, the unity, the way everything worked together in peace…it was very good….”

To be blunt, there simply is nothing in Genesis 1-3 that says that. It’s not there. Such a sentiment doesn’t exist. After each day, God declares that what He created was good, not perfect. As John Walton discusses in his book, The Lost World of Genesis 1, “good” means that God has given function and purpose to the created order. It isn’t a statement of some kind of “perfection.” Ironically, how Ham describes what he wrongly calls “perfection,” is the very point Walton makes—that by calling everything “good,” God was declaring that creation was orderly, in harmony, and that there was a unity to it—He gave function and purpose to it, and that was good. But still, “good” is not the same thing as “perfection.”

Furthermore, there is the exegetical question as to whether or not Genesis 1-3 should be even interpreted as purporting to give literal, historical details. But that is a whole other discussion. But my point is that even if one interprets Genesis 1-3 as literal history, it literally is unbiblical to claim it was a perfect creation—nowhere in Genesis 1-3 is that claimed.

The second problem Ham makes stems from the first problem, and it has to do with how he ends up viewing God’s good creation. Simply put, Ham doesn’t think it is too good! He doesn’t like it when Christians look at nature and declare it to be a beautiful world. Sure, Ham says, there might be a “shattered reflection” of that “original perfection of Eden,” but everything we see is just death, destruction, and judgment. Therefore, he doesn’t want Christians to tell their kids that the natural world is an example of God’s creativity. Instead, Ham writes, “In reality, maybe we should be teaching them to sing, ‘All things maimed and mangled! The Lord God cursed them all!’” Beautiful world? Ham doesn’t think so: “Well I’ve got news for you: it all looks broken to me. It’s a broken world. And when we use nature as an example of God’s beauty and love, we are giving the wrong idea.”

It’s like Ham has never read his Bible:
The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.
Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge. (Psalm 19:1-2)

Here is the fundamental problem of Ham’s approach here: (1) Not only is his claim that there was an original “perfect” creation not biblical—that is simply never stated in the Bible—but (2) that wrong assumption has led him to devalue and denigrate creation itself as God’s handiwork—and it is the celebration and praise of God for His beautiful creation that  is actually found in the Bible.

What Ham Gets Right…and Wrong
That being said, what Ham says at the end of this chapter is actually correct…sort of. Given the reality of suffering and death in this world, we are faced with a fundamental question: “How do we reconcile what we see and what we believe as Christians?” He then correctly points out that some people who couldn’t find a good answer to that question have ended up losing their faith. I think everyone knows someone for whom this is the case.

And he is also correctly states that many Christians just ignore the issue altogether, or “just hide doubt under the surface of their faith while others cloak the problem under a covering of spiritual-sounding clichés.” And he is absolutely correct when he warns about the danger of trying to hide these doubts. He states, “In the long run, it doesn’t help to deny. The issues will re-surface in some way, at some time. Those who are most honest, yet have the fewest answers, seem to be at risk the most…and sometimes they lash out in the process.”

Of course, the problem is that it runs contrary to what Ham has said elsewhere about dealing with doubt. In fact, he routinely condemns fellow Christians who express any kind of questions regarding his literal-historical interpretation of Genesis 1-3 and warns about how questioning the historicity of Genesis 1-3 will lead to…doubt about Christianity as a whole. “Sure,” Ham says, “question why there is suffering and death in the world—but here’s the answer to that question, and don’t question the answer that we at AiG provide.”

To be blunt, Ham and AiG’s entire organization is dedicated to answering this very real question regarding suffering and death with their own “spiritual sounding cliché.” Why is there suffering and death? Easy: (A) There was an original, “perfect” creation (although the Bible doesn’t say that), (B) Two historical people sinned and screwed it up for everyone else, and their sin caused cancer and tsunamis, and therefore (C) God’s creation that we now see is ugly and bad and is a testament to God’s judgment (something that runs contrary to what the Bible actually says).

It’s a standard cliché and pat answer that simply doesn’t reflect the actual testimony of the Bible. And quite frankly, it is rather sad to see that although Ham does see the philosophical question regarding suffering and death clearly, and although he does see that most people seemingly are too afraid to really wrestle with that question, the fact is he himself doesn’t really wrestle with it himself. Instead, he ends up clinging to the standard YECist cliché and, as many of his other writings clearly show, shows himself all too ready to attack anyone who questions it.

In my next post, I will deal with chapters 2-3 of his book, How Could a Loving God? and I’ll dissect Ham’s comments about secular-humanism and his claims that the YECist worldview is the correct worldview that is based on Scripture. s