One of the “teaching tools” often used at Answers in Genesis is what is known as “The Seven ‘C’s’ of History.” These are the seven “big events” that affect the universe.
The “Seven C’s” are:
- Creation
- Corruption
- Catastrophe
- Confusion
- Christ
- Cross
- Consummation
Yes, it is a catchy phrase; and yes the graphic is clever, in that the arrow encompassing all seven “C’s” makes the shape of a “C.” The only problem with this teaching tool, though, is a really big problem. What parts of the Bible do the “Seven C’s” cover? Well, “Creation” obviously covers creation in Genesis 1-2; “Corruption” covers the Fall in Genesis 3-5; “Catastrophe” covers Noah’s flood in Genesis 6-9; and “Confusion” covers the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11.
Moving onto the next two “C’s” we have “Christ” and then “the Cross,” both of which are found in the four synoptic Gospels. And then, to top it off, we have “Consummation,” which is covered in Revelation.
So what’s the problem? Other than Genesis 1-11, AiG ignores the entire Old Testament! Go get your Bible, put your finger at Genesis 12 and then another finger after Malachi: what you’re holding between your fingers is the majority of the Bible that tells of God’s interaction with Israel. But Ken Ham completely ignores all of it! Does that seem like a comprehensive and thorough depiction of the Christian faith?
The Old Testament provides the entire “back-story” to the coming of Christ. It is what provides the historical and theological contexts by which we are able to understand Christ and the Gospel. It is God’s Story creatively working its way through history. Ironically, in his zeal to “prove Genesis 1-11 is historical,” Ken Ham virtually disregards the actual history of the Old Testament, without which it would be impossible to fully appreciate the Gospel.
The New Testament is filled with quotes, references, and allusions to virtually every book of the Old Testament, most of which are not from Genesis 1-11. So let’s be clear, Ken Ham has chosen to ignore the parts of the Old Testament that the New Testament writers themselves felt important enough to reference in order to explain the Gospel of Christ, and instead has focused on Genesis 1-11 as the lone representative of the Old Testament.
Now of course Genesis 1-11 is important. It provides the mythical backdrop to the entire biblical story as it unfolds throughout history, beginning with Abraham and finding fulfillment in Christ and the Church. But Ken Ham doesn’t really view the Bible as God’s story. He views it as God’s revealed “fact book” on (a) the problem of sin, and (b) the solution in Christ—that’s it. The Bible isn’t God’s story; it’s God’s “salvation equation.” Therefore, why bother with all that stuff about ancient Israel in the Old Testament? Let’s just get to the end to see how the problem gets solved.
I remember when I was in junior high and high school, I never liked math. I was good at it, but I didn’t like it. I learned how to get the right answers, but I never really learned the process involved in math. So sure, I got good grades in math, but I never really learned it. The same goes for Ham’s depiction of the Gospel. Yes, he “gets the right answer”—Jesus crucified and resurrected. But he doesn’t really “get it,” if you know what I mean. He doesn’t “get it” because he doesn’t think it’s necessary to understand the unfolding of God’s story throughout the life of ancient Israel.
If you were to ask him how he knows that “Jesus is the answer,” he’d no doubt say, “Because it’s in the Bible.” That would be like me, after being asked, “How do you know your answer to that math problem is correct?” then saying, “I checked the answers in the back of the book!” But again, I never really learned math; and Ken Ham has never really learned the biblical story. He doesn’t need to; he’s checked the “back of the book” in order to get the “right answer.”
Those kinds of students, be it of math or the Bible, tend to flunk out.
If he wasn’t so stuck on the number seven, he could at least add “Covenant People” and “Church,” the latter of which is yet another glaring omission!
I think it just goes to show the irony of it all. He’s so intent on “proving” Genesis 1-11 is historical, that he makes a chart called “The Seven C’s of History,” yet completely leaves out the ENTIRE history of the Old Testament.
Right, as well as the entire history from cross to consummation (the church age–i.e., the current age), which is arguably equally as important.
The no.seven means completion(completed)in the bible, but you can’t have the old without the new and visa versa
We’ve been through the 3 year Sunday School Curriculum – it covers the whole OT.
So if I may suggest a more complete Seven C’s paradigm….
Creation (Genesis 1-11)
Covenant (the rest of Genesis)
Conquest (Exodus through the reign of David)
Crisis (Solomon through the rest of the Old Testamment, emphasizing the exile)
Christ (the Gospels)
Church (Acts and everything after it except…)
Consummation (Revelation)
Anderson-approved?
Certainly better than Ham’s Seven C’s!
Wow … is this site out of touch with reality. AIG and others do NOT ignore the REST of the Old Testament.
Here’s a quote from the AIG site for you people here.
“The Old Testament, especially the Mosaic Law, seems to be a big stumbling block to Millennials because they aren’t receiving the instruction fundamental to understanding the redemptive history of the Old Testament and how it undergirds the person and work of Jesus. Christian leaders, pastors, teachers, and parents need to teach others how to view the Old Testament and the Law as Christians under the New Covenant. Be sure to use the Old Testament—it forms the basis for our theology—but make sure your audience understands how to view it so they can grow in the knowledge of Christ and in godliness.”
There are many articles on AIG that …. YOU HAVE IGNORED …. ohhh the irony.
100%. The problem with these bloggers is that they feel like they should be the authority on these things. If Ken Ham outlined 10 C’s. Trolls would say, “he should have done 12.” If Ken did 12, trolls would say, “he should have done 15.”
Ken’s intention was to make it “catchy.” This is the bait to the hook. The forest from the trees. A pathway to the door. Either people don’t understand this evangelical strategy, or they just want their blogs to be talked about.
You consider Ham and his YEC approach are truly worthy of consideration? Fascinating!
It is amazing how you really miss the simplicity of the C’s . Everything in the Bible is covered.
Starting with Genesis 11, the confusion continues until Christ is born into mankind to make the bridge of the cross so the church can participate in the consummation of all who believe.
It is an excellent tool for those of us who are actually living day to day to tell HIS STORY to a lost world that could care less about what theologians or bloggers have to say
My point is that, speaking as a scholar who has focused on the Old Testament, I find it odd to see that the only OT section these “7 C’s” focus on is the one part (Genesis 1-11) whose historicity is ambiguous at best. The actual history, from Abraham to the exile, these “7 C’s” COMPLETLEY ignore. That’s a problem.
What would you be saying if Ham had expressly qualified his 7 C’s by stating the kinds of things that you think he has devalues? Then you would have nothing to criticize him for in that regard. So you are straining out the few gnats that you perceive, but you swallow a camel. Why are you so judgmental of Ken Ham? Answer: You are simply looking for any excuse to fault his views of Genesis 1.
So, here, you make your own cause look bad to anyone who knows Ham’s work beyond a few judgmental mere glances. At the same time, this kind of effort, on your part, only gives fuel for every hasty skeptic of either Ham or Christianity, especially for the New Atheists.
I’m “judgmental” of Ken Ham because not only does he pervert the meaning of Scripture, he elevates belief in a young earth to a primary issue of the Christian faith, which it is not. He and his ilk are pharisaical and judgmental of any Christian who doesn’t believe their YEC claims. I’ve written an entire book on him that will soon be coming out with a second edition. He misreads Genesis 1-11, he distorts scientific findings, and he ignores the entirety of Church Tradition.
Are you aware that he claims Noah had access to incredible pre-flood technology that would put our modern technology to shame, but that it all got destroyed in the flood, and that is why there is no evidence for it? His claims are utterly nonsensical and ridiculous, and he gives Christianity a bad name. And more importantly, most of his claims are completely fiction and simply are not in the Bible. Look at the claims he makes at the Ark Encounter and Creation Museum.