Genesis 1 and 2: "Straightforward historical narrative"?

I have been following Dr. Joel Duff's Naturalis Historia blog for some time.

Yesterday, he offered what I called a "concise summary of some key issues" that divide young- and old-earth creationists one from the other.

The post has generated a fair bit of discussion. And, because I thought Dr. Duff's comments were so useful, I have been "listening" and participating in the discussion.

Anyone who has followed the debates between young-earthers (à la Answers in Genesis) and most old-earthers will recognize the concerns expressed by someone who calls himself "LAR-15" who protests Duff's analysis of some of the issues:

It seems you have misidentified the foundational assumption. It isn’t that the earth is young; it is that the Bible is the Word of the God who cannot lie, and therefore it must be accurate. The young earth is a conclusion from that revelation.

Those who affirm the OEC and the authority of the Scripture have very great difficulty as is seen in the lengths to which they must go to try to defend both. In the end, the Genesis creation account is straightforward historical narrative, in terms of its genre. To read that as some sort of framework or poetic device flies in the face of everything we know about Hebrew grammar and syntax. The only way out is Waltke’s position when he said years ago that Moses intended 6 24-hour days, but that wasn’t what actually happened. But nonetheless, the assumption is that the Bible is right.

To bail out with the claim that the Bible doesn’t intend to teach us about science is akin to an newspaper article saying 2+2=5, but it’s not really wrong because it wasn’t intended to teach math. And that assumes that Genesis wasn’t intended to teach us how the world got here, something that is a prior assumption taken to the text and then the text is read in light of the assumption. No other conclusion is possible. (Just like you accuse YEC of doing.)

Since I feel a great affinity toward what I believe LAR-15 was trying to say, and, yet, since I also find myself objecting strenuously to several of his claims, I wrote the following response.

LAR-15: I would question the factuality of your fifth sentence ("In the end, the Genesis creation account is straightforward historical narrative, in terms of its genre"), the meaning you intend to convey by your second sentence ("the Bible is the Word of the God who cannot lie, and therefore it must be accurate"), and, then, whether your third sentence ("The young earth is a conclusion from [God's biblical] revelation") is a NECESSARY conclusion (based on your intended meaning in your second sentence and the problems associated with your fifth sentence).

The key, however, is your fifth sentence. And so I will seek, here, to respond to your claim.

As Miller and Soden point out, in In the Beginning . . . We Misunderstood,

Genesis . . . was written more than 3,000 years ago, and it was written in Hebrew. To understand it fully, one must read it first in its original language and try to understand it in relation to its original author (Moses), in relation to its original readers (Israel recently released from slavery in Egypt), and in relation to the culture, worldview, and literary genre of the text. This is an issue in the debate on origins that is often--perhaps usually--ignored by Christians. For those who would ignore it, the meaning of the text is self-evident: "The real question involved in this debate is, Do we accept the plainest meaning of the Bible, or do we insist on a reinterpretation in light of the prevailing opinion of scientists?" The plainest meaning . . . is indeed what we want to find, but the issue is, the plainest meaning to whom? We must start with the plainest meaning to the original recipients. (p. 48)

And when you look at those original recipients in their cultural context, you realize that the language God-through-Moses uses in Genesis 1 and 2 is not at all "straightforward historical narrative" as you and I might expect from any modern text. Not at all.

But/and when you do consider the original recipients' cultural context, you realize God-through-Moses is seeking to answer questions very different from what any of us modern American readers tend to ask. The historical questions themselves are different. And the answers really and truly have virtually nothing to do with the physical universe (or cosmos/cosmology) with which we are familiar. they do, indeed, have to do with the cosmos/cosmology, but they have to do with a cosmos/cosmology with which ancient Egyptians--and recently emancipated slaves of said Egyptians--were familiar.

As Miller and Soden note, however, the cosmos/cosmology presented in the Bible is very similar to the cosmos/cosmology of Ancient Egypt, and yet it is presented in a dramatically new and different manner. FOR EXAMPLE, while one finds all the same basic "players" in the Bible as one would in the Egyptian cosmos, the "gods" of Egypt (and the "gods" of the Egyptian and Mesopotamian cosmologies) are shown to be without power (much as the Egyptian gods are embarrassed in the narrative of the 10 Plagues in the Book of Exodus).

The sun and moon are "gods" in the Mesopotamian and Egyptian contexts; but "the Genesis account does not name the luminaries and thereby does not name any of the gods of the ancient Near East, whether Mesopotamian, Egyptian, or Canaanite. While the general purposes for the luminaries are the same between the biblical and ancient Near Eastern perspectives, in the biblical account the lights are not deities. They are merely parts of God's creation, doing his bidding and accomplishing his will. They do not have independent rule or power in creation but are completely under God's control, doing his bidding" (p. 132).

This is not a place for me to develop Miller and Soden's full thesis. Their book is relatively brief and exceptionally clear. I encourage you to read it on your own. I did--and do--want to point out, however, how great the divide is between the world into which the Genesis account was released and our world today.

But I would like to quote one more section from Miller and Soden with respect to the cultural context:

[T]he ancient Near Eastern world did not sharply distinguish between their stories of cosmology and "history." Neither cosmology (how the universe came to be) nor cosmology (how one understands the universe, including the relationship of the gods) in the ancient world was understood in scientific or historical terms but as symbolic, metaphysical explanations or as a means to "articulate the incomprehensible and the marvelous, while attempting to express such phenomena in a rational manner." (p. 156) [Final quoted text is from Vincent Arieh Tobin, "Mythological Texts," in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt (p. 459).]

And finally. About those "clear" references to seven, literal, 24-hour days, listed in Genesis 1. Miller and Soden point out three "very interesting" features of those days to which my attention has never otherwise been directed by any other authors whose works I have read.

• "There is no known record of any other society framing creation in seven days, so the use of it in Genesis 1 does not appear to be directly dependent on Israel's ancient Near Eastern mind-set. The use of a seven-day period of time, however, commonly appears in ancient Near Eastern mythology, legend, and cultic practice. . . . The number seven was . . . not always intended to be a literal number; instead, it carried symbolic significance, being generally understood to express the ideas of completion, perfection, or fulfillment." (pp. 155-156).
   
• "Most translations of Genesis 1 do not accurately represent the Hebrew text when it comes to the numbering of the days of creation. Most translations refer to 'the first day,' 'the second day,' 'the third day,' and so on. In fact, the Hebrew text lacks the article 'the' on days 1 through 5. It should read as the New American Standard Bible translates: 'And there was evening and there was morning, one day' (v. 5); 'And there was evening and there was morning, a second day' (v. 8), and so on through day 5. . . . It is only when we come to day 6 that the definite article is used: 'And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day' (v. 31). This detail of the Hebrew text is significant because it is very unusual. The normal way of indicating the 'first' of anything is with the Hebrew word for 'first' (the ordinal) and not the Hebrew word for 'one.' The Hebrew phrase used here is almost always translated and understood to mean 'one day' in its other uses in the Hebrew Bible. . . .
  
  "[W]e must wonder why it is written in such an unusual way if it is to be understood as a simple consecutive twenty-four-hour period. The sixth and seventh days do have the article ('the sixth day' and 'the seventh day,' 1:31; 2:2-3), although day 7 does not use the summary formula, 'There was evening and there was morning, day x.' Clearly the sixth and seventh days are set apart as distinct in the listing of the days." (pp. 49-50)
  
  Miller and Soden note that this strangeness in the text may seem insignificant. After all, "It still tells us that there were seven days, doesn't it?"
  
  "The point is," they respond, "Genesis does not state the sequence like a Hebrew reader might have expected. Instead, it uses a very unusual way of expressing the days and makes a significant change in the last two days. It is as if the writer is telling the reader to pay attention because this is not a normal week. . . . There is clearly an intended sequence. But the arrangements may be logical (or theological), not necessarily chronological (or scientific). And perhaps there is even more significance, or a different significance. . . . The point here is the unique presentation, suggesting to the original readers something other than a normal or straightforward reading of a simple week." (pp. 50-51).
  

And, finally,

• Miller and Soden note that "if we were reading [Genesis 2] independently of any other text, we would naturally assume that it is giving us a chronological timeline for creation.
  
  "If Genesis 2 is taken most naturally (chronologically), however, as the creation of all the plants, the animals, and the birds, then it contradicts the order of creation in chapter 1. . . . Furthermore, chapter 2 implies only one creative day. There is no reference to any other days and, in fact, the chapter begins with reference to a single day (Gen. 2:4 literally states, 'in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens'). . . ." (p. 55)
  
  Miller and Soden note that the standard evangelical "solution" to this apparent conundrum is "simply" to "explain" that "the author intended to give a non-chronological order in chapter 2 in order to make a theological point (for example, mankind is seen as central to creation rather than as the climax)." But, say Miller and Soden, "If chapter 2 is out of order for theological reasons, why must chapter 1 be in order chronologically? The only reason for this assumption is because it makes sense to us and because we have assumed that the enumerating of the days requires it. [But i]f the lack of the article on the first five days shows us otherwise, then a strict, linear chronology of Genesis 1 is not necessarily required." (p. 56)
  
  Ultimately, then, they conclude, "The point is that one cannot take both Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 'literally' without creating contradictions between the creation accounts. This is a final clue from the passage itself that it is not meant to be taken literally, or as if it is scientific information." And then, finally, "When we come to recognize some of these clues that the original audience would have intuitively noticed, we realize that our naively 'plain' meaning was not plain in the same way to the original audience." (p. 57)

And so. IF the language God-through-Moses uses in Genesis 1 and 2 is not "straightforward historical narrative" as we modern Americans might expect, THEN the fact that "the Bible is the Word of the God who cannot lie, and therefore must be accurate" is kind of beside the point when it comes to deciding whether the Earth is old or young. And, finally, it is illegitimate to claim that "The young earth is a conclusion from [God's biblical] revelation." Rather, it is a conclusion from someone's (potentially faulty) INTERPRETATION of the Bible based on that person's (potentially faulty) ASSUMPTIONS about the intended meaning of the text of Scripture.

What should a good Christian "origins" science program cover?

I originally published the following post in my personal blog. I am now (in 2016) republishing here those articles from my blog that have to do with the focused subject matter of biblical questions and faith. --JAH

Considering the discussion over the last few days, I thought I would attempt a first-draft summary statement of what I think a really quality Christian science program would cover when it comes to origins.

My view: A top-quality science curriculum should discuss the various views and talk not only about the arguments in favor of each view, but about their problems . . . i.e., why advocates of each view are in favor of the view, and why opponents find fault with them. –It can be exceptionally difficult to present all of these positions fairly, but, I believe, fairness is necessary.

Okay. So what views should one cover?

Some typical viewpoints I have seen discussed include these:

• non-theistic evolution
   
• theistic evolution
   
• young-earth creationism
   
• old-earth creationism.

Some may also throw in a discussion of Intelligent Design.

I think such a list is good . . . as far as it goes.

The problem I find--and I am thankful to Ken Ham and friends at Answers in Genesis for opening my eyes to this matter 14 years ago . . . --The problem I find is how such a list tends to cut out any discussion of the biblical evidence. And it is the Bible that leads in AiG's/Ken Ham's young-earth creationist argument. And, in my mind--again in agreement with Ham and AiG--any curriculum that claims to be Christian needs a discussion of biblical evidence to play a central role . . . at least to the extent that the Bible has evidence to bring to the table.

As a result, I believe a discussion of origins requires quite a bit more nuance than the four (or, possibly, five) options mentioned above.

And so I would like to propose the following divisions for discussion/presentation in a thorough Christian "origins" program:

• Theism or naturalism? --Clearly, Christians will opt for theism. But the topic of biblical theism v. naturalism and, perhaps, pantheism, needs to be discussed. I imagine this is the place you might want to address the Intelligent Design school of argumentation, though I don't see its success as essential to a theistic worldview, nor its failure as a death knell for such a worldview.

Assuming a biblical theistic viewpoint, then, I believe we need to discuss the following matters:

• Biblical concordism or non-concordism? Some questions to address: How should we read Genesis 1-3 (let alone 4-11)?
  
  • Should we look for concord [agreement/peace] between what we read in Genesis 1 and 2 (at least) and how a scientist might describe the beginnings of the cosmos, the biosphere and humankind? [I.e.: Even though the language of the Bible, obviously, isn't going to be scientifically precise in any modern sense of the term, do the biblical descriptions of the beginning of the world and humankind generally match what modern scientists would say? Or, put another way: If we look at the “testimony” of science, should we expect to find that it corroborates what we read in Genesis 1 and 2? (If our answer is YES, then we are concordists. Examples of concordist positions: young-earth creationism; progressive creationism (Hugh Ross); gap theory; day-age theory; etc.)]
  —OR—
  
  • Should we abandon any attempt to find concord between science and Genesis 1 and 2 and, instead, look solely to science for clues with respect to how and when God created? [I.e.: Even though, based on numerous Scriptural references, we should recognize that God created the cosmos and everything in it, should we read the text of Genesis 1 and 2 as something other than literal history and, therefore, not expect or even attempt to show some kind of correlation to what scientists would have to say and what we read in Genesis 1 and 2? –If our answer to this question is YES, then we are non-concordists. Examples of non-concordist positions: John Walton’s “cosmic temple” interpretation; Johnny Miller and John Soden’s “apologetic against Egyptian mythology” interpretation; etc.)]
   
• Old-earth (i.e., billions of years) or young-earth (i.e., 6,000 to possibly 10,000 or maybe even 12,000 years old)? Questions to ask: What are we to believe about how old the earth is? What evidence do we find for how old the earth is?
  
  NOTE: For presuppositionalist young-earthers like Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis, the Bible itself provides much or virtually all of the evidence . . . all of the evidence that really matters. As Tas Walker of AiG expressed it to me back in 1999: “Since we believe the Bible is the Word of God, we start with the Bible. . . . The Bible clearly teaches that the world is young. . . . So, now that we have established that the world is young (~6000 years), we are ready to come to the [scientific] evidence.”
  
  I mention this because, once more, if someone is going to argue against a presuppositionalist young-earth viewpoint, he or she must present strong evidence for why he or she believes the Bible does not teach a young (approximately 6,000-year-old) earth history . . . and/or, even more difficult, convince these evangelicals why the standard formulas of evangelical beliefs about the Bible should be abandoned or reformulated.
  

  (When I say what I just said, I am referring to such documents as The Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics which, in Part 2 of Article XIII, declares, “We deny that generic categories which negate historicity may rightly by imposed on Biblical narratives which present themselves as factual.” That certainly sounds good, but how do we know whether a biblical narrative is presenting itself as factual? --The Statement doesn't address the problem. Though The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy does state,
  

  ARTICLE XXII
  We affirm that Genesis 1-11 is factual, as is the rest of the book.
  We deny that the teachings of Genesis 1-11 are mythical and that scientific hypotheses about earth history or the origin of humanity may be invoked to overthrow what Scripture teaches about creation.

  And the grounds for affirming the full factuality of Genesis 1-11? . . . --I'm sorry. I'm not trying to get into the details of what a solid Christian course in "origins" will cover. But I am trying to tease out at least a few of the ugly/niggly details that such a course--and/or the advocates of certain positions--will need to address.
  
  My point here was "simply" to show that those who want to argue against a young-earth presuppositionalist view are going to have to address issues related to well-accepted evangelical statements of faith and not only the scientific evidence.)

• What mechanism did God use to create the earth and all that is within it: Unmediated (“word spoken --[yields]-- thing created”) or Mediated (“word spoken --[creates/establishes]-- PROCESS (some type of evolution?) --[which yields]-- thing created”)? To what kind of evidence can we point for our views?

Once we tease out these four primary questions, we find the following options:

Atheistic	Theistic
Evolution	Mediated Creation (i.e., in the current scientific environment, Evolutionary Creation)
	Unmediated Creation

And then, as best as I can understand, these are the theistic options:

		Relationship of Scripture and Science
		Concordist	Non-Concordist
Age of Earth	Old-Earth	Progressive Creation (à la Hugh Ross) -OR- Mediated (Evolutionary) Creation (includes Day-Age, Gap, and other such theories)	Mediated (Evolutionary) Creation -OR- (at least hypothetically) Unmediated Creation [I am unaware of any unmediated non-concordist creationists]
	Young-Earth	Unmediated Creation (à la Ken Ham)	[Scientific data w/o concordist interpretation generally leads away from Young-Earth view]

If you have any additional suggestions, recommendations, criticisms, or other contributions to make, I would be most grateful for your input!

Not super pleasant (to put it mildly), but educational . . .

I originally published the following post in my personal blog. I am now (in 2016) republishing here those articles from my blog that have to do with the focused subject matter of biblical questions and faith. --JAH

My last two posts (here and here) have obviously generated quite a bit of discussion--more, I think, than any posts on this blog have generated before. I am sure it is all thanks to Ken Ham. I didn't particularly enjoy his post, but I thank him for it, anyway. Thank you, Ken.

A strong reason for thanksgiving: The discussions that have followed have helped me to learn; they have enabled me to say some things I have never said before (see the “other matters that I think need to be addressed," below; I have never expressed what I say in items #1 and #2 of these "other matters"; and I think I have never expressed so clearly what I attempt to say in item #3 [again, within the "other matters" portion, below]).

As I read the comments of various posters on a thread in HomeSchoolReviews.com, I felt led to write and post the following:

I received a Google notification that this conversation was happening. So I came over, read many of the posts, and thought I should probably sign up on HomeSchool Reviews so that I could speak. Especially since it was my post to which Mr. Ham was replying.

A few points of clarification:

* SONLIGHT did not call Ken Ham "Pope Ham." *I*, John Holzmann, called him a pope. I did so in my personal blog (a Google Blogger blog) "John's Corner" (http://johnscorner.blogspot.com).

* If my comments reveal my character (or Sonlight's character, if you are determined to drag Sonlight into the matter, despite the fact that the company had nothing to do with my post), I ask that you

1) please look at my response when I was made aware of my wrong-doing. (I have apologized.)

2) please consider the provocations that elicited my inappropriate response. (Mr. Ham has made false statements about me on numerous occasions dating back to 1999. He has made false statements about Sonlight Curriculum as well.)

3) consider whether you REALLY believe my behavior, per se, is (or was) as heinous as some have made it out to be. Let me reiterate: I BELIEVE I WAS IN THE WRONG. I shouldn't have stooped to name-calling. But if you believe my name-calling is as heinous as some seem to believe it was, I am astonished that the Christian homeschooling community has not risen in indignation over Mr. Ham's name-calling and his sponsorship--in his magazine and on his website--of IDENTICAL language to that which I used. (I could talk about OTHER language. But let us focus solely on the “pope” idea. [NOTE: I was not aware of this until I happened to bump into the article yesterday. But . . . ] For IDENTICAL language used by Answers in Genesis, see the article "Evangelical Popes" (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v7/n2/evangelical-popes).)

*********

What I have just written speaks, I believe, to the primary matters that seem to be of concern with respect to my POST.

HOWEVER, there are other matters that I think need to be addressed.

* The matter of "compromise" and "error" and, at least as importantly, the "Gospel" and "authority" questions Mr. Ham raises.

1) I would like to note that I hold Mr. Ham in very high regard for his repeated--CONSISTENT--"banging of the drum" about the fundamental issues related to Gospel and authority that can arise if one attempts to correlate a “straightforward” reading of Genesis 1-3 (as Mr. Ham--and, I'm sure, most readers here--would define “straightforward”) with the views of most modern scientists. As Mr. Ham told me about 14 years ago (I'm not going to quote him, because I'm recalling this from memory, and I don't have a perfect memory; but, he said something like), “You will find that there is no solid foundation with an old-earth view. They don't have a consistent view of the Bible. The Biblical narrative doesn't hang together under an old-earth view.” --Something like that.

I have to say that, in general, I AGREE WITH HIM. What I have found is that most old-earthers take the “scientific” view and kind of wave their hands over the Bible and say, “I don't know how it all goes together, but I believe the Bible and I believe science. And so . . . (I am an old-earther.)”

But I have been uncomfortable with such a position.

THEREFORE,

2) I agree with Mr. Ham that, if someone is going to teach old-earth (creationism or evolutionism or anything else), and they are going to claim to be Bible-believing Christians, then they should deal with the problems. They should address the kinds of things about which Mr. Ham keeps banging the drum. They SHOULDN'T simply “wave their hands.”

As different people in the homeschool community have made clear to me, our view of Genesis 1-11 will affect how we teach history (is there history before 4004 BC . . . or not? Are Adam and Eve to be included in our regular history course . . . or “only” in Bible? . . . If we include them only in a Bible program, aren't we indicating that they aren't part of regular history? Etc.); it will affect how we teach science; it will affect how we teach the Bible itself. . . . --These are not mere “hand-waving” kinds of matters!

HOWEVER,

3) In the same way that (most of us, anyway!) seem to be able to at least let each other pursue our own beliefs and practices without charging each other with “compromise” and “error” and an unwillingness to bow to the authority of Scripture when it comes to matters like women wearing head coverings in church; or when it comes to how we observe (or fail to observe) the Sabbath; or “dresses only”; or baptism; or the end times; so I believe it ought to be here, with respect to our views on how we should interpret Genesis 1-11.

I am NOT suggesting people should not discuss these matters (anymore than I would suggest we ought not to discuss head coverings, Sabbath observances, our manner or dress, baptism, end-times prophecy, or anything else).

What I am attempting to say is that . . .

IN THE SAME MANNER as we are able to discuss these matters without charging one another with compromise and error with respect to our fundamental view of Scripture (i.e., when we disagree with one another, we don't charge those on the opposite side with the obvious sin of calling the authority of Scripture into question!) . . . so, here, with respect to our interpretations of Genesis 1-11.

I believe we should CHALLENGE each other to think through the implications of our views (like the people who pointed out that a person’s view of Genesis 1-11 is going to impact their view of history). We should raise all of the kinds of issues and concerns that Ken Ham consistently raises. ASK people of another opinion how their views square with the idea (say) of death before the fall. ASK how they interpret Romans 5:12ff. DISCUSS how we view these passages and why.

I believe we do the body of Christ damage when, rather than behaving in this way, we take the far more offensive road and call anyone who disagrees with us “compromisers” or “snakes in the grass.” This shuts off communication. It divides the church. It precludes useful discussion and the opportunity to learn. (Participants on neither side of a “conversation” in which we are being told we are either imbeciles (or such terms; I am thinking of less pretty comments probably more likely to come from the mouth of an old-earther, though I have heard young-earthers use similar verbiage with respect to those with whom they disagree!), or a “conversation” in which we are being told we are “compromisers” (etc.): Participants in those kinds of “conversations” don't usually wind up actually conversing! And we don't benefit one another.)

I want us to provide room for one another to hear each other out, to be challenged, and to grow in the grace and knowledge and wisdom and powerful work of Christ in the world.

Let us, as the founders of the United States once said, “hang together” . . . that we might not “hang separately.”

Blessings!

John Holzmann

Mr. Ham responds to my “pope” comment. Kind of.

I originally published the following post in my personal blog. I am now (in 2016) republishing here those articles from my blog that have to do with the focused subject matter of biblical questions and faith. --JAH

NOTE: I write here on my own account. This is my personal blog. I am and have been largely disengaged from Sonlight Curriculum for over five years. I am still a co-owner. I do take an interest in the company's success. I also seek to stand by my wife, the president of the company, who is still involved—very involved—on a day-to-day, strategic and detailed basis. I hate it when men like Ken Ham come along and make false claims about Sonlight, the company of which my wife is president and the curriculum she has written and whose content she oversees.

******

I received an email notice about a comment on my last post at 1:18 this afternoon. Then another, moments later. And a third seven minutes after that. And a fourth 13 minutes later. . . .

“Whoa! Someone must have posted about my post!” I thought. “I wonder who?”

By 3:15, I had received eight notices. And then I got a phone call from some people at the Sonlight Curriculum office: “Ken Ham wrote a response to your blog post , and now people are commenting on our Facebook page. They think Sonlight wrote something about Mr. Ham, but, obviously, we didn't. It was you. . . . And we don’t know how to respond. . . .”

I said I would have to look at what Mr. Ham wrote . . . and look at the posts on the Sonlight Facebook page to see what, if anything, I could or should write in response.

I found that Mr. Ham concluded the opening paragraph in his post with a question: “Why would [John Holzmann] name-call like this?”

It’s “funny” that he would ask such a question, considering our (his and my) long history.

ANSWER TO KEN HAM’S QUESTION: It has to do with his repeated bearing of false testimony against me and against the company that I happen to have co-founded (still co-own, and, as a co-owner, still take an interest in). It has to do with the fact that his repeated and very public false testimonies against me and against Sonlight Curriculum over the years have quite successfully consigned the company my wife heads and of which I am part-owner to some rather searing flames of public disapprobation.

In essence, as far as I can tell, Ken Ham's behavior—and the effects of his behavior—are very much like those of the medieval popes. And so I spoke of him in such terms.

It has been my longstanding belief and attitude that most evangelicals nowadays are able to agree that—even though they may strongly differ on matters like baptism or eschatology—they grant fellow believers space on these issues. They grant that these brothers and sisters might possibly have some good reasons to view the Bible’s teachings on these subjects from alternative perspectives.

And I have pleaded with the Christian homeschool community to grant that space in the area of the age of the earth.

But granting space is not Mr. Ham’s way. At least not when it comes to his interpretation of Genesis 1-11. After all, from his perspective, he isn't really interpreting Genesis 1-11; he is "merely" telling you what it means. Because he knows what it means.

Kind of the way the Pope, apparently--at least when speaking ex cathedra--infallibly knows and speaks the Truth.

Kind of.

And so I referred to Mr. Ham as a kind of pope.

It is my understanding that popes have—or had—the power of life and death over those they ruled. Based on the decisions that the popes made, someone’s teachings could be declared heretical. And if someone’s teaching was declared heretical: woe unto him! He was a social outcast at best, a dead man at worst.

And it seems that that is the kind of power Mr. Ham wields. He speaks . . . and people (and companies) pay some very heavy prices, whether Mr. Ham speaks accurately or not.

Yep. Being cast into the outer darkness of the evangelical Christian homeschool community as I and Sonlight Curriculum have been by Mr. Ham and those who follow him . . . on the grounds of his quick-to-condemn say-so alone: It’s pretty hard to take.

I pray you never get caught crosswise with someone who has as much clout in the public sphere as Ken Ham obviously has, someone who might misrepresent you and your views as Mr. Ham has repeatedly misrepresented me and Sonlight Curriculum through the years.

IN CONCLUSION: Please forgive me for failing to honor Mr. Ham the way I, myself, would want to be honored. I believe he acts like a pope and bears a lot of the power of a pope (whether he is fully aware of that power or not). But I certainly didn't need to call him a pope or speak of him--as I did--as "Pope Ham."

I would like to beg forgiveness for failing to act with appropriate graciousness. My failure in this regard has no justification. 

At the same time, I would like to appeal to a few of the people who have (appropriately) called me on the carpet for my behavior to please appeal to him to publicly apologize for and, in future, refrain from the egregious and repeated name-calling and false testimonies he has made (and, obviously, as of a few weeks ago, has continued to make) about me and/or about Sonlight Curriculum. (In case you are unaware, you can see a relatively decent summary of his history in that regard here; actual history begins with the sentence that begins, It was very obvious that; but don't ignore this additional post, either. Do a search for Remember the first article Answers in Genesis published that referenced me? That really does give you the first part of the story.)

Thanks!

The conservative (evangelical/fundamentalist) Christian homeschool pope

I originally published the following post [including the "Edited to add" sections] in my personal blog. I am now (in 2016) republishing here those articles from my blog that have to do with the focused subject matter of biblical questions and faith. --JAH

Edited to add (7/5/2013):  After being "called" on calling Mr. Ham "Pope Ham," I have apologized publicly. (I [Edited 7/9/2013]still need to go went to him personally/privately on Friday, 7/5/2013.) I have also been able to state--I think more clearly than ever before--not only why his article bothered me so much but, far more importantly, what I appreciate about him and how and why I wish he would alter some of his methodologies. You can find that post here.

*******
In the latest Answers magazine (p. 35), Ken Ham, president of Answers in Genesis, claims that Sonlight’s treatment of old- and/or young-earth and/or evolutionary creation is not balanced:

Already, two publishers—Sonlight and Christian Schools International—don't openly support a young-earth position. They claim to offer a "balanced" treatment, but it isn't.

He adds no commentary that would bolster his position. He simply makes the claim.

Note: In his primary article, Ham references an Atlantic magazine article that spurred a Christianity Today article where Sarita and I are quoted which, in turn, speaks of Sonlight as “an exception” to the curricula that emphasize young-earth creationist views to the exclusion of others. The Atlantic article mentions Christian Schools International; it doesn't reference Sonlight. However, the author of the CT article writes that

Sonlight . . . offers a diversity of homeschool curricula that allow parents to teach various theories of origins. "The YEC position is strong and ingrained in the homeschool movement," said Sonlight president Sarita Holzmann, who homeschools her children and believes in a young earth. "That might be to our detriment." She says students need to be able to evaluate different positions.

The author and/or editor of the article made several obvious mistakes in her comments about Sonlight.

For example: When it comes to origins, Sonlight only features young-earth creationist books and provides virtually no counter-balancing arguments against anything that those books say. The curriculum does include a few books in areas other than science that obviously assume an evolutionary perspective. The fact that the company simply carries those books seems to have led to its being banned from the Christian Home Educators of Colorado conference.

But rather than actually presenting full-blown arguments for the various theories of origins (as the CT article seems to suggest it does), wherever non-young-earth or pro-evolutionary references occur in its texts, Sonlight either refuses to assign those pages or it dutifully offers young-earth creationist "arguments" against the pro-evolutionary content.

Meanwhile, Sonlight does offer some mild notes of encouragement to non-young-earth-creationist parents as it "permits" or even "encourages" such parents (along with the young-earthers) to teach as they see fit.

But the fact is, there is little if any content in the curriculum that would enable students truly to "evaluate" positions other than young-earth creationism.

Indeed, even outside its curriculum, while in the past the company carried a few titles in the back section of its catalog that questioned a young-earth perspective, those books disappeared from the catalog several years ago.

Still, that, apparently, is not good enough for Mr. Ham.

Considering what Sonlight actually does, I would dearly love to know what Ham thinks “balanced” looks like. I am particularly curious because of what he says in the main body of his article (p. 34):

Does [what I have said] mean that homeschooling parents should never expose their children to evolutionary ideas? Of course not. Homeschoolers certainly need to address different views about origins and other controversial issues in their teaching, but they need to do so in the clear context that God's Word is truth and compromising views are error!

Ahh! That last phrase actually answers my question, doesn't it?

If I'm reading him accurately, a “balanced” presentation, from Mr. Ham's perspective, means one that not only “openly support[s] a young-earth position,” but vigorously opposes any other. And Sonlight doesn't oppose alternative perspectives vigorously enough. It offers too much legitimacy to such alternative positions.

You see, the truth is, Sonlight mildly--almost to the point of silence--does "address" different views about origins by simply defining viewpoints other than the young-earth perspective and acknowledging that some Christians hold these viewpoints. Moreover, it acknowledges that some Christian homeschoolers might hold such views and suggests that they can feel free to teach them.

And that, apparently, is too much for Mr. Ham.

Because the truth is, from everything I have seen, Sonlight nowhere offers opportunities within its curriculum--i.e., from within the books it carries or from its Instructor's Guide notes-- . . . Sonlight nowhere offers opportunities for opponents of the young-earth perspective to speak for themselves. It simply acknowledges that some parents might believe differently and suggests that they can teach as they see fit.

And that is what Ham and people like him disapprove. Sonlight does not come out strongly enough with statements to the effect that views alternative to or opposing a young-earth perspective are clearly "compromising" and "in error."

*****

It strikes me: Ham seems to view himself much like a Pope. He has a lock on the Truth. He speaks definitively and infallibly concerning how the Bible is to be interpreted. Like religious leaders of yesteryear who were willing to burn at the stake those who held differing opinions about baptism; or like those even today who break fellowship over different perspectives on eschatology (pre-, post-, or a-mill; preterist; or whatever), so Mr. Ham seems bent on ensuring his followers remain separated from those with whom he disagrees.

If you agree with Ham about the age of the earth and the basic young-earth viewpoint, that's okay, but not good enough.

If you teach a young-earth viewpoint, that's not good enough, either.

You must never suggest that you "merely" believe in young-earth creationism. You must adamantly assert that young-earth creationism is true: THE truth. Indeed, you will have gone too far over to "the other side" if you even contemplate the idea that those with whom you disagree might have some potentially good reasons to view the Bible from a perspective different from yours, because--so Pope Ham has decreed--anyone who holds a view different from yours (i.e., different from Ham's) is, simply, wrong, "compromising," "in error." End of discussion.

Whew!

Genesis 1: How Should We Interpret It? --Part 5 --An Excursus on Scholarship and Listening to Those With Whom We Disagree

Fifth in a series on In the Beginning . . . We Misunderstood by Johnny V. Miller and John M. Soden. Click here for the first post.

*****

Miller and Soden conclude Chapter 6 of In the Beginning . . . We Misunderstood with the following:

If the original edition of Genesis was presented to Israel after their exodus from Egypt, and if it was written in an early form of the Hebrew language to people who lived hundreds of years in Egyptian culture, then we should expect it to reflect a concept of the universe and a worldview different from ours. We should not assume, without examining the cultural context, that we understand figures of speech or allusions to common motifs, beliefs, and theological positions of their day. (p. 73)

Oh, boy! You know where this is going, don't you?

Miller and Soden are scholars. And when you hear scholars begin to talk about figures of speech, allusions, motifs, and theological positions, you just know they are going to reference some kinds of knowledge they believe they possess and from which they believe you can gain benefit . . . if only you will listen to them.

Genesis 1: How Should We Interpret It? --Part 4

Fourth in a series on In the Beginning . . . We Misunderstood by Johnny V. Miller and John M. Soden. Click here for the first post.

*****

Miller and Soden ask dozens of trenchant questions that they believe might help us carefully come to a conclusion about how we should interpret Genesis 1 and 2. I would like to share just a few of those questions here.

What struck me as I read Chapter 6 in their book: Most of their questions are of a type I have heard no one else ask . . . much less answer.

Take a look:

• Why would God choose to describe the beginning of the earth with these particular features: desolate, and deep, dark, and watery (Gen. 1:2)? Why are they significant?
   
• How do you separate light from darkness? What was the state of things before light and darkness were separated?
   
• Why does Scripture point out that God called the light "day" and the darkness "night”?
   
• Why did God create light before he created the sun, moon, and stars? What does this mean and how can it be?
   
• On the "second day," God separated "the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse" and made the "expanse" to go in between (Gen. 1:7-8). . . . Does this indicate that originally there was extra water somehow stored above the atmosphere in a sort of vapor canopy?
   
• Is Moses giving some information that we need to correlate scientifically?
   
• What does it mean that the waters are gathered into one place? If we look at our globe, how does the water only end up in one place?
   
• Why does Genesis 1 suggest God spoke the animals into existence, but Genesis 2 says he made them from dust?

"On and on the questions go," say Miller and Soden. "Some seem easier and some harder. Some seem picky, while others seem intuitive. But are they either picky or intuitive?”

Implicit answer: No. They're neither picky nor intuitive. But, once raised, they really need to be addressed.

I think Miller and Soden ask these questions partially by way of caution, but also because, by asking these questions, they believe that, in some way, we might be led either away from answers that won't satisfy, or toward answers that will. If theirs were anything like the books I have read in the past, I would have found these questions rather heart-wrenching and hopeless: “Who is sufficient to answer such things?”

But considering that Miller and Soden asked the questions relatively early in their book suggested they might have some insights heretofore overlooked. I harbored a glimmer of hope that maybe, indeed, they would answer them. And, as I have suggested before, I was not disappointed. Not only did they answer these questions, but, to my mind, they answered in a manner that addressed deeper issues that had been bothering me on the edges of my consciousness: issues that no other authors I have read--young- or old-earth, concordant or non-concordant--have addressed.

But we'll begin to talk about those things next time!

Next post in this series.