It will seem uncharitable to some, but I think this is significant.
Said those retracting the invitations,
"Our expression of sacrifice and extraordinary kindness towards Ken and AIG has been returned to us and our attendees with Ken publicly attacking our conventions and other speakers," Dean wrote. "Our Board believes Ken's comments to be unnecessary, ungodly, and mean-spirited statements that are divisive at best and defamatory at worst."
Dogmatism is the comfortable intellectual framework of self-righteousness. Self-righteousness is more decadent than the worst sexual sin. ~ Dan Allender
"We believe Christian scholars should be heard without the fear of ostracism or ad hominem attacks."
Unfortunately, this seems to be modus operandi of Ken Ham and AIG. Fortunately, we have someone making people aware of it.
John 5:24 24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow
St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
"Here is just one of many examples of Peter Enns rejecting the plain teaching of the Bible and undermining God's Word—he totally rejects a worldwide Flood,"
This is what Ham is purported to have said. He's obviously being disingenuous since there are valid arguments for both a local and a global flood. But this is the Ken Ham we all know and skake our heads at. His arrogance and ignorance are affirmed when we observe how obviously swivel-eyed Ham is in his thinking. However, this is Ken Ham, and anyone who doesn't already know what to expect from this man must have been living on a deserted island for the last few years. The article even quotes somebody from Ham's camp saying that they had been clear about how, and I'm paraphrasing slightly, they would not shy away from being fully honest. I say more fool those who expect decorum and balance from this man.
I'm just glad other YEC proponents and advocates are seeing the lack of love. In the end, that is as serious a heresy as anything he believes or accuses others of being wrong about. These are his "own people" so to speak finally recognizing what many others have stated and observed.
Dogmatism is the comfortable intellectual framework of self-righteousness. Self-righteousness is more decadent than the worst sexual sin. ~ Dan Allender
Canuckster1127 wrote:I'm just glad other YEC proponents and advocates are seeing the lack of love. In the end, that is as serious a heresy as anything he believes or accuses others of being wrong about. These are his "own people" so to speak finally recognizing what many others have stated and observed.
What about 'turning the other cheek' ? Should we 'take vengence' or 'seek justice in some way' on someone who treats us wrongly or should we leave this for God to deal with ?
I'm throwing this question into this thread as I have something similar I am going through at church. Some folks are acting in a way that it is doubtful that God would give approval. A bad example is being set that is quite obvious to many. But I myself probably act in ways that these folk would not think God would approve also. Then I think about God's grace which gives me what I don't deserve. When I deserve to be penalized, God gives me mercy. Are we not to give grace to one another as it is given to us ? I don't think I should be having any ill feelings towards another Christian over how they conduct themselves as a believer and/or what they believe. God will correct things in His way and in His time. Yes/No ?
We had a message regarding God's grace towards us last Sunday and it has got me doing some soul searching. How do I maintain love for Ken and others who might slander me and yet not be supportive of their behaviour and/or beliefs ?
We forgive and we leave such a one to God. Evangelicals are sometimes manipulated by those who are abusive in this manner. Shame and guilt are heaped upon those who dare to speak up and call it what it is. We're called unloving and unforgiving. It's the same sort of dance that takes place with alcoholics and addicts who are never responsible for their actions. It's always others who cause them to behave the way they do and if we would just do what they want us to, we'd all be better off.
Ken Ham has now alienated and driven from himself not only those who love Christ but disagree with him on the important issue of how God created the world. He's driven his own organization from him in Australia and been cast off. He's now alienated those who agree with him but are embarrassed at the way he's abused their invitation and attacked people who he was called to share a platform with.
I don't spend nights up worrying about Ken Ham, believe me. I don't much talk about him anymore unless it's to respond a specific charge or diatribe from him directed at OEC believers. As Jlay on another thread noted, he's far from the whole of YEC. It would not be fair to set him up as a strawman for YEC and then knock him down, any more than what he does to others is fair. I have to believe that he is sincere in his beliefs. He just doesn't, in my opinion, know how to disagree gracefully and keep issues in their proper balance.
I don't know Ken Ham personally. I don't have the responsibility or the opportunity to deal with him in the manner that someone close to him would. He's a public person, teaching publically and while I should be gracious toward him personally, I'm not obligated to treat his teaching or his public behavior with the same grace that I would him personally if I were in the context of such a relationship. I have to remind myself that grace toward him is to give him the benefit of the doubt with regard to his personal motives. That doesn't mean I sanction his behavior. That doesn't mean I'm obliged to remain silent when he's rude. That doesn't mean I'm not to point out where I believe his teaching and exclusion of others from his apparent understanding of who is part of the body of Christ is dishonoring to others and to Christ.
I personally don't blame the homeschooling group at all for their decision or announcement. It's probably long overdue. Peter Enns, even if he is disagreed with by Ham, deserves at least common courtesy and respect as a fellow speaker and materials provider to home schoolers. Ham couldn't manage it. There are others who can easily provide his message without his rudeness. Safarti is a good choice in that regard.
Those who are slandered by Ham (and I'm part of a group and an OEC certainly) must forgive for our own benefit. We only become what we object to, when we adopt the same tone and tactics. That doesn't mean we can't draw attention to the issue and address it. We leave the final judgment in God's hands however and Ken will ultimately give an account for his behavior to one who is more than equal to his bluster and disdain and I hope for Ken's sake he's as right about everything as he thinks he is.
Dogmatism is the comfortable intellectual framework of self-righteousness. Self-righteousness is more decadent than the worst sexual sin. ~ Dan Allender
There are others who can easily provide his message without his rudeness. Safarti is a good choice in that regard.
Are you sure about Jonathan Safarti, Bart? I did some searching, and found that Safarti echoes some of the same rhetoric that Ham is accused of. At least in what Safarti has written. Look at the following about Safarti's book about refuting Hugh Ross' "compromise":
Something more must be said about why the approach in this book is necessary. In one sense, this is written with a heavy heart, and with the overriding emphasis that our intention is not personal attack. Our mandate is to defend the faith and the authority of scripture. We have long believed that (and explained why) one of the most dangerous attacks on biblical authority in evangelical circles today is not evolution but ‘progressive creationism,’ and we aim to prove this conclusively in this book. This widespread compromise with the plain words of scripture is capable of immense harm, precisely because it is proclaimed as being done in the name of upholding scripture. The issue is so vital, as it involves the way we handle the very Word of God. Hopefully, the reader will see why this is no mere ‘side issue’ or an example of a ‘critical spirit’ toward someone who just happens to have a different (by implication legitimate) exegetical view. We need to be like the Bereans, commended by Paul in Acts 17:11, checking the scriptures about all such matters.
John 5:24 24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow
St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
However, because Dr Ross has made such fallacious and Bible-undermining arguments in public, our response must also be public
John 5:24 24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow
St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
I'm looking at it from their point of view not mine. Safarti gives pretty much the same message but he is more tactful than Ham. I don't object to those who believe that Biblical integrety is only defensible with a YEC perspective. I disagree with the position, but I understand that someone can hold that position for honorable reasons. Ham appears unable to separate the position from the person. He appears to believe that attacking the person is justified by the fact he disagrees with them and believes their position threatens God in some way.
I think people who believe it is their responsibility to defend God in this manner to this degree serve a pretty small God in their minds.
Dogmatism is the comfortable intellectual framework of self-righteousness. Self-righteousness is more decadent than the worst sexual sin. ~ Dan Allender
I say the same thing with regard to Ham and Safarti. Their public people making public statements. It's entirely appropriate and fair game to address issues like this in public. The line is where you justify public attack of the person and seek to silence them as opposed to addressing what they say.
I suspect Ken Ham, given the power would exercise it to shut people up. That's what his actions toward Peter Enns say to me. Despite the fact that the platform was not his, and he was invited to be a part of a larger presentation, he chose to use his platform to attack his fellow speaker and conference participant and in so doing to force the sponsors to silence Enns and he also sought to use his influence to directly damage Enns' materials from being bought.
Principled disagreement is one thing when it's addressed to the issues. When it's aimed at the person and the person effectively is declared evil or objectified in some way so as not to even merit common courtesy, that's another matter.
Ham's tactics and rhetoric mirror what I hear from my ancestral homeland in Northern Ireland. I think those approaches would align with him very well, from either side.
Dogmatism is the comfortable intellectual framework of self-righteousness. Self-righteousness is more decadent than the worst sexual sin. ~ Dan Allender
This topic is much like the one on the nature of hell. I think B.W., myself and some others crossed the line on 'rudeness' for the same reasons that this post used -
Something more must be said about why the approach in this book is necessary. In one sense, this is written with a heavy heart, and with the overriding emphasis that our intention is not personal attack. Our mandate is to defend the faith and the authority of scripture. We have long believed that (and explained why) one of the most dangerous attacks on biblical authority in evangelical circles today is not evolution but ‘progressive creationism,’ and we aim to prove this conclusively in this book. This widespread compromise with the plain words of scripture is capable of immense harm, precisely because it is proclaimed as being done in the name of upholding scripture. The issue is so vital, as it involves the way we handle the very Word of God. Hopefully, the reader will see why this is no mere ‘side issue’ or an example of a ‘critical spirit’ toward someone who just happens to have a different (by implication legitimate) exegetical view. We need to be like the Bereans, commended by Paul in Acts 17:11, checking the scriptures about all such matters.
Defending our version of what the scriptures say as 'the truth and nothing but the truth'. To think differently is dangerous and/or unbiblical.
But then again I think 'rudeness' is in the eye of the beholder (or ear of the listener). Some of us are more 'thin skinned' than others. And I believe when it comes down to it, being offended is a choice we make. We don't have to be governed by our feelings. Often, I think, our responses to offense are very ego sourced. Anyway, I ramble on.
I think it's unfortunate that the word heresy is just thrown around as if it is just a matter of being "right" or being "wrong".
Orthodoxy includes orthopraxy.
I Cor 13 makes it clear that truth without love is of no value. And yet, debates just focus upon the logic and systematics of doctrinal positions. I think it's as legitimate to look at the manner in which those arguing for positions treat others who disagree with them. Do they show love? Are they gracious? Do they demonstrate the value of the other person or people to God or do they see them as necessary collateral damage to trample over in their crusade to show the rightness of their thinking? The commands of Christ reduce to 2, both of which are expressed in terms of Love. Love can be tough, love isn't always nice, but that in no way justifies the ugliness that comes from some in this regard.
It seems the more a position requires inference and interpretation, the more identified people get with their "babies" and they become willing to attack those who lack the intelligence to agree with them. We're all prone to it. I know I cross the lines at times and I need to pull myself back or listen to others if they send me signals that I'm there. At the risk of seeming judhmental, I think Ham has a long history of these types of actions and conflicts not just from those who disagree with him, but now even from some who agree with him but who are just tired of the abusive behavior. What is more, now that he's been confronted by it, he's doning the hair-shirt and rallying support and seeking to damage professionally and organizationally who dared to call him on the behavior.
I pray he'll listen and be restored even in the context of groups I'm not identified with. If history is any indicatore though, he'll up the ante and use his websites and organizations to attack those who dare to call him on these elements.
Dogmatism is the comfortable intellectual framework of self-righteousness. Self-righteousness is more decadent than the worst sexual sin. ~ Dan Allender
I Cor 13 makes it clear that truth without love is of no value. And yet, debates just focus upon the logic and systematics of doctrinal positions. I think it's as legitimate to look at the manner in which those arguing for positions treat others who disagree with them. Do they show love? Are they gracious? Do they demonstrate the value of the other person or people to God or do they see them as necessary collateral damage to trample over in their crusade to show the rightness of their thinking? The commands of Christ reduce to 2, both of which are expressed in terms of Love. Love can be tough, love isn't always nice, but that in no way justifies the ugliness that comes from some in this regard.
It seems the more a position requires inference and interpretation, the more identified people get with their "babies" and they become willing to attack those who lack the intelligence to agree with them. We're all prone to it.
Amen. Good reminder ! 'Orthodoxy includes orthopraxy'.
Good find, Bart.