I am sad that Ken Ham has responded so poorly to what he feels was a personal insult. In Paragraphs 1-2 of the first major section, Ham accuses Gungor of misrepresenting him, and misses the irony that he has misrepresented Michael Gungor. MG is making the valid point that 1) the progress of science has indeed influenced the churchs interpretation (i.e. Galileo), and 2) one must have proper presuppositions in order to correctly read the text. KH presents the statement as if MG was making a rather simple statement of mockery. In Paragraph 3 KH calls MG and his wife to the carpet for speaking as experts in an area (specifically, inerrancy) where they have no formal training. KH should tread softly here, in as much as he is similarly unqualified academically. As to whether MG and his wife have thought through the issue of inerrancy, neither I nor KH could speak to that, I imagine. Later on, KH makes an appeal to authority to back his claim, but MG could do the same. So KH is left to make an appeal to adopting a proper worldview, which will get him into trouble later on. In Paragraph 4, KH quotes MG and annotates the quote as using a mocking tone. You can read MG and decide for yourself whether it is mocking. I am interested in this Paragraph 5 statement of KHs: So in other words, man’s autonomous reasoning and what Gungor calls science supposedly mean we can’t take the account of the Flood in Genesis as a historical record. That, to me, sounds like it might meet the same qualifications of mockery or even exceed them of which KH accuses MG. Introducing the word autonomous is an illegitimate logical technique called poisoning the well. Now, you are either for KH or you are for Godless thinking. Hes presupposed what he is trying to prove. In fact, he says as much at the end of the paragraph. He puts words in MGs mouth, words which say that we cant take Genesis as written. But, of course, MG thinks he IS taking Genesis as written, and that it is written as myth. In Paragraph 1 of the second major section, KH now labels MGs post as a rant. Again, poisoning the well. He then presents some reasoning to refute MGs rant. But, his problems emerge here to bite him. First, if he is not qualified in a hard science--as he demanded of MG, how can he speak to the subject? Second, he again misrepresents MG, saying in Paragraph 2 Of course, all of this is written to misrepresent and make fun of those Christians who hold to a literal Genesis. In context, MG may well have simply been trying to establish implausibility while granting possibility with a concrete example. KH needs to take MGs text at face value, which is exactly what he wants MG to do with the Biblical text! Third, and heres what I feel is crux for KH, on what basis is he bringing a charge against MGs worldview? How can he decide which worldview is right? By reading the text of Scripture? But if the text is read THROUGH ones worldview, then how can you see anything in it that contradicts the glasses through which you looked at it? In the third major section, KH sticks to what he does best, presents a broad apologetic for young earth creationism. I respect that. But in paragraph 5, he again brings in his presuppositional approach to world views. He says that evolution and creation are worldview based and cannot be proven. Why, then, is he writing this article? Does he think people can see his position through his worldview and subsequently jettison that worldview and adopt his? Of course, people do jettison their worldview and adopt another one, but in light of this article, it does not seem like KH can account for how that happens! In paragraph 6, he quotes MG again as saying that no theologian would demand a literal reading of Genesis 6ff in order to be orthodox. In credal Christianity, this is simply true, and even though KH can line up theologians who, like me, think Genesis 6 and following is literal, I dont think any would hold it as a test for orthodoxy. The fourth major section sees KH making the claim that if Genesis is myth, then the gospel is myth. This, it seems, would demand KH to make a clear presentation of what the gospel is. He does not. He says that Genesis 3:15 is the first presentation of the gospel, but takes that to infer that what is fundamentally the gospel in the Scriptures is myth if Genesis is myth. This must be proven, not merely asserted. In the final paragraph, KH encourages churches to back out of or to cancel concerts by Gungor given MGs stance on Genesis. He goes on to characterize MGs tone as arrogant and angry, to call for the church militant to demand an apology from Gungor, and to characterize MGs view as clearly anti-biblical. I would invite you to read MGs post and come to your own conclusion as to his tone. I would think the church militant need not demand an apology. And I would hope that KH could refrain from calling something clearly anti-biblical when he has just paragraphs earlier called the issue a worldview issue. For if it is indeed a worldview issue, then MG could not have possibly seen the clarity of the text through his evolutionist worldview, thus, it would not be clear for him. In order for KH to make such a strong statement concerning the text, he must needs make clear how one can change world views. If it is by reading the text, then his argument is circular. This response to Ken Ham is meant almost entirely for myself, and I anticipate very few people to read it. But I was upset that AiG, with whom I agree almost point for point in interpreting Genesis, would throw Gungor under the bus. Yes, I think Gungor made illicit inferences from the history of interpretation, but I think that Ham and AiG are also making illicit inferences. Yes, I think that Gungor is ill-informed to make sweeping origins claims, but I think that Ham and AiG are similarly ill-informed to be making sweeping philosophical claims.
Posted on: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 00:54:56 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015