I have some good friends who have at various times recommended to me that I some day pay a visit to the Creation Museum, developed somewhere in Kentucky by creation scientist Ken Ham.
I’ll most likely take a pass, thanks.
Look, I appreciate Ken Ham’s commitment to Christ, his great learning, his attempt in the Creation Museum to deliver a cogent apologetic for his viewpoint on creation. He is an intelligent man and a committed Christian. And his particular take on creation may be correct.
But it may not be. Truth be told, I rather suspect it is not, but I candidly and freely admit my ignorance here—which is why I doubt I will ever visit the museum. I realize that statement needs some ‘splainin’. I consider myself a “creation agnostic”, meaning, quite simply, that while I am completely committed to the Bible’s position—“in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth”—I really don’t know exactly how. And here is a news flash for you: neither do you. Further revelation: neither does Ken Ham. Nor does Hugh Ross. What we have is the sure word of God, which tells us that in some way, over a time span of six periods which are described bt the Hebrew word “yom”, God created the universe and everything in it. That is what the Bible says, and that is good enough for me.
Unfortunately, that is not enough for some folks, notably Ken Ham. And that is why I doubt I will ever visit the museum.
I’ll elaborate in a moment, but first let me tell you what I am not saying. I am by no means arguing against scientific advancement. I am by no means arguing against the development and refinement of theories of creation. I am in no way arguing against Ken Ham’s appropriate prerogative to advance his researched arguments. These are all good, and I applaud them, as well as, to name one other individual, the work of Hugh Ross to demonstrate a significantly different model of God’s creation. In other words, have at it, boys!
What I do object to, and very strongly, is the use of a specific understanding of creation as a point of orthodoxy. I object very strongly to the wielding of one particular viewpoint as a club with which to bash other sincere believers as something less than faithful followers of Jesus. Suffice it to say that in the times I have heard Mr. Ham speak, he has come across in just this manner, raising his understanding of creation to such a point of orthodoxy that to disagree with his particular take is to, at the very least, call one’s commitment to Christ into question. Given the Bible’s strong words against sowing discord among the brethren, I find Ken Ham to be just such an agent, and it turns me off.
Look, I understand the critical nature of contending earnestly for the faith once delivered: I get it, and I think any semi-regular reader of this blog would concur. But I have little use for needless rancor, and I have little use for dividing the brethren over matters that even a modicum of humility ought to cause honest believers to admit, “Your ways, o God, are higher than ours.”
So by all means, do your research, write your books, argue your points, build your museums. Bring all of your understanding on the subject to bear. Though I am a “creation agnostic”, I am not unpersuadable, and perhaps I could be won over to your viewpoint. But other sincere Christians are not the enemy, regardless of your distaste for their viewpoints. We live in a world increasingly hostile to Bible truth, in which a percentage of people beleve the preposterous notion that the universe came into being without a Creator. And in that context, intramural squabbles conducted without Christian grace have no place.
And that, friends, is why I doubt I will ever visit the Creation Museum.