Ken Ham Kicked Out of Homeschool Shows
The below info was Taken from http://www.onenewsnow.com/Education/Default.aspx?id=1318258
The founder of the apologetics ministry Answers in Genesis has been kicked out of two home-school conferences.
In an email to Dr. Ken Ham, organizers of Great Homeschool Conventions uninvited the Creation Museum founder from speaking at two upcoming conventions and any other conventions in the future. They claim Ham made "ungodly" and "mean-spirited" statements about the convention and other speakers, continuing on to say: "We believe that what Ken has said and done is un-Christian and sinful."
"...Dr. Ham's public criticism of the convention itself and other speakers at our convention require him to surrender the spiritual privilege of addressing our homeschool audience," says a statement from the group's advisory board.
Ham declined to speak with OneNewsNow on the matter. However, the Answers in Genesis website claims the disagreement centers around Dr. Peter Enns of the BioLogos Foundation. The website explains that Ham wrote Facebook and blog items expressing concerns that Enns does not believe sin should be discussed with young children because it will cause problems with their view of God -- and he does not believe in a literal Adam and a literal Fall.
"...What [Enns] teaches about Genesis is not just compromising Genesis with evolution," Ham wrote in a recent blog, "it is outright liberal theology that totally undermines the authority of the Word of God." On the same blog page, Ham added: "Someone needs to stand against the compromise that is pouring into the church from many directions."
The statement from Great Homeschool Conventions' advisory board says Ham was removed from its gatherings not for his message, but "for his spirit" -- which the group says "sullied the atmosphere of the convention."
"In short," reads the statement, "a proud, ungrateful, and divisive spirit was projected from Dr. Ham."
The Answers in Genesis website goes on to say "Ken could not in good conscience speak without warning people about him [Enns]."
What's your reaction to the home-schooling group's decision to disinvite Ken Ham?
Tags: Answers, Enns, Genesis, Ham, Ken, biblical, convention, homeschool, speaker, worldview
Views: 65
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Jeff Brace on -
Biblically, we are to privately take a brother or sister aside and point out a sin. Then publically before the church. Then and only then they should be removed. There seems to always be two sides to every story. I tend to believe Ken Ham in this matter. But we can all make mistakes and hurt others with what we say. This definitely should have been a private matter dealt with in a personal way, not an email.
-
Permalink Reply by David Thomas Posey on -
I side with Ken Ham. It is true that a person should take a broter aside privately, but remember when Paul confronted Peter. Public wrongs, I believe, deserve public rebuke.
-
Permalink Reply by Brian Guiley on -
For those interested, ICR stands with Ken - they posted an article on their site as well.
-
Permalink Reply by Rich Wendling on -
I agree with David - Public sin requires public rebuke. Dr. Enns publicly teaches heresy, and therefore should be publicly rebuked.
-
Permalink Reply by Quin Friberg on -
Do you have the link for the ICR article?
-
Permalink Reply by Mary Catherine Clark on -
Keep in mind, that in our current culture and means of communication, public rebuke is not just laid out before the church but also the rest of the population. I believe such "public rebukes" are hurting our church more than helping it, feeding this stereotype of Christians who are constantly arguing.
-
Permalink Reply by Michelle Studer on
-
I think that the truth always needs to prevail. I stumbled upon the Biologos Foundation website today and was upset by the naturalistic content. I wrote to them that it seems that they are more interested in disproving Creationists and Genesis one than disproving atheists. They are ignoring so many facts. I think that if these conventions ban Ken Ham, they are stepping into darkness and trying to compromise. People need to know about heresy. If Hank Hanegraaf can, on international radio, blast someone like Rob Bell because Rob Bell is teaching a dangerous heresy, I thinkg that Ken Ham should be able to speak against the members of the Biologos Foundation. If the heresies are public, then should the rebukes also be.
-
Permalink Reply by Mary Catherine Clark on
-
I would not go so far as to say the Biologos Foundation teaches heresy, as it is possible for a genuine Christian to believe in evolution. I can honestly say I know more people brought into the church through efforts like theirs (demonstrating how science and faith can be reconciled) than through creation science argumentation. I also know a number of people who have left the church after being convinced of evolution, not because they wanted to, but because they did not know the two views can be reconciled since their church backgrounds always equated evolution with atheism. I don't think Biologos is aiming to convince people of evolution, but helping those who already believe it understand how it fits with Christian theology, as C.S. Lewis described the Problem of Pain, chapter 3.
-
Permalink Reply by Jeff Brace on
-
This really bothers me. What do you think Jesus says when people reject Him as being the Creator? Do you really think He says "that OK?" I am not interested in a rebuttal. Just chew on that for awhile OK.
-
Permalink Reply by David Thomas Posey on
-
Very thought-provoking. Here is one thoing I would note: you speak of people being brought into or leaving the church due to the way the church handles evolution. Is our ultimate goal to bring everyone into the church, or is it to reach everyone with the truth? If we corrupt the truth with lies, and teach men so, what does Scripture say about this? God wants people who believe Him and His Word; He has no need of mere church-goers.
If misguided messengers are truly having more good effects than Biblical creationists, that is very sad to me. It is a sign that we must be more diligent for God.
By the way, thanks for reminding us in your earlier post that the world is always watching for an excuse to criticize us. We must be careful to keep all of our communication upright, just, and above all loving. Does this mean the world should not see us disagreeing? Christ rebuked publically, because it is better to be criticized for something we should do than to avoid criticism by shirking our responsibilities.
Mary Catherine Clark said:I would not go so far as to say the Biologos Foundation teaches heresy, as it is possible for a genuine Christian to believe in evolution. I can honestly say I know more people brought into the church through efforts like theirs (demonstrating how science and faith can be reconciled) than through creation science argumentation. I also know a number of people who have left the church after being convinced of evolution, not because they wanted to, but because they did not know the two views can be reconciled since their church backgrounds always equated evolution with atheism. I don't think Biologos is aiming to convince people of evolution, but helping those who already believe it understand how it fits with Christian theology, as C.S. Lewis described the Problem of Pain, chapter 3.
-
Permalink Reply by Mary Catherine Clark on
-
Jeff, I certainly understand your concern, and I've been there personally. I did take a few minutes to chew on it as you said none-the-less. Those of the Biologos foundation still consider Him to be the Creator, but they do have a different view of how He created. They're not "rejecting" anything.
Jeff Brace said:
This really bothers me. What do you think Jesus says when people reject Him as being the Creator? Do you really think He says "that OK?" I am not interested in a rebuttal. Just chew on that for awhile OK.
-
Permalink Reply by Mary Catherine Clark on
-
David, thank you for your very thoughtful answer, and I would certainly agree that reaching people with truth is far more our ultimate goal than is having people involved with the church (please don't confuse me with a shallow seeker-sensitive radical). I suppose my main point would be that the truth we should be trying to reach people with is the Gospel of Christ Jesus and the redemptive power of the cross and resurrection. When we bring up issues like this, to most of the world it is more of a turn-off than an invitation. Hope that clarifies my purpose.
Resources
© 2012 Created by Creation Conversations.
Powered by
