Friday, March 25, 2011

The Poisonous Attitude of AiG: Nathan Ham Defends His Father

Todd Wood points us to a rebuttal of the Great Homeschool Conventions letter by Nathan Ham in defense of his father, Ken Ham. Great Homeschool Conventions released a response to the attack on their decision by the elder Ham that reads in part:
Dr. Ham was removed for his spirit not for his message. As an invited guest, Dr. Ham’s spirit toward our convention was unkind. Dr. Ham’s spirit toward our attendees was not gracious. Dr. Ham’s spirit toward other speakers was unprofessional. In short, a proud, ungrateful and divisive spirit was projected from Dr. Ham. Regardless of the message, Dr. Ham's approach sullied the atmosphere of the convention.
We know that many of our attendees agree with Dr. Ham’s young earth position as we do. What created this problem was Dr. Ham’s spirit. (emphasis in original)
As has been pointed out in other places, Ken Ham doesn't have a Ph.D. in anything and is self-taught (if one can call it that) with regard to the natural and sciences.

Nathan Ham blasted back:
Some Christians today are like the hippies of 50 years ago who used the word “love” to justify their fornications and sins against the word of God. The hippie culture is often pictured as a group of drug-addicted, fornicating drunks whose catchphrase “make love, not war” gave their movement a false sense of piety. But to those who know a handful of Bible verses taught to Sunday school children, their sins are as grievous as the war crimes they claimed to oppose. Just the same, these Christians like to justify their disobedience to the Bible by saying “we are supposed to love each other”. Oh, but aren't these hippie Christians godly? (I am speaking sarcastically). I mean, they actually quote John 13:35. Please note: their judgment is coming according to Proverbs 1:26.
Todd Wood’s take on this is somewhat understated:
I understand his point about love being used as an excuse to tolerate error (and I sympathize), but does Nathan's post seem just a bit over the top to anyone else?
Nathan Ham's response isn't just over the top, it is offensive. It equates anyone who does not hew to the Young earth message with empty-headed hippies and states that anyone with this view is going to hell. This is arrogance of the highest order and should be condemned within Christian circles. No wonder these people were disinvited. He talks about harming the body of Christ. How are his words edifying? How do they build up the body of Christ. One of the tenets of the Homeschooling message should be familiar to all Christians:
One of the core values of our convention is that good people can disagree and still be good people.
Not to Ken and Nathan Ham. To them, there is only one way to think about these things and if you don't accept that way, be damned! While I have never had much respect for Ken Ham or his endeavors, it is hard not to feel antipathy at this point and an earnest hope that others will have their hearts and minds made aware of this poisonous attitude and how badly it reflects on Christians and Christianity.


  1. WebMonk11:09 PM

    It's worse than you think. Ham and Son Inc. aren't merely calling people idolatrous, fornicating, free-love hippies for not believing the YEC interpretation of the Bible, but they are calling them that because they aren't having AiG give the talk at the conference!!!

    The conference replaced Ham with Safarti, a person who is just as fervently YEC as Ham.

    So, according to Ham et al, to avoid being a fornicating, idolatrous, free-love, Bible-rejecting hippie, you not only have to be a YEC, but you need to be an AiG organization YEC!

    Yup, that's right. Merely being YEC isn't enough, you have to be AIG YEC! Otherwise you're no better than Safarti - an idolatrous, fornicating, etc, etc, etc.

    AiG has been a notch above Disney lawyers until now. I think they've just managed to sink to levels of scum that is below even Disney lawyers.

  2. I really wish Christians knew more about the leaders of the movements they follow. Rob Bell sparks hatred for asking if God maybe has more love and grace than we are willing to concede, yet Ken Ham's vitriole is somehow hidden from the eyes of the church. It simply makes no sense to me.

  3. Anonymous4:25 PM

    Huh. Waaay back when I was in high school, Ken Hamm came to my (very large) church to speak on creationism. He brought his kids, and I was tasked with watching over one of his sons for a couple hours (though I'm not sure it was Nathan). At the time he struck me as pretty shy and meek. Time does things to a man, I suppose.

  4. Yes, AiG is drifting into RIAA and Right Haven territory.

  5. Anonymous, you are right. Ken Ham did not get this pompous and unbearable overnight. It started ramping up when AiG became a multimillion dollar multimedia industry. Then the self-importance asserted itself.

  6. Matthew, Karl Giberson and others (Webmonk comes to mind) have pointed out to no avail that the modern-day flood geological movement has its basis in the visions of Seventh-Day Adventist “prophetess” Ellen G. White. By the end of the 19th century, among professional and lay geologists, flood geology was a dead issue. I doubt many evangelical Christians know this.

  7. "Ham and son" - won't that be Ham and Hamlet? :)

    Jokes aside, I think there is a direct correlation between decibel and vitriol level, and how far the individual has moved on the following trajectory:

    Issue - Cause - Ministry - Culture War.

    I'm also sure you can find some correlation with the amount of $$ involved.

    Yes, I'm cynical. This has nothing to do with honest debate or even honest concern anymore.

  8. "Ham and Hamlet" That's really funny. Thanks. Still laughing.

  9. Anonymous12:05 PM

    Nathan Ham was the pastor of my church up until about two months ago, he came storming in fired up and ready to go teach the word of god. That last all of the first Sunday. Within two months he returned from his vacation (Paid for by the church) and informed us that he would be leaving to follow god's plans for him.