A Brief Word on Ken Ham, Stand To Reason, and the OEC/YEC Debate

In the current intellectual state of the church, we tend to shy away from debates on difficult subjects. Debates on Calvinism/Arminianism, debates on ECT/Annihilation views of hell, debates on interpreting Revelation; the church currently has a disturbingly low tolerance level to difficult conversations. The reasons for wanting to avoid difficult talks on these subjects are numerous, and if we were honest, we would say that we just don't want to have conflict, even if it is constructive. There are times, however, when we avoid difficult talks because the people participating in the talks make the dialog utterly unhelpful to the larger picture.

Recently, a proponent of the YEC view of creation, Ken Ham, wrote this little piece about compromise in the church in it's stance on the age of the earth debate. Before you read any further, I suggest you read Ken's post here.

Read it? Good. I should state for the record, I am agnostic on the OEC/YEC debate and I do not argue for either side. Now, here are some things I would like to point out:

1. For one thing, targeting Stand to Reason in the way Ham has done will get me rilled up. Stand to Reason and it's ministry has been such a blessing to my life and the lives of many other people I know. Greg Koukl is one of two apologists who are huge influences in my life, and I have used his evangelistic methods in Tactics many times to have conversations with people that have been extremely rewarding. To suggest - as Ham does - that Stand to Reason's ministry is "compromised" because Koukl and others on his team are OEC adherants is completely unjustified.  Ken needs to remember that the goal of a Christian is to make disciples, which entails a range of far more important issues that are completely separated from the age of the earth debate, such as sanctification, prayer, worship, evangelism, ect. Apparently Ken is willing to throw Stand to Reason as a whole under the bus because of one standpoint that somehow compromises the rest of those more immediate concerns of making disciples - which Stand to Reason speaks to much more often than the OEC/YEC debate.
2. We are losing two third of the generations of our church, he is correct on that. But is it possible that we are losing so many Christians because of the kind of stances and attitudes taken by Ken? Where in the Bible does it say that the age of the earth debate is a matter that should separate brothers and sisters from the task at hand? It fascinates me that in his letter despite his disagreement with Stand to Reason on this one matter he offers nothing- nothing! - in appreciation for the work Stand to Reason does in equipping Christians to defend their faith on other matters. This kind of behavior is what is really causing the generational loss - glorifying a secondary issue of Christianity to the litmus test for how one holds the authority of the Bible. It's ironic how Ken writes about interpreting things through faulty perspectives when it seems that Ken interprets the work of a Christian ministry as a whole through the lens of it's stance on the age of the earth debate.

In all honesty, I don't care how old the earth is. Christianity and the Gospel does not hinge on the age of the earth. The OEC/YEC debate is important, to be sure, but the debate that continues to rage between OEC and YEC Christians must submit itself to Christ's call to make disciples and advance the kingdom of Christ into the world. Ken does the opposite - the call to make disciples and advance the Kingdom, a call that has been heard for two thousand years and answered by countless people who have given their lives to fulfill it,  must submit itself to one side of a contemporary scientific debate.