Ken Ham’s Ark: Evangelical Outreach or Hammy Recreation?

Standard

“You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.” (Matthew 5:13)

Question: How to know the salt of a religion has lost its savor?

Answer: Religiously themed amusement parks that seem to be more about preserving pet dogmas (or boosting the ego of a charismatic personality who built them) than the actual Gospel preached by Jesus and lived out by the early church.

Encounters of the wrong kind send the wrong message.

An article on televangelist Jim Bakker’s abandoned ‘Christian’ amusement park prompted my reflection above.  However, my mind soon went to another attraction now available to consumer Christianity, that being Ken Ham’s latest creation enterprise in Kentucky, the Ark Encounter.

Anyhow, other than the name reminding me of the Turkey Hill Experience (an actual attraction located in Columbia, PA) I’ve encountered some other thoughts about the 100 million dollar project: I’m not sure this edifice Ham boasts may be “one of the greatest Christian evangelistic outreaches of our day” will live up to the hype.

This tourist trap of mammoth proportions might end up more like Bakker’s now derelict ‘evangelical’ pleasure mecca.  It actually seems more like a dead end of fundamentalist dogma than it does a truly faithful living witness of Christian love.

And, at 40 dollars a pop to enter, it is evident that our modern expressions of grace are not cheap—we might have already encountered a bit of a messaging problem.

Finding answers in Jesus, not Genesis.

Yes, the Ark Encounter and other expressions of faith, like charitable giving, are not necessarily mutually exclusive.  But I see only one of the two endorsed by Jesus as an outreach and it is not the Genesis themed recreational Biblical tourism kingdom of Ham.

Perhaps, instead of creating hundred million dollar gimmicks, that may be as likely to win as many converts outside of blood relatives as Noah’s original did, we should be focusing our kingdom building efforts elsewhere?  Could we do more to provide substantive help to those around us in need?

The problem with the modern ‘scientific’ attempts to bolster Biblical claims is that they often aren’t all that scientific nor do they well reflect the faith of Scriptural example.  The Gospel of Jesus never needed to evolve or be adapted for our time.  No, our time needs to adapted to actual life of spiritual reality that was once found in the early church:

“All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.” (Acts 4:32-35)

The truth of our faith is the truth that we live.  That is our strongest argument and apologetic.  Jesus never said we should try to prove the historical accuracy of Biblical narratives as a means to covert others to faith or convince ourselves.  Jesus said to live we he taught and then the Spirit would reveal itself in and through us.

There is no need of an edifice built of wood as an evangelical tool to share true faith.  What there is need of is a body of believers who acts in unison as the hands and feet of Jesus.  A church that literally feeds the hungry, clothes the naked, shelters the homeless, meets the practical needs of their own communities and leads in genuine love:

“If you love me, keep my commands.  And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever—the Spirit of truth. […] The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show myself to them.” (John 14:15-21)

The truth of our love for God (expressed in our obedience to love other people as Christ commanded) will reveal the truth of God to us and the world.  It is really that simple.

Either Jesus is the answer or He is not.

I recall my own hope based in apologetics and my taught mistrust of mainstream science.  I remember my own hopeful glances over at the secular neighbors, who attended an Evolution versus Creationism debate with my family, and at the time not realizing then that my own confirmation bias shaded glasses were as blinding as theirs.

It was a well-meaning yet misguided effort.  My trying to prove Christianity through study of history and using theories (often more flimsy and unscientific than the ones they mocked) only left me thirsty for truth.  My religious indoctrination actually caused me to doubt.  The deeper I got into the available evidence the less I believed anything.

It was only through an encounter with Jesus that I realized the error in my ways.  It was when I stopped resting in my own knowledge and started to live more obediently to the simple unadulterated teachings of Jesus.  It has been a transformative spiritual experience that cannot be duplicated through intellectual, artificial or forced means.

If you want to encourage faith be faithful.

Save what you would spend on Ark Encounter, find someone in your own community with a need (perhaps a single mother or elderly person) and fill it—that will do more for the faith of your family than feeding Ham’s Answers in Genesis empire.

If you wish to encourage your children in faith, show them how to be salt and meet the needs of their neighbors in Christian love.  That is the obedience to the law of Christ that will show them real truth and bolster your own faith.

If you have not encountered any real needs around you, then I pray you have an encounter with the Spirit of God and your eyes opened.

Don’t be yesterday’s news, be today’s salt.

Advertisements

Politics, Religion and (Media) Bias

Standard

Here I go again talking about politics and religion.  Well, truthfully, this post is more about ideas, inquisition, how stories are presented by the media and alleged bias.

It seems everyone complains about media bias.  There is endless controversy over what stories get covered, how they are covered and why, with charges of favoritism from all sides.

I suppose I am just another voice adding fuel to that fire.  But hopefully I add a bit of helpful reason and rational to the discussion rather than just one more partisan crying foul only when his own side is (in his own mind) treated unfairly.

Two things got me thinking about media bias.  The first a couple cartoons and social media comments about the shootings in Chapel Hill that allege it was not being covered adequately.  The second the off-topic questioning of an American politician and the way it was presented.

Ho-hum, no story here…

I first heard about the three students killed in North Carolina the morning after (as evidenced by my blog post yesterday) and on the CNN website via my smart phone.  The shooting took place “just after 5 p.m. on February 10” and, according to the New York Times, it was early the next day before specific information was available about the shootings:

“In fact, the police did not release the names of the victims or the accused until after 2 a.m. Wednesday; Mr. Hicks turned himself in to sheriff’s deputies in Pittsboro, a few miles away, but it was not clear when. During a court appearance Wednesday, a judge ordered him held without bond. By that point, most major American news organizations had reported the story, but that did not slow the allegations of news media neglect.”

So basically a local homicide became a national news story overnight and that is likely something to do with the unusual nature of the crime.  But many complained within that time frame that the story was being ignored and that this was an example of media bias.  Here are a few examples I have found from those alleging media bias:

image

image

image

Not every homicide receives widespread attention.  It took over a week before the Trayvon Martin shooting was picked up by Reuters and became a hot topic.  So, with that as a basis of comparison, the murder of Deah Barakat, Razan Abu-Salha and Yusor Abu-Salha was relatively quick.

Favoritism and presumptions…

If anything the murder of these attractive and ambitious young Americans will receive more attention than similar cases.  Beautiful people with promising futures are often are shown preference.  Add to that the man who confessed to the murders is an outspoken atheist, the victims identifiably Muslim, and that feeds speculation.

Having myself been raised in a tradition (Christian) where women veil, and having a dear friend (Muslim) who dresses similar to those pictured, I couldn’t help but take interest and wonder if their appearance played a part.  I have worried for my sisters and my Muslim friend because of prejudicial views I have heard expressed.

It is probably their appearance, the fact they were killed in the manner they were, the race and the views of the man, that made this a big story.  It is understandable the Muslim American community can feel embattled at times and unfairly blamed for the acts of people who do not represent them (terrorists) and thus afraid of reprisals.

However, this case is not necessarily a ‘hate crime’ as some speculate.  Yes, the shooter did openly share his views that blamed religious people for violence and (ironically) proclaimed atheism as the solution, but that doesn’t equal a motive. 

From available evidence he seemed to be an unreasonable and angry man who may have murdered over a parking dispute. Whatever the motive, it is an act beyond my comprehension and I mourn with those who have lost loved ones to this senseless act of evil.

Trading topics…

The other story concerns the Governor of Wisconsin (and potential candidate for President) who was on a visit to discuss trade with British officials.  The story headline, “Wisconsin Gov. Walker refuses to answer evolution question,” centers on a question asked that has nothing to do with trade.

The question if Walker “believes in the theory of evolution” seems a rather odd thing to ask a politician.  Doubly interesting is that the Associated Press writer felt it necessary to mention Walker’s faith and the occupation of his father, as if those two facts were relevant to the story:

“Walker, an evangelical Christian and the 47-year-old son of a Baptist preacher, also declined to answer a series of questions about foreign policy…”

Huh? 

I’m not really sure how his faith comes into play here, especially as it relates to the Governor trying to keep on topic of trade by not answering irrelevant inquisitions.  Maybe somebody can explain the connection between his father and foreign policy, but I’m not understanding it.

What I do suspect, both as the reason scientific theory is being asked about and also why religion is being mentioned, is an attempt to construct a label or pigeonhole Walker.  I think it is a classic example of dog-whistle politics in that the intend recipients are supposed to read between the lines and apply a particular stereotype. 

The intent is likely to paint the fiscally conservative Walker to voters, who are tired of government expansion and yet not religious, as dogmatic and ignorant.  I could be wrong, but when a story that should be about trade becomes one about refusal, theory of evolution and religion, there seems something to be amiss.

Bias is in the eye of the beholder…

If beauty is in the eye of the beholder, perhaps bias is as well.  What we think deservers more or less coverage is probably as much a matter of our own biases as it is of anyone else’s. 

Muslims, understandably, take immediate interest when three who share their faith are killed ‘execution style’ by an irreligious man.  Me, being a political conservative and religious, know too well the presumptions often made about those of faith and saw some sort of prejudice at work in the Walker story.  We take notice when people we identify with in some way are targeted unjustly and we probably miss many instances that counter our own narratives.

The media is undoubtedly biased. The media is produced by people and people are inherently biased.  But our personal biases also mess with our own perception of what is important and our judgment of presentation.  We need to be as aware of our own potential biases to the same degree we believe others are guilty.