The Holy Post recently released a podcast with the history of YEC, aptly titled Ham on Phil.
Of course, Ken Ham was not a fan and immediately demanded an apology. He was already mad about the What is an Evangelical video Vischer did where he stated that the Creation Museum rejects mainstream science.
If you find it entertaining to follow these kind of Facebook/Twitter dustups, it’s worth checking out. (For the record, following Phil Vischer is the main reason I got a Twitter account this summer.)
I think a good chunk of Phil’s audience are probably in the YEC camp or just don’t know what to think about evolutionary creationism, so props to him and Skye and Christian for broaching the topic and trying to educate people and dealing with the hostility that ensues.
Yes, and I so appreciate how open to investigating things his show (and videos) have been. Often times they aren’t even presenting a position, they’re just setting facts straight. The two videos he released on race earlier in 2020 were also really well-done.
Thanks so much for calling attention to Vischer’s work here, Christy. This is definitely going to be on my “exchange” list of “I’ll read your material if you just listen to this” collection of resources to keep handy for those busy peddling their materials.
The world has passed me by. When I taught ,my students kept me up to date. Oh well, good thing I have some younger friends to point which way everyone went. To do: find out why tomato guy is the one we need now.
More homework. This Phil V sounds interesting. I tried once before to look into Twitter. (I don’t think so.)
Bob the tomato … Larry the cucumber. Just look up veggie tales … probably just newly added to conservative “tainted lists” everywhere. Thanks for making me feel like the young one in the room again, Mark.
As a student of Christian church history, the Vischer video above easily had my attention all the way to the end. I am particularly interested in the history of the evangelical movement and this was a take on that history considerably different from my own, which sees Charles Finney of the second great awakening as the central historical figure of the movement and all about a shift from theological battles of denominationalism to the power of Christ in changing human lives. Those three mentioned by Vischer, J Wesley, Whitfield, and Edwards of the First Great Awakening had more to do with Methodism, Congregationalism, and the Baptists – more about denominationalism and fundamentalism. And from there Vischer leaps forward to Billy Graham. I think it is a version of this history which gives more legitimacy to the modern involvement in politics of many who call themselves evangelicals.
What would stir up hostility in that video, besides him accusing a large part of the churches in America of overt racism? Oh, and equating evolution and science, as if they were the same thing.
My biggest beef with Christianity in general today? Many, maybe most, so-called followers of Christ are no such thing. They are practitioners of a type of Paulianity which twist his words and disregard those of Jesus himself.
Wow! I wouldn’t know if Ham is guilty of teaching a false gospel but I think I found what happened to the fundamentalists and anti-intellectualism. At lest one of them. What an entitled so and so!
Great to get a condensed overview of evangelism and the streams of Protestantism. The guy would make a great teacher. When I first got here my take on it was the emphasis on spreading the word or proselytizing. I thought an evangelical was one who proudly evangelized any chance they got. My father was big on Billy Graham and he’d watch his televised revival meetings every chance he got. Maybe it was the part where he’d invite everyone up to declare or renew their faith that had shaped my sense of what “evangelical” meant.
I have always heard that Evangelicals started with Wesley in England. I think in America, the Second Great Awakening with Finney was key in spreading Evangelical teaching of a certain flavor. I think Vischer was interested in the question, “how did Evangelicals in America get the way they are today?” which is why the Rise of Fundamentalism and the Evangelical/Fundamentalist divide was important.
At the end, I think he references Bebbington’s Quadrilateral which are the belief distinctives associated with Evangelicalism (conversionism, activism, high regard for Scripture, focus on the Cross of Jesus for redemption), but unlike lots of people, acknowledges the politics that have shaped the movement and the role that anti-Darwin and anti-desegregation attitudes played in getting things to where they are today. This checks out with everything I’ve read.
The truth hurts sometimes. Fundamentalist Evangelicals have a profoundly racist past. And evolution is science, so do the math.
I’m listening to the Holy Post podcast. Skye Jethani said that our big trouble is that we lose the simple solution to our, and the world’s, problems. That, I agree, is a central problem; it’s not even a Christian problem alone. We all (religious and non-religious, too) want a simplistic answer. It seems that’s a natural bent–and leads us into all sorts of trouble, with populistic political leaders, etc.
Walton believes that Gen 1 was a Temple dedication ceremony (emphasizing rest, parallel of the first 3 days with the 2nd 3 days). Tim Keller says it’s made to be recited aloud. I found it helpful to discuss with a YEC member of my family that William Jennings Bryan had said that the 6000 year old idea was a straw man, made by secularists to make fun of Christians, sort of like claiming that orthodox Christians believe in a flat earth. I had no idea that an old earth was so widely accepted then.
It seems a bit confusing. Potentially, this could be a genetic fallacy–because a subgroup of fundamentalists were racist, all evangelicals were not. As Vischer says, Ockenga, Graham and Henry were by no means of the racist point of view, but neo-evangelical. Not to drag divisive issues in too much, but abortion was a big motivator here–not racism. I am concerned this can be an unintentional straw man. Ham himself is strongly ant-racist, as reflected in many of his pages on line; yet he is a fundamentalist.
I know of people who really like his “One Race, One Blood” book. Going by every other conclusion of his and the form he uses in his writing, I have an idea of where it will lead so I haven’t read it myself. There are others who make the same theological conclusions while consulting and including the harmonizing results found in genetics and anthropology (amongst others).
You might want to correct this typo, Randy, so we don’t get Ham sympathizers thinking that Biologos is accusing Ham of having a problem with ants.
I was intrigued by that too … I knew that Bryan and many (nearly all I guess!) of his lot had no problem with old earth, but I didn’t know he had said that specifically. I could listen to Vischer again to see if he says, but can anybody give a credible source that could be sited for where Bryan put it specifically that way?
