Creation Museum (Part Two)
Creation Museum (Part Two)
Theology-
Theology. It’s important and vital. Nowhere is this more important than at the museum bookstore.
As I wondered the bookstore, I noticed a pattern. First, most of the books were from a very limited theological perspective, and about ¾ of those books are by Ken Hamm himself (the founder of the creation museum). Most of the books were by dispensational theologians or scientists. It then clicked why some of the other statements in the museum disturbed me on a theological level. Here is what disturbed me:
The museum claims to take the bible “literally” or as God’s word. That’s great, so do I. The problem always comes is that we can’t help bringing our worldview as we read the Bible. It has to be constantly corrected by God’s word itself, but the creation museum folks don’t allow for this. They allow not only their dispensational theology to influence their reading of Genesis 1-2, but they also have culture war political considerations.
Guard dogs. Why?
Sorry, digression there.
The museum has no tolerance for any Christian who has another perspective than a 6 day 24 hour creation, the earth is six thousand years old perspective. There were sections that accused other Christians of taking positions about Genesis 1-2 as people who “were not faithful to the Bible” or “dishonoring to Christ”. I find this offensive on so many levels. It’s perfectly fine to take the 24 hour day position. But, to assert that other Christians are not being faithful to God’s word is just plain wrong at best and sinful at worst.
Even worse, they hold rigidly to the “Ussher” dating of the earth, which has been proven wrong in a number of different ways. It’s not Ussher’s fault. He went with the information he had. He didn’t understand how Jewish genealogies work and some of the other things we have found out about how Genesis 1-11 should be read. It’s just embarrassing that they use this dating. It put me in awkward position with the atheists as I had to explain that most evangelicals, even young earth folks, don’t accept Ussher’s dating.
Don’t get me wrong. I appreciate their desire to be faithful to the Bible and the Gospel itself. But, sometimes I wondered if they were allowing other considerations to enter in their Christianity. Fear. Political power. Playing to their base. And thus, we find the folks at the Creation museum trending towards a “dualistic” mindset that is more Gnostic, and not Christian.
I will discuss this dualistic mindset more in my next post. And, I’ll be giving random thoughts on day 2 of the SSA conference later tonight.
The Thomas Society 
Out of curiosity, since you reject Ussher’s chronology (and rightly so, it’s ridiculous), what position does your group take on the age of the earth, whether or not a global flood happened and when, etc.
I’d also be interested in seeing a post dissecting just what problems you see with Ussher, out of sheer intellectual curiosity.
Kelseigh,
Thanks for stopping by. Great questions. I’ll post something on the Ussher’s chronolgy later in the week. Post a reminder on here if I forget.
J-
No problem, sir. For the record, I’m neither an atheist nor a Christian, I’m more somewhere in the fuzzy middle ground between Shambala Buddhism and non-practicing pagan. But things like this are intellectually interesting to me.
Sir? Did get knighted? 🙂 In seriousness, it’s good you asking and thinking these questions through. It’s fantastic.
“It’s perfectly fine to take the 24 hour day position.”
Hilarious.
I appreciate their desire to be faithful to the Bible and the Gospel itself. But, sometimes I wondered if they were allowing other considerations to enter in their Christianity.
But isn’t this the point? No matter how pious or devout one is, someone else, also perhaps pious and devout, may have a different idea of what being “faithful to the Bible” really is. And if you were to both honestly and sincerely debate your differences with the intent to discover the truth, you would both eventually find that religion is foolish even if there were a God, and there is no reason to think that there is one.
Thanks for your observations on the creation museum.
I am an Episcopalian, which is sometimes problematic because dispensationalism/rapture theology is not something which is taught by any minister of our churches that I know of.
However, it’s been my experience when debating young-earth creationist, the reason they insist their view of scripture is correct (and why evolution, geology and astronomy is false) seems related to a commitment to Darby and the modern dispensationalists like Hagee, Ice and LaFaye (to name a few).
You briefly discussed dispensationalism in your post, but I am interested if you can explore this subject more fully, especially in relationship to young-earth creationists. Is the reason Creationists demand Genesis 1 is viewed literally as 6, 24 hour days is because they also believe Daniel’s prophecy has yet been fullfilled?
Ah, an Episcopalian. Welcome. I often describe myself as an anglo-presbyterian because I love Episcopal/Anglicans.
Anyway, you would be correct that about dispensational theology. I’ll certainly say more on this, if you like. I’ll have to explain it more. Maybe later this week?
J-
Tmax,
I don’t think that honest discussion and debate means one would become an atheist. I think this is especially true in the context of the history of theology.
Thanks for your follow-up. I am looking forward to your discussion on dispensationalism.
I am dating myself now, but when I was a kid we briefly attended a presbyterian church, after my father became very upset with the Rector of the Episcopal Church we were attending. The priest participated in an anti-war demonstration and did a sermon against the Vietnam War. Dad was then and now, a Republican who thought Nixon was handed a raw deal. However, I have also had the pleasure visiting St Giles Cathedral in Edinburgh.