Christian colleges are compromised

 

You may recall that last week I reviewed a Ken Ham book, Already Gone. It showed some surprising poll results and discussions.  Now I am reviewing another book by the same author, published two years later, called Already Compromised, with some more eye-opening poll results.  In this book, Mr. Ham’s intent was to survey 200 different Christian colleges, interviewing the president, the vice president, the head of the science department, and the head of the religion department—800 people.  But many ducked out or were impossible to reach, so his results were for 312 people. Over 2/3 of the people were from schools associated with the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities, colleges that require all of their professors to sign a personal statement of faith.  The other 89 respondents were from schools that were religiously affiliated through an association with a religious denomination.  The responses were pretty much the same for both groups. 

 

What Mr. Ham found, was, these professors and administrators did not have enough vision for their religious purpose, to uphold God’s Word, so that they were unclear or compromising in their answers.  They seemed to have “one foot in the door” of the secular world’s wrong and sinful answers to these questions.  Let me give you an example of what I mean:  To the question “Do you believe in the inspiration of Scripture?”  98% said “Yes.”  Wonderful.  Until you think, “What watered-down meaning could “inspiration” have?  “I was painting under the inspiration of Michelangelo.”  So that’s a poor word choice.  So they also asked, “Do you believe in the inerrancy” or “in the infallibility of Scripture.”  Ah-ha—now only 74 to 81% agree.” 

 

Of course, the professor/administrator might argue, “I believe in the inerrancy of the original manuscripts,” which, of course, we don’t have.  They assume the process of making copy upon copy through the centuries would necessarily lead to errors and end the inerrancy.  Well, they haven’t read the results from the Dead Sea Scrolls, where some of the documents were made around 100 AD—so these are almost the original manuscripts.  When compared to the formerly oldest.manuscripts that we then had, they found that any differences when comparing Biblical texts, even centuries apart, were minor and did not affect even one doctrinal point.  None challenges any archeological find or historical data. Men did a great job of copying—perhaps God inspired them to the necessary rigor. 

 

So, based on the 74% who believed in the inerrancy of Scripture, we know already that ¼ of these experts were ready to waffle on the Bible’s doctrines.  We found the same kind of silliness in answers shows up in the following question “Do you believe the Genesis account of creation as written?” 90% said “yes.”  Wonderful.  But then a couple questions were asked about the details of Genesis.  Now before I get to them, I should say, if you question the Book of Origins, you open the door to questioning anything you don’t like about the Bible, and you also open the door to secular and sinful belief systems.  Satan has done a great job convincing most of mankind about evolution (which takes more faith than Creation).  But if mankind believes we just evolved from primates, then we can dismiss God from our importance.  But if we are Created In the Image of God, as Scripture says, then we are accountable to Him for our actions—and what the Bible says about hell and abiding in Jesus to escape hell—are true.  So you see how important to believe in Genesis.  Besides, Jesus confirms the truth of all the stories in Genesis; so if you disbelieve them, you are in effect calling Jesus a liar—a dangerous space to be in.    

 

This first detail question comes from the 6 days of creation, in Genesis 1:5ff:  Scripture records each of these creations and ended with “so the evening and the morning were the first day” and “so the evening and the morning were the second day,” and so on.  Why does God point out “evening” and “morning?”  Simple.  So we would get the distinct impression that Creation was done in 6 24-hour days.  In Hermeneutics, we are told to take the Bible literally, whenever possible.  Well, here’s an easy one:  When it says “evening” and “morning,” does that mean one 24-hour day?  Of course.  We don’t have any trouble with “day” anywhere else in the Bible.  It’s easy to say, the Day of the Lord doesn’t mean one 24-hour day, and how 99% of uses of the word “day” are simply speaking of 24-hour periods.  So why do we have so much trouble with “day” in Genesis 1?  It seems that God said, “21^st century people are so dense, I’ll have to accentuate the point of what “day” means by saying “evening” and “morning.””  Well, these professors and administrators didn’t get the message.  While they were eager to please the question “Do you believe the Genesis account of creation as written?” 90% said “yes.”  Wonderful.  BUT to the question “Do you believe God created the earth in six 24-hour days?”  less than 60% said “yes.”   These are Christian colleges!  40% don’t believe in a literal translation of the Bible.

 

Well, they might argue by quoting the Gap theory.  They might say, well, in Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth was in the distant past, which creation included angels; but the angels fell, and must’ve created a mess, because in Genesis 1:2 it says “The earth was without form, and void…and the Hebrew words “without form and void” suggests that the earth was ruined and disorderly.  Well, that couldn’t have been the way God created it, which He created in perfection.  So God created the earth itself (no men yet) in the distant past, not in 24 hours; then a mess, then He started over by creating light on the first day of re-creation, etc.  That gives them room to believe in an old earth AND six 24-hour days.

 

Well, I might give them a pass, if that’s all they believed on the Gap theory. But every single lecture I’ve heard on the Gap theory, they “fill in” the Gap by saying the Gap was millions of years, and that’s when dinosaurs ruled, and they died, and left their bones, and that’s why their bones seem millions of years old.  (And they might throw in the evolution cycle in the Gap, too.)  The problem with these “Gap fill-ins” is, they assume death happened before Adam sinned—but death couldn’t have been in the picture until after Adam sinned—as Scripture points out.  So it seems to me that these interviewees are swayed against Scripture by secular dating, the “radiocarbon” method, and so on. But that method has a record of inaccuracy.  And, besides, couldn’t God have created the earth with age built in?  Or, couldn’t a world-wide Flood involve the kind of pressure to create coal and oil deposits?   

 

Oh, yes, the Flood.  Secular theorists make fun of Noah’s Flood.  But did you know that there are oral stories about a flood in every society in the world?  And don’t anthropologists say that if there is a story everywhere, then the story has a basis in fact?  Well, the Christian professors and administrators haven’t heard that.  They’re spending too much time listening to the secular views here, too.  To the question, “Do you believe in the flood of Noah’s day?”  91% say “yes.”  Wonderful. BUT when asked “Do you believe the flood was worldwide, local, or nonliteral (i.e., a fable), only 58% said it was worldwide!  Again, 42% don’t believe their Bible.  Wait a minute; doesn’t Genesis 7:19-21 say:

 

 And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered. ²⁰ ….and the mountains were covered. ²¹ And all flesh died that moved on the earth: birds and cattle and beasts and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every man.

 

This time, these 42% have no excuse for ducking out of the Bible; folks, either they believe the Bible, or they don’t.  Clearly, some 42% don’t. Like I said, if they bend the knee to the satanic secularist in Genesis, they’ll listen to them first anywhere else it’s important.  If the Flood was just local, then God’s purpose…destroying every living person on earth (except Noah’s)…would be frustrated.  As Genesis 6:7 says:

 

So the Lord said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.”

 

The problem here is much bigger than you might first imagine.  First, by not believing Genesis 7:19 about the Flood being worldwide, they are forced not to believe Genesis 6:7 either.  Making God out to be a liar twice—again, a dangerous place to be.  But even bigger is, this is a slander on God’s character.  They refuse to believe that God would kill every person on earth (except 8).  But the Bible explains God’s reason, which they evidently also don’t believe, in Genesis 6:5-6:

 

Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. ⁶ And the Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.

 

God will judge unrepentant sin harshly.  We don’t appreciate how much He hates sin, how holy He is.  We don’t appreciate how much we sin, how little we even think about it, or how much it offends God.  Or how much of a price Jesus paid, or how bad hell is, or how much we’re saved from.  We can’t thank God enough until we spend some time thinking on these things.  But distorting God’s Word, eliminating some of it, and then teaching only part of God’s character, is a terrible sin too. 

We should be very careful to believe and obey what His Word clearly says, and that responsibility goes especially for teachers of His Word. 

 

Ken Ham believes the term “newspeak,” from Orwell’s classic 1984, is being replicated in today’s colleges.  Words mean different things to different people.  When they asked the professors/administrators “What does your institution teach about the Bible?” only 35% gave a straight answer, “It is true” (but do they mean Literally true? Hmm.)  25% said “it is inspired by God,” which could be good, depending on what they mean by “inspired.”  But 23% said “it is a book of guidelines,” which seems to suggest that one could take it or leave it without reprisal (thus making Man the judge of God). And 9% said “we teach it then dissect it,” which (considering what “dissect” really means) strongly suggests some negative comparisons would be taught on its commands—again, making Man the judge of what doctrines are good, what doctrines are bad. If you are charitable to their meaning of the word “inspired,” you get 35%+25% giving the correct answer—thus 40% are on the wrong side, again. 

 

Another surprising poll result was found by comparing the heads of the religion departments and the heads of the science departments.  Take a gander at the results below:+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Question:  “Do you believe the Flood was worldwide, local, or nonliteral?”  Only 57% of the religion department heads believed it was worldwide.  And 12% believed it was “nonliteral,” or a fable. Like Jack and the Beanstalk.  These folks ought to pray about their eternal futures. But the poll questions below is where the real surprises come in:

 

Question:  “Do you believe in God creating the earth in six 24-hour days?”  Only 57% of the religion departments said “Yes,” BUT 71% of the science department heads said “yes.” 

 

Question:  “Would you consider yourself a young-earth, or old-earth Christian?”  The religion department said “old-earth” 78% of the time, but the science department were less enthusiastic about this theory, which can throw in the Gap theory, the progressive evolution, the theistic evolution, etc. They said “old-earth only 35% of the time! 

 

What I think we’re getting about this data is, the science department keeps track of the incredible detail in the DNA, and how generations of species all stay within their families, and how the universe is finite, and how the earth is in a perfect environment in 34 different ways, just to support Man; and they have more often seen that Darwin’s theories are all hokum and bombast.  The religion department probably gets a lot of criticism for supporting the Bible, and have wavered in their support.  Maybe they don’t know the latest discoveries of science, which favor Creation.  . 

 

I need to mention that Mr. Ham does not mince words on professors that garble on Scripture, quoting 12 men, and their big-name colleges, in the Appendix.  He also has high praise for one college, in West Virginia, no less, that gets it.  And he names all the colleges that participated in the survey in a website as well.

 

Now let’s give Ham’s summary quote: 

   If you send your students to a Christian college or institution, three out of four times in school they will likely be in front of a teacher who has a degraded view and interpretation of Scripture…Like it or not, we are at war—a war of worldviews… What most families are not aware of, however, is the depths to which these secular influences have infiltrated Christian institutions.”  

 

The future looks even bleaker.  With his question, “Do you believe the Flood was worldwide, local, or non-literal?” the Presidents of the institutions said “worldwide” 87% of the time; but the Vice President (the future president, in many cases) agreed only 43% of the time!  My question is, where are they getting these vice presidents from?  Let’s assume the VP is younger.  Does this mean younger people are all more skeptical, or that they’re hiring VPs now from secular schools, or that seminaries have gone corrupt over the years? None of these possibilities are good signs. 

 

Another shocker was in the question “Do you believe in the inerrancy of Scriptures?”  78% of the VPs agreed, but only 21% of the presidents! This does not correlate to their answers regarding the Flood.  It really suggests the VPs are vastly confused, claiming to believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, but flatly disagreeing with Scripture’s plain teaching on the Flood.  Since the VP is usually behind the hiring of faculty, a confused VP cannot be counted on to hire those who believe in the Scripture being God’s Word.

 

Mr. Ham’s book here is a great read.  My suggestion to parents of college-bound kids—Train your child in Scripture yourself, as early as possible!  And live a godly life with prayer and Bible reading frequently.  Many Christian colleges won’t do the job of supporting a truly Christian worldview.  They’re infected with secular professors and administrators. 

 

Acknowledgement:  Ken Ham and Greg Hall, Already Compromised.  Master Books, 2011.