Are Creationists Divisive? | The Institute for Creation Research
Are Creationists Divisive?

Recently I had the opportunity to speak at a Christian college where the majority of professors do not accept a literal Genesis.

After I had spoken, some of the students informed me that, on the day before, one the professors had tried to preempt my lecture by informing the students that creation ministries like the Institute for Creation Research are divisive—the implication being that those who accept a literal Genesis are divisive, but those who insist on other positions are not divisive.

The Creator of the world, the Lord Jesus Christ, during His earthly ministry, brought division: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace: but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law" (Matthew 10:34,35). In Luke 12:51, we read, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: . . ."

And what happened as a result of Christ's ministry? "So there was a division among the people because of Him" (John 7:43). "There was a division therefore again among the Jews for these sayings" (John 10:19). I am sure that some of the religious leaders of the day accused Christ of being divisive.

The point is that the truth is divisive! Because Christ is the truth, His ministry was divisive.

Because the Institute for Creation Research speakers are insisting on the literal truth of Genesis (God's Word), then those Christians who have compromised with evolutionary ideas call us divisive.

Many people think that people like myself are biased and thus divisive, but that others are just neutral. However, it is important to understand that God's Word tells us there is no such thing as neutrality. We are told that we either walk in light or in darkness—no in-between. In Matthew 12:30, we read, "He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad."

Let me illustrate with an example: While in England last year, I had the opportunity to speak to a prestigious Christian group on the campus of Cambridge University. During my lecture on the importance of Genesis, a young man jumped up and blurted out, "But you are coming across as if what you are saying is true!" I replied, " I wouldn't be saying these things if I didn't believe them!"

I spent time discussing with this young man the problem he had with what I was saying. He wanted me to allow for other opinions, and not just sound as though what I was saying had to be the truth. He accused me of being narrow-minded and biased, while he claimed to be open minded, allowing for other opinions.

When I asked him if he was "open-minded" enough to allow for my opinion, which dictated that Genesis had to be taken literally, he realized we had reached an impasse. He was insisting that I allow for the possibility my position was not correct, and other opinions should be put on the same level. I asked him if he were open-minded enough to allow for my position, which stated that all other positions were wrong! My position was intolerant of his—but his position was also intolerant.

This reminds me of Christian colleges whose spokespersons state that they allow all views on Genesis. However, they refuse to allow the view that only those who take Genesis literally have the correct view! Such colleges, like the student above, have taken a dogmatic stand that does not allow for the position that one must take Genesis literally and that all other positions are wrong.

It is a sad situation when "a man's enemies are the men of his own house" (Micah 7:6).

As long as the creationist ministry exists in this world, it will be divisive. The truth always is! What about you? How "divisive" are you? How much does the light shine in the darkness as you stand for the Lord in this dark world? How sharp is the sword you wield? Or has it become dulled by compromise with the world for the sake of "peace"?

Cite this article: Kenneth Ham. 1991. Are Creationists Divisive?. Acts & Facts. 20 (12).

The Latest
Biological and Engineered Systems Employ Same Principles
New findings continue to support ICR’s theoretical assumption that biological functions are best explained by engineering principles.1...

Preserved Organics Found in Ancient Stromatolites
Evolutionary scientists are continually searching for evidence of the “first life” on Earth. Their most recent claim involves well-preserved...

Denisovan Epigenetics Reveals Human Anatomy
A recent study making the news involves the reconstruction of the facial features and anatomy of the enigmatic humans known as the Denisovan from genetic...

New Estimate: Universe Two Billion Years Younger
Big Bang scientists recently used a new method to estimate the universe’s age. This method yields an age estimate that could be over two billion...

Pain-Sensing Organ Shows Engineering Principles
New human organs are rarely discovered, but that’s what several astute scientists recently accomplished at Sweden’s Karolinska Institutet’s...