Dr. John Gerstner used to instruct his students that, when engaged in any form of debate, one has the duty so to understand and articulate his opponent’s position that when one repeats that position back to his opponent, his opponent can recognize that position as his own.

It becomes evident to this reader that Ken Ham has himself misrepresented Tim Keller’s position.

When one “clicks” on the link provided in Ham’s article to Keller’s discussion of the relationship between Genesis 1 and 2, one hears a very different position than the one which Ham summarizes in his article. Keller is holding that Genesis 1 and 2 only contradict one another IF (!) they can be shown to say opposite things at the same time and in the same relationship or frame-of-reference (the law of non-contradiction).

Keller is insisting that in fact Genesis 1 and 2 say different things at different times in two different frames-of-reference; and thus Genesis 1 and 2 are not contradictory. One may not agree with Keller, and my point here is not to defend Keller’s position, per se. I am simply pointing out that Ham is equally guilty of misrepresentation; He has not accurately represented Keller’s own position.

Now, did Keller misrepresent Ham? He may well have; I do not know, not being privy to the entire discussion. Even after reading the remainder of the article, I am not entirely willing to give Ham the benefit of the doubt as to the accuracy of his summary of Keller’s statements about Ham, given Ham’s inaccurate summary of Keller’s position at the outset.

So, we are presented with a dilemma in the process of our pursuit of truth, nevermind the outcome itself.

This dilemma in process brings to light a larger issue which I fear is getting lost in the whole discussion: If we in the biblical, evangelical, and Reformed world are going to make any progress in this debate, we must be vigilant and unyielding in representing opposing positions accurately. Otherwise discussions/debates only degenerate into straw man arguments and ad hominem attacks. When we reach that point, truth gets lost altogether.

Ham comes too close to both straw man arguments and ad hominem caricatures in his article. Dr. John Gerstner used to instruct his students that, when engaged in any form of debate, one has the duty so to understand and articulate his opponent’s position that when one repeats that position back to his opponent, his opponent can recognize that position as his own. Keller certainly deserves that consideration in the present case, and Ham has failed to meet that burden. If Keller has done the same to Ham, he too owes it to the general discussion, and to Ham personally, to own his error and try again.

In fact, we all owe each other that consideration, regardless of the positions we hold. Only so can we make genuine progress. And I trust that what we all desire is genuine progress in our understanding of and commitment to the truth of Scripture – both to Scripture as “the word of God written” and to what it actually asserts as “true truth.” If ulterior motives/aims are present (i.e., items like those listed in Gal. 5:20), we all lose.

May God be pleased to search all our hearts and see if there be any wicked way in them, and then lead us in the way everlasting.

David B. Wallover is a Teaching Elder in the PCA and currently serves as Senior Pastor of Harvest Presbyterian Church in Medina, Ohio. He holds degrees from Wake Forest (BA), Gordon Conwell (MDiv) and RTS Jackson (DMin). This article was sent to The Aquila Report as a Letter to the Editor.