Biblical Truth in a Confusing Culture: A Thoughtful Response to "Woke-Proofing" the Church

Introduction

In a world where cultural ideologies often challenge biblical truth, Christians face an important question: How can we safeguard our churches from compromise while remaining faithful to Scripture? Ken Ham’s recent article, How to "Woke-Proof" Your Church (1), argues that accepting Genesis 1–11 as literal history is the key to resisting secular worldviews. While his emphasis on Genesis is valuable, it’s essential to recognize that biblical authority does not depend on a single interpretive framework.

Genesis and the Broader Foundation of Christian Doctrine

Genesis 1–11 unquestionably lays a foundational groundwork for Christian teachings—creation, marriage, gender, sin, and redemption. Yet throughout history, faithful believers have approached these chapters with different interpretive lenses while still affirming the authority of Scripture. Some hold to a young-earth, six-day creation model, while others see Genesis as incorporating literary or theological frameworks that do not necessitate a strict chronological reading.

What matters most is not adherence to one specific interpretation, but unwavering commitment to the divine authority of all Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16). A church can affirm biblical truth without subscribing to Ham’s particular stance on Genesis, and it should resist the notion that Young Earth Creationism alone serves as the doctrinal bedrock of Christianity.

Faithfulness Beyond Reactionary Thinking

Ham’s concern about cultural compromise is valid, especially regarding biblical teachings on marriage (Genesis 2:24), gender (Genesis 1:27), and the sanctity of life. These truths must be upheld, but the church’s response should not be defined merely by resistance to secular movements. Instead, believers must cultivate deep theological understanding, engage thoughtfully, and communicate truth with wisdom and grace.

The real danger is not simply cultural influence—it is shallow, fear-driven reactionism that prioritizes ideological battles over genuine discipleship. Churches should focus on equipping believers to think critically and engage biblically, rather than framing the conversation solely as a fight against "wokeness."

Avoiding Oversimplified Arguments

One concern with Ham’s framing is the suggestion that rejecting a young-earth, literal view of Genesis necessarily leads churches down a "slippery slide into doubt and unbelief." While theological compromise is a legitimate concern, church history demonstrates that many believers have upheld biblical authority without adhering to Young Earth Creationism.

True discernment requires a broad theological foundation, not reactionary impulses. Churches must prioritize scriptural integrity over rigid interpretive positions, ensuring that believers understand how to navigate cultural issues with clarity rather than fear.

The Church’s Mission: Christ at the Center

Ultimately, the mission of the church is not merely to insulate itself from cultural influence—it is to glorify God, proclaim the gospel, and make disciples. While rejecting unbiblical philosophies is necessary, faithfulness must be defined by devotion to Christ, not by ideological opposition alone. A church deeply rooted in Scripture will stand firm, not because it embraces a single interpretation of Genesis, but because it remains steadfast in its commitment to biblical truth as a whole.

Conclusion

Ken Ham’s emphasis on Genesis highlights the importance of Scripture in shaping a biblical worldview. However, Christian faithfulness requires more than adherence to one interpretive model—it calls for a holistic commitment to the authority of all Scripture, the centrality of Christ, and the transformative power of the gospel. Churches should aim not merely to be "woke-proof," but biblically grounded, Christ-centered, and missionally engaged.