Skip to comments.Ken Ham Explains Why AiG Is Building a Giant Ark Instead of Spending Money to Feed the Hungry
Posted on 03/04/2014 6:53:38 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Ken Ham of the Creation Museum has taken to Facebook to address criticism over Answers in Genesis' multimillion dollar project to build a life-sized replica of Noah's ark, explaining why the money isn't going to feed hungry people instead.
"I haven't yet seen any articles/blogs/posts directed at Paramount about the $300 million dollars (over 4 times more than the Ark project), they spent on a fictional movie only for entertainment why aren't they being told by the same people they should be spending this money on feeding the hungry," Ham wrote in a post on Monday, referring to the upcoming Bible-inspired movie "Noah," which is being distributed by Paramount Pictures.
The Creation Museum and AiG CEO and president has criticized the upcoming Darren Aronofsky film for portraying an unbiblical account of Noah. Sources like Slash Film have said that the movie's budget is closer to $150 million.
Ham continued in his response to critics, "In fact, what about all the people who spend millions of dollars at the movie theaters to see the movies that cost hundreds of millions of dollars a year," Ham continued. "Of course, we could go on what about the hundreds of millions of dollars Universities like Harvard have in their accounts in fact the list is almost endless."
Answers in Genesis has been raising funds to build a giant life-sized replica of Noah's ark for several years now. Last week, it announced that $73 million has been raised for the first phase of the project.
"Several million dollars in donations and Ark boarding passes (memberships) had been raised prior to the bond offering, and most of that amount has already been used to pay for the Ark's land, secure expensive permits and licenses, clear the property, draw architectural plans, design the exhibits, etc.," the creationist group said in a statement. It is seeking to raise an additional $15 million in order to "provide additional attractions, like the special high-tech and interactive exhibits that guests have come to appreciate at our museum."
Ham and AiG have responded in the past to feedback they have received as to why they are engaging in such an expensive project rather than using the money to help poor people. In 2011, AiG posted a blog post titled "Why Build an Ark Instead of Giving the Money to the Poor?"
In the article, AiG explained that although taking care of the poor is identified as an important ministry for Christians, "Christ also made it clear that we are to make disciples of all nations."
"Frankly, we can't think of a more effective way to share the gospel with many millions of people today than by using an Ark," AiG wrote. "The Ark of Noah is a picture of salvation, which allows us to share with future visitors that Christ is our modern-day Ark of salvation. People who might not ever attend a church service will be powerfully presented with the gospel message at the Ark, where they will learn about Christ."
While Ham did not address any specific commentary against the Ark project, he noted on Monday that the negative feedback he has received has been in the form of emails, posts, comments, and blogs both from secularists and other Christians.
"So what does it all mean? Most of these people who make such accusations do so because AiG is a Christian organization, and because they know we will reach millions with the truth of God's Word. Yes their intolerance of Christianity is showing clearly," Ham wrote. "They just can't stand a Christian group being so prominent in spreading the truth of God's Word and the salvation message."
The construction of the project is expected to begin in May.
Build the hungry a fishing boat and they can provide for themselves.
Seems to me that they already feed plenty of people by way of taxes.
There are hungry people in the Land of Barak?
They put a lot of engineers, craftsman, and labors to work. So they are feeding people and providing them a good living.
Sorry, Mr. Ham.
It’s a legitimate criticism. You failed.
Seems like a pointless question to me. You could ask the same thing of anyone at any moment. Are you focused on helping the poor at this moment? Why not?
No it isn’t. Aren’t you the one who says cussing isn’t a sin?
OK, give us a valid reason to build it.
His name is Ham. Get it? And his brothers’ names are Shem and Japheth?
Crazy folk do crazy things.
The money was raised specifically for the Ark. The money was raised from people who believed in this project, or hoped this project would bring revenue to their area. People weren’t just going to throw 73 million into a hat to “feed poor people”. So, it’s a false alternative that is being presented, not a legitimate criticism.
because christianity is not only about helping the poor. if you feed someone but he later dies unsaved what the hell didyou really do for them?
there’s more than one kind of ministry out there.
i disagree. there ismorethan one kind of ministry out there.
liberty counsel defends christians in court. have they failed because their ministry isn’t focused aroundfeeding the poor?
Perhaps these critics should try to raise $70 million themselves if they’re that concerned about it.
Its a legitimate criticism. You failed.<< I suppose you pass out all your additional money to the poor? Whoever said the sole purpose of AiG was feeding the poor? The people donating the money aren't expecting it to feed the poor. I believe Judas once reprimanded Jesus for allowing Mary to pour expensive perfume on his feet instead of selling it to feed the poor. Jesus told him the poor would always be among you. Judas wasn't really concerned about poor people and neither are these ark critics.
Wrong. We will always have the poor. You won’t always have an opportunity to spread the gospel.
Where are you getting that? I never said cussing is not a sin.
It can probably be built much cheaper than what is planned.
We are supposed to be wise stewards of God’s money.
Fair enough. I did not know that the $ was earmarked that way.
Neither should they ignore the poor.
The two purposes are not mutually exclusive nor should they be.
As I stated to another poster on this thread, I did not know that the $ was earmarked for the ark. Fair enough.
However, building an ark with many tens of millions of dollars is extravagant and, in my opinion, wasteful and garish.
Kind of like Dollyworld.
Re: your first question. I do give to charitable orgs that directly service the poor.
I check them out on Charity Navigator first.
Thanks for your question. Have a good day.
Build an attraction to create a revenue stream and feed the poor continually. As well as exhibiting an example of God's word without the biased filter of secular society.
I for one would certainly pay to visit the new Ark and it would probably give me pause afterward whenever I will see a rainbow.
Why is it legal criticism is everything you do done to help the poor?..why build even a church building rather then use the money to feed the poor..how much money does every church in this country, in the world have tied up in land and property and assets that they could liquidate to help the poor ....what a load of crap
Ok, I thought I recognized the name from a thread the other day. That other guys name wasn’t even close to yours.
Your judgment here, then, is a matter of degree. Ham's vision for this is something really nice and professional looking...like the creation museum... and it will be expensive. I know how you feel. I don't like to see garish expensive church buildings and preachers driving expensive cars.
But then, if I went to see the finished Ark project and it was made of cheap plywood...and there was poor customer service...and the bathrooms were dirty...and the displays looked like bad high school science projects...then I probably would leave early and not come back. ...and all of my preconceived notions of gap-toothed mouth-breathing Christians would be reinforced.
A thoughtful reply.
Apparently, FRiend, you are unable to see that I have been trying to advocate a reasonable balance between serving the poor and building tools to help witness. We need to do both.
Yes, I know that the poor we will always have with us. However we should continually keep in mind the charge we have to serve the poor.
We shouldn’t be building Christian palaces and forget all about the poor, which was my point.
There it is - that’s the post I was looking for.
What good is it to have a full belly when you’re going to die and go to hell if you don’t realize your eternally deadly situation?
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. My judgment is indeed a matter of degree.
I agree with you about not going to see a cheap plywood ark.
I also do not want to go to an ark display where they have gold plated fixtures in the washrooms.
I don't think it is really. AiG was not established as a charity to feed the hungry. They don't state that as one of their goals. They're no more due criticism for not devoting their money to ending hunger than any other corporation is.
Besides, if they did that then they wouldn't build their ark. I'm looking forward to it. Should be funny.
Christians will always face this criticism. Even Jesus Christ was challenged in this way.
As long as the money was raised for this purpose, the criticism is based in self-righteousness, and is wholly illegitimate. If the money was raised for helping the needy, then the criticism is legitimate - but ONLY then.
Oh yeah, And sorry.
where’s the hard evidence they have ignored the poor.
and again, what about liberty counsel? they defend christians in court, the arent a hands-on poor organization, will you throw the same stone at them? can’t christians do the ministry to which they feel moved to do?
I believe the accuser was none other than Judas himself...
“that perfume could have been sold and the money given to the poor (or found its way into my pocket)”
Yes, I suppose they don’t have bigger issues in their lives. They used to call them busibodies.
Me, I don’t worry at all what other people do with their money — as long as they didn’t use my money for something other than intended.
But no matter what, there will always be a critic standing on the sidelines, ready to pounce. It seems to be driven by maybe greed, or jealousy, or a controlling and critical personality. Maybe with a bit of self-righteousness mixed in — because they always know how it should have been handled.
Sorry, I don’t have to prove that AiG “ignored the poor.”
It’s a matter of appearances. Surely you understand that?
Sorry, they are not just another “corporation.”
They hang a lot of what they do on promoting Christianity. That brings with it a set of responsibilities that secular corporations do not have. They are indeed due more criticism if they cannot or will not do appropriate levels of funding for a project such as this.
Like I said upthread, a project in the tens of millions of dollars seems to me to be wasteful.
sure, you are adopting the liberal philosophy that the seriousness of the charges trumps the lack of evidence. i totally get where you’re coming from.
Nonsense. Nothing at all to do with “self-righteousness.”
Do I really need to trot out the verse for you about not being a stumbling block to others?