Answers in Genesis Announces Ark Encounter "Tourist Destination"
“In addition to the full-size Ark, the complex will include a walled city much like those found in ancient times, live animal shows, a children’s interactive play area, a replica of the Tower of Babel with exhibits, a 500-seat 5-D special effects theater, an aviary, and a first-century Middle Eastern village.” Press Release- 2 views
This is what happens when you put the creationism issue in the hands of scientists followed by educators (AIG does employ a few PhD scientists) instead of the theologians.
I mean, what serious OT guys are doing real research and publishing on the creation issues? Barrick? McCabe? The few that contributed to the “Coming to Grips With Genesis” book (published, unfortunately by AIG)?
Take the debate out of the hands of the scientists - they are being ignored, and place it in the hands of the theologians and Bible scholars for dissemination in broader evangelicalism. Better yet, put the debate in the hands of the pastors of the local churches.
I mean, what serious OT guys are doing real research and publishing on the creation issues? Barrick? McCabe? The few that contributed to the “Coming to Grips With Genesis” book (published, unfortunately by AIG)?
Take the debate out of the hands of the scientists - they are being ignored, and place it in the hands of the theologians and Bible scholars for dissemination in broader evangelicalism. Better yet, put the debate in the hands of the pastors of the local churches.
A kind friend that I have enjoyed for his specialty in Genesis is Dr. Bob Gonzales (and a local church pastor).
And you need to pick up his recently published book. It has been a gold mine for me. It speaks directly to the heart issues glossed over in my neck of the woods.
And you need to pick up his recently published book. It has been a gold mine for me. It speaks directly to the heart issues glossed over in my neck of the woods.
[Paul J. Scharf] Yes — this will contribute to the teaching of creationism in ways we can probably barely even think of at this point. It will be controversial, but it will be successful and it will be educational.The medium is the metaphor/message. Theme parks, by definition, are not serious or congruent with deep thinking.
One thing it will definitely not be is cheesy.
The same complaint could be lodged at churches — with their coffee shops, food courts, racquetball courts, Kidzones, etc.If only.
Now we are suddenly going to draw the line at building this ark destination …
Are you sure you want to try to hold that standard consistently?
[CAWatson] This is what happens when you put the creationism issue in the hands of scientists followed by educators (AIG does employ a few PhD scientists) instead of the theologians.“Coming to Grips” was not published by AiG, but by Master Books, and there is nothing unfortunate about it. The book is doing very well and surpassing all expectations.
I mean, what serious OT guys are doing real research and publishing on the creation issues? Barrick? McCabe? The few that contributed to the “Coming to Grips With Genesis” book (published, unfortunately by AIG)?
Take the debate out of the hands of the scientists - they are being ignored, and place it in the hands of the theologians and Bible scholars for dissemination in broader evangelicalism. Better yet, put the debate in the hands of the pastors of the local churches.
As to the rest of your comments, I am not sure what to make of them. Who is going to “put the debate in the hands of the pastors?” All pastors anywhere are free to take up the debate, and I strongly encourage them to do so. In fact, you should have seen the response at AiG’s Answers for Pastors conference in September. It was unbelievable and overwhelming.
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
[CAWatson] Better yet, put the debate in the hands of the pastors of the local churches.I am not certain this would prevent things like the matter at hand- as others have pointed out, local church settings are not immune to excess.
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
A small version of the ark has been built by a businessman here in Europe and sits in Holland. For Bible believers it is quite a teaching tool, much as was a replica model of the Tabernacle, since donated to Israel and in place in the Negev. So the idea is not a bad one. It is rather a good teaching tool, especially for the non-academic people of the Christian faith (which is most people of the Christian faith). I would say also that time will tell how it will come off.
Jeff Brown
So far, a major justification seems to be that other people have done similar things (coffee shops at churches, other museums, swimming pools at colleges)…
I do think that churches and educational institutions can go over the top on some of these amenities. That being said, facilities that would allow saints to break bread with one another would be seen by most as commendable (say, a kitchen or “fellowship hall”). A difference between such facilities and a “coffee shop” is the commercial aspect- drinks for sale rather than sharing.
A swimming pool at a college might be seen as excessive. That being said, I think that would be a different discussion. Such a facility serves athletic skill development, physical exercise, and institutional interaction (say, swimming competitions). I am assuming we are talking about a simple pool and not a recreational water park.
Acquiring great works of art in a gallery for display may not be something I would champion. Again, that being said, it seems a different discussion than erecting a theme park. Such facilities allow inspection of art, but also serve to preserve items of historical significance for succeeding generations. They educate sensibilities.
A theme park (particularly a “for profit” facility, as the press release indicates they intend to be), on the other hand, strikes me as a significantly different category. Making merchandise of Bible teaching at this scale (not to mention soliciting donations from people to assist in its erection while doing it) strikes me as problematic. What can be further accomplished with a theme park that hasn’t already been done with the already established Creation Museum? Will people better understand God’s wrath outpoured on a rebellious, sinful people by seeing (another) reproduction of the ark?
I do think that churches and educational institutions can go over the top on some of these amenities. That being said, facilities that would allow saints to break bread with one another would be seen by most as commendable (say, a kitchen or “fellowship hall”). A difference between such facilities and a “coffee shop” is the commercial aspect- drinks for sale rather than sharing.
A swimming pool at a college might be seen as excessive. That being said, I think that would be a different discussion. Such a facility serves athletic skill development, physical exercise, and institutional interaction (say, swimming competitions). I am assuming we are talking about a simple pool and not a recreational water park.
Acquiring great works of art in a gallery for display may not be something I would champion. Again, that being said, it seems a different discussion than erecting a theme park. Such facilities allow inspection of art, but also serve to preserve items of historical significance for succeeding generations. They educate sensibilities.
A theme park (particularly a “for profit” facility, as the press release indicates they intend to be), on the other hand, strikes me as a significantly different category. Making merchandise of Bible teaching at this scale (not to mention soliciting donations from people to assist in its erection while doing it) strikes me as problematic. What can be further accomplished with a theme park that hasn’t already been done with the already established Creation Museum? Will people better understand God’s wrath outpoured on a rebellious, sinful people by seeing (another) reproduction of the ark?
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
So therefore, what…?
What are you arguing for?
What do you want us to do?
My point in post #11 was simply that with all the varieties of commercial excesses in evangelical Christianity, this is not something I am personally uncomfortable with.
As far as the for-profit, not-for-profit, donation, etc., issues, I have not yet seen enough information to know exactly how this is all going to be set up. I think we would need a lot more information, and some solid understanding of it, before that can be discussed reasonably.
What are you arguing for?
What do you want us to do?
My point in post #11 was simply that with all the varieties of commercial excesses in evangelical Christianity, this is not something I am personally uncomfortable with.
As far as the for-profit, not-for-profit, donation, etc., issues, I have not yet seen enough information to know exactly how this is all going to be set up. I think we would need a lot more information, and some solid understanding of it, before that can be discussed reasonably.
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
My question would be “At what point is producing something Bible-related for profit ‘making merchandise’?” Or does this only apply to Bible-related projects that have an entertainment component?
I would agree that there is a line somewhere- in my mind it would be at the point where the project becomes irreverent or heretical in message and execution, but that is still going to be a subjective standard to some extent, even in IFBdom.
I would agree that there is a line somewhere- in my mind it would be at the point where the project becomes irreverent or heretical in message and execution, but that is still going to be a subjective standard to some extent, even in IFBdom.
Well, Paul, I suppose at this point I would like people to consider if this is a cause that glorifies God or appeals to our own desires. Is it possible that a good thing can be done to excess? Can man’s constructions inadvertently damage the causes they wish to promote? Is it possible for people to use a good cause for personal gain?
I don’t claim to have all the answers. The situation has raised many questions in my mind. however.
I don’t claim to have all the answers. The situation has raised many questions in my mind. however.
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
“Will people better understand God’s wrath outpoured on a rebellious, sinful people by seeing (another) reproduction of the ark?”
Yes, I would be thinking of God’s wrath. But the reality hits me harder when I see visual displays such as a huge pile of bones or a deeply cut gorge through layers and layers of sedimentary rock. That does preach in a powerful way.
Yet when I see a massive ark, I see the other kind of news. The massively good news of the Triune Creator God. The ark is a visual of the good news in the Gospel. And I can’t help myself but get excited over the three levels. Anytime I see a God-designed pattern of three, I get wound up with joy. At least one time, I would pay an admission fee so that I could tromp around with my family in a reproduced ark and sing, “Glory, I’m saved.” (laughing)
We have temples patterned with three levels dotting the length of the I-15 Corridor. The visual has a huge influence. But it is the wrong God. The wrong Gospel. And it does come down to merchandising, where people, thousands upon thousands of them are giving for righteous merit. It is like the same American pattern duplicating St. Peter’s Basilica of old. But I think the AiG project is different, Greg.
Yes, I would be thinking of God’s wrath. But the reality hits me harder when I see visual displays such as a huge pile of bones or a deeply cut gorge through layers and layers of sedimentary rock. That does preach in a powerful way.
Yet when I see a massive ark, I see the other kind of news. The massively good news of the Triune Creator God. The ark is a visual of the good news in the Gospel. And I can’t help myself but get excited over the three levels. Anytime I see a God-designed pattern of three, I get wound up with joy. At least one time, I would pay an admission fee so that I could tromp around with my family in a reproduced ark and sing, “Glory, I’m saved.” (laughing)
We have temples patterned with three levels dotting the length of the I-15 Corridor. The visual has a huge influence. But it is the wrong God. The wrong Gospel. And it does come down to merchandising, where people, thousands upon thousands of them are giving for righteous merit. It is like the same American pattern duplicating St. Peter’s Basilica of old. But I think the AiG project is different, Greg.
1. I realize that “Coming to Grips” was published by Master Books - however, MB and AIG has had a serious relationship since the days when Ham was in Australia. Plus, “Coming to Grips” was edited by Terry Mortenson, one of the major go-to guys over at AIG. Thus, while it is not perfectly accurate to state that “Coming to Grips” was published by AIG, it is almost safe to say that AIG is behind the book both in conception and marketing.
2. While AIG has value as an educational institution, the educational institution will make no inroads into broader ‘evangelical’ scholarship. Young earth creationists are virtually ignored by the broader ‘evangelical’ academy (Yes, there is the new Creation Studies Group at ETS run by Mortenson). The debate, in recent years, especially among young earth creationists, has been carried through popular venues, speeches, and books. Although it is helpful to have men such as Al Mohler fighting the battle in these areas, the works of C. John Collins and John Hill Walton have gone virtually ignored and unanswered by the YEC groups. Even Peter Enns has gone largely unanswered (yes, I am aware of and have read Beale’s book. Beale falls into the trap of appealing to Walton’s position - a position that Enns lauds, and then states that Walton needs to consider the direct doctrinal ramifications to his bibliology). What I am saying is that a more robust academic defense of biblical creationism is needed, not by scientists or educators, but by Bible scholars and theologians across the spectrum of disciplines (i.e. a NT guy needs to do much work on Paul’s view of Adam - in response to men like Enns, an OT guy needs to do work in the ANE parallels and mythologies, a historian needs to demonstrate the historic position of the church, and a systematics man needs to build the doctrine of atonement on the basis of Adam’s sin and subsequent physical death).
2. While AIG has value as an educational institution, the educational institution will make no inroads into broader ‘evangelical’ scholarship. Young earth creationists are virtually ignored by the broader ‘evangelical’ academy (Yes, there is the new Creation Studies Group at ETS run by Mortenson). The debate, in recent years, especially among young earth creationists, has been carried through popular venues, speeches, and books. Although it is helpful to have men such as Al Mohler fighting the battle in these areas, the works of C. John Collins and John Hill Walton have gone virtually ignored and unanswered by the YEC groups. Even Peter Enns has gone largely unanswered (yes, I am aware of and have read Beale’s book. Beale falls into the trap of appealing to Walton’s position - a position that Enns lauds, and then states that Walton needs to consider the direct doctrinal ramifications to his bibliology). What I am saying is that a more robust academic defense of biblical creationism is needed, not by scientists or educators, but by Bible scholars and theologians across the spectrum of disciplines (i.e. a NT guy needs to do much work on Paul’s view of Adam - in response to men like Enns, an OT guy needs to do work in the ANE parallels and mythologies, a historian needs to demonstrate the historic position of the church, and a systematics man needs to build the doctrine of atonement on the basis of Adam’s sin and subsequent physical death).
Greg,
I agree that many churches and pastors are excessive, and I would personally advocate a simple church. I would like to see more pastors-as-scholars doing work on this subject. This issue is not to be relegated to the seminaries alone, but to the churches. Pastors should write (Not necessarily whole books, but robust journal articles - maybe once a year, perhaps a monthly church newsletter, etc.), and also preach on subjects of theological import (such as creation).
What AIG is doing here, on the other hand, is a bit much - the gospel into frivolity.
I agree that many churches and pastors are excessive, and I would personally advocate a simple church. I would like to see more pastors-as-scholars doing work on this subject. This issue is not to be relegated to the seminaries alone, but to the churches. Pastors should write (Not necessarily whole books, but robust journal articles - maybe once a year, perhaps a monthly church newsletter, etc.), and also preach on subjects of theological import (such as creation).
What AIG is doing here, on the other hand, is a bit much - the gospel into frivolity.
[CAWatson] 1. I realize that “Coming to Grips” was published by Master Books - however, MB and AIG has had a serious relationship since the days when Ham was in Australia. Plus, “Coming to Grips” was edited by Terry Mortenson, one of the major go-to guys over at AIG. Thus, while it is not perfectly accurate to state that “Coming to Grips” was published by AIG, it is almost safe to say that AIG is behind the book both in conception and marketing.CA,
I do get a more complete picture of where you are coming from now, and we apparently agree completely on the creation issue and many other things :D
As one of the contributors to Coming to Grips, I would not say that “AIG is behind the book both in conception and marketing.” It really grew out of the work of the TWO editors, both Dr. Terry and Dr. Thane Ury, who is not part of AiG, and was of course written in honor of Dr. John Whitcomb, by his former students, to give credit to him as one of the founders of the modern creation movement.
AiG carries it in their bookstore, but they have not marketed it in any special way.
Also, are you saying that this volume is inadequate in answering the issues you raise? Please help me understand why you are bringing it into this discussion.
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
Paul,
First of all, I greatly appreciated “Coming to Grips.” I think that it is a good start of wading into the creationist issues (I read the book for a PhD class with McCabe on the subject of Creationism). I don’t think that it is enough. What I have been saying is that the YEC has not made a decent, comprehensive argument from a biblical scholar perspective. I appreciate what Whitcomb did fifty years ago - he gave us good footings. However, in the 1960s, beginning with E.J. Young, and continuing with Waltke, Collins, Walton, Enns, and others, evangelical OT scholarship took a different direction (I’m heading in this direction on my dissertation). YEC made a comprehensive argument for their position - granted. However, they have not offered a robust academic critique of the evangelical shifts away from creationism. Coming to Grips is a helpful start, but I’m not sure it is going to get a wide enough hearing due to their publisher (which is why AIG is important). As of right now, I see two reviews for it listed on Ebsco (Master’s and Detroit - to be expected). I originally brought it into the discussion to state that it is a helpful start to see a few OT men (and others) entering into the creationist issue on a serious level. My only concern is that it won’t get a serious enough read among the evangelical OT academy. I’m saying that I would like to see more scholars take up the issues, and less scientists and educators. “Coming to Grips” is helpful in this manner - but it is far from enough.
First of all, I greatly appreciated “Coming to Grips.” I think that it is a good start of wading into the creationist issues (I read the book for a PhD class with McCabe on the subject of Creationism). I don’t think that it is enough. What I have been saying is that the YEC has not made a decent, comprehensive argument from a biblical scholar perspective. I appreciate what Whitcomb did fifty years ago - he gave us good footings. However, in the 1960s, beginning with E.J. Young, and continuing with Waltke, Collins, Walton, Enns, and others, evangelical OT scholarship took a different direction (I’m heading in this direction on my dissertation). YEC made a comprehensive argument for their position - granted. However, they have not offered a robust academic critique of the evangelical shifts away from creationism. Coming to Grips is a helpful start, but I’m not sure it is going to get a wide enough hearing due to their publisher (which is why AIG is important). As of right now, I see two reviews for it listed on Ebsco (Master’s and Detroit - to be expected). I originally brought it into the discussion to state that it is a helpful start to see a few OT men (and others) entering into the creationist issue on a serious level. My only concern is that it won’t get a serious enough read among the evangelical OT academy. I’m saying that I would like to see more scholars take up the issues, and less scientists and educators. “Coming to Grips” is helpful in this manner - but it is far from enough.
Discussion