Answers in Genesis Announces Ark Encounter "Tourist Destination"

ark-encounter_0.jpg “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

Discussion

[Greg Linscott] In my mind, though, a for-profit endeavor is being built on the foundation of a reputation built on service provided to the church. I find that troubling.
I agree. The Ark Encounter web site is soliciting donations to build the ark. If this is a for-profit endeavor, should they expect God’s people to fund it? What is going to happen to those profits? Will it go to individuals, companies? Then let those invest their own capital. I’m sure whoever the owners of this will be don’t have the $24.5m to buy this park, so they want God’s people to buy it and give it to them as a gift.





I want to remind everyone that the flood is primarily the story of the execution of hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of men, women, and children by the hand of God. I personally do not feel this is an appropriate theme for a “tourist destination.”

[CLeavell] I want to remind everyone that the flood is primarily the story of the execution of hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of men, women, and children by the hand of God. I personally do not feel this is an appropriate theme for a “tourist destination.”

apparently a perfect theme for the church nursery! http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php] http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-laughing003.gif

I’m with those who believe that if this project is done well- which I think there is a good chance it will because it is being designed by the same team that did the Creation Museum- it will be a testimony of the judgment of God as well as His mercy and deliverance. Just because it is a tourist attraction doesn’t make it silly or irreverent, any more than Arlington National Cemetery is a barrel of laughs and frivolity.

[Susan R] it will be a testimony of the judgment of God as well as His mercy and deliverance.
We allready have that, and it is a more sure word of prophecy than anything we can handle with our hands.
[Aaron Blumer]…we can’t enjoy the spectacle of a life size ark? Just have to read about it and use our imaginations?
Isn’t that exactly what Abraham required of the rich man’s surviving relatives?

[CLeavell] I want to remind everyone that the flood is primarily the story of the execution of hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of men, women, and children by the hand of God. I personally do not feel this is an appropriate theme for a “tourist destination.”
It was execution but it was also redemption… revealing both the holiness and mercy of God. “Noah found grace…”
…so I guess that justifies the expense.

Assumes the expense needs justifying. Maybe it does… but why? If it costs that much to build a structure that size, then it costs that much. This is less money than half a dozen NFL players will make over the next couple of years. (Value is an interesting concept, isn’t it?)

Greg… about the “for profit” linked to the ministry history. I do think that the ideal, given the nature of the oranization, would be to keep it all nonoprofit. The problem, I suspect, is obtaining financing for such a huge effort. Looks like what AiG concluded was that it would take both large numbers of donations and also financial backers who expect to reap profit from their investments. I’m sure it’s been done before (minus the gigantic boat part).

(The great thing about profit—as a concept, not as something I actually see much of!—is that at the end of the trade, you have more value than you started with. And the value added ends up helping more people get employed and improve their lives, etc…. see the Filings posted a while ago on 200 nations, 200 years, 4 minutes. Profit is God’s invention and a very gracious one.)

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

[the NYT article] For children, there will be a petting zoo, live bird and animal shows and a play area with ziplines and climbing nets — all Bible-themed. Even the trainer, Dan Breeding, will present animal acts with a Gospel message about creation.

I do not understand why this would be a bad thing. I personally am really sick and tired of every time I take my kids to the zoo getting blasted with millions of years and fairy tales about the evolution of the dinosaur to the bird and walls plastered with charts of how monkeys are our closest relatives. I’d be thrilled to take my kids someplace where I can relax for a change, and they can enjoy learning in an environment that emphasizes rather than belittles our Biblical worldview and doctrinal beliefs.

Why don’t we protest Christians spend their vacation dollars at Disneyland and on other frivolous amusements? Angels forfend we spend some time and money to create places where Christians can have a holiday learning and appreciating God’s Word and having a good time not surrounded by half-naked cartoon bimbettes and talking toasters.

I think we pay too little attention to the way the forms (very broadly speaking) we use affect the message we intend to send. I suggest that we will regard ‘truths’ we learn from cartoon charactars or from a ‘Christian’ jungle gym differently than those we learn from a book, a one on one discipleship conversation along a nature trail, or a speaker in the pulpit. I just don’t think theology is theme-park material.

Not coincidentally, I happen to be in the middle of All God’s Children and Blue Suede Shoes by Ken Myers. It (among other things) has made me think alot about this issue.

Bro. David- I agree that the medium affects the message. I’m not a fan of Christian ‘cartoons’- don’t like ‘em, don’t use ‘em. But I use the term ‘cartoon’ to denote drawings that are caricatures or humorous in some way- not realistic illustrations. Don’t even get me started on Bible characters being depicted by talking fruits and vegetables.

But I don’t perceive anything cartoony or irreverent about a realistic replica of the ark or animal exhibits that showcase God’s design. The fact is, seeing an elephant or boa constrictor or jellyfish up close has more impact than looking at one in a book. And, knowing that families with young children will attend, it makes sense to provide a jungle gym. I dare say many churches have playgrounds, as well as Sunday School rooms and nurseries stocked with toys, and I imagine many churches favor Bible-themed toys over The Little Mermaid and Dora the Explorer. Like I said earlier- how many nurseries are decorated with ‘cutesy’ Bible themes?

I would draw the line at the cafe serving John the Baptist Chocolate-Covered Locusts and selling camel’s hair T-shirts though. The connotation of ‘theme park’ is unfortunate, IMO, but I’m going to wait and judge it by the actual execution.

I think this is a great idea. Some are throwing around the phrase “theme park” almost as a synonym with “amusement park”—frivolity, amusement, etc. I don’t think that’s the idea at all. As others have pointed out, it’s more like a giant object lesson.

Do those who have a problem with this also have a problem with the Creation Museum? If not, why not?

HSAT, I will say I don’t care for the banner on the web site: “Help Build the Ark!” I would prefer “Help AiG Build the Ark Encounter!”

-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University