A Response to Ken Ham’s “He Is Waiting for Me to Die”

 

Introduction

Answers in Genesis recently resurfaced Ken Ham’s April blog post titled “He Is Waiting for Me to Die.” (1) The post responds to P.Z. Myers’ crude and inappropriate blog title, and Myers’ rhetoric should be rejected outright. Christians should never wish death on those we disagree with, nor should we mirror the hostility of those outside the faith. Yet Ham’s response raises concerns that go far deeper than the original provocation. His rhetoric—framing criticism as spiritual warfare, dividing the church into faithful and compromised camps, and blending dramatic ministry claims with fundraising appeals—reveals a pattern that has become increasingly troubling over the decades. When examined carefully, the post reflects dynamics Scripture warns us to avoid, not to emulate.

Spiritual Warfare as a Response to Criticism

Ham begins his post by quoting Ecclesiastes 3:1–2: “For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven: a time to be born, and a time to die.” He then moves quickly to Hebrews 9:27: “And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment.” These passages are true and weighty, but the way they are deployed here is revealing. Rather than addressing Myers’ rhetoric directly, Ham reframes the entire situation as evidence of a cosmic spiritual war. Myers becomes not simply an atheist critic but a “pagan university professor” who “blasphemes and mocks God and Christians,” and whose comments serve as proof that AiG is “kicking [the devil] in the shins.”

This framing collapses personal criticism into spiritual attack. It encourages readers to interpret disagreement not as part of normal public discourse but as demonic resistance to AiG’s mission. The effect is to elevate Ham’s personal role to that of a frontline commander in a supernatural conflict, where opposition itself becomes evidence of divine blessing. This is not a pastoral response. It is movement rhetoric.

An Unhealthy Us‑Versus‑Them Mentality

The most concerning aspect of Ham’s rhetoric is the way it fosters division within the church. Throughout the post, Ham laments “compromising Bible colleges,” “lukewarm churches,” and Christians who emerge from these institutions “no different” from atheists. This is not the language of unity or mutual correction. It is the language of sectarianism—drawing sharp lines between “true believers” who align with AiG’s interpretation of Genesis and “compromisers” who do not.

Paul warns against this very spirit in Galatians 5:20, listing “strife, jealousy, angry outbursts, selfish ambitions, dissensions, factions” among the works of the flesh. The New Testament consistently calls the church to unity grounded in Christ, not unity grounded in a particular interpretation of Genesis 1-11. When Ham portrays fellow Christians as spiritual dangers simply because they disagree with his young‑earth framework, he is not defending the faith. He is dividing the body.

This posture has become a defining feature of AiG’s public ministry. It encourages believers to view disagreement as rebellion, criticism as blasphemy, and alternative Christian perspectives as threats.(2, 3) Such rhetoric does not strengthen the church. It fractures it.

Inflated Ministry Numbers Without Transparency

Ham’s post also includes a striking claim: “As we see the enormous number of people saved through this ministry, including over 100,000 a year at the attractions alone…” Yet AiG has never provided transparent data to substantiate these numbers. There is no published methodology, no denominational oversight, no independent verification, and no clarity about what constitutes a “conversion.” Without transparency, these claims function rhetorically rather than factually.

This is especially concerning given the demographic reality of AiG’s attractions. The Ark Encounter and Creation Museum overwhelmingly draw conservative Christian families, church groups, and homeschool communities—people who already identify as believers, and often as young‑earth creationists. (4, 5, 6) The idea that these attractions generate over 100,000 new conversions annually is implausible on its face. Without clear data, the number appears less like a report and more like a tool for reinforcing the narrative of spiritual warfare and ministry urgency.

AiG’s own internal reporting confirms this demographic reality. In its December 31, 2025 article “What Has Research Revealed About Our Ark Encounter and Creation Museum Guests?”, AiG states that its “100,000” figure is based entirely on exit surveys. (7)

Those same surveys show that roughly 70% of visitors already identify as Christians, meaning the remaining 30% who “made a profession of faith” are almost certainly not new converts but Christians reaffirming commitments they already hold. (8)

In other words, AiG’s own data indicates that the “100,000” number reflects self‑reported emotional or devotional responses from an overwhelmingly Christian audience—not evangelistic fruit among unbelievers. 

Scripture warns against this kind of exaggeration. Proverbs 12:22 states, “Lying lips are detestable to the Lord, but faithful people are his delight.” Even if Ham believes the numbers he cites, the absence of transparency creates the appearance of manipulation—an appearance Christians are called to avoid.

The Fundraising Pivot and the Appearance of Grift

After several paragraphs of spiritual conflict, demonic opposition, and triumphant ministry statistics, Ham transitions directly into a major fundraising appeal—something we also see in AiG’s own demographic and “research” posts. He announces a matching gift campaign of up to one million dollars and urges readers to “prayerfully consider a generous gift.” The emotional arc is familiar: persecution, spiritual danger, heroic ministry impact, and finally, financial support.

This pattern becomes even more troubling when viewed against AiG’s own attendance data. The previously cited sources show that the Ark Encounter is not growing in popularity but posting fewer visitors each year, even as ticket prices remain astronomical. (9, 10) Yet Ham continues approving multi‑million‑dollar expansion projects for both attractions—projects that also incur significant new staffing and maintenance costs for the organization—while using the same spiritual‑warfare framing to justify each new campaign. 

Even if Ham is sincere—and I do not doubt his sincerity—the structure of the messaging resembles the very pattern Scripture warns us to avoid. Paul cautions Timothy about those who “imagine that godliness is a way to material gain” (1 Timothy 6:5), and he immediately adds, “But godliness with contentment is great gain.” The issue is not wealth itself but the appearance of using the gospel as a means of financial advancement. Paul insists that ministers must avoid even the appearance of exploiting the faith for personal or institutional gain.

This is where AiG’s pattern over the last fifty years becomes difficult to ignore. The ministry is built around Ham’s personal authority, his interpretation of Genesis, and his public persona. (11) The attractions, the messaging, the fundraising, and the rhetoric all center on him, his organization, and his teachings. (12, 13) When criticism arises, it is framed as a spiritual attack. When opposition appears, it is treated as proof of divine blessing. When numbers are cited, they are large, unverifiable, and used to justify further financial appeals. Even if Ham believes every word he says, the pattern creates the appearance of a leader who uses spiritual warfare language to mobilize donors and maintain institutional loyalty.

Scripture warns us to avoid not only sin itself but the appearance of it (1 Thessalonians 5:22). The appearance here is not good.

Conclusion

Myers’ rhetoric was inappropriate, and Christians should reject it. But Ham’s response reveals deeper issues that cannot be dismissed as mere reaction. The church is called to unity, humility, and truth—not to an embattled posture that treats fellow believers as enemies, inflates ministry numbers without transparency, and blends spiritual urgency with financial appeals. We must be discerning. We must test all things. And we must remember Paul’s warning: “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, and by craving it, some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs” (1 Timothy 6:10).

Whatever Ham’s intentions, the pattern emerging from AiG’s messaging does not reflect the health, transparency, or humility Scripture calls us to pursue. It is time to look beneath the surface and ask hard questions about the direction of this ministry and the rhetoric that sustains it.