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.

Sin by Any Other Name

 

 

“By your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned.”  

— Matthew 12:37 (CSB)

Introduction: When Interpretive Disagreement Becomes a Moral Category

In some corners of evangelical discourse—particularly among proponents of Young Earth Creationism (YEC)—certain labels serve purposes far beyond their surface definitions. Terms like “compromiser” or “scoffer” are often employed not just to mark theological divergence but to imply moral or spiritual deficiency. Though frequently framed as doctrinal critiques, these labels function rhetorically as coded condemnations—effectively blurring the line between interpretative differences and spiritual rebellion.

The Power of Terminology: When “Compromise” Implies Moral Corruption

The word “compromise” often appears in creationist materials to describe Christians who adopt interpretations of Genesis that allow for an ancient Earth or evolutionary processes. On its face, this may appear as a caution against doctrinal drift. Yet in context, “compromise” is frequently framed as a betrayal of the faith itself.

Ken Ham, for instance, argues that accepting millions of years “creates doubt in God’s Word—and doubt often leads to unbelief.” (1) While he affirms that Old Earth Christians can be saved, he warns that their views may lead others into apostasy and has even gone so far as to call people to “repent of compromising God's Word with [...] millions of years and evolution.” (2) This rhetorical move shifts transforms what is ultimately an interpretative disagreement between believers into a moral failure on the part of those who do not ascribe to YECism—one with potentially dire spiritual consequences.

“Scoffers in the Church”: Biblical Terms and Contemporary Polemics

Another term frequently invoked is “scoffer”, drawn from 2 Peter 3:3, which warns that “scoffers will come in the last days… following their own evil desires.” In Scripture, the scoffer is not merely mistaken but morally corrupt. When applied to Christians who interpret Genesis differently, the term carries a heavy theological charge.

In a 2017 blog post, Ken Ham applies this passage not only to secularists but also Christians who reject Young Earth Creationism. (3) This framing implicitly aligns fellow believers with figures of spiritual rebellion depending on their view of creation and Noah’s Flood—a move that risks delegitimizing rather than dialoguing.

Spiritual Insight or Doctrinal Boundary?

Some creationist authors go further, suggesting that belief in a Young Earth is not merely a theological conclusion but a spiritual revelation. In an article titled “How Do I Stay Humble When I Know I’m Right?”, Todd Friel writes:

“The real reason [creation scientists] know the earth is young is that the Holy Spirit taught them the truth… The real difference between the young-earth creationist and someone like Stephen Hawking or Neil deGrasse Tyson is the Holy Spirit.” (4)

While intended to affirm spiritual confidence, this framing implies that those who reject a Young Earth may lack spiritual discernment—or even the Spirit Himself. When read alongside Romans 8:9, which states that “if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to him,” the implication becomes theologically weighty.

A Theological Concern: Doctrine, Discernment, and Discipleship

These rhetorical patterns raise broader concerns—not simply about tone, but about the theological ecosystem they help create. When doctrinal boundaries are enforced through language that borders on moral judgment, three risks emerge:

• Ecclesiological fragmentation: Labeling fellow Christians as “compromisers” or “scoffers” undermines unity and stifles dialogue across theological lines.

• Moral inference by proxy: Terms with strong ethical overtones communicate more than intra-Church disagreement—they suggest spiritual error without owning the weight of formal condemnation.

• Fear-driven allegiance: When theological views on secondary matters are framed as spiritually perilous, the result may be a discipleship model shaped more by anxiety than conviction.

In this context, terms like “compromiser” and “scoffer” can operate as rhetorical substitutes for more serious charges—heresy, blasphemy, or sin—without explicitly making them. Their strategic ambiguity allows for the implication of grave spiritual failure while sidestepping the ecclesial responsibility that a formal accusation would entail. These labels preserve plausible deniability while conveying theological judgment, functioning as a kind of doctrinal warning cloaked in pastoral language.

A Striking Asymmetry: Responses from Old Earth Perspectives

In contrast, many Old Earth Creationists and Evolutionary Creationists tend to avoid similar rhetorical framing. Figures like Hugh Ross (Reasons to Believe), Deborah Haarsma (BioLogos), and John Walton (Wheaton College) emphasize interpretive humility and theological generosity.

In Origins: Christian Perspectives on Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design, Deborah and Loren Haarsma write:

“We are all seeking to understand God’s Word and God’s world. Disagreements should not lead to division, but to deeper conversation, humility, and faith.” (5)

This posture highlights the possibility of charitable disagreement—one where convictions are shared clearly, but without spiritual insinuations or moral judgment.

Conclusion: The Weight of Our Words

The stakes of creationist rhetoric are not confined to hermeneutical differences—they touch the heart of Christian identity and community. As this article has shown, language within some YEC frameworks functions not simply to assert theological convictions, but to delineate who belongs and who is suspect. In such a climate, words like “compromiser” and “scoffer” do more than describe disagreement—they imply defect in character, defect in faith, or even estrangement from Christ Himself.

This is not a call to theological relativism. Biblical interpretation matters. Conviction matters. But the New Testament also reminds us that “knowledge puffs up, but love builds up” (1 Corinthians 8:1). When doctrinal purity is pursued at the expense of love, it can harden into a kind of rhetorical tribalism—one that defends orthodoxy by undermining the very people it seeks to persuade.

Moreover, the asymmetry highlighted between YEC and old-Earth perspectives is instructive. It reminds us that charity and clarity are not mutually exclusive. One can speak with theological precision and pastoral restraint. One can uphold Scripture’s authority without implying that alternative interpretations are evidence of spiritual or moral failure. And one can critique a position robustly without casting suspicion on those who hold it.

To continue in this rhetorical mode—where disagreements are framed in terms saturated with salvific overtones—is to risk narrowing the Gospel to a particular interpretive enclave. The Church becomes not a community of seekers united in Christ, but a gated institution policed by litmus tests that Scripture itself does not demand.

If the church is to model a better way forward—especially in an era marked by deconstruction, division, and disillusionment—it must begin with language. Our discourse should reflect not only the truths we defend but the grace we proclaim. That means resisting the urge to label fellow believers as spiritual deviants for reading Genesis differently. It means asking whether our rhetoric invites conversation or curtails it. And it means remembering that the credibility of our witness depends not only on the doctrines we espouse but on the love with which we hold them.

We can do better—not by watering down conviction, but by speaking it with courage, clarity, and compassion. That, too, is an act of faithfulness.

Weaponizing Persecution: How People Twist Scripture to Defend Error

 

Introduction: When Persecution Becomes a Shield Against Truth

Throughout history, persecution has been a reality for faithful Christians. Jesus Himself warned His followers that they would face opposition: John 15:18-20. Paul echoed this sentiment, stating, that all who live a godly life in Christ will be persecuted (2 Timothy 3:12). However, while these passages affirm the reality of persecution, they are sometimes misused by high-control religious groups and even some Christian sects to dismiss legitimate criticism and doctrinal correction.

At the heart of this issue is a troubling pattern: the conditioning of believers to perceive criticism as a spiritual attack rather than an opportunity for growth. When this happens, accountability is rejected, and doctrinal errors are reinforced. But is every challenge truly persecution, or could some be necessary biblical correction?

The Biblical Context of Persecution

Understanding the original Greek words used in these passages provides deeper insight into their intended meaning. The word for persecution, diōgmós (διωγμός), conveys the idea of being pursued or hunted down, often with hostility. In contrast, biblical correction is associated with paideia (παιδεία), which refers to instruction, discipline, and training in righteousness. This distinction is crucial—persecution is unjust suffering for faithfulness, while correction is a necessary part of spiritual growth.

Jesus’ Teachings on Persecution

Jesus’ words in Matthew 5:10 affirm that those who suffer for righteousness are blessed. However, righteousness is not synonymous with doctrinal rigidity or resistance to correction. The early church faced persecution for proclaiming the gospel, not for rejecting theological accountability.

While persecution was expected for those faithfully spreading the gospel, it was never meant to justify refusing correction. The Bereans were praised in Scripture for testing teachings against the Word (Acts 17:11), demonstrating that engaging in theological scrutiny is not persecution, but wisdom.

Paul’s Warning in 2 Timothy 3:12

Paul’s statement in 2 Timothy 3:12 is often cited by groups that equate criticism with persecution. However, Paul was addressing the reality of suffering for living a godly life, not for resisting doctrinal correction. In fact, Paul himself corrected fellow believers, including Peter, when doctrinal errors arose (Galatians 2:11-14).

If biblical correction was persecution, then Paul would have been guilty of persecuting Peter—but Scripture shows us otherwise. Instead, Paul’s correction strengthened the early church’s unity and adherence to sound doctrine.

How High-Control Groups Misuse These Passages

High-control religious groups often instill a persecution complex in their followers. Any external challenge—whether theological, ethical, or historical—is framed as an attack on their faith rather than an opportunity for growth. This conditioning leads to:

• Dismissal of correction: Instead of engaging with theological critique, followers are taught to see critics as enemies of God.

• Reinforcement of doctrinal errors: By rejecting correction, these groups double down on flawed interpretations.

• Isolation from broader Christian discourse: Followers are discouraged from engaging with differing perspectives, limiting their spiritual growth.

But history shows that faith is strengthened through correction—not weakened by it. The tendency to dismiss correction under the guise of persecution is not unique to modern times; history provides numerous examples of this pattern at work.

Historical and Contemporary Examples

Scholars have noted that cults and sectarian movements frequently use persecution narratives to maintain control. For instance, the Southern Baptist Journal of Theology discusses how persecution has historically been misunderstood and misapplied. (1) The journal highlights how some groups equate any form of criticism with persecution, reinforcing doctrinal isolation and discouraging theological reflection.

Additionally, studies on Matthew’s interpretation of the law emphasize how misinterpretations can lead to doctrinal inflexibility. (2) Gregory C. Cochran, in his analysis of Matthew 5:10-12, explains that Jesus’ words on persecution were meant to encourage faithfulness in righteousness, not to justify resistance to correction. He notes that early church fathers, such as Augustine in City of God, had to defend Christianity against misapplications of persecution narratives. likewise, medieval sects often misused persecution narratives to justify doctrinal rigidity. R. I. Moore’s The Formation of a Persecuting Society explores how medieval religious authorities framed dissenters as heretics to suppress theological debate. (3)

Even some widely respected Christian organizations in the modern era, such as Answers in Genesis, have been observed using similar rhetoric. A rhetorical analysis of their content suggests that they employ a pattern of argumentation that frames opposition as hostility toward biblical truth rather than an opportunity for theological refinement. A study published by Loyola University’s Undergraduate Research and Engagement Symposium examines how Answers in Genesis utilizes recognizable rhetorical devices to frame its religious claims as scientific while simultaneously dismissing opposing views as persecution. (4) This approach can discourage followers from critically evaluating doctrinal positions, reinforcing a defensive posture rather than fostering constructive dialogue. (5)

These historical and contemporary examples illustrate a long-standing trend, but the underlying mechanisms behind this mindset extend beyond theology—modern psychology helps explain why certain groups maintain these defensive postures.

Psychological Perspective: Groupthink and Us-Versus-Them Mentality

Social psychology provides insight into why high-control religious groups use persecution narratives to maintain control. Studies on groupthink reveal that tightly knit communities often suppress dissent to maintain unity. (6) Irving Janis’ research on groupthink demonstrates how individuals in such environments prioritize conformity over critical thinking, leading to doctrinal stagnation.

Additionally, the Us vs. Them mentality fosters in-group loyalty while demonizing outsiders. (7) Henri Tajfel’s Social Identity Theory explains how individuals derive self-worth from group membership, making them resistant to external critique. This psychological conditioning reinforces the persecution narrative, discouraging followers from engaging with differing perspectives.

The Difference Between Persecution and Correction

Biblical Correction is Not Persecution

Criticism and correction are essential for theological integrity. Proverbs 27:17 states, "Iron sharpens iron, and one person sharpens another." Biblical correction is a means of refining faith, not an attack on it. When believers reject correction under the guise of persecution, they risk falling into doctrinal error.

The Role of Discernment

Christians must exercise discernment in distinguishing between genuine persecution and rightful correction. The early church welcomed theological debate, as seen in the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15). True faith is strengthened through examination, not weakened by it.

Counter-Arguments & Responses

Objection: All Criticism Comes from Secular Opposition

Some groups argue that all criticism originates from secular opposition. However, biblical correction is a fundamental Christian principle. As previously noted, Paul himself corrected Peter publicly when he acted hypocritically. True biblical accountability comes from within the faith community, not just external sources.

Objection: Discernment is Subjective

While discernment is important, it must be grounded in Scripture. As previously noted, the Bereans were praised for testing Paul’s teachings against the Word. Discernment should not be used as an excuse to reject correction but as a tool for refining faith.

Conclusion: Embracing Accountability in Faith

Persecution is a reality for those who follow Christ, but it should never be used as a shield against theological accountability. High-control religious groups and some Christian sects misuse passages like John 15:18-20, Matthew 5:10, and 2 Timothy 3:12 to dismiss correction, reinforcing doctrinal errors and isolating followers from broader Christian discourse.

However, true faith does not retreat from scrutiny—it embraces it as a vital tool for growth. Scripture itself affirms that correction and discernment are signs of wisdom and maturity in faith. Rejecting correction due to fear or pride does not protect faith—it weakens it. Throughout Scripture, correction is linked to wisdom and maturity. As Proverbs 12:1 states, "Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge, but one who hates correction is stupid."

The lives of biblical figures further illustrate the necessity of accepting correction with humility. When Peter erred by withdrawing from Gentile believers, Paul confronted him openly. Peter, rather than resisting correction, adjusted his behavior, demonstrating the humility and teachability that should characterize every believer. Likewise, Apollos, a gifted preacher, was corrected in his doctrine by Priscilla and Aquila (Acts 18:24-26), which ultimately strengthened his ministry.

It is not persecution but pride that causes individuals and groups to resist correction. True discipleship requires humility, a willingness to examine one’s beliefs, and an openness to refinement. Faith that resists accountability is not a faith strengthened by persecution, but one weakened by fear of being wrong. As Paul said to Timothy, "Be diligent to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who doesn’t need to be ashamed, correctly teaching the word of truth" (2 Timothy 2:15).

Let us therefore strive toward a faith that is strong enough to endure correction, humble enough to accept wisdom, and discerning enough to distinguish persecution from accountability. If we truly seek to honor Christ, we must reject the misuse of His words as a defense against correction and spiritual growth. Instead, we must welcome challenges as opportunities to sharpen our understanding, refine our doctrine, and deepen our faith—remaining steadfast not in our own interpretations, but in the truth of God’s Word.