Dealing with ‘Answers in Genesis’ (AiG) over the years has
been a trying and ultimately futile endeavor. It’s become clear to me that if
one’s views are not sycophantic of theirs then the road of communication is
going to be a bumpy one, no matter how polite one is.
From memory, and whatever paperwork I’ve still got around
from those days, I first got in contact with AiG back in January 2003 when I
was considering some sort of documentary about them. Carl Wieland was the CEO
of the organisation back then and seemed happy for me to undertake such a
project. I had met Ken Ham, the founder and undisputed leader of AiG, just
before Christmas 2002 and he had mentioned to me that “something” was possibly
happening soon, something profound and important. I must have mentioned it to
Wieland in a letter because he wrote back saying that whatever the “something”
was, wasn’t really that big a deal yet and that any developments would be a
long time coming. Okay, cool.
But then things soured. In March 2003 Wieland again wrote to
me, but this time he was a lot less friendly. He seemed to be under the
impression that I was “pumping” his staff for information about the “something”
that might or might not be happening later that year. This was certainly not true.
If it was mentioned it was only in passing, indeed, I had
other far more important questions to ask. Obviously word gets around AiG fast,
unfortunately, it seemed to travel rather inaccurately. The reports being
delivered to Wieland were greatly exaggerated and showed more than a bit of
paranoia.
Another problem Wieland had with me concerned the time a
staff member at a lecture wanted to know details about me, for example my age,
if I was single or married, what was my job, where did I live etc, but I
refused; not to be difficult, merely because I just didn’t think it was any of
his business. What was I hiding? Something terrible no doubt. Why did an AiG
staff member want so many details about me anyway? The letter continued with,
‘Please do not attempt to
circumvent this situation via our staff, to avoid the embarrassment of having
to be told by them that they will no longer be answering your questions at any
level on any subject.’
Whenever I had attended an AiG lecture I always introduced
myself to the person giving the presentation, told them my name, what I was
doing there and the permission I had gained to be there, then I went and sat
quietly in amongst the gathering. When I asked questions I was always polite
and respectful and enquired about things that were pertaining solely to their
claims and their published works. It seemed apparent to me that Wieland had
circulated my name amongst his staff and instructed them not to have any
dealings with me. So was this how AiG dealt with an ordinary member of the
public who asked sound, reasonable questions: blacklist him.
In their literature they portray themselves as being an
honest, friendly and open organisation with nothing to hide, yet they then go
and make it apparent that mistrust and suspicion are possibly a very real part
of their psyche. Wieland then said ‘You are of course free to write whatever
you like and to use material from the public domain or our publications,
whatever’.
He then ended his letter by saying that if I had any questions
of a ‘seeker’ nature, then I could write to him directly. Exactly what a
‘seeker nature’ is I’m not sure, but if it meant asking intelligent and polite
questions at appropriate times with complete respect then that is exactly what
I had been doing all along. I just wanted to know about AiG and what their
beliefs were. But Wieland took an extremist stance and immediately labeled me
as someone his staff had to avoid. His letter was more illuminating than
irritating for it clearly illustrated that AiG has no hesitation in shutting
out the world, or individuals, who are not kowtowing to them about their
claims. I was always sincere and up front and told them what I was working on.
The doco project had changed to become a book and it was
that book that I worked on, literally, for years. I even got a publisher
interested in it. But my publisher made it clear that I would need permission
from AiG for all the quotes I had used from their literature. I thought that if
I properly referenced it and used it in a professional, analytic manner then I
could get away with it. But no, I had to get their permission, so I wrote to
them.
As part of my book I examined, though not in great detail,
the split that occurred back in late 2005 and early 2006 whereby AiG dumped their
Australian, New Zealand ,
Canadian and South African offices and only retained their US
and UK ones.
When I set about seeking permission to use their quotes I was soon put in
contact with Anthony J. Biller, AiG’s in-house attorney. (Carl Wieland was gone
by this point, heading up ‘Creation Ministries International’ (CMI )).
This was early 2011 and Anthony wasn’t too pleased that I was reporting on the
AiG split from their founding overseas colleagues. He basically refused me
permission to use their quotes and made especial mention of the split. He felt
I was republishing “defamatory” material and that the matter of the split had
been dealt with and was now old news.
When I queried him on this he offered that if I were to
remove the offending chapter re: the split then they (AiG) might look more
favorably on granting me the permission I was seeking to get my book published.
He went so far as to suggest that, should the chapter be exorcised, then AiG
“would not anticipate objecting” to me using their materials, as long as that
use was fair etc. Ok, fine, whatever, I’ll take the chapter out. This was in
May, 2011.
I then sent him the revised manuscript with the troublesome
chapter removed and waited for his response. And waited, and waited, and
waited. It wasn’t until December 2011 (seven months!) that I finally heard from
him. I believe the only reason he (finally) wrote back was because I had
informed him that my first book had now been put aside in favour of a new book
that focused solely on the AiG split and that its research material was being
sourced from the public domain. In other words, I wouldn’t need his or AiG’s
permission in any way shape or form. I had also contacted several people who
had experienced, first-hand, the split and surprisingly they were willing to
talk to me about it. Certainly made for interesting reading.
Anthony was not a happy chap and seemed to be saying that I
had no right to write a book about the AiG/CMI
split. He felt that any book that examined the split was going to be illegal in
some sort of vague way, though he never specified any actual legal precedents.
He was also antsy about who I had been speaking to about the split and wanted
their names.
I quickly wrote back to him that there are loads of websites
and blogs out there that have discussed and analysed the AiG/CMI
split and they clearly exist with impunity, so why get so huffy with me? I also
made it clear that I was not beholden to him to reveal my sources.
Anthony wrote back and said, “You have a right to write,
however, you also have a duty not to propagate lies, particularly if they hurt
people”.
Writing a book that looked at both sides of the argument
between AiG and CMI would not be propagating
lies in any way, it would rather be an examination of the causes of the split,
why it happened and so on. Does this mean that no one can or should have
written books about Watergate because it might “hurt people”? For heaven’s sake
Anthony, get real.
There was one more email that I sent to him where I
basically said that yes I was free to write and that any legal action on AiG’s
part would be “selective prosecution” because of the umpteen numbers of other
people out there writing about AiG’s behaviour and history. This was, so far,
the last correspondence I’ve had with AiG.
It’s a shame that Anthony and AiG in general weren’t more
professional and mature in their communications. The amount of suspicion and
defensiveness that has emanated from them over the years is quite disturbing,
but very interesting. I’m sure to them I’m just a pain in the arse, but from my
point of view I worked hard to research their beliefs and I always corresponded
with them politely and respectfully.
Should I have expected anything else from them? I guess not.
No comments:
Post a Comment