|
|
Letter to Mrs Ed26 June 2007 Dear [name deleted] Thank you so much for doing us the kindness of writing to express your gracious concern. I’m sure you would understand the pain and distress that this whole issue would have caused our entire Board and senior staff. As you can imagine, we are well aware of Paul’s exhortation to the Corinthians, which is why we went to such lengths as documented on our website to exhaust Christian remedies. The majority of believers who have taken the time to check the documentation by following the links [provided on the 'What's this dispute all about?' page] have ended up being supportive, and see that there is serious sin and wrongdoing at stake here. We are not adopting some ‘private interpretation’ of that Pauline passage here; even great expositors like Matthew Henry and John Calvin realized that it would nullify other biblical principles to claim that Paul was putting a blanket ban on any appeal to the civil authorities. Please let me explain, and you might see why the Boards and senior staff of all six CMI offices, though deeply distressed that it has come to this, are unanimously supportive of this action, which is not in any way on an emotional basis. As Matthew Henry points out, the Corinthians were being vindictive, vengeful and petty, and were engaging in vexatious litigation over trivial matters (v.2). John Wesley in his ‘Notes’ on the Bible refers to them as ‘these smaller differences’. The civil magistrate of Romans 13, which Calvin rightly calls a ‘gift from God’ to the believer when properly used, must be able to be appealed to when the matter is non-trivial, especially when there is serious ‘sin in the camp’ and there is no other remedy, and all Christian remedies have been exhausted. In particular, when Matthew 18 has been consistently flouted (Mt 18 does not encourage walking away from issues, but holding our brothers accountable. Mt 18 is not about vengeance, but about love, albeit ‘tough love’. We are supposed to pursue such things, in the right spirit, for our brother’s sake. It is so that we might see repentance and indeed be able to forgive, as we yearn to do, but on proper biblical lines.) If AiG were an individual, not a corporation, we could have gone to the relevant church authority. But there is none in the case of a corporation. If an individual had done what AiG has done, namely refused all pleadings to meet, that individual would have been formally declared an unbeliever by now. As others have pointed out, if it were in fact a ‘commandment’ that under no circumstances whatsoever could a Christian organization be held accountable at law by another, then in theory a professing Christian ministry could continually abuse its fellow ministries, break the law in so doing, but refuse to be accountable to Christian resolution, refuse to meet, etc. and could then use 1 Cor. 6 to hide from its accountability under Romans 13. This is most definitely not what Paul was advocating. We also carefully walked through the matter of rather allowing ourselves to be defrauded - and concluded that we would certainly want to honour the spirit of that biblical admonition if it were us who had been defrauded. However, it was not us, it was our corporation, and thus our ‘shareholders’ (effectively, our donors and supporters). Both corporations are bodies that only exist and have legitimacy on the basis of the law of the land, hence under Romans 13. Thus we have a biblical duty under law to either resign as directors or protect our corporation from further rapacious plunder, as has occurred.1 Note that AiG-US must implicitly recognize the principle that the civil authorities under God are able to be appealed to if absolutely necessary, since one of the documents drawn up by their lawyers to ensnare our ministry explicitly invokes the power of the courts of Australia to enforce it. Further, we have had a written threat from them in the past indicating their own willingness to take us to court if need be. The point being made is that if it were totally forbidden under any circumstances to appeal to the authorities as a last resort, then it would be pointless for Christian corporations to sign contracts, register trademarks, etc. An analogy would be a Christian president of a country - he is biblically exhorted to turn his own cheek, but if his countrymen are attacked, he has a duty to defend them which does not conflict with that biblical passage about turning the other cheek. Similarly, if one sees a person being beaten and abused, one’s biblical duty is to help, not ‘let Jesus fix it up’. That sort of passivity, which is the right Christian response to personal abuse, etc. would have hampered the abolition of slavery. I’m sure you agree that it is vital to do one’s best to try to ‘rightly divide the word of truth’ and to take the ‘whole counsel of God’ into account, honestly and conscientiously. We have also tried to apply the biblical ‘safety in a multitude of counsellors’, and taken each step very hesitantly and carefully, all along the way. In desperation at the total intransigence over nearly two years, including refusal to meet and discuss the whole matter openly, all parties together in the light, we asked Mr Clarrie Briese, formerly Chief Magistrate of NSW and a man with a huge reputation as a Christian and an opponent of corruption at the highest levels, to form a Committee of Enquiry. His integrity and diligence helped save the ministry in Australia from a previous all-out assault, by the humanist Plimer in 1992. The full details of the Briese report and findings can be found by following the links from [the 'What's this dispute all about?' page]. If you do not have access, it would be very helpful to ask someone who has. We are still sending out peace feelers, and hope that we can still settle the matter with binding Australian Christian arbitration, which was rejected repeatedly but may be back on the table. The reason we took the step, with heavy heart, of putting documents on the web was only once we were faced with public releases by AiG containing serious ‘libel by innuendo’, and other major distortions of the truth. We realized then that we needed to be totally transparent and to document everything on the web, so that we would be accountable for our statements and for the conclusions of the Briese Committee of Enquiry. Finally, I have copied, below my signature, a recent statement by Philip Bell. Philip was the deputy CEO of AiG-UK (which is the only one of the non-US AiG ministries not to rebrand as CMI) at the time when these things were being done to our ministry and thus experienced these things firsthand ‘from the other side’. He has since resigned and works for CMI in the UK. He is a lovely man, and is shortly coming here for ministry. If you have the chance to meet him when here, you would be impressed with his integrity above all else. We covet your prayers, which we are sure will be forthcoming, as we seek to reach a just and God-honouring peace. Kind regards Yours sincerely in Christ, Dr Carl Wieland Managing Director
PHILIP BELL EMAIL I have read a recent e-mail from Mark Looy (AiG-USA) to AiG supporters and I believe that this may also have been shared with people on creationist John Mackay’s mailing list. It is a matter that I and my colleagues have much in our prayers. Sadly, it is rather complex but I completely concur with the attached point-by-point rebuttal [see here] (written by CMI-Australia). Knowing the details of this whole saga intimately I can vouch for every point made. My departure from AiG in June 2006 and that of two other staff (and a long-standing regular volunteer) around the same time was due to serious ‘sin in the camp’ at AiG—and this e-mail from Mark Looy seeks to muddy the waters further and to cover it up (for more, see Bell documents). Of course, this would be a slanderous and libelous accusation if it could not be backed up by documentation. Would I be prepared to stand before a judge to this effect? Yes, but ultimately the Lord is my Judge and I shall give account to Him one day for idle words, spoken and written (Acts 24:15-16). True accountability is something that AiG leaders seem absolutely desperate to avoid at all costs. [I mentioned ‘sin in the camp’. In addition to my personal experiences, it has come to my knowledge that three members of staff at AiG-UK joined and left/are about to leave in the last six months precisely because of ongoing stunningly unchristian behaviour which its leader is unwilling to repent over—decisions they made without having ever met or had contact with me I might add. [Portion deleted to protect an individual] I am very sorry to say that AiG leaders (on both sides of the Atlantic) have engaged not only in unbiblical/unethical behaviour but in the case of AiG-USA, unlawful too—to the great detriment of their former colleagues and sister ministries in the other former AiG countries, particularly Australia—this is not merely what I have been told by colleagues abroad but rather I have personal knowledge of these things. If anyone contacts AiG-USA to find out what’s going on, they are asked to ‘pick up the phone and talk to us’. This all sounds very reasonable but there is no accountability involved because such words are not recorded and amount to so much gossip—they can be flat out denied if it is deemed expedient. I am afraid to say that I have personally witnessed outright lies (of an incredible kind) involving four individual high-ups in AiG (and in one instance I was asked to give testimony to an independent enquiry; something I took no pleasure in doing). CMI’s response has been to put everything out in the open (not without criticism of some Christian brethren of course, some of whom are upset that this seems to amount to ‘hanging our dirty linen out before the world’. I share their dismay but believe that this has to be, if justice is to be done and the Lord’s name is not to be sullied even more in the long run. I take no pleasure in having to write these things and I know that I speak for my colleagues in CMI-Australia and around the world when I say that we long to get on with the real work that God has entrusted us with. Speaking for myself, I can honestly say that I have no personal axe to grind with any of the AiG leaders concerned, all of whom I once considered friends and got on with very well. This is not about personal differences but about integrity and honesty—simply put, I left AiG because we had a ministry slogan (which I liked and still like) which said: “We are a Christ-centred, evangelistic ministry dedicated to upholding the Word of God from the very first verse.” I could no longer publicly represent AiG when the actions and words of its representatives were anything but Christ-centred (rather they were/and are often man-centred—pride and an unwillingness to admit fault became the order of the day). Neither could I stomach any longer hearing people talk about upholding God’s truth while I had personally witnessed deceit and even bare faced lies from the same people. I am not their judge and I find it very sobering to even be writing these words (James 4:11-12) but the Scripture also advocates that the Christian is to ‘judge with righteous judgment’. I’m sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings but it is horrendous when pride prevents people acknowledging sin and they continue to cover their unbiblical/unethical actions in God-speak. Frankly, it appears that there is no fear of the Lord in such people. In spite of my strong feelings, I have continued to pray for AiG to this very day and earnestly desire that there will be a righteous outcome that will not allow God’s name to be sullied before the world. Philip Bell
Afterthought [Carl]: I realized that I had perhaps not fully addressed your concern about potential damage done. Clearly, like with so many other things in the Christian walk, one has to weigh up one principle against another. It may even be that in the long run, there is more harm to Christendom in the public eye by covering up sin, pretending that things are rosy in the garden when they are not. The Bible portrays even great people of God ‘warts and all’. Note that none of this was or is in the spirit of vengeance or vindictiveness, as I think the documents on the web make plain. Finally, let me reproduce below a recent email that a believer of longstanding from Western Australia sent in to encourage us. He wrote: “Carl, There is no shame in exposing sin in order to have it dealt with. We are all sinners and need to go through this from time to time. Jesus makes it plain in his letters to the churches in Rev. 2–3 that he wants us to have a ‘culture of discipline’ in our churches. The rules are simple: love one another; if your brother sins, rebuke him—if he repents forgive him; if your brother sins against you, go to him in private etc. Love can cover a multitude of sins if circumstances warrant (1 Peter 4:8). But if a leader sins, he must be publicly rebuked so that others may take warning. This is to be done without partiality (1 Tim 5:19–21). There is shame in exposing sin in order to gain personal advantage over another. There is greater shame in covering over sin so that it is not dealt with. Much trouble in churches throughout history has resulted from leaders not having the courage to expose sin so that it can be dealt with in a godly manner. Corinth lacked this culture of discipline and so the members had to resort to the secular courts. The shame in that case was the lack of discipline in the church, not the appeal to the secular courts. It is hard being the one to stand up and say what needs to be said. Jeremiah was one such man. May God fulfill to you His promise to Jeremiah (1:17–18, renewed 15:20–21).” |