Brian Baxter *

July 2007

Once upon a time there were three little boys named John, Ken and Carl. They always played nicely together until one day a witch came along and frightened John so much that he ran away and wouldn’t play with the other boys any more. Later on, Carl asked Ken a question that Ken didn’t like one bit, so he ran away and kind of made friends with John again. Now each boy is king of his own castle and will lead you up the garden path whenever you like. Don’t forget to make a small donation.

Answers in Genesis and Creation Ministries International

Late in 2005, Ken Ham’s US branch of the multinational Answers in Genesis (AiG) creationist organisation cut most of its ties with Carl Wieland’s Australian group of the same name. The UK branch of AiG retained its close link with the Ham group while the much smaller Canadian, New Zealand and South African branches retained their connection with Wieland’s retitled ‘Creation Ministries International’ (CMI) based in Brisbane, Australia. For simplicity’s sake, I will confine myself here to discussion of the US and Australian branches of the organisation.

CMI has been particularly anxious to present its side of the story and a veritable Noachian flood of previously confidential information has poured forth from its website (see References). This is the second major schism in this organisation’s history and CMI has at last seen fit to publish important details about the earlier split. Opinions differ as to ‘what really happened’ and ‘who was to blame’ for each division, so here’s my two bobs’ worth.

I should make clear at the outset that the warring creationist groups have already released enough material for an entire book. Budding anti-creationist authors, please take note.

John Mackay’s ’spiritual discernment’

CMI (formerly AiG, formerly the Creation Science Foundation – CSF) produces a number of publications including a bulletin called Prayer News. Many weird items and articles have appeared in Prayer News over the years, but none stranger than the farewell in 1990 to long-serving staff member Margaret Buchanan:

Some of you will also know of the valiant and often lonely struggle of Margaret … against a vicious smear campaign (aimed ultimately at [our creationist] ministry itself … The knowledge that the horrific false allegations [against Margaret] found fertile soil in the ears of some former supporters and friends was difficult to bear. These allegations have continued to be not only deliberately spread, but also embellished with items known by us to be fabrications … (Jan. 1990, 3)

Only the group’s inner circle had any idea of what this was all about, but skeptic Ian Plimer picked up on the next chapter of the story in his book Telling Lies for God (1994):

My favourite Prayer News article (November 1992) is about one of the [CSF's] former ministry coordinators [i.e. Margaret Buchanan] who is welcomed back after she was ‘the victim of a horrific spiritual attack …’ One wonders whether she hit the bottle, whether she saw demons in her nightmares, whether she woke up to the tactics of the creationist cult … [etc.] (173)

In fact, the truth turns out to be far more bizarre than any of these suggestions and revolves around the sudden departure from CSF in 1987 of co-founder John Mackay. Here is an extract from a CSF letter dated 29 May 1987 to close supporters:

On 18th February [1987], Mr Mackay, without the knowledge of the then directors of the [CSF] had all [our] building locks changed, keeping 5 out of 6 copies of the new key … Also without the knowledge of the other directors, he had called a meeting of some staff members at 6.30am the same day, telling them that Margaret Buchanan, our valued ministry coordinator, had the ’spirit of Jezebel’, was actively engaged in witchcraft and was demon-possessed. [Mackay] then rang [Buchanan] at 7am, telling her that she was dismissed and was not even to pick up her belongings.

Let’s now turn to Buchanan’s recollection of Mackay’s words to her:

‘For some time now I have been disturbed by your presence at work. You are dismissed. Do not come into work. Do not collect your things. We will send them to you. The husband you have been asking for, you will now have. His name is Lucifer.’ (Buchanan Salem Revisited [1990], 8)

During the following weeks and months, Mackay and his allies allegedly claimed that Buchanan was an ‘angel of the Devil’, the literal incarnation of the Jezebel of the Old and New Testaments, a ‘broomstick-riding, cauldron-stirring witch’. There was even an allegation of necrophilia. Buchanan says she was depicted as:

… a witch with the ability to invade both inanimate objects (wall pictures, … gifts of any sort) and animate objects (at least one dog and one cat – and even [Mackay] himself) with my own personal demons. Those present [at one meeting] were encouraged to bring any gifts I had given them so they could be burned … [Mackay] had already followed this procedure with gifts that I had given to him and his family … In order to ‘exorcise’ the ministry of my awful presence, [a staff member encouraged by Mackay] sprinkled grape juice all over the office space I used, filing cabinets, desks, carpets …, muttering incantations as he went. (ibid., 10-11)

When Mackay was questioned about his actions by other CSF leaders, he replied that his only evidence against Buchanan was his own ’spiritual discernment’, which he later defined as ‘divine insight’. (ibid., 12) He then issued an ultimatum: ‘Unless she goes, I will go‘; and when this was rejected, he informed his colleagues that they would ‘regret it‘. (CSF letter, 29 May 1987) A short time later he resigned from all his CSF positions and began to build his own ‘Creation Research’ organisation, distinguished mainly by its continual sniping against the Ham/Wieland CSF. Interestingly, Mackay’s own Baptist church in SE Queensland proceeded to investigate his actions in this matter and subsequently excommunicated him.

CSF Documentation

The CSF documentation of this incident is very extensive indeed but a few further highlights may be noted:

* John Mackay’s state of mind at the time can be illustrated by an interview with Margaret Buchanan (still anonymous at this stage) that appeared in the evangelical publication New Life of 2 June 1988. Asked about why Mackay had concluded that she was a witch, Buchanan replied:

It sounds incredible, but a major reason was this. A black cat had come to live in his roof and he suspected it of being demon-possessed. He stared hard at it and one of its eyelids was supposed to have drooped. The next day he stared hard at me and he says that one of my eyelids drooped, also. (‘Witches today? A Christian Tragedy’, included in AiG Information Package [re John Mackay])

* Ken Ham, who had co-founded the modern creationist movement in Queensland with John Mackay, but who was then in the US, was deeply involved in the decisions that led to Mackay resigning from CSF:

I have been closely involved in all aspects of what has happened. I totally support the rest of the Board on the basis of what I have seen and heard. Plus what has happened over the years, I must totally dissociate myself from John. Because of what he has done and because of aspects of his theology that would not be accepted by evangelical Christians, I cannot afford to be connected with John. My Christian reputation is important and must not be associated with such bizarre actions.

This is an important statement by Ham, as after the recent split with Wieland’s CMI, Ham has again lined up with Mackay against his old comrades. Mackay has never apologised for – or really even explained – his actions against Buchanan in 1987, and it’s fairly clear that the Wieland group has released this letter in order to damage Ham’s credibility. In the above letter, Ham went on to add that:

As you know, [Mackay] and I founded this ministry together [in Queensland]. We then handed it over to a board (including ourselves) to run it. John, however, has had a battle with the fact that he wanted total control.

On a theological note, Ham added that Mackay thought he might be one of the two ‘witnesses of Revelation 11′ – these are the chaps who can ’smite the earth with all plagues as often as they will’! – and that he (Mackay) thinks God speaks to him audibly. (A personal letter from Ken Ham, addendum to CSF letter dated 29 May 1987)

* Andrew Snelling, a former director of CSF who later left the organisation, issued a signed statement on 12 September 1989 in which he noted that:

…[a]s a Christian and a scientist, I have become more and more concerned with some of the claims [Mackay] has been making, particularly in the area of geology. Instances have come to my attention that are either totally untrue, or misleading even to the point of deception. Even while working with him I was concerned about an emerging pattern of extremely sloppy research, coupled with a tendency to gloss over opposing facts … which drew progressively closer to the borderline between honesty and dishonesty …

All creationist ’science’ is fundamentally flawed, but surely CSF owed it to its readers to issue a caveat about the portions of Mackay’s work that they themselves judged to be suspect.

* When Carl Wieland moved from South Australia to Queensland he was married to a woman named Vicki, who was occasionally mentioned in CSF literature until about 1988. However, in approximately 1996, and having ‘been single for some time’, Wieland married Margaret Buchanan. Thereby hangs some sort of tale, although a veil has (perhaps mercifully) been drawn over the details:

This remarriage … was the subject of much innuendo, despite its sanctity and biblical propriety having been affirmed by the ministry’s Board (including Ken Ham, who knew the situation intimately, and whose brother, the late Pastor Robert Ham, performed the ceremony). (CMI letter of April 2006)

This note has a preemptive feel about it. Perhaps more revelations are forthcoming.

The AiG/CMI split of 2005

There seems little doubt that the blame for the 1987 CSF/Creation Research split lies mainly – perhaps wholly – with John Mackay. His desire to control CSF combined with his views on demon-possession – extreme even by fundamentalist standards – to produce a seemingly irretrievable rupture within Australian creationism.

But what about the more recent split between Ken Ham’s AiG group in the US and Carl Wieland’s CMI in Australia? Most commentators so far seem to paint Ham as the bad guy, but I’m not quite so sure.

At first sight, Ham seems to be just as infected with the lust for corporate power as Mackay was back in the 1980s. By common consent, Ham has been by far the most successful of the original ‘three amigos’, setting up shop in the US several years ago and watching his branch of the AiG gradually displace the Institute of Creation Research (ICR) there as the largest creationist organisation. According to Jim Lippard, in 1998 AiG-US had a 28% share of the $US13 million market, as against ICR’s 45%. By 2004, ICR was languishing at 20% of a $US22 million pie, while AiG’s slice had grown to 59% and the company dominated the market. In 2004, AiG had about $US17 million in assets as against $US6 million in liabilities, while Ken Ham himself was collecting a $US121,000 annual salary plus fat expenses. There were about ten AiG-US office-holders with salaries over $US50,000.

By comparison, Wieland’s CMI had assets of just under $A950,000 and liabilities of about $A920,000 as at June 2006. Both revenue and expenses were in the region of $A3.7 million. However, an associated entity called Christian Ministry Resources Ltd. (CMR) which provides ‘the necessary resources, finances and equipment to enable the … presentation of scientific evidence [relevant] to Genesis creation’ held net assets of almost $A5.3 million (June 2006). But even if we regard CMI/CMR as a combined operation, it is still only something like one-quarter of the size of its American ex-’cousin’.

As for Australian wages, the total CMI employee benefits expense for the year to June 2006 was around $A1.35 million, but it’s thought that this has to cover at least 30 full- and part-time employees, so there’s not much room for large salaries (CMR appears to have no wage bill.)

Basically, CMI’s case is that although its former incarnation, AiG-Australia, had been instrumental in getting Ken Ham’s AiG-US off the ground, Ham suddenly turned on them, cutting ties and robbing them of, among other things, about 35,000 US subscribers to the Australian Creation magazine. This was a very serious financial blow to the Australian outfit, to the extent that there may now be some doubt about CMI’s future. Ham’s rapprochement with John Mackay, CMI’s deadly foe, added insult to injury, as well as opening a different door into the Australian creationist market. Ham is alleged to have done all this from a mixture of base motives – arrogance, ambition, wilful ingratitude – and has thus been transformed from an angel of light into an angel of darkness. Students of ‘totalist’ organisations will have no trouble in recognising the pattern.

Background to the dispute

CMI has provided a very detailed version of its side of the story, a paraphrase of which follows.

Though Wieland and Ham had been close friends for 25 years, some ‘differences in ministry philosophy’ began to surface in 2004. Wieland’s AiG-Australia sought ‘to encourage the US to adopt a speaker model and methodology which could make it less dependent on the health/survival of one person’, (obviously Ham). Wieland also had some unspecified ‘additional professional concerns’. In August 2004, Wieland sent a letter to AiG-US recommending ‘that management power in the USA be diluted by way of [Ham] no longer being in total control of hiring and firing, but should take a distinguished role as adviser/consultant/speaker etc. – and to make it easier for him, [Wieland] would do the same in Australia.’ Wieland added that his concern was not just for the overall ministry, ‘but partly for [Ham], as [Wieland] perceived that the ministry’s excess dependence on him was putting him under pressure’.

Breaking into the paraphrase here, given the respective sizes of the two AiG branches, doesn’t this seem rather like grabbing a tiger by the tail? I don’t think there’s a successful CEO on earth who’d take this sort of thing lying down, and Ham certainly didn’t!

Back to the chronology of events: ‘A short time later, [Wieland's] letter [was] politely but firmly rejected by the US Board.’ Ham and the other American AiG leaders effectively declared Wieland persona non grata from this point onwards: ‘Australia gets the strong impression in several ways that “punitive” action and “muscle-flexing” is taking place for Australia having dared to comment on the US ministry.’

By mid-2005, the Australian Board was beginning to get cold feet. ‘One director said, ‘[Ham] holds all the cards. What will we do if they don’t take our [Creation] magazine any more?’ Shortly afterwards, the directors tried to remove Wieland from his CEO role – clearly in order to pacify Ham – but were prevented from doing so by a senior staff revolt. However, the Australians now officially ‘express[ed] sincere regret’ for having offended the American AiG branch, but it was too late. At a tense meeting in Australia, Ken Ham ’specifically state[d] that there [was] no way that the US ministry [would] accept in principle any system of voting whereby other countries [with AiG branches] could outvote AiG-USA on anything.’

In October 2005, the Australian directors flew to America for a meeting with their US counterparts. Wieland and other senior Australian staff were concerned that the Australian Board would cave in to US demands, which proved to be the case. Wieland looked at agreements signed by the Australian directors and said, ‘How could you do this? You’ve sold the ministry down the river …’ A director replied that the Australians had ‘no choice – or else we were facing a hostile separation’. To another questioner, the director repeated that there was no choice ‘or Ken Ham would not have bought the next copy of [Creation] magazine.’ This was a good indication of how much the potential loss of 35,000 Creation subscribers meant to the Australian branch.

By November 2005, Ham had confirmed the signed agreements, essentially separating the US and Australian ministries and introducing a new ‘business only’ arrangement with terms and charges to be set by AiG-USA. One of the Australian directors tried to stage a dramatic coup, ’sacking’ [Carl Wieland], suspending other senior staff and evicting people from the AiG-Australia building, basically for ‘disloyalty to the ministry’. (Oh, to have been a fly on the wall!) After some to-ing and fro-ing, the Board agreed to resign en masse provided that a new Board indemnified the outgoing Board from any possible legal/financial consequences of or penalties for their actions. This stipulation was agreed to, and the handover took place on 14 November 2005.

Although the US and Australian AiG branches were now formally separated, the ‘business only’ relationship continued to deteriorate and AiG-US ‘dropped’ both Creation magazine and its stablemate, the Journal of Creation (known in saner circles as the ‘Creationist Comic’). Sinking the boot in, AiG-US gave Creation’s 35,000 American subscribers the impression that the Australian publication was simply no longer available and that they should subscribe to an AiG-US one instead. As of 1 March 2006, AiG-Australia changed its name to Creation Ministries International.

By November 2006 AiG-USA decided to cut CMI off permanently, citing ‘factious and unbiblical conduct’ and unspecified ’spiritual problems’ within Wieland’s group. The Australians continued to flail about, but appeared to have run out of bargaining chips – unsurprisingly, as they had so few to begin with.

Conclusion

Although it’s tempting to blame Ham for the 2005/06 AiG split – especially given his apparently vindictive manoeuvring over the past 18 months – it seems to me that Wieland must share a great deal of the responsibility. He committed at least two classic business blunders, i.e. failing to recognise a once-and-for-all power-shift in favour of the American AiG branch and against his Australian branch; and neglecting to secure his corporate base, so that his own Board was able to ambush him when it mattered most. And then, having permitted Ham to construct a near-impregnable position, Wieland made a ham-fisted attempt to depose him! If I were a soldier I would not want to serve in General Wieland’s army.

Now, as a result of all these internal battles, is Australian creationism finished? Despite the pessimistic outlook of some of the creationists themselves, I can’t see it. Creationism in this country has the kind of base that keeps seeing Rev. Fred Nile returned to the NSW Upper House in election after election. Something in the order of 3-6 per cent of the population strongly supports both Young Earth Creationism and politicians like Fred Nile and this has held true for over 25 years. In the wake of the split with Ken Ham’s AiG, CMI tried to raise almost $A1,000,000 in a building appeal. It’s taken about 18 months to fill the fund, but there aren’t many minor voluntary organisations that can achieve this sort of result. While the internecine warfare has undoubtedly weakened the movement as a whole, it will probably survive for the foreseeable future.

So now John, Ken and Carl are the respective kings of three creationist castles, which seems to be what each of them wanted all along. A very appropriate fate for such big fans of fairy stories, I’m sure you’ll agree.

References

Please note that each of these addresses contains a number of important links:

lippard.blogspot.com/2006/11/more-from-behind-scenes-of.html

www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4261/

www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4769/

(This article was originally published in The Skeptic Vol.27, No.2, Winter 2007.
Republished with permission.)