Brian Baxter *

August 2003

Answers in Genesis (AiG) is Australia’s leading creationist organisation. Describing itself as ‘a garden-variety conservative evangelical Christian ministry’, AiG depends heavily on the financial and moral support of what could be described as orthodox Protestants, principally Baptists, Presbyterians, members of the Church of Christ and other comparable denominations. Ken Ham, the Australian-born leader of AiG’s American incarnation, has specifically nominated Christians as the organisation’s ‘main target group’.

In this article I argue that AiG is not an orthodox evangelical Christian body and that, given their assumptions, conservative Protestants who support this group in any way may be imperilling their immortal souls. In the first place, AiG adds an unscriptural qualification to so-called ’salvation by grace’; in the second place, it relies far too heavily on the support of the Seventh Day Adventist cult; and finally, the group is tainted by association with an extremist movement known as Reconstructionism.

Subverting Christian doctrine on salvation

According to Barron (1992), an ‘evangelical’ is ‘a Protestant Christian who believes that spiritual salvation can be received only through personal commitment to Jesus Christ and that the Bible is the fully inspired, infallible Word of God’. AiG leaders claim to subscribe to this credal statement, but subvert it by demanding that ‘true’ Christians also accept the tenets of Young Earth Creationism (YEC).

Upon reading this assertion, Ken Ham and his colleagues will no doubt rend a garment or two and point to the regular statements of belief appearing in both Creation magazine and AiG’s Technical Journal. While, doctrinally speaking, these are perhaps not as pure as the driven snow, fair-minded readers might be willing to grant AiG the benefit of the doubt. However, this is to ignore the thrust and substance of the organisation’s underlying ideology.

Studying the views of extreme and/or unorthodox political and religious groups has often been compared to peeling the layers off an onion. In their generally available publications and speeches, the groups will often be on their best behaviour. At this level they are trying to attract as much public support as possible. In AiG’s case, the term ‘public’ refers to members of evangelical Christian churches, as the group’s essential notions are so far-fetched that not many other people can be bothered with them.

Hence, Creation magazine, the AiG flagship, may seem a bit wacky to the average evangelical reader, but the overall tone is one of pseudo-scientific questioning and reasoned argument conducted in a recognisably Christian context and style of language. For example, many articles are simple and well-illustrated examples of the argument from design: ‘Here is the life story of the ant. Isn’t it wonderful? It must have been designed’ etc. Editors and writers go to some lengths to avoid or downplay the stridency, tantrums and often sheer craziness associated with more expensive publications with a larger ‘insider’ readership, such as the Technical Journal and books by leaders like Ham.

The pressure exerted on Christians to become card-carrying YECs takes numerous forms, from broad hints up to aggressive demands. An example of the former is Russell Grigg’s ‘Do I have to believe in a literal creation to be a Christian?’ (Creation, June 2001). It is true, Grigg tells us, ‘that one can go through the steps of becoming a Christian without accepting or even knowing the Genesis account of Creation and the Fall.’ However, this ‘minimal belief system’ leads to ‘a shallow faith that has little root in the Word of God’. So, must one accept the literal Creation to be a Christian? ‘The short answer is “No”‘, says Grigg. ‘The long answer is “No, but …”‘

John Whitcomb of Genesis Flood fame is almost as subtle in an interview with Ken Ham. No, Whitcomb doesn’t believe that a true, born-again Christian could lose his salvation by failing to believe the whole Word of God, including the literal Genesis Creation story. But when such a Christian appears before the judgment seat of Christ, he or she could ’suffer great loss - not our soul, but our reward’. So all the saints on your cloud will be strumming away on their golden harps while St Peter hands you a tin whistle? It’s enough to incite a rebellion …

Ken Ham (1999) himself is completely shameless about this. Having assured us that if someone is ‘truly’ born again, even if he doesn’t believe in a literal Genesis, ‘of course he is saved and going to heaven’, Ham starts digging enthusiastically away at his own foundations. On the very next page he writes: ‘As Christians, we need to answer this question. Is it essential to believe in a literal Fall? Absolutely!’ i.e. there is an ‘absolute’ need to believe literally in the Genesis account of Adam’s fall from grace. And again, later in the book, ‘the Fall has to be a literal event in history or sin cannot be defined. Christians have to believe in this account as literal history.’

Now without wishing to labour the point, AiG can’t have it both ways. If, on the one hand, Christians don’t have to believe in the literal Genesis story, the AiG’s raison d’etre disappears. If, on the other hand, Christians must believe in the literal Genesis story in order to be saved, AiG can no longer claim to be an evangelical Protestant ministry. This is because their true creed, as distinct from the incomplete one which they publish in their journals, contains unscriptural elements. To the definition of ‘evangelical’ noted above they have effectively added a requirement that believers accept a literal Genesis.

This stipulation contravenes a whole raft of Biblical prohibitions on additions to and subtractions from the message of scripture. Try, for example, Deut. 4:2 (’Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it …’) or even more to the point here, Gal. 1:8 (’But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.’)

Regardless of its regular claims to orthodoxy, AiG is in fact a heterodox organization preaching ‘another gospel’. This has been pointed out by many practising Christians over the years. Noel Bailey, an evangelical correspondent writing in the Christian newspaper New Life, put it this way: ‘I hope things won’t get so out of hand that one day we’re going to see ideas such as the Young Earth and its running-mate Flood Geology, elevated to credal status and required of us as a not negotiable article of our faith. After all, Scripture explicitly teaches neither.’ Ken Ham, Carl Wieland and other AiG leaders have chosen to ignore this sage advice and the unhappy results stinketh in the nostrils of the Almighty.

AiG and cults

Creationist organisations face problems in dealing with cults such as Seventh Day Adventism (SDA) and Christadelphianism as the members of these churches are generally enthusiastic supporters of a literal Genesis. Ronald Numbers, author of The Creationists, describes some of the contortions performed by leading American Young Earthers as they tried to escape entanglement with Adventists, not altogether successfully. John Whitcomb (he of the ‘heavenly rewards’ - see above) was particularly anxious to distance the creationist revival from SDA influence, so I wonder what he would make of the current Australian situation.

Dr Carl Wieland is a mainstay of Australia’s creationist movement and is the current editor of Creation magazine, and his attitude towards cult support for AiG is most intriguing. Wieland joined the now-defunct Evolution Protest Movement (EPM) in August 1975 and followed up with a letter to New Life in which he promoted books by Walter Lammerts, a lifelong disciple of SDA creationist George McCready Price. Incidentally, Wieland claimed in this letter to be a voting member of the American Creation Research Society (CRS). Presumably his MB BS degrees were regarded as equivalent to an American Master of Science or better, but is a general practitioner like Wieland really a ’scientist’, which CRS voting members were supposed to be?

Wieland remained a member of the EPM until its demise in 1979, making a number of donations which by the standards of the time were quite generous. When the EPM folded, Wieland’s Creation Science Association, a precursor of AiG, happily accepted a donation of $100 from the EPM ‘at the express wish of Mr John Byrt’, the late editor of the E.P.M. News Gazette.

Byrt was a Christadelphian and references to bodies such as the Christadelphian Youth Group occasionally appeared in EPM publications during the period of Wieland’s membership. It seems likely, therefore, that Wieland was fully aware of the EPM’s cultic links during the late 1970s and yet chose to remain a member of the group and even to make voluntary donations to it. Among evangelicals this is usually known as ‘yoking yourself unequally with unbelievers’ and is a big no-no. In later years, Wieland’s former EPM membership seems to have slipped his memory. He notes in a letter to New Life that groups such as the EPM ‘were united primarily by being against evolution, regardless of a member’s actual position on scripture - as I understand it, even J[ehovah's] W[itnesses] and Christadelphians could quite comfortably be in membership.’

Indeed. As you once were, Dr Wieland.

As for the AiG’s attitude towards Seventh Day Adventism, this can be dealt with in short order. A clear majority of conservative evangelicals denounce this church as a cult, but Wieland and other AiG writers appear to make no distinction whatever between SDAs and orthodox evangelical churches. Dr Jerry Bergman, a regular contributor to the Technical Journal even describes them as ‘a conservative Protestant church’ (TJ 1995). Ellen White’s claims, her identification by Adventists as the ‘Spirit of Prophecy’, the doctrine of the Investigative Judgement, the distortion of orthodox teaching on baptism and the Sabbath, the doctrine of ’soul sleep’- does AiG hold these teachings to be authentic Christianity? Evangelicals and others have repeatedly warned AiG about Adventism’s leading role in the development of YEC thinking, but such admonitions are invariably ignored or brushed aside.

One of the reasons advanced by AiG for changing its name from ‘Creation Science Foundation’ in 1997 was that it did not want to be confused ‘with cultic groups like “Christian Science” and “Scientology”‘. Why, then, does the group take such a permissive attitude towards the SDA cult?

Every few months, AiG publishes a ‘ministry calendar’ showing where and when its speakers will be appearing around Australia. Most venues are local evangelical churches, mainly Baptist, Presbyterian and the like. AiG sells a lot of literature at these presentations and I imagine they pass around the hat, too.

SDA churches are a very important part of the AiG itinerary. The ministry calendar frequently lists five or six such venues, but the April 2002 schedule nominated eight, and in the February 2001 list there were eleven. In a random count of several such calendars I found that SDA churches were outranked only by the Presbyterians.

It must be assumed, therefore, that AiG values the financial support of Seventh Day Adventists more highly than it values the ‘Word of God’. Conservative evangelicals should take note and act accordingly.

AiG and Christian Reconstructionism

Christian Reconstructionism is formally defined as ‘ a contemporary Christian movement that aims at the eventual restructuring of society in accordance with the guidelines of the Bible, especially the first five books of the Old Testament.’ However, I prefer to define a Reconstructionist as the result of interbreeding between a Christian and Godzilla.

Reconstructionism is not generally regarded as a heresy per se, but several Christian authors regularly refer to the ‘overwhelming unpopularity’ of the movement’s key features in the contemporary evangelical world. I would refer readers to Barron’s Heaven on Earth? for a full discussion of these features, specifically ‘theonomy’, ‘postmillennialism’ and ‘presuppositionalism’.

Full-blown Reconstructionists such as Rousas Rushdoony, Gary North and Greg Bahnsen are truly a wonder to behold. Consider for a few spine-chilling seconds the implications of applying Mosaic law in contemporary society. Let us take, for example, the question of the death penalty. As Clarkson (1994) explains, ‘the Biblically approved methods of execution include burning …, stoning, hanging and “the sword”. Gary North, the self-described economist of Reconstructionism, prefers stoning because, among other things, stones are cheap, plentiful and convenient.’ Readers may be able to think of some other Mosaic laws they would prefer not to see applied today. They may even prefer to live in a democracy rather than a Reconstructionist theocracy, but everyone to his own taste.

What has this to do with AiG? Reconstructionists can be located along a kind of spectrum, depending on just how much of this nonsense they’re prepared to swallow; (the broader movement of which they form a part is often called ‘dominion theology’). As far as I know, no AiG leader has specifically endorsed the movement, but as the Good Book says, by their fruits shall ye know them.

To begin with, AiG and its predecessors have published articles by both Rushdoony and North, and Ken Ham has recently referred approvingly to work by Greg Bahnsen. The group also used to sell a publication called The Journal of Christian Reconstruction. AiG has published other items by known Reconstructionists including John Lofton, a colleague of Rushdoony’s; and Carl Wieland has drawn on the Reconstructionist Christian Economics newsletter, produced in Australia, and has advertised its address. Francis Schaeffer, an influential writer in the area of dominion theology, is quoted frequently in AiG literature.

Items appearing in AiG publications are replete with references to ‘dominion’, ’subduing the earth’, ‘re-laying the foundations’ and other dominionist and Reconstructionist catchwords and phrases. A full listing of these would be a tedious exercise, so I will content myself with two observations. Firstly, while the term ‘Reconstruction’ is not mentioned directly, Reconstructionist philosophy is frequently presented in all its naked glory. For example, in a discussion of abortion (Prayer News, May 1998), Jonathan Sarfati specifically says that ‘Genesis contains the origin of civil government’ and appears to infer from Genesis 9:6 that the penalty for abortion should be death. This is not quite as extreme as Gary North, who argues that women who have abortions should be publicly executed ‘along with those who advised them to abort their children’, but it’s right in the ball-park.

Secondly, regular use of the terms ‘presupposition’ and ‘presuppositional’ in a Christian book or article often indicate dominionist tendencies on the part of the author. Presuppositionalism is a form of evangelical apologetics (i.e. reasoned defence of the faith) which argues that ‘all of a person’s beliefs are governed by that person’s presuppositions regarding God, humanity and nature.’ This form of apologetics is opposed to ‘evidentialism’ which seeks to convert unbelievers ‘by presenting historical, psychological, sociological, scientific or other forms of evidence.’ Basically, then, people like Rushdoony and North argue that ‘the truth about God has already been placed in every heart’ and hence does not require any defences based on human reason.

The writings of some AiG authors are littered with forms of the word ‘presupposition’ e.g. Ken Ham (1999): ‘People are not stupid. They are just being consistent with their presuppositions … Abortionists today are not intellectually inferior. They are just being consistent with their presuppositions … [People] don’t think in a Christian framework any more. Their presuppositions are different … [Child abuse] accelerates these existing presuppositions …’ Besides Ham, Jonathan Sarfati and Carl Wieland regularly produce similar ‘lists’, all of them reeking of a Reconstructionist approach. Wieland even specifically criticises ‘evidentialism’ in his own musings on abortion policy.

Conservative Protestants should be aware that AiG seems strongly sympathetic with a radical minority viewpoint within Christianity, one which is often actively hostile towards many areas of the wider Christian community, especially charismatics. Is this the kind of body faithful evangelicals should be helping with their funds and prayers?

Conclusion

The Answers in Genesis organisation depends heavily on the good will of conservative evangelical Protestants for financial and moral support and ultimately for its very survival. In my view it does not merit this support: it is demonstrably unorthodox in doctrine, it is far too dependent on the support of at least one cult, and it is infected by the Reconstructionist virus. Given their theological assumptions, evangelicals concerned for their long-term future would do well to direct their resources elsewhere.

References

Apologetics Index (Christadelphianism, Christian Reconstructionism, Seventh Day Adventism etc.) (2002) www.gospelcom.net/apologeticsindex/s18.html

Barron, Bruce (1992) Heaven on Earth?: The Social and Political Agendas of Dominion Theology (Zondervan)

Clarkson, Frederick (1994) Christian Reconstructionism: Theocratic Dominionism Gains Influence, Part 1 in The Public Eye Magazine, Vol. VIII, Nos. 1 and 2, March/June 1994 www.publiceye.org/magazine/chrisre1.html

Creation (formerly Ex Nihilo and Creation Ex Nihilo) and accompanying leaflets, booklists etc., various issues

E.P.M. News Gazette, 1975-1979

Ham, Ken (1999) Creation Evangelism for the New Millennium (Master Books)

Linnell, Garry (2001) God’s classroom in Age Good Weekend, 24 February

Lofton, John (2001) Rape and evolution in Creation, September-November, 50-53

New Life, 1975-2002

North, Gary (1985) Creation and occultism in Ex Nihilo, March, 22-23

Numbers, Ronald L. (1992) The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism (University of California Press)

Prayer News (and variant titles), various issues

Proctor, Don (n.d.) The Christadelphians: Are They of the Household of Faith? (Baptist Churches of Tasmania)

Rushdoony, Rousas John (1984) A Christian Creationist view of teaching science in Ex Nihilo, February, 30-31

Shupe, Anson (1997) Christian Reconstructionism and the angry rhetoric of neo-postmillennialism in Thomas Robbins and Susan J. Palmer (eds.) Millennium, Messiahs and Mayhem: Contemporary Apocalyptic Movements (Routledge), 195-206

Smith, Rev. F. G. The Evolution Protest Movement in Australia: a brief history in Ex Nihilo, February 1984, 24-27

Technical Journal, various issues

Watchman Fellowship Seventh-day Adventist Church Profile www.watchman.org/profile/sdapro.htm

(This article was originally published in The Skeptic Summer 2002 (Vol. 22, No. 4).
Republished with permission.)