Creation Ministries International Sues Answers in Genesis
The Australian creationist group Creation Ministries International, run by Carl Wieland, has filed a lawsuit against Ken Ham’s Answers in Genesis, the group behind the newly launched Creation Museum. Kentucky.com has the story.
Three days after the Memorial Day opening of Answers in Genesis’ $27 million Creation Museum in Northern Kentucky, a group called Creation Ministries International filed suit in the Supreme Court of Queensland.
Among other things, the suit claims the Kentucky group stole subscribers for its Answers magazine by claiming that the Australians’ Creation magazine was “no longer available.”
The suit is the most public move in what has been a growing rift between groups that are spreading the same Garden of Eden creation message on opposite sides of the globe.
Read the rest of the story.
The end of the article says that Wieland is suing Ham’s group as a last resort: “CMI was left with no choice but to sue.” “At the end of the day . . . there has to be right-doing,” he said. “Things can’t just be swept under the carpet.”
Really? Is that the only option left in a situation like this? Read 1 Corinthians 6:1–8:
1 When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints? 2 Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? 3 Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life! 4 So if you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who have no standing in the church? 5 I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers, 6 but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers? 7 To have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded? 8 But you yourselves wrong and defraud—even your own brothers!
Note especially the last two verses. It seems that Paul is saying that it is better to be defrauded and suffer wrong from a brother than to take matters before unbelievers. Not only can things just be swept under the carpet, they must be—if things cannot be settled outside of the courtroom.
Do you agree? Disagree? What am I missing here?
NEW!! Discuss this post on PastorForums.com!
Like this post? Subscribe to our feed
.
Randy
I am sorry but this is just another case of in fighting between the Christian community. This does more damage then anything “liberals” do in the media. It is frustrating to keep seeing stuff like this. Recently with the death of Mrs. Graham there were news stories about how the family could not agree on where to bury their wife/mother. I thought our “job” as Christians was to carry out the Great Commission!
I am not taking sides, it just seems like both of these groups should be able to agree on things. Does it really matter who is bigger?
Jun 20th, 2007 12:22 pm
Phil Gons
Thanks for the comment, Randy. I think you’re right. If this and the Graham story tell us anything, it’s that a watching world is looking for these very types of situations to talk about. Not that this should be our ultimate motivation for treating each other with brotherly love, but it certainly should at least be a factor.
Jun 20th, 2007 12:30 pm
GW
If the controversy must be “swept under the rug”, seems to me that your reporting on it helps keep it away from that rug.
Dec 23rd, 2007 6:16 pm
Stewart
…actually, from what i have read, this was the “last resort” after over 2 years of problems, pleadings, attempts at reconciliations, etc.
The logical conclusion of what you are saying is that Christian relationships cannothave enforced boundaries - they should just take everything that comes their way, even it is happening to someone else (ie. when “turn the other cheek” does not apply).
CMI are insisting to AiG that they be respected and loved, and that the wrong done to them be corrected and repented from; Carl Weiland was not wrong is protecting the ministry, as he cannot turn the cheeks of others…No, he is obligated to protect the cheeks of others against abuse!
I graciously suggest that your comments are ill-informed andover-simplified; if you were actually to look into the matter (there is A LOT of official notes around) you may see this matter very differently.
Regards,
Stewart
Mar 29th, 2008 9:04 am