A Behind the Scenes Look
At Last Ditch Efforts to Resolve the Lawsuit Against the Creation Museum
by CFR Staff
June 11, 2007
ADDITONAL ARTICLES ON THE CREATION MUSEUM The Marketing of Bedrock The Creation Museum: Faith and Science at the Crossroads The Trouble with Fred and Wilma: Why the Creation Museum is Bad for Christians Aljazeera Covers the Creation Museum Grand Opening  Peacemaker Ministries is a Montana based conflict resolution ministry. 
The lawsuit filed last month by Australia based Creation Ministries International against Answers in Genesis, the owners of the Creation Museum, was preceeded by intense, but ultimately unsuccessful efforts to settle out of court. |
Christian Faith and Reason Magazine magazine has obtained the previously confidential twelfth hour communications between Peacemaker Ministries and Creation Ministries International, which provide an inside look at the intense and oddly contorted process by which these three Christian groups attempted to settle the dispute outside of the courtroom. Without further comment, we present the April 17 letter from Peacemaker Ministries to Creation Ministries International, edited with comments provided by Creation Ministries International. Peacemaker Ministries PO Box 81130 Billings, Montana 59108 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL April 17, 2007 The Board of Directors of CMI-Australia The Board of Directors AiG-USA Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ – The purpose of this letter is to take another opportunity to clarify the conciliation services offered by The Institute for Christian Conciliation, a division of Peacemaker Ministries. This letter will attempt to specifically outline our services, while addressing objections and statements from correspondence received from your organizations. First, and perhaps foremost, I would like to address the remarks concerning Christians suing one another in civil court: Peacemaker Ministries believes, and teaches, that Christians are commanded to respond to conflict in a manner that is remarkably different from that of the world. Ken Sande wrote, in The Peacemaker, “Civil courts can make rulings on legal and property issues, but they have no jurisdiction or ability to address in or other matters of the heart described in James 4:1-2 and Matthew 15:19. Therefore, civil courts are completely powerless to resolve the root causes of a lawsuit or to help people break free from the sin that is fueling their dispute. Only the church can authoritatively carry out the ministry that is needed to thoroughly resolve a lawsuit between believers.” (3rd Ed. Pg 280) While believers are also commanded to respect civil authorities (Rom 13), Christians should first exhaust church remedies to resolve a dispute. Church remedies may include a biblically faithful process which addresses heart issues as well as material issues. CMI: Correct. We are in total agreement with you. Which is why CMI tried for nearly two years, as documented in excruciating detail in the extensive Chairman’s report, and did not even achieve an open meeting of all parties. Mediation was rejected, binding arbitration was ignored. And of course there is no church authority over corporations. As was indicated in previous correspondence, your services would have been most appropriate at a much earlier stage. But AiG-US only expressed this interest once we indicated that we were holding them accountable for breaches of the law. And as we had already indicated, their delaying tactics to that point had achieved a situation in which we were running out of time before we would lose our right to redress for the unlawful actions undertaken. (Your own documentation very wisely indicates that we need to ensure that such is not the case before entering into such mediation.) Christian conciliation through Peacemaker Ministries offers such remedies. When considering the services for conciliation in this matter, Mediation/Arbitration would likely serve you well by meeting your stated desires and requirements. Let me explain: CMI has offered, in the April 13, 2007 letter, to move this dispute to binding Christian arbitration. AiG has requested that CMI agree to Mediation/Arbitration for resolution. By submitting to Mediation/Arbitration you will first work together to reach an agreement on all issues: personal and material. Those material issues which remain unresolved, if any, would carry over into an arbitration hearing. In order to meet the stated timeframes and work to move this matter forward, we would work with you to schedule meetings and deadlines. For example, we would schedule an arbitration date, and work backwards to a mediation date. That would insure that the matter would reach resolution, while at the same time, allowing for personal reconciliation as we are called to do in Scripture. To address specific statements in THE OFFER: “Going straight to formal, binding Christian arbitration – without the delays” Mediation/Arbitration through the ICC, as outlined above, would not impose further delays. Once all parties agreed to Med/Arb and signed an agreement, deadlines would be set and adhered to. The relationship issues, we believe, are vital to addressing material issues. We would set firm limits on mediation, trusting God to work through each of us as we move ahead. Arbitration, using the ICC Rules of Procedure, is a legally binding process. - Rule 4 states that state, federal, or local laws will be considered in addition to Scriptural law. - Rule 13 states that parties have a right to legal counsel. In fact, because our staff/conciliators will not act as anyone’s attorney, nor give legal advice, we encourage parties to consult with a legal advisor. - Rule 14 The parties are able to provide to the Case Administrator and exchange with one another, documents, names of witnesses, and other information which will contribute to the understanding of a dispute. - Rule 16 states that the proceedings and process are confidential. This is important because it offers parties the assurance to speak openly and candidly without the information being made public. - Rules 25 – 42 are specific to Arbitration – and I will highlight only a few: o Rule 26 – the parties will select the conciliator from a panel of nominated individuals o Rule 30 allows for reasonably discovery. This is an important distinction from civil courts in that while we allow for discovery, we will not allow discovery to overtake schedules and run costs up for the parties. o Rule 33 states there shall be no direct communication with the arbitrator. This insures neutrality. o Rule 41 allows for a reconsideration of an Arbitration Award under very limited, specific conditions. It does not allow for a retrial, but rather will only be considered under stated reasons. I believe the rules specifically highlighted met the objectives of the section titled “Openness at last”. “Section 2. The judge (arbitrator) will be one of your nominees”: As stated above, the ICC will nominate individuals from our Certified Christian Conciliators for your approval. You will receive a complete biographical resume on each nominated conciliator, along with a Disclosure of any Interest from each nominated conciliator. The ICC has trained individuals in the US as well as several other countries, including Australia. Our conciliators sign a Statement of Faith as well as having completed extensive training. This information can be found on our website: http://www.peacemaker.net/site/c.aqKFLTOBIpH/b.931445/k.3FBA/Standard_of_Conduct_for_Christian_Conciliation.htm We recommend that in this case the parties consider at least two, conciliators (one from Australia and one from the US, with a third being added if the matter moves to arbitration. “3. Costs” The ICC Rules of Procedure- Rule 9E.- calls for the costs to be shared equally by the parties unless determined by the arbitrator (40C). Finally, in closing, I would like to offer encouragement for following God’s commands. You have clearly been in dispute for some time. The approaches you have used to date have not been productive in reaching an agreement. Although your past efforts have not resulted in a satisfactory solution, it is not too late to bring this matter before fellow believers. CMI: We agree. Hence our very fair and simple, straightforward offer of binding arbitration. Regardless of how the parties may see the actions of the other in terms of being willing to pursue a resolution according to I Cor. 6:1-8, the fact that both parties are now willing to recognize this biblical mandate, means this is the time to proceed in such a fashion. I Cor. 6: 108 does not qualify or equivocate on the scriptural mandate to bring matters such as these before Christians, rather than the civil courts. I encourage you to each consider the offer before you: each has indicated a strong desire for a godly resolution to this matter. Going before a court will not provide such resolution. Not only do you have an opportunity to resolve this dispute, but to glorify God, serve one another, and to grow to be like Christ. Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is – his good, pleasing and perfect will. Romans 12:2 CMI: Going to binding arbitration in front of a Christian judge, as per our last-last-ditch offer to AiG-USA, will resolve the matters of right and wrong, of lawbreaking, and of unethical behaviour, and achieve a just outcome. It will at the same time conform to the spirit of I Cor. 6 of settling the matter before believers. And further, our stated (and here restated) desire to engage in subsequent mediation to restore relationships is most important in light of your very appropriate comments earlier. We do respect the fact that your organization also has commercial interests at stake in wanting to be the ones to have your services utilized, and there is nothing wrong with that. However, we ask you to respect the terms of our offer to AiG-US, which is simple, straightforward, fair, biblically, ethically and legally highly appropriate. That offer expires, as we stated, at 5pm this Friday. There is nothing in this good letter which in any way points out anything inappropriate in the process; it fulfils all the criteria you have brought up, only it uses an alternative method of choosing an arbitrator, one which is totally fair to AiG-US. If it is a consolation, your organization will be high on the list of potential mediatorial services for relationship-restoring following the resolution of the legal matters. This would be so, as far as we are concerned, even if the arbitrator rules against us. If AiG-US is also serious about restoring relationships, this would be very welcome, and a huge change from the two-year pattern to date of refusing to even meet with all involved brethren in the open light of day. You would of course not be aware of the depth of research undertaken by, and the eminence and Christian commitment of, the Clarrie Briese Committee. (I recommend looking up the article on the link, which article was recently removed from the AiG website.) Mr Briese’s 50-page Chairman’s report, based on relentlessly following a documentary trail of close to 700 pages, mostly emails between the parties, independently identifies the patterns of corporate behaviour and reasons why we had to bring things to a conclusion, or else we were ourselves in sin in relation to our fiduciary duties to our corporation, which exists only under the law of the land, as per Romans 13. We hope you will respect the situation and, given your correctly stated position in such matters, will urge AiG-US to urgently take up our written and binding offer to have a just outcome (regardless which way the outcome falls) in front of a believer, as is biblically appropriate. And if you can also persuade them to lock into a subsequent mediation process to deal with deeper matters of sin and the heart, we would be delighted. In fact, if they formally committed to the arbitration process proposed, I am sure that our Board would be willing to lock in, even at that early stage prior to the actual hearing, to a subsequent mediation process for healing of wounds and relationship restoring if AiG will. In fact, while I cannot speak for the Board yet, I would think it fair that, given that the arbitration would be in Australia, we should be willing to fly to the US for the purpose of such a process. But our last letter to AiG is definitely their last chance – I am sure that any reasonable person can see that if they are serious about being willing to be accountable before a believer, our terms bend over backwards to do that and get it out of the way. I am presuming that peace, justice, and biblical standards in all respects are your primary motivation. Therefore I am confident that, knowing our position, you will join with us in urging AiG-US to take the opportunity proffered to them on these ultra-fair terms. In addition to urging them to immediately explore with us, prior to the Christian judging, arranging relationship-restoring mediation. If my confidence is not misplaced, please consider the urgency of the hour with the deadline expiring this Friday 5 pm Brisbane time. Yours sincerely in Christ, Dr Carl Wieland Managing Director, Creation Ministries International (Australia). In His Service, Doreen Morton Case Administrator The Institute for Christian Conciliation |