I sincerely appreciate your kind answer to the initial article published by us concerning Answers in Genesis. The article in question brought to our readers’ attention the fact that some employees of Answers in Genesis were fired for subscribing to the eschatological position known as Preterism. Clearly, in your opinion, the article in question was almost entirely inaccurate in both describing Answers in Genesis and the events surrounding AiG’s firing of preterists, therefore I feel the need to interact with some of your statements.

I have been living in the Dayton/Cincinnati area for a long period of time. I even attended a strongly dispensationalist college in the area (where Ken Ham is a frequent speaker), therefore I am very familiar with Ken Ham, his background, Answers in Genesis and its relationship to the rest of the Christian community. Ken’s frequent visits to mostly dispensationalist churches and schools can be looked upon as justification of the dispensationalist doctrine and theology; therefore I am very confident that my description of AiG’s background as “dispensational” is accurate. Also, Answers in Genesis appears to be very popular mostly in evangelical circles which are heavily dispensationalist, therefore I am myself puzzled by your denial of dispensational support and influences. If in fact AiG wishes so strongly to distance itself from the destructive doctrine of Dispensationalism, it should make an official statement stating so, and condemn this heretical doctrine. Alas, this will probably never happen because dollars tend to speak louder than facts.

Now it may be true that AiG is now trying to market itself to more Covenant or Reformed believers, but my personal observations, experiences and past interaction with AiG are enough to convince me that AiG still has a strong support base of evangelical, dispensationalist churches and organization, and this is of course due to AiG’s position on certain theological issues, such as AiG’s foundational teachings which promotes that idea that physical death was the result of Adam and Eve’s fall and that all mankind since has inherited physical death and sin from Adam and Eve. In Genesis 2, God instructs Adam concerning the tree of the knowledge of good and evil saying “...but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day you will eat from it you will surely die”. Certainly, for a ministry dedicated to a literal understanding of the creation account which prides itself with offering answers from Genesis, it is rather disappointing of AiG to not take God’s word at face value. In this instance, the scripture clearly teaches that Adam would die in the very same day in which he would eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Rather than maintaining this plain understanding of scripture, AiG continues to teach the notion that Adam only “started” to die in this day. This in itself makes AiG an appealing group to mostly dispensationalist believers and supporters who misunderstand the root problem of humanity, expecting an infinite, spiritual and invisible God to yet again, in the future, take the form of a human physical body and reign in Jerusalem on a physical throne. If AiG perceives the main problem for mankind to be physical death, it naturally will look for a physical solution to this dilemma, thus maintaining a future physical resurrection of the dead, and refusing to give its associates the freedom to take another position.

In the December 1988 AiG newsletter, Ken Ham argued against Creation being a “secondary doctrine” while arguing that the gifts of the spirit, the rapture, eternal security, etc. are in fact “secondary doctrines”. Clearly, Ken at that time saw eschatology as “non-essential” since he put “rapture” on the list. In the same newsletter, Ken wrote: “In short, when it comes to subjects like creation, we believe Christians need to extend grace to each other as summed up in the statement: In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity.” (Ken Ham, AiG December 1998 Newsletter Creation: A secondary doctrine?, http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3881.asp)

I find it rather ironic and sad that despite specifically identifying eschatology as a “non-essential” issue, and calling for liberty, charity and grace between Christians when it comes to theological matters, Ken chose to fire his employees ultimately because of eschatological matters. Furthermore, in your answer you are tacitly admitting that holding to a preterist eschatology is enough grounds to dismiss an AiG employee, which to an average observer would be an indicator that AiG does not consider preterists to be Christians, thus turning eschatology into a “primary doctrine”, directly contradicting Ken’s statements from the 1998 AiG newsletter.

In your recent answer to our article, you also said:

“Again, what is unrealistic about expecting staff to agree with the mission and creed of the organization in which they serve? Incidentally, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act permits religious organizations to discriminate on the basis of religion in the employment of any person for any position.”

I have never personally criticized AiG for enforcing its statement of faith. I believe in freedom of corporate entities, therefore I believe that AiG is perfectly justified to fire any of its employees for any reason whatsoever. This does not however mean that as Christians we are justified to do so, especially when you yourself claim that eschatology is not an essential doctrine and that AiG’s focus as a ministry is not on eschatological matters. In fact, I am sure AiG provides adequate facilities for its employees, such as bathrooms, desks, chairs, air, water, etc, regardless of those being or not being required by law. I believe that justifying these events with a secular law is simply weak and unacceptable for a Christian organization. In using the statement of faith as a reason for the firings, AiG simply transferred the responsibility of its actions to the employees, i.e. “it is their fault for getting fired, not ours, and after all what we are doing is perfectly legal.” It is unfortunate that AiG was not willing to come to a silent and private agreement with those preterists, agreement that would override the statement of faith. But a public firing would in fact send a clear message to the rest of the workforce concerning preterism, and would reassure AiG’s financial backers that no such thing will be tolerated in the future. Of course, I am hoping my speculations are wrong and Answers in Genesis operated in good faith towards its employees.

At last, I was not aware of AiG’s generosity to departed employees when the initial article was written. In fact, we even discussed the possibility of asking for donations to support these families financially if it became necessary, therefore, at the time, the comment concerning the financial well-being of these Christian brothers was well justified.

So far, the only false statement in our original article seems to be the telephone number for your ministry, and I sincerely apologize about giving out the wrong number. If Planet Preterist has made other untrue statements concerning Answers in Genesis, we would be happy to retract these statements, and we understand why you would be troubled by such statements. We are however also very troubled to hear that AiG is unwilling to discuss biblical perspectives with other brothers in Christ. While we were unable to obtain all the details on the matter, the little we know is very disturbing, to say the least.