Follow-Through on AiG/Spurgeon/John Holzmann/Mark Looy discussions

One of my readers here wrote to me wondering if, following my last post concerning Mark Looy and AiG, I had left any possible means for Mark and me to work out our differences:

If a person or organization does you public harm, is there any process by which they can come to you in private, to work things out? . . . What would it take for a person to communicate with you in private, with confidence their communication will be kept private by you?

Three things hit me immediately as a result of his questions.

1. If Mark has any interest in coming to some kind of mutual understanding, I want to work toward that end.
    
2. I want Mark to be able to feel free to come to me in private and know his private communication will be kept private.
    
3. I need to apologize.

As a result, I wrote Mark a letter and, among a whole lot of other things, wrote the following. This was "up top" in my letter to him:

Honestly, when I read your letter in which you requested that we meet soon--as I think my follow-up letter at least implied ("I feel badly that I didn't reply to your suggestions about meeting face to face, nor to your gracious offer of hospitality if I'm ever in the Cincinnati area (or can arrange to get there!).")--I really missed that request and certainly didn't understand it as any more than what I have said: a statement of personal preference, not any kind of expectation on your part. As you said, "Let's try to meet soon." And, "I hope this can be arranged soon. . . . I truly hope you can tour our museum one day soon . . . and communicate face to face as opposed to web postings and emails."

So I want to apologize for having misunderstood--and, as a result, for having completely overlooked--your expressed desires and hopes and/or your intentions in expressing those desires or hopes. I completely missed these things. Will you please forgive me for that insensitivity and failure on my part?

I would like to ask your forgiveness, too, for my emotional outburst following your response to my email and post. At this time, I don't believe the content of my reply was improper; but, certainly, the tone could have been far more gracious. And for that, too--for my failure to honor you in my manner of speech and in my tone--will you please forgive me?

I sent that letter late last Friday evening. Mark replied on Monday.

I was away at a conference all weekend . . . through Monday evening. And I have been heavily preoccupied with other matters. So I didn't get around to writing back to Mark till this afternoon.

I believe it is appropriate for me to note that Mark said some things in his response that I found quite encouraging. And, truly, I am encouraged.

As far as our correspondence itself, I wrote back to him,

I want to keep our correspondence, here, private, in an attempt to honor your preferences; however, I sense I need to make my apology to you more public because the faults I have admitted to you privately impact my audience as well as they do you. I believe I need to make my apologies public in the same way that my faults were public. And so I intend to post at least one more statement on my blog that will address what you and I are doing right now. I have no intention of revealing any secrets. But I do think I owe my readers an open declaration of my perspective on what I believe I have done wrong to date and what I am (and we--you and I--are) doing . . . i.e., discussing these matters privately in hopes of some form of reconciliation.

I "just" thought it was appropriate that you--my readers--should know what is transpiring.

Mark and I are talking. And I think we are making some progress.

Thank you.

"Sinner!"

Well, it appears my correspondence with Mark Looy, chief communications officer of Answers in Genesis, is coming to an end.

Apparently, I have sinned again. This time by making public what he would have preferred remained private.

I will let you be the judge.

******

From: Mark Looy
Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 7:57 PM MST
To: John Holzmann
Subject: reply from Answers in Genesis to Mr. Holzmann

John,

I wrote to you in private in an attempt to resolve this matter out of the public eye – which included an earnest appeal for us to meet, rather than using ongoing email exchanges and public blog postings. Then I see that you have posted my private email, without asking for permission. You justified your action by stating on your blog that you regret that I “did not also respond in public,” adding; “I think, considering the charges he leveled against me and ‘other [unnamed] Christians,’ and considering my response, he really owes us all a more open, public reply. In hopes of eliciting such a reply, I am posting his response.”

This is not a sign of a good faith effort on your part to bring resolution when my private attempt to arrange a private meeting with you- - to get this out of the public eye (so that non-Christians wouldn’t be gleeful over this or immature believers not be shaken in their new faith) -- is treated in such a fashion. I told you that I did not wish to carry on the dialogue via web postings or emails but to engage this in private (hence the private email I sent to you), but you have explicitly ignored my wishes. (I wrote in that email that we should “communicate face to face as opposed to web postings and emails.”)

Incidentally, I did a search on the words Sonlight and Holzmann on our 6,000-article website and found nothing. I learned that as a gesture of goodwill towards your work, we took down an article about Sonlight that concerned you -- at the suggestion of a Christian brother we both know. Now, however, this old article has been brought up again – by you -- and you direct people to it on your site. If you knew we no longer had the article posted on our site and yet you still referred to it, why are you still holding a grudge against us when someone had intervened and we followed his suggestion to remove the article that bothered you?

With my private email to you, I had extended an olive branch to discuss these matters in private but was essentially rebuffed when you posted my private correspondence -- in a dialogue which merely started a few days ago as an admonition to follow Proverbs 18:13 to check something out and get the full story before going public against us. As you have written in a prior article that chastised us, “we need to speak with grace” about differences of opinion. But I submit that jumping to conclusions and speaking harshly is not following that grace model.

Because you have made a private email public, and have rebuffed my clearly expressed desire to handle this in private (including through a private meeting), I will now break off total communication with you -- until such time you respond and indicate that you will meet and resolve your concerns in private, and cease your public campaign. Perhaps at that time you might share with me what position you hold on Genesis.

Regards,

Mark

My reply:

Unbelievable, Mark!

Your behavior absolutely boggles my mind!

Before I get into the substance of my reply, I would like to note the following.

At this point, it seems, you are primarily upset because I took your "private" letter public.

Sorry. I don't hold out much sympathy for you because of my supposed "revelation" of your so-called "private" correspondence (written in response to very public comments and in your "official" capacity from your Answers in Genesis email account on Answers in Genesis internet "letterhead")!

On what grounds can you complain about my behavior when Answers in Genesis itself launched its public vilification campaign [against me and against Sonlight Curriculum -- explanatory/clarificatory note added 3/4/09 at 11:05 AM MST] by exposing my very private secrets in a very public manner . . . without provocation?

And you dare to complain about my behavior, here?

[Remember the first article Answers in Genesis published that referenced me? Talk about taking something private into the public sphere--without permission, and without discussion, and with absolutely no sense on my part that such a thing would ever be done!

Please--read the third paragraph of Tas Walker's article (plus, more particularly, Footnote #5)--an article and footnote that your organization published in a print magazine and that was available on your website for over eight years (until last year).

Oh. And your organization then published another article some four and a half years later that similarly referenced the same privacy-busting section in the first article. And that second article was distributed in print and online by Answers in Genesis.

Let me describe the privacy that your organization invaded. May I? (After all, it was my privacy you-all ignored.)

Here I had been looking for answers to excruciating personal questions and a certain man--I had no idea he had any association with AiG--offered counsel and hope. I wrote to him, man to man. I wasn't representing any organization. I was representing myself. Personally. And I bared my soul to this other man who claimed to be a Christian and concerned to help me.

And what do I find as a result? Somehow my name is "splashed across the pages" of a very public magazine published (or at least distributed as if it were published) by your organization. Twice.]

Again: Sorry. I am not prepared to apologize for doing the very thing that your organization has done, without apology, toward me!

*******
You complain: "I wrote to you in private in an attempt to resolve this matter out of the public eye. . . . Because you have made a private email public, and have rebuffed my clearly expressed desire to handle this in private (including through a private meeting), I will now break off total communication with you -- until such time you respond and indicate that you will meet and resolve your concerns in private, and cease your public campaign."

Excuse me. You started this conversation in public. You publicly charged me and others with wickedness for declaring publicly the truth about a document your organization had posted publicly. . . . And my supposed wickedness? That I did not first go to you privately to notify you of the things I found deficient in your public document to see if you could "explain" the deficiency.

I asked for clarification of your charges against me, because, as I noted, your organization has consistently and repeatedly acted toward me in exactly the manner you say is so wicked. Answers in Genesis has consistently and repeatedly made all kinds of public statements about me without having ever--not once--attempted to get the "straight scoop" from me. Worse, unlike the comments I made about your document (which were accurate), the statements AiG has made about me have repeatedly been shown false.

But when I laid out the details of your organization's behavior in order to get a better sense of what you could possibly mean by your condemning words . . . you suddenly expressed your preference to "go private"--"so that non-Christians wouldn’t be gleeful over this or immature believers not be shaken in their new faith."

I'm sorry. I prefer to keep this very public discussion public.

So whose preference--and, after all, that is all that it is--should win? Yours? Automatically? By default?

I appreciate your concern for the few "non-Christians" and "immature believers" who might wander by my blog. But I can assure you, the vast majority of my readers are Christians, and, generally, relatively mature Christians at that. And I think you and I need to consider their interests as well. Indeed, on the issues that you and I are discussing, I believe their interests may need to take precedence over those (non- and immature Christians) who have no natural interest in these kinds of matters. Why? Because mature Christians--people whom you and your organization have long asked to support Answers in Genesis . . . and whom your organization has long asked to shun John Holzmann and Sonlight Curriculum--need to know about and discern the deeper integrity of your organization.

You-all put yourselves forward as possessing the right publicly to judge and condemn fellow brothers and sisters in Christ as "bibliosceptics" and worse. You-all seem perfectly comfortable declaring that I "hardly manifest[ed] the fruit of the spirit (Galatians 5) and . . . ultimately [engaged in] tale-bearing" because of my original post. I asked, in essence, in reply: "[Y]ou, therefore, who teach another, do you . . . teach yourself?" (Romans 2:21)

But let us get back to the issue at hand.

You made a public post. I responded publicly. You engaged me publicly in my venue. . . . I don't see why one of us, unilaterally, should be granted the right, suddenly, to declare the discussion must become private. . . . I imagine we might come to a mutual agreement to go private. But I don't see the grounds for acceding to your unilateral desire to go private. . . .

*******
You wrote: "I learned that as a gesture of goodwill towards your work, we took down an article about Sonlight that concerned you -- at the suggestion of a Christian brother we both know. Now, however, this old article has been brought up again – by you -- and you direct people to it on your site."

You are correct in the first of your several statements, here.

I, too, am aware that Ken responded to the pleas of a mutual acquaintance to take that article down. (Actually, he removed references not just to the one article, but to two or three articles on your site.)

I deeply appreciate Ken's desire to honor me in that way. (At the same time, however, [strangely], I should note that I did not request to have those articles taken down. That was the idea of our mutual acquaintance. Since I believe it is helpful to have a record of what different parties have said through the years, I was actually a bit disappointed that, after having had them "up" for all these years, he suddenly decided to pull them down. They are still readily available elsewhere, but they were most readily available on the AiG website. And I had referenced them in the context of your website.)

Someone may wonder: Why would I want to keep such articles available?

Well, as already noted, you-all made them available for years. The damage--what damage can be done--has been done. Moreover, the articles, as a result of y'all's promotion and publication of the same, are available in numerous places on the web.

The Jonathan Sarfati Hold on, Mr Holzmann article you published (without having ever "done the Proverbs 18 thing," as you suggested I should have done with you)-- . . . that article is rather mean-spirited, and the author makes many false leaps-to-judgment about me; but he also makes a number of good, incisive comments--comments I used as the basis for improving the article he was critiquing. (I was [and still am] so appreciative of his insights and input that I mention this in the online version of my article. One of the problems with Ken having removed the article from its original URL is that the link back to Mr. Sarfati's article is now broken--not only in my article, but in any- and everyone else's articles that similarly referenced his work. --Not a really big deal. Someday I should get around to having it fixed by linking to another copy.)

But there is one more thing I want to be clear about: You are correct: No one will find Sarfati's article by doing a search using your site's search engine. But it is still available via at least one link to your site available by doing a search on Google. That's how I found it. And it is to that copy of the article that I linked in my blog comment.

Catch what I just said. You said I direct people to a copy of the article on my site. Except you are wrong about where the article is hosted. If you follow the link in my blog comment (search for "Hold on, Mr Holzmann"), you will find that the article is hosted on an AiG server! It is surrounded by live links that go to all current pages on your web site.

No big deal as far as I'm concerned where it is hosted. And I do appreciate, as I have said, that Mr. Ham attempted to show goodwill by having the primary, on-site-search-engine-referenced copy of the article removed. I am "simply" wanting to note that you have made another false claim about me: that I created a link that directs people to a copy of Mr. Sarfati's article on my site.

Not true. It's on a version of your site that is accessible to the Google search engine spider. Today.

Again, though, please hear me out: Having that article "up" or "down" is neither here nor there to me. And it was never "here" nor "there" to me. Having information correct and accurate, however: that is very important to me.

******
In your original post to my blog, you complained about behavior on my part that your organization has engaged in repeatedly. Behavior you have engaged in repeatedly without apology.

You said you wish I would have gotten and talked about a few additional facts that might have put your error in a different light.

Well, as soon as I had those additional data points, I made them available.

But, as far as I reported the facts before these few additional data points, what I reported was (and still is) correct. Your article evidenced (and, in some cases still evidences--see my On taking away in fine print what is stated in bold type post) the problems I highlighted.

And you and AiG? You who complain about others not fact-checking and not giving you every benefit of the doubt? Oh! Based on your track record, not only do you not check your facts, but you misspeak and mislead . . . and, it appears, you fight tooth and nail to avoid having to admit any fault.

How sad.

Peace.

John Holzmann

PS: I would like to encourage you to read On taking away in fine print what is stated in bold type. Despite the addition of the "missing" endnote to Spurgeon's sermon, I believe there is still good reason for impartial witnesses to hold AiG in contempt for the way it has handled the text.

PPS: I would like to conclude as I concluded my comment responding to yours back when I published my first post following your publication of the Spurgeon sermon:

[A]re you saying AiG has now dedicated itself never to "use a public arena like the worldwide web [and/or magazine articles and/or homeschool conventions and/or radio programs and/or seminars, etc.] to denigrate other Christians/ministries for [any shortcoming that AiG believes it has discovered] without first contacting those persons (or ministr[ies]) to get [their] perspectives--and thus hear all sides before coming to a conclusion (per Proverbs 18:13)-- and certainly before going public"?

If so, let me congratulate you heartily, and tell you how glad I am to hear of your organization's wonderful new commitment!

. . . But/and, moreover, if this is so,

* I would sincerely appreciate learning from you how AiG works these things out in practice. I mean, for example, how do you make sure you have contacted your presumed opponent? How much time do you give him or her or them to respond? How many rounds will you go with him/her/them in private before bringing the issue out into the public sphere? . . .

If Answers in Genesis has established those kinds of policies and practices, would you please share them with us? . . . I think your open leadership and guidance in these matters could . . . go a long way toward revolutionizing relationships among Christians for the good.

And y'know something? I still believe that. You could provide some supremely valuable leadership in this arena. And I think you might actually gain some credibility when you speak about dealing biblically with those with whom you disagree.

Right now, however, I'm afraid your behavior makes your protests quite hard to listen to.

I continue to hope for the best.

I think the ball is in your court.

You may reply in public on my blog . . . or in private. I "just" want you to be aware of what I'm thinking . . . and saying.

Mark Looy replies . . .

Mark Looy is CCO [Chief Communications Officer] for Answers in Genesis, as he said in his comment about my post yesterday (search for "Mark Looy"). I wrote a response to his comment (search for "Dear Mr. Looy"). And he has now sent an email reply.

I am sorry he did not also respond in public. I think, considering the charges he leveled against me and "other [unnamed] Christians," and considering my response, he really owes us all a more open, public reply. In hopes of eliciting such a reply, I am posting his response . . . and my reply to him. . . . I will then email him directly as well so there can be no question that I have operated openly and fairly with him.

From Mark (9:24 AM MST):

John,

Thanks for the largely irenic response. The opening paragraphs were encouraging to read.

With respect, Proverbs 18:13 applies to situations when someone has come to a conclusion without hearing the other side. The passage shouldn't be applied to the problems we may have with your materials’ interpretations of Genesis. You see, we know what you teach and how you defend it, and thus we are not jumping to a conclusion -- which Proverbs 18 admonishes against.

Thus a book review, web review, or other public comment about a person's materials in which we might see some problems is not contrary to Proverbs 18. If we believe that incorrect teaching has been presented (e.g., death before the Fall, which has implications on the atonement/Gospel message) in a public way, and we are fully aware of the position being presented, we are not violating Proverbs 18 when we caution people not to get a particular resource.

Let's try to meet soon. For example, when your travels take you eastward, please plan on connecting through the Cincinnati Airport (a major Delta hub), and I would personally pick you up, give you a tour of the Creation Museum (just two exits from the airport), we can chat, and then return you to the airport to continue your journey.

I hope this can be arranged soon (or, if in one of my travels westward, I could meet with you). But I truly hope you can tour our museum one day soon, meet some of our staff, and communicate face to face as opposed to web postings and emails. Thank you.

Regards,

Mark

And my response:

Dear Mark:

Thank you so much for replying.

Since your initial charges against me and the "other Christians" were so public, as I indicated in my email to you, I posted my response on my blog, expecting that you would continue the open dialog. It seems a bit unfair to all parties concerned that you would not continue the discussion publicly.

Therefore, I am posting your reply, and this, my response to you, in a new blog post. I will--and I'm sure readers of my blog, too, will--appreciate hearing your perspectives in that forum.

********

Specifically, in response to what you wrote:

As I read your reply it struck me that we must be speaking past one another.

You said,
Proverbs 18:13 applies to situations when someone has come to a conclusion without hearing the other side. The passage shouldn't be applied to the problems we may have with your materials’ interpretations of Genesis. You see, we know what you teach and how you defend it, and thus we are not jumping to a conclusion -- which Proverbs 18 admonishes against.

And that's what's got me so confused. Because I wrote what I did to you this morning precisely because, in fact, Mr. Ham and Answers in Genesis demonstrated on numerous occasions that you-all absolutely did not know what you were talking about and you did jump to [false] conclusions on numerous occasions . . . --Unless you want to confess that the lies spoken about me and about Sonlight Curriculum were the result of malicious intent. . . .

I would prefer to assume the former rather than the latter. But if you are inclined toward the latter interpretation, I am sure I would be gratified to hear your confession in behalf of AiG. . . .

Proceeding on the theory that there was no malicious intent, but that Mr. Ham and Answers in Genesis "simply" hadn’t yet adopted the policies you described yesterday: It was very obvious that, back in 2000-2001, Mr. Ham (and AiG) did not know what I (or Sonlight) taught; and he and AiG were jumping to [false] conclusions. Indeed, Mr. Ham and AiG "bore many [false] tales" about me and about Sonlight. And, even worse, it took numerous pleas on my part to get Mr. Ham even to acknowledge his behavior, much less to quit engaging in it.

So that's why I wrote to you as I did this morning:

[H]as AiG now dedicated itself to act--as it has most definitely not acted in the past--so that it no longer (and will no longer) discuss the views or practices or beliefs or teachings of those with whom it believes it is in disagreement . . . unless and until it has, as you said, done "the Proverbs 18 thing"?

[A]re you saying AiG has now dedicated itself never to "use a public arena like the worldwide web [and/or magazine articles and/or homeschool conventions and/or radio programs and/or seminars, etc.] to denigrate other Christians/ministries for [any shortcoming that AiG believes it has discovered] without first contacting those persons (or ministr[ies]) to get [their] perspectives--and thus hear all sides before coming to a conclusion (per Proverbs 18:13)-- and certainly before going public"?

Please, Mark.

When Ken Ham "warned" homeschool audiences around the United States in 2000 that I was teaching--and (even more preposterous) that Sonlight was teaching--old-earth creationism: he was speaking flat-out lies. I was not teaching old-earth creationism. I had never taught old-earth creationism. And Sonlight, a company of which I am a minority shareholder (I co-own--and co-owned back then--with my wife and our kids); and, moreover, Sonlight, presided over by my wife (who is president)--my wife who is "even today" committed to a "literal six-day" young-earth creationist interpretation of Scripture-- . . . Sorry. Sonlight wasn't even beginning a process of moving toward old-earth creationism. It hasn’t moved toward old-earth creationism even today--eight or nine years later.

But, you see, it is not only the truth that Mr. Ham failed to discover the facts about my teaching and Sonlight's teaching, but it is also true that I appealed to Mr. Ham several times to please stop talking about me and about Sonlight in the manner different witnesses kept telling me he was referring to us in public. I warned him that, based on the testimony of witnesses, his comments were false and he ought not to be making them.

But when I specifically protested to Mr. Ham to stop speaking inaccurately about me, and when I told him exactly how and where he was misunderstanding and misrepresenting me, he first of all denied saying anything about me (though, as I have said, numerous witnesses testified they had heard him talk about me in public speeches at numerous homeschool conventions). Then he agreed he may have said something about me or Sonlight Curriculum "in passing," but he assured me he had not said what the witnesses claimed he had said. Things finally came to a head when a witness--a committed young-earth creationist, but a committed truth-teller as well--protested to him directly: "That is not what John Holzmann teaches!" He denied saying what she said he had. She was so incensed at his denials that she purchased a copy of the tape of the presentation she had heard, and listened to it until she found the offending statement. She then sent me a copy of the tape cued to Mr. Ham's specific comments . . . and recounted the history of her so-far fruitless protests.

At that point, when I protested to him again, but now with tape in hand, he still refused to make amends. At least not right away. After all, he was really busy, and he was only a day or two away from having to leave for Australia, and he wouldn't be back for two or three months. He did promise, however, to do some research on the matter when he returned. . . .

I don't know, Mark! How would you respond? "What kind of 'research' do you need? Sir! I've sent you the tape. Here's what you said. It's false. Please retract it."

It took many more months, but eventually he did admit he had misspoken.

But the damage had been long done.

Happily, however, I have never heard of him mentioning me again in public.

That has been very nice.

But still, I think my questions from this morning are pertinent. And I would dearly love to get some straight answers. Because, unlike you, I don't believe Answers in Genesis acts in accord with the principles you laid out for everyone else. And I think you--and the readers of my blog--should know the grounds on which my beliefs were formed.

Let me begin with the specific claims Mr. Ham made about me and about Sonlight Curriculum on the tape my friend purchased. It was from the Gulf Coast Home Educator's Conference in June of 2000. And Mr. Ham said, specifically (transcript from the tape): ". . . Hugh Ross has an organization called Reasons to Believe . . . --He's greatly influenced the person who owns Sonlight Curriculum, by the way, who now tells you you've got to believe in billions of years. . . ."

As I noted to Mr. Ham at the time: His assertions were baseless. And inaccurate.

1. I am not and never been a great fan of Dr. Ross. If anything, I have been critical of his work--especially his exegesis. So I have no idea to what Mr. Ham could have possibly been referring. I am aware of absolutely nothing in my view of origins that may have come from Dr. Ross.
   
   I am willing to be friendly toward Reasons to Believe. I recognize them as Christian brothers and sisters. They have been friendly toward me and prayed for me and have offered emotional support during some very dark periods in my life. I am extremely grateful for the RtB staff's friendship. But when it comes to "influence," I'm sorry, Mr. Ham was creating a connection whole cloth from nothing.
    
2. I am not, nor have I ever been "the" person who owns Sonlight Curriculum. Indeed, there has never been a single owner of Sonlight Curriculum, Ltd. So, again, Mr. Ham was speaking without knowledge when he spoke of "the" person who owns Sonlight Curriculum. There never has been such a person. So, once more, we find he was "bearing [false] tales" (to use a phrase you attempted to use against me and others in your email this morning).
    
3. I have never told anyone what they "have got to" believe (or, as Mr. Ham attempted to "clarify" once he finally did engage with me on the matter: I have never told anyone what they've "gotta" believe. [I will confess, the distinction between those two phrases isn't wholly clear to me. But Mr. Ham wanted to make sure I understood he was speaking in the "softer" sense of "gotta believe" rather than the "harder" "got to believe." . . . Whatever. --I don't think either phrase comes anywhere even remotely close to what John Holzmann has ever said. Certainly not about the matter of Earth's age or the mechanisms of creation. . . .]

But moving on from the tape and the homeschool convention speeches. I mentioned this morning the matter of AiG's practice, for a while, of "warning" potential Sonlight customers away from buying Sonlight Curriculum. I said that I called the AiG office to get the story first-hand: "What are they saying about Sonlight?"

When I called, no one suggested even a hint of doubt about AiG's knowledge of what Sonlight's future development plans were with respect to its science and/or history curricula related to origins. No. When I spoke with Dave Jolly, he was more than happy to tell me that AiG was warning people to stay away from Sonlight "because Sonlight is changing all of its curriculum to teach from an old-earth perspective." Somehow, he knew! (Y'know. Kind of like your comment this morning about how "Proverbs 18:13 applies to situations when someone has come to a conclusion without hearing the other side" but that doesn't apply to Answers in Genesis because you-all "know what [I--or Sonlight] teach[es] and how [I or Sonlight] defend[s] it, and thus [you know you] are not jumping to a conclusion." --The arrogance of such claims to such absolute knowledge blows me away, Mark! Proverbs 18:13 applies to everyone else, but not to you and your organization?)


The problem is, Dave Jolly had no idea what he was talking about. Because Sonlight was not in the process of "going old-earth," and, even today, it has not transitioned in any way into teaching any kind of old-earth perspective. And if it has, my wife, the president, would dearly love to know about it!

I know Sonlight doesn't teach origins exactly the way AiG would prefer. But it is by no means an advocate of old-earth creationism nor of evolution!

So, once more, I believe my questions from this morning remain valid, and I would dearly love to hear your reply:

Beyond expressing your discomfort with how you believe I and, apparently, others behaved ourselves over the last two days,

• Are your pleas also a declaration of a change of heart and change of policy on the part of AiG with how it treats--and plans to treat--those with whom it believes it is in disagreement? I.e., has AiG now dedicated itself to act--as it has most definitely not acted in the past--so that it no longer (and will no longer) discuss the views or practices or beliefs or teachings of those with whom it believes it is in disagreement . . . unless and until it has, as you said, done "the Proverbs 18 thing"?
  
  Put another way, are you saying AiG has now dedicated itself never to "use a public arena like the worldwide web [and/or magazine articles and/or homeschool conventions and/or radio programs and/or seminars, etc.] to denigrate other Christians/ministries for [any shortcoming that AiG believes it has discovered] without first contacting those persons (or ministr[ies]) to get [their] perspectives--and thus hear all sides before coming to a conclusion (per Proverbs 18:13)-- and certainly before going public"? . . .

. . . [I]f this is so,

• I would sincerely appreciate learning from you how AiG works these things out in practice. I mean, for example, how do you make sure you have contacted your presumed opponent? How much time do you give him or her or them to respond? How many rounds will you go with him/her/them in private before bringing the issue out into the public sphere? . . .
  
  If Answers in Genesis has established those kinds of policies and practices, would you please share them with us? Truly. I cannot guarantee I will adopt all of them myself. But I think your open leadership and guidance in these matters could--pretty much as you implied by your email--go a long way toward revolutionizing relationships among Christians for the good.

Thanks so much!

Sincerely,

John Holzmann

ETA at 6:38 AM MST, 3/1/09:

I have now sent Mr. Looy the following email follow-up to the above:

Mark:

I feel badly that I didn't reply to your suggestions about meeting face to face, nor to your gracious offer of hospitality if I'm ever in the Cincinnati area (or can arrange to get there!).

I would be delighted to meet and talk with you--or anyone else at Answers in Genesis--face to face whenever the opportunity affords itself. That will be great.

I don't often get out your direction. I do occasionally fly further east, but I have yet to have had Cincinnati serve as a hub for any flights I have taken. I will, however, keep your offer in mind. I hope you will keep your suggestion in mind as well: that if you're ever in the Denver area, you will look me up so we can meet. I think that really could be profitable for the Kingdom. (At least I hope and pray it might be.)

I want to comment just a bit more on some of the things I said late last night.

I recounted a part of the history of AiG's behavior toward me and toward Sonlight primarily because it seemed, for some reason, that you were unaware of it. You spoke so strongly--in public--about what you perceived as my (and others') failures toward you. Your protests "just" seemed so ironic; I wondered if you could help me overcome that deep-seated feeling that you were attempting to hold me to a much--much--higher standard of behavior than that to which you and your organization seem(ed), to my mind, to demand of yourselves. And I wondered (and wonder) why.

And, if you believe AiG does not hold itself to a lower standard, I was hoping (and still hope) you will help me understand.

You said, apparently in justification of some of your organization's comments about me or about Sonlight (I do not know specifically which comments you might have been referring to, since none of those I specifically mentioned fit the description) . . . --You said, "a book review, web review, or other public comment about a person's materials in which we might see some problems is not contrary to Proverbs 18. If we believe that incorrect teaching has been presented . . . in a public way, and we are fully aware of the position being presented, we are not violating Proverbs 18 when we caution people not to get a particular resource."

All right. I'll "buy" that. But/and/so . . . I don’t understand why that "exception" doesn't apply to my comments, in my web log review of AiG's inaccurate presentation of Spurgeon's sermon. Obviously, not only did I believe that "incorrect teaching ha[d] been presented in a public way," but you agreed.

So if Proverbs 18:13 does not apply to you and to your firm under those circumstances, on what grounds do you demand that I and other unnamed Christians should apply it to ourselves? It just doesn't make sense.

Well. I think you understand my concerns. And I look forward to hearing back from you.

Sincerely,

John Holzmann

Should be interesting . . .

Mark Looy, Chief Communications Officer for Answers in Genesis, has sought to clarify what happened that led to the events that inspired me to write my "Honesty . . . it's such a lonely word . . ." post yesterday morning (click on the link, then do a search on Mark Looy).

But in his comment, he didn't merely clarify the history. He pleaded for a more biblical response to disagreements or mistakes or failings such as what I and some others pointed out.

I am all about obeying Scripture. May it be!

I am all about confessing my sins and shortcomings when and as I need to.

I am also all about honesty and integrity.

And with that in mind, I invite you to read my response to Mr. Looy (scan a few comments down from Mr. Looy's comment to me).

I look forward to receiving his reply.

And if you have some suggestions about how I might have done better in the current situation, or how I might do better in the future, or what kind of personal "policy decisions" I might adopt to ensure a more biblical response in the future, I would be very grateful.