An organized takeover of the churches - what's really fueling the wingnuts

[BR_Parkway]

Incredible article that should be read in its entirety. We often wonder what difference a few people can make in the face of such an overwhelmingly organized force against us

The Role of the Pastor: The Protector
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/2/27/23117/7698

I have served in our Conference's judicatory office for three years now, and shortly after my arrival I began circulating information to our pastors about church takeovers. Many of the churches in the Conference were currently under attack, and my colleague - Rev. Sheldon Culver - had done years of research on the nature of these attacks. Her work has been invaluable.

<snip>

Rev. Dan Wilson, pastor of Ivy Chapel United Church of Christ in Chesterfield, MO is the perfect example of this. Last July, members of his church began to conspire to orchestrate an attack. Remembering a pamphlet we circulated two years earlier that listed the early warning signs of an attack, and a request to involve the Conference Office as soon as any of the early signs were detected, Dan called my office asking for advice about how to deal with the attack.

Members of his church, including one man on the Council of the church, had been having clandestine meetings and talking about resolutions to bring to the council, who would then call for a vote of the entire church. Dan was able to name the attack, and the men involved. He was coached to do a number of things, each of which he did: name to the council the players involved; name this as an attack on their church; stand in the pulpit and talk about his clear commitment to the United Church of Christ, its mission and vision; and state with the clearest possible conviction that if this congregation ever votes to leave the UCC, the church of his heart, they would have to find a new pastor.

<snip>

At the end of last summer, Rick was getting a number of harassing phone calls from one particularly abusive member of his church, who was also working behind the scenes to stir up controversy among the members of the church around the UCC's openness to homosexuals. Rick was sick about this, and at a loss as to what to do. He was coached to name the behavior at the next Council meeting. As this man was on the Council, it would mean doing that with him present. He was coached to speak out loud the nature of the abuse he was receiving at the hands of this man, and to say to him in front of all the others that while he might not like what the pastor thinks or says, that kind of abuse would never be tolerated in this church. Rick won the immediate support of his council, and so enraged the gentleman that he resigned his membership on the spot and left the church.

[aquart]

1. This is beautiful. Thank you.

[opihimoimoi]

2. If peeps can takeover Gov'ts, churches are a POC

[RC]

3. POC: Point of Contact?

[converted_democrat]

5. I could be wrong, but I took it as piece of cake..n/t

[RC]

8. I did also, but to avoid confusion, SIO!

Makes things easer to read.

[Perky]

10. Point of Concern?? nt

[opihimoimoi]

12. LOL, a piece of cake.......easy as pie....going on for years./..

[WoodrowFan]

4. great site!

Not only is that an interetsing article, the entire site is worth reading.. thank you so much for bringing it to our attention!

[converted_democrat]

6. K&R.. Thank you for posting this...n/t

[bryant69]

7. This is very interesting indeed

Thanks for posting it.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Perky]

9. I am going to take a slightly contrarian view on this.

Let me start this by saying that I am not the least bit homophobic. I have no tension with adults leading quiet lives in any matter they choose.

This goes more directly to issue of tensions between ecclesiastical law, Biblical precepts and matters of conscience.

The deal here is that the pastor had some rebels who were meeting secretly to conspire to withdraw from the UCC over the Ac's position on Homosexuality. It was not a take-over per se.

Within the ecclesiastical community, there is an important strain of though which greatly transcends the specific issue of Homosexuality. That is the is the issue of Orthodoxy. That is not the same thing as Fundamentalisms. Fundies seek to impose their system of belief on the larger community: the world. WHile orthodoxy is only concerned with being guardians of the sacred within a denomination or congregation: Who we are as a Church, what we stand for , what our core belies fare and how we go about insuring those beliefs are maintained within the community

Look people of good conscience are going to disagree on any matter of issues. Some folks are going to fight a rush to modernity for the right reason and some for wrong reasons. It is a fight with a denomination that is important and valuable but it must be done according to ecclesiastical law.

I have no problem at all with folks meeting to discuss whether or not a particular issues is worth splitting over. But clandestine efforts and harassing phones are an incredibly stupid and immature way to have a vibrant debate. The pastor did a great job at nipping this in the bud.

Having said that. Done in an appropriate manner an important debate is a valuable thing to have occur. But if a group of people feel that the Denomination has strayed into heresy, they have the right and I believe an obligation to voice objection, even strenuously. If they don't object, and simply stew shame on them. If the denomination, does not yield in its policies, those that have risen against it have to make a choice: "Agree to disagree" or move on.

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

11. Informative post. Good job.

:thumbsup:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

16. It was the secret conspiracy part that was most offensive

They couldn't air an honest disagreement and had to resort to sneakiness.

As a preacher's kid, I've seen how this works.

My father was the object of one because he came into a new parish and didn't realize that the previous pastors had always socialized and consulted with the town's moneyed elites before making any decisions. Since Dad was a natural egalitarian, it never occurred to him to do this, and he believed in having close friends only outside the congregation, so that he would be able to view the members objectively.

So the former congregational elites (there were about a dozen of them) began trying to undermine him in various passive-aggressive and underhanded ways: convincing the youth group that he didn't want them to do anything or have any fun (which they began taking out on me), disrupting church council meetings with trivial nitpicking, voting down proposals to repair the parsonage (which was starting to look like a suburban slum on the outside), anything they could do to make our lives unpleasant.

Fortunately, the town began growing rapidly, and the former elites were soon "diluted" by a wave of newcomers.

I also saw the destructive effects of covert undermining in a parish that I joined as an adult. Fortunately, in this case, the agitators left of their own accord.

[salin]

17. hey "like-minded Lydia"

:hi:

May I suggest that you go to the cite from the original post, if you haven't already. I found it very interesting and informative. It is now in my favorites for regular reading.

Hope all is well in your northern neck of the words - things are chilly, but increasingly politically interesting down in the land of "no more signs for My Man Mitch".

[noonwitch]

13. The UCC's organizational set up allows for churches to do this

Individual churches are free to break away whenever they vote to do so. The denomination does not own the churches, the individual congregations do. I know, I had to learn all this before my confirmation. A church can also vote not to accept all the teachings of the denomination, yet still retain their membership in the UCC. Most who chose to separate usually keep the name "Congregational" and most Congregational churches that remained with the UCC added UCC to their name. If they leave the denomination, however, the denomination will eventually stop recommending ordained UCC ministers to those congregations when they need a new minister.

My family's church lost a lot of members in the late 70s and early 80s. Some of it had to do with Grand Rapids being pretty conservative, some had to do with a really bad minister (who smoked dope with the senior youth group), and a lot had to do with the politics of the UCC on a national level, and the new minister's support for them. A military family left after seeing the UCC's name on the back of a peace pamphlet their son (a ROTC) picked up at MSU. Some left later, over the open and affirming thing. Now, however, that congregation is larger than I've ever seen it because the people who do support peace, gays, racial and social justice and other liberal causes all flock to that church.

[salin]

14. Great post

I joined a UCC church in Ann Arbor in the early nineties - and though I was raised in a church that had merged an American Baptist congregation and a UCC congregation, (it was a very liberal congregation), I did not fully know much about the UCC and went through confirmation classes in A2. The church was the result of an earlier split in a larger UCC church - and was a great church community.

The thing about this "takeover" issue - is that it is unnecessary in a UCC church for the reason that you state - individual churches can decide whether or not to embrace all of the parts of the national UCC platform.

Someone up thread suggests that the OP post's link is not about a "takeover" movement - I would disagree. I have watched a number of "takeovers" and intentional splits within Churches in the past 15 years of different denominations. They often follow the pattern described. If one looks back to the "takeover" of the SBC and the movement of those churches growing more and more conservative (and purgings of ministers and of professors at a Lousiville Baptist Seminary) one can detect that others have determined to mimic the strategies. I have seen such efforts in a large Presbyterian congregations (lead by whisperers and then growing to an insurgency of 'newer members'), and in some quaker meetings.

I think that where their is most healing is when early in the "takeover" attempts - there are open conversations (before it becomes poisonous) - where all congregants are involved to reflect on who they are as a faith community and which direction to move to (their traditional stands - or more conservative ones) - and allow a split/break for those who do not agree with the newly affirmed congregational "self-identity". In the cases where this has been followed - there has been eventual healing with limited loss. However in one case where the strategy was initially to try to superficially address the desires of the takeovers (ie preach less about social justice) - the rift dragged on for years, pitted members against each other, drew out very unchristian behavior towards one another - and eventually never had a formal rift - but resulted in the loss - overtime of many, many long-time members. The church changed - but there was no reconcilation - no affirmation among those who stayed - just a division that became "those in pain" and "those experssing self-righteousness." Very sad.

[salin]

15. same site - different post - About the IRD

and efforts to radicalize mainstream churches/denominations.

http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/3/3/18370/16528

The Radical Right Assault on Mainline Protestantism and the National Council of Churches of Christ
By AJWEAVER

The Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD), a neoconservative-led Washington "think tank," has relentlessly used unethical propaganda methods to carry out the radical political agenda of a handful of secular benefactors opposed to Christian prophetic voice and social witness.... In 2000 the IRD prepared a covert funding proposal (sent to one of the authors by a United Methodist bishop) to raise millions of dollars from radical right benefactors. In the proposal the IRD asserted, "A major priority during 2001-2004 year will be to push for the final dismantling of the National Council of Churches...."

Theologically conservative Christians who are seeking spiritual renewal in mainline churches need to look carefully at the unchristian tactics of the IRD. The church needs spiritual renewal; what it does not need is more political hardball and takeover bids. If the IRD achieves a hostile takeover of mainline Protestantism along with the dismantling of the NCCC, they will have muted an important part of America's social conscience and significantly diminished its capacity for civic discourse. The soul of the church, our faith and the nation are at risk.

snip

In 2000 the IRD prepared a covert funding proposal (sent to one of the authors by a United Methodist bishop) to raise millions of dollars from radical right benefactors. In the proposal the IRD asserted, "A major priority during 2001-2004 year will be to push for the final dismantling of the National Council of Churches ..." It went on to boast, "IRD monitors most major gatherings of the National Council of Churches and, when possible, the World Council of Churches. We work to discredit these bodies' radical political advocacy and to weaken support for the councils..." (IRD, 2001a)

The IRD is primarily funded by a small group of secular ultra-conservative patrons. They include the John M. Olin Foundation, the Bradley Foundation with long-time family ties to the John Birch Society, the Smith-Richardson Foundation with CIA links in the early 1980s (Nation, 1981) and radical right billionaires Adolph Coors, Richard Mellon Scaife and Howard Ahmanson (Blumenthal, 2004; Cooperman, 2003; Media Transparency, 2004; Howell, 1995). In the early years of operation, 89 percent of the funds came from right-wing foundations (The Public Eye, 1989; Howell, 2003).

Howard Ahmanson (whose wife, Roberta, serves on the IRD board of directors) has been a major financial backer of Christian Reconstructionism, a movement that works to replace American democracy with a fundamentalist theocracy which advocates "stoning to death" (we are not joking) adulterers, homosexuals and rebellious children (Robinson, 2002; Olsen, 1998).

much more.

Thanks to the OP for pointing me to this site. For one concerned with the radicalizing of Christianity into something that is antithetical to the teachings of Christ - and trying to understand how this is occuring - and recognizing the power of the pulpit (many good folks take very much to heart the words spoken from the pulpit... and thus there is great power in making those words more and more political and radical) - these writings are very interesting.