Dorhauer is back
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Although he hasn't posted for months on Talk2Action, John Dorhauer is back spouting conspiracy theories about church stealing. The last time he posted back in November, I called him out for not being truthful about liability insurance for local churches. His credibility shot, I thought he would just disappear and take his phony conspiracy theories with him. I was wrong.
This week he laughably posts a letter that "include the words of the pastor in their entirety, unedited" but then posts an edited letter that omits names and the church involved. To add to the comedy, the letter Dorhauer posts makes no reference to the IRD which is what his Steeplejacking book is based on. Assuming the letter is authentic, it looks like a classic case of clergy abuse with local church politics mixed in. While it is no doubt terrible for the church involved, it's not uncommon and it's hardly evidence that the IRD is stealing UCC churches.
This week he laughably posts a letter that "include the words of the pastor in their entirety, unedited" but then posts an edited letter that omits names and the church involved. To add to the comedy, the letter Dorhauer posts makes no reference to the IRD which is what his Steeplejacking book is based on. Assuming the letter is authentic, it looks like a classic case of clergy abuse with local church politics mixed in. While it is no doubt terrible for the church involved, it's not uncommon and it's hardly evidence that the IRD is stealing UCC churches.
7 Comments:
LOL Dorhauer really is nuts. How do you claim to post an unedited letter, and then post an edited letter? Please, tell me he is just jerking our chains.
commented by 
Anonymous, 4:03 PM
Anonymous, 4:03 PM
if the letter is accurate, scan it in, redact the identifying details and then let people judge for themselves.
problem is, the guy described in the letter does sound like a pain in the butt. but what's the deal, dorhauer didn't seem able to link him to the IRD.
what's that about? is he getting tired.
a guy being a jerk in the local church is not the equivalent of church stealing.
problem is, the guy described in the letter does sound like a pain in the butt. but what's the deal, dorhauer didn't seem able to link him to the IRD.
what's that about? is he getting tired.
a guy being a jerk in the local church is not the equivalent of church stealing.
Yeah, something isn't right.
James, I'm especially loving the following two parts:
1) Where the poor abused pastor reports that the predatory and sinister **** doesn't even know of the IRD (sort of tanking JD's theory of him being an operative of it) and 2) The comment from one Forrest Prince which starts with "I'm an athiest" yet quickly moves to "this is a church/congregation I'd feel comfortable in".
This is classic stuff! Thanks for the laugh and keep up the good work. Liza
1) Where the poor abused pastor reports that the predatory and sinister **** doesn't even know of the IRD (sort of tanking JD's theory of him being an operative of it) and 2) The comment from one Forrest Prince which starts with "I'm an athiest" yet quickly moves to "this is a church/congregation I'd feel comfortable in".
This is classic stuff! Thanks for the laugh and keep up the good work. Liza
Well, first of all, I'm convinced John is sincere and well-intended.
There is something important to note here--"a steeplejacker" is defined as " one who is conspiring to remove his church from the denomination." What this does is expand the participation in the conspiracy to include anyone who thinks their church ought to leave the denomination. This is a whole helluva lot of people, presumeably including the leadership of Iglesia Evangelica Unida de Puerto Rico.
Certainly John would not argue that the IEUPR were unwitting dupes of the IRD. I understand what he is saying about these so-defined steeplejackers using materials that have been put together by BWF and IRD. This is exactly what I dealt with in the my previous parish. But that is not the basis for his argument that the IRD and BWF are malicious.
He does two things to support that judgment--one is simply drop what is known as a "Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc" argument. Because B has occured after A, A is the cause of B. IOW, b/c the steeplejacker has used the materials from the IRD, the IRD is the cause of the attempted steepljacking.
The second is to assert that their are trained activists that embody the above in their deeds. And that the IRD invites people to these training sessions. But when I asked him previously "Have you ever seen one of these invitations, talked to anyone who has been invited, talked to anyone who has talked to someone who has been invited or have any objective proof that any of these trainings have taken place other than the IRD in a fund raising effort claiming that this was their intent/plan?" there was no response.
In an effort at balance, I would say that John and Sheldon's book does offer some helpful words on dealing with congregational conflict and clergy killers. But there is no proof that phenomenon has its genesis beyond the local congregation, though there are those who foment and delight in it.
p.s. I would re-ask my question but I've either forgotten my passowrd or my account has lapsed out of inactivity. I doubt I would be kicked off the board w/o some notice from Fred.
Niederfrank
There is something important to note here--"a steeplejacker" is defined as " one who is conspiring to remove his church from the denomination." What this does is expand the participation in the conspiracy to include anyone who thinks their church ought to leave the denomination. This is a whole helluva lot of people, presumeably including the leadership of Iglesia Evangelica Unida de Puerto Rico.
Certainly John would not argue that the IEUPR were unwitting dupes of the IRD. I understand what he is saying about these so-defined steeplejackers using materials that have been put together by BWF and IRD. This is exactly what I dealt with in the my previous parish. But that is not the basis for his argument that the IRD and BWF are malicious.
He does two things to support that judgment--one is simply drop what is known as a "Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc" argument. Because B has occured after A, A is the cause of B. IOW, b/c the steeplejacker has used the materials from the IRD, the IRD is the cause of the attempted steepljacking.
The second is to assert that their are trained activists that embody the above in their deeds. And that the IRD invites people to these training sessions. But when I asked him previously "Have you ever seen one of these invitations, talked to anyone who has been invited, talked to anyone who has talked to someone who has been invited or have any objective proof that any of these trainings have taken place other than the IRD in a fund raising effort claiming that this was their intent/plan?" there was no response.
In an effort at balance, I would say that John and Sheldon's book does offer some helpful words on dealing with congregational conflict and clergy killers. But there is no proof that phenomenon has its genesis beyond the local congregation, though there are those who foment and delight in it.
p.s. I would re-ask my question but I've either forgotten my passowrd or my account has lapsed out of inactivity. I doubt I would be kicked off the board w/o some notice from Fred.
Niederfrank
Don:
Fair comment. My problem is his logic of lumping in clergy killers and local church politics into the universe of 'steeplejackers'. I think it is intentionally disengenuous since half his book focuses on the IRD. If the IRD is stealing churches, then lets have a discussion on it. If this is just common church politics where the IRD is not the catalyst, then he has an obligation to keep that separate as they are two distinctly different things. I know some churches that have voted to leave the UCC have used material from UCCtruths - but that hardly means that I am part of a conspiracy.
His logic is completely flawed and besides you, no one is really asking questions or calling him out on it.
Fair comment. My problem is his logic of lumping in clergy killers and local church politics into the universe of 'steeplejackers'. I think it is intentionally disengenuous since half his book focuses on the IRD. If the IRD is stealing churches, then lets have a discussion on it. If this is just common church politics where the IRD is not the catalyst, then he has an obligation to keep that separate as they are two distinctly different things. I know some churches that have voted to leave the UCC have used material from UCCtruths - but that hardly means that I am part of a conspiracy.
His logic is completely flawed and besides you, no one is really asking questions or calling him out on it.
Don:
Fair comment. My problem is his logic of lumping in clergy killers and local church politics into the universe of 'steeplejackers'. I think it is intentionally disengenuous since half his book focuses on the IRD. If the IRD is stealing churches, then lets have a discussion on it. If this is just common church politics where the IRD is not the catalyst, then he has an obligation to keep that separate as they are two distinctly different things. I know some churches that have voted to leave the UCC have used material from UCCtruths - but that hardly means that I am part of a conspiracy.
His logic is completely flawed and besides you, no one is really asking questions or calling him out on it.
Fair comment. My problem is his logic of lumping in clergy killers and local church politics into the universe of 'steeplejackers'. I think it is intentionally disengenuous since half his book focuses on the IRD. If the IRD is stealing churches, then lets have a discussion on it. If this is just common church politics where the IRD is not the catalyst, then he has an obligation to keep that separate as they are two distinctly different things. I know some churches that have voted to leave the UCC have used material from UCCtruths - but that hardly means that I am part of a conspiracy.
His logic is completely flawed and besides you, no one is really asking questions or calling him out on it.
