UCCtruths

What You Will (and Won't) See on Global Ministries Website.

2011-12-14T16:28:00.001-05:00

What you will see.

What you won't.

Global Ministries Publicizes Anti-Zionist "Bethlehem Call"

2011-12-14T12:21:00.005-05:00

Hello.

This is Dexter Van Zile.

I left the United Church of Christ a few years ago.

And this blog has been silent for quite a while.

Nevertheless, I am going to impose on James Hutchins' kindness and hospitality and use UCCtruths to draw peoples' attention to the Global Ministries website.

As most followers of this website know, the Global Ministries of the UCC and the Disciples of Christ has been a persistent source of anti-Israel messaging over the years. This volume of anti-Israel messaging has declined substantially in the past few years, particularly since the 2007 General Synod which stated that the 2005 General Synod failed to take into account all of the aspects of the Arab-Israeli conflict in passing the resolutions it did.

The anti-Israel messaging hasn't disappeared altogether, however. For example, Global Ministries publicized "The Kairos Document" issued by Palestinian Christians a few years back.

More recently, Global Ministries has publicized a document titled "The Bethlehem Call." This document, created by the same folks who wrote "The Kairos Document," is a pretty ugly text.

One notable passage states: "The deligitimization and criminalization of the Israeli government and its local and international support base is gaining unstoppable momentum."

Here, the document affirms the delegitimization and crimininalization of the Israeli government itself.

Have you seen any documents on the Global Ministries website affirming the delegitimization and criminalization of other governments in the Middle East?

I don't think so.

There are other passages in The Bethlehem Call that are of interest. For example, the document describes The Amman Call issued by the World Council of Churches in 2007 as ending "60 years without a unified Christian voice speaking against the Israeli occupation of Palestine."

Do the math (2007-60=1947) and you'll see that what the authors of The Bethlehem Call have done is to declare all of Israel occupied territory. They are not talking merely about the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, but the entire state of Israel.

Exactly why is Global Ministries publicizing a document such as this?

Ex-UCC President & GM Thomas Leaving Wife for Another Woman

2010-08-22T14:22:00.011-04:00

This is sad...

It is now public knowledge that Rev. John H. Thomas, recently retired President and General Minister of the UCC (1999-2009), is seeking a divorce from his wife and is presently in an adulterous relationship with another woman, someone with whom he worked at the denominational headquarters in Cleveland.

In a carefully worded UCC press release, the Collegium of Officers--who oversee the national ministry--announced Thomas' admission and urged support for the process that handles matters affecting the larger church. While the statement described in detail how Thomas' case might be reviewed, it did not say that an evaluation was pending. There was no mention how the revelation has affected Thomas' status at Chicago Theological Seminary, where Thomas serves as Senior Adviser to the President and Visiting Professor in Church Ministries.

The press release is intriguing for what it says and does not say. It does not explain the process that brought this information to light. It does not pass any moral judgment on Thomas. Even more, it does not express any emotion of grief or disappointment over Thomas' action. The only religious speak is the mention of "prayerful support for all parties involved."

What the press release does say, in its opening paragraph, is that Thomas is, "now in a committed relationship with a woman with whom he worked while he was general minister and president." Why is the word "committed" used to describe Thomas' relationship with this other woman? Don't worry, this is not some brief (and socially unjust), sleazy fling. It's a committed and deeply entrenched adulterous relationship!

Adding to the moral confusion is a curious phrase from the Collegium's statement. While claiming, "it is not appropriate to discuss details of this matter publicly," they disclose that when they talked to Thomas and his in-office lover, "Both parties have informed the Collegium that the relationship is entirely consensual." Why is this said? Are we to believe that even though Thomas held the foremost position in the entire organization, there's no abuse of power because it was consensual?

The release does not say how this affair started. Maybe it began when the two still worked in the office, or, after one or both left. The circumstances matter, especially if Thomas' lover has a change of heart and decides to sue. Either way, boundary lines were crossed. Two consenting adults doesn't make this right. A marriage covenant was broken and quite possibly, so too were personnel policies. What does the Collegium know about this situation? If they do not protect the employees of its denominational headquarters from sexual advances and/or harassment, they fail the organization and contribute to its dysfunction.

As is often the case, the only UCC folks offering moral clarity is the Biblical Witness Fellowship. In its statement, they declare that Thomas' action, "deepens the crisis of integrity in the UCC with consequences well beyond the tragic dissolution of his own family...The whole church is deeply hurt when our leaders fail to keep their vows and engage in this form of duplicity. It compromises the witness of all of us in the body of Christ."

In a 2010 address at Chicago Theological Seminary, Rev. Thomas declared that, "Distracted ministry occurs when we quit paying attention to what truly matters." Sadly, this truth is illustrated by Thomas' own sordid personal life. Rev. Thomas, if you are reading this, you need to repent. End this illicit relationship and return to the wife of your youth. Don't let this become part of your legacy. Turn to our gracious and merciful Lord for forgiveness and restoration.

The question of Thomas' fitness for ministry is now the responsibility of the Church and Ministry Committee, of the Western Reserve Association, a smaller and more local setting of the larger Ohio Conference.

Let's hope this committee has the courage to confront Rev. Thomas and hold him accountable.

Center Congregational on the Brink

2009-08-26T10:24:00.003-04:00

Center Congregational Church's fight against the UCC's Southeast Conference to retain its autonomy and property is reaching a critical point. In order for the church to prevail, your help is needed.

According to Center's pastor, Rev. J.R. McAliley III, Center has a $17,000 legal bill, but only $9,000 left in assets. This is after the church spent over $40,000 in legal fees preparing for its upcoming court hearing. "We knew this would be a costly process and it has been," said McAliley. "We truly believe our cause is just and that our case is sound, but we cannot proceed without the financial resources to maintain our legal effort. We need your assistance."

With Center drained of its resources, the Southeast Conference is in position to outlast and outspend its way to victory. But as the UCC is so fond of saying, God's justice belongs to the cause of the weak. Center Church, located in Atlanta, sits on land donated in trust by the Cox family. The trust stimulates that as long as the church remains congregational, the land and the building belong to the church. When the UCC came into existence in 1955, Center chose to remain independent. In 1994, the church joined the UCC, but disassociated in 2005, and in 2006 joined the National Association of Congregational Christian Churches (NACCC). McAliley believes this lawsuit is not so much a UCC style King Ahab effort to steal away land (1 Kings 21), but an effort to seize legal control over the right to congregationalism:

The legal impact of our case – defining “the Congregational Denomination” – is one with implications for every Church and Organization historically associated with the Congregational Way. Center’s little ¼ acre of land in Buckhead, an upscale section of Atlanta, Ga, even at the current speculative market value of about $500,000.00 is not the goal of the UCC/SECUCC. Legal “ownership” of the designation as the true legal successor to “the Congregational Denomination” is and the implications will spread like a tsunami.

In order for Center to win this battle, your donations are needed and can be sent here:

Center Congregational Church
1055 Moores Mill Road NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30327-1627

WSJ: The Bully Pulpit

2009-05-22T09:50:00.004-04:00

Wake up slumbering UCC Truths!

We interrupt this Rip Van Winkle sleep to thank the Wall Street Journal for shedding light on the UCC's Southeast Conference effort to steal away the assets of the small Center Congregational Church in Atlanta.

The article, "The Bully Pulpit," written by Jim Auchmutey, appears on the Journal's website and print edition.

So why is the Southeast Conference so interested in this little church? It all boils down to this--pure greed.

Center's property--located in prime Atlanta real e$tate--is held in trust, and technically not by the church itself. That crack in the door is the opening by which the thief is trying to enter.

According to the winter, 2009 edition of Networker, published by the Evangelical Association, the Southeast Conference claims that they are the only true successors of the Congregational denomination, while Center rightly replies the Congregational tradition includes not only the UCC, but also the National Association of Congregational Christian Churches (NACCC), the Conservative Congregational Christian Conference (CCCC), and the Evangelical Association of Reformed and Congregational Christian Churches (EARCCC).

If Center Church was dissolving, the Southeast Conference might have a legitimate case. Instead, this little congregation voted to leave the UCC in 2006. Even though 36 in attendance is considered a good Sunday, the church is still very much alive. Bottom line, they disaffiliated and are entitled to keep their assets, as the UCC Constitution explictly states.

Oh, one more thing. Center and its pastor, Rev. J.R. McAlilley, oppose a conviction held in highest esteem in UCC culture--same-sex marriage. While the Conference Minister, The Rev. Timothy Downs, says that Center could have remained and dissented because the UCC welcomes a diversity of opinion, in practice, UCC churches that oppose same-sex marriage rarely (if ever) have platforms in conference life to express that dissent.

May Goliath fall down again.

Not a goodbye...

2008-12-22T17:32:00.000-05:00

You've probably noticed that I have not posted in awhile and friendly emails asking what is going on have mostly gone unanswered. The quick answer is that I'm taking a step back from the site for awhile. For some time I've been juggling multiple priorities between my family, my full time work and assisting with a couple of start-ups. Working with this site was never a focal point in my life, it filled in gaps of time and gave me a platform to express my opinion while giving others the opportunity to express their opinions. While many people are going through some difficult times in this economy, I'm fortunate and blessed that work is going well. The downside is that it has become more difficult to create time for my biggest priority - my family. As a consequence, I've forced myself to set priorities and, at least for now, UCCtruths didn't make the cut.

My choice was to either hand off the site to someone else, close it down or put it on ice. After considerable thought and after discussion with others involved in the site, I decided that "hiatus" was the right term. The message board will stay open and I will be assigning more moderators so that others can keep up on the threads while keeping them civil.

My intent is to come back when things settle down but I fully recognize there is a potential that I will not be back. In which case, I'd like to wrap with potentially one last commentary on the United Church of Christ.

Embracing dissent and difference of opinion is an important part any dynamic group whether it's our government, our work, our religion or an online group of malcontents. As cliche as it sounds, Working through the tension of division always makes the group stronger.

The United Church of Christ leadership would be wise to embrace those with which they disagree with the most... and not just those they deem "loving critics". To this day, I don't know if UCCtruths was considered a "loving critic"... and I don't really care - the idea that the one being criticized can determine which criticism is valid seems a little too convenient and a little too self serving.

Our faith heritage is full of dissent and I'm glad I was able to add my voice to the chorus. In over 5 years, this web site has generated millions of views. The message board contains tens of thousands of messages by over 500 users and was recently recognized as one of the top 2% in Yahoo Groups. My purpose for the site was never to change the UCC but to find an audience of UCC members that would use this site as just one of many sources of information about the denomination. We found an audience looking to embrace dissent even if they did not always agree with it.

Dissent doesn't always mean you are right. I'm particularly thankful for those who tolerated my rants even when I was wrong. The web is an imperfect medium of listening, learning and responding... and not always in that order.

Like I mentioned earlier in this post, it's my intent to come back to this at some point in the future but there are no guarentees. If nothing else, I'll be popping up on the message board periodically to spout off. Till then...

Wright Blasts the Media

2008-11-15T18:52:00.005-05:00

by Pastor Ted Weis, Congregational Church, Little River, KS

Rev. Jeremiah Wright-- former pastor of President elect Barack Obama-- is speaking out against the media's treatment of him during the campaign season.

During a Q & A session after an address in Connecticut, Wright declared:

"The world doesn't know about my 41 years of ministry, or my writing of books, because it was all taken down to a 10-second sound bite that the media chose to show about a sermon that was delivered seven years ago," Wright said. "The media didn't care about the whole sermon and what it was about. They just used those 10 seconds and used it as a weapon of mass destruction against [Obama's] campaign."

It's true. The world doesn't know Wright's years of ministry and doesn't know his books. Nor does it need to. The world knows plenty enough to judge Wright. It knows that after the greatest atrocity on American soil in modern times, Wright's pastoral word post 9-11 was America be damned because it deserves to be damned.

Lest anyone forget, Wright's past wasn't completely ignored. Back in March, ABC News reviewed dozens of Rev. Wright's sermons, and in their words, "found repeated denunciations of the U.S. based on what he described as his reading of the Gospels and the treatment of black Americans."

You don't need to look further into Wright's past to see that he views this country as systemically racist and incapable of reform. Just consider this recent remark:

"If you take a Tiger Woods, a Michael Jordan or a Barack Obama, their success should not lull us into thinking society has changed."

Translation: the accolades about Obama's "historic" victory are severely overblown.

A few days later, speaking before an audience at Northwestern University, Wright again lamented his treatment:

In the question-and-answer session, Wright accused the media of "public harassment." "My family's getting lynched in the process," Wright said. "Never in the history of this country has there been a demonization of a person like I've been demonized."

Family getting lynched? Who in the media has targeted his family? The only thing close was the New York Post's report of a likely affair by Wright. And demonized by like no other person in the history of the United States? Can you say, "slight exaggeration"? Certainly, Wright's circus performance at the National Press Club had nothing to do it.

Listening to Wright's address at Northwestern was another well-known Obama associate, former Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers, who summarized the result of the media's treatment this way:

"Both Rev. Wright and I were brought up as cartoon characters in this campaign because of disinformation and dishonest news," Ayers said. "I did not suffer as much as he did, but we both got out of it with a certain amount of dignity."

Yep. Forever elevated in our minds is the ego and radical left-wing politics of this complicated man of faith, Rev. Wright.

United Church of Christ: Obama come back

2008-11-12T09:50:00.007-05:00

The United Church of Christ's has sent an appeal to President-elect Barack Obama to attend a UCC church in the Washington D.C. area once his family moves to the White House. The public invitation from UCC President John Thomas was part of a post-election letter to President-elect Obama. In light of the problems Obama faced with Trinity United Church of Christ, picking a church may not be as easy as it sounds. From The Hill:

There’s also the potential for Obama, sitting in the pews, to be linked with remarks made at the pulpit. Religion already created problems for Obama during the campaign, first with false rumors that he was secretly Muslim and then with the incendiary remarks made by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, prompting the Obamas to leave Chicago’s Trinity United Church of Christ in May.

But the sudden departure from the Chicago church didn’t stop the national church from inviting the Obamas to try a new location.

“[The letter] invited him to consider finding a spiritual home for him and his family at one of the UCC churches in the Washington area,” said Sandy Sorenson, the UCC’s associate for communications and media advocacy in Washington.

“So the invitation has been extended, and I think some of the local churches themselves have extended an invitation. But I have not heard anything yet about where he’s thinking about attending.”

In my less-than-humble opinion, the public invitation to Barack Obama is yet another publicity stunt for our denomination that is plainly begging to be relevant. A private invitation would have gone much further in demonstrating a respect for discretion that should be afforded to any public figure and their family looking for a house of worship. And whether intentional or not, the public invitation creates an awkward test for Obama: If he selects a UCC church, it provides validation for the denomination and if he does not, it is a snub... which is an incredibly unfair position to force on someone.

Hope and Faith

2008-11-05T02:23:00.003-05:00

It would be a gross distortion to say that Barack Obama's historic election is simply a partisan affair. Far from it, this election is probably the single most significant historical event in our lifetime. While today will forever be remebered because we have elected the first black president of the United States, it is a far greater event which we may not fully appreciate in our lifetime. In no small measure, Obama's improbable election is symbolic of the ideals on which this nation was founded.

Being in the United Church of Christ, we have a unique view of this election. Once "one of our own," Obama pragmatically decided to leave his church (and ultimately our denomination) before his campaign could be undermined by his minister and the media. In our celebration of Obama's victory, we must also acknowledge ~and learn from~ the loss of one of our most significant members. Most of us will never have to face the scrutiny of a national election, but many of us struggle to maintain our own identity with the United Church of Christ when our leaders marginalize our own members and those of other faiths.

The hope that fueled the enthusiasm of Obama's campaign is not all that different from the hope that we should identify in our faith and in our denomination. Although our country is mired in global and financial turmoil, we have turned a significant corner. As a denomination, we too must find a way to turn that corner.

Coincidence? Another ordination of a woman priest taking place in UCC church

2008-10-31T15:58:00.003-04:00

Another United Church of Christ church is poised to be at least the third UCC church to host an ordination of Catholic women... this one is in Chicago. From the Chicago Tribune:

The ceremony, to be held at St. Paul's United Church of Christ in Lincoln Park, is being organized by Roman Catholic Womenpriests, an organization that is not recognized by the Catholic Church. The group, which began in 2002, also will ordain three women as deacons in preparation for priesthood.

The Vatican has said repeatedly that only men can be ordained priests because Jesus did not call women to be apostles, and because the priest stands in the image of Jesus, who was male. Officials with the Chicago archdiocese denounced the ceremony and reiterated the Vatican decree that states the person who ordains the woman, as well as the woman herself, will be excommunicated. An excommunicated person is forbidden to receive the sacraments.

Back in July, the UCC-affiliated Church of the Covenant in Boston hosted an ordination of women priests which drew support from former UCC Conference Minister Rev. Nancy S. Taylor.

As I stated back then and now again, I can't help but think this meddling in other faiths is part of the creeping anti-Catholicism in the United Church of Christ.

Dissent over restructuring is growing

2008-10-21T11:47:00.006-04:00

I have to admit to having mixed feelings about the United Church of Christ's proposed restructuring plan. When you look at the current structure of the national office with the boards and committees, it is easy to appreciate the inefficiencies that the new plan is trying to correct. The big problem is the manner is which the national office would like to centralize the functions of how it is governed. Rather than extract effeciencies by making the existing governing bodies flatter (same organizational structure, just fewer layers) they are trying to make it narrower by creating a single governing board. While that might work for other denominations, it will never work in the United Church of Christ.

One group, the Joshua Generation Leadership Team, is trying to make a difference and is trying to make it's voice heard regarding the restructure with an online petition form. Why do they need our help? From the online petition:

Here are just 5 of the many reasons why we need your help:
The process has been unjust.
a. Despite the multitude of serious and legitimate concerns that have been raised by several different branches of the church, including the historically underrepresented groups (HUGs), the concerns have been ignored and the process has continued ahead.
b. In a restructure of this magnitude, it would seem very appropriate that each of the incorporated board of directors of the Covenanted Ministries would have their own specialists, consultants, and legal counsel advising them on what is in their best interests as an independent corporation of the church. Instead, this process has been facilitated by one sole consultant, who was hired by one arm of the church.
c. Not all of the historic, elder leaders of the church were consulted about the proposed restructure in a timely fashion, despite public claims that the key past leaders were included in the process.

We have been a church that has historically chosen not to place
power in any one place. Because of our congregational culture, power has always been in the local church however, this proposed restructure shifts the power to a central place. Also, where is the decision making checks and balances of a single governance board? A single governing board is a condensation of power with no checks and balance system. It also seems largely staff driven given that staff will have both voice and vote at the Executive Committee level.

We have always been a church who has fought, and continues to fight, against elitism. The single-board structure promotes elitism for the following reasons:
a. A smaller, single-board structure limits the amount of participation (and thus, the development of new leaders) from every single segment of the UCC.
b. We have always fought for economic justice, yet what about the class implications in a single-board structure? Because the board would shrink, the amount of decisions and responsibility of each board member would increase. Board meetings would thus be much longer. Only those who had a surplus of free time would be able to serve.

This has not been a mission-driven restructure; it has been a
financially-driven restructure. We are a church, not a corporate entity
driven by product. The missions of the church have not been the first priority in this restructure; instead it has been motivated by efficiency and money.

It is as if we are erasing the rich history of our church and are
starting from scratch. The rich history of this church seems lost in this proposed restructure. It is as if we are beginning from ground zero and remaking the identity and culture of the church. We would be appalled if certain chapters of American history were removed from the textbooks, why should the history of the UCC be any different?

I would encourage you to review the information and consider signing the petition. I think the points they make are completely accurate and reflective of where we are as a denomination.

The leaders of the UCC don't like this petition at all... and they shouldn't. As the petition states, the catalyst for the restructure is money, not mission. The leaders of the United Church of Christ have not proven themselves to be honest nor have they proven themselves to be good stewards of our financial resources... and the best example is to see is how the television advertising campaign has been run. When the ad's were rejected by NBC because they "inappropriately suggested that churches other than the UCC are not open to people of diverse races and backgrounds," UCC leaders falsely claimed that the ad was rejected because it's "welcoming" message was "too controversial". To compound the problem, the national office continually fell short of fundraising goals to pay for the ads and it's presummed that the covenented ministries picked up the tab.

So why reject the restructuring? Because restructuring is dependent on trust that a centralized body will act in the best interests of the whole denomination, not just the best intentions of those at the top. Our leaders have not earned that trust.

Read the petition and consider signing it today.

Sacred Conversations are Usually No Earthly Good!

2008-10-11T16:06:00.002-04:00

Note: Since the creation of UCCtruths, I've had a policy that any leader within the United Church of Christ is welcome to submit commentary which will be posted, unedited and without commentary, on the top of the site.

Rev. Graylan Scott Hagler, Senior Minister of Plymouth Congregational United Church of Christ & National President of Ministers for Racial, Social and Economic Justice Of The United Church of Christ has submitted the following commentary for UCCtruths to post:

Sacred Conversations are Usually No Earthly Good!

October 9, 2008

By: Reverend Graylan Scott Hagler,Senior Minister, Plymouth Congregational United Church of Christ & National President,Ministers for Racial, Social and Economic JusticeOf The United Church of Christ

This past May 18, 2008 The United Church of Christ, a denomination known for its liberalism called for a “Sacred Conversation on Race” to take place in its pulpits across the nation. This call to the congregations was made in the aftermath of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright-Barack Obama controversy since both were affiliated with The United Church of Christ. Some United Church of Christ ministers called a meeting in the Washington, DC area to discuss this initiative by the denomination. The gathering was revealing to say the least. Most of the fifty odd ministers who were present were predominantly white and attested to their liberalism and openness to other races, and how each of the ministers had somehow in the past stood up for a person of another racial group at some traumatic moment. The black ministers in the room each testified to the fact that they needed not “A Sacred Conversation on Race,” but straight talk on racism which was the issue that impacted their lives negatively. As usual this created tensions between the black and white clergy participants where the whites perceived that they were being “put down” for their past stances and their proclaimed liberalism, and the blacks felt that the issues of racism were being ignored for the sake of a feigned peace between the races and to advance the desires of a denomination to have a “marketplace” identity.

Indeed this was not the first time in recent history that The United Church of Christ attempted to use an issue to stake out a position in the fiercely competitive world of church growth and identity theology. The denomination in the previous five years created a “God is Still Speaking” public relations campaign that focused on its openness to people no matter of their sexual orientation, gender, race or disability. This is a message to be applauded except the ads implied that The United Church of Christ was more superior and forward thinking than any other denomination. Many denominations took exception to this, and even some of the television stations slated to air the ads pulled them. This campaign however put the church further into debt, and as a consequence of the hemorrhage of funds the director of the campaign was fired – a black man!

Over the last ten years The United Church of Christ in its national office has tended to have less blacks and other people of-color in its employ. In hard economic times the old adage held true even within the church for blacks and other people of-color, “the last hired and the first fired.” Furthermore black male clergy on national staff in the church is at an all time low. All of this serves as a backdrop to the church’s “Sacred Conversation on Race.”

In May when The United Church of Christ clergy met at that church in Washington, DC, the decision was made that black and white clergy would meet over the ensuing months to discern how we might make this conversation relevant, and to take it beyond the publicity stunt that the denomination intended. In those ensuing meetings however the white participation dwindled to less than a hand full, and it became apparent that though the denomination wanted “A Sacred Conversation on Race” and prides itself on liberalism even its ministers did not want to deal with the issues of racism or the institutional racism that plagues this church and many others like it. But just as the prophet Jeremiah proclaims, there is "remnant" people that will make a stand in easy times and in times that are not too easy, and will lift up a message that needs to be lifted, even in spite of The United Church of Christ’s attempts to sanitize and homogenize people and issues. Therefore beginning in October and spanning over the next three weeks, this handful of United Church of Christ clergy, black, Hispanic and white, will host “town hall” gatherings in a white, Hispanic, and black congregation so that people can engage in a culturally diverse setting and have a real discussion on racism. Hopefully we all may grow in the process out of these frank conversations that may anger people at times, but will hopefully help to build a context where people out of their diversity might truly come together and combat the “isms” that separate and often destroys possibilities of ever coming together as a church, a people and a nation.

'Get Religion' gets UCCtruths

2008-10-09T17:04:00.005-04:00

We got a nice link reference yesterday morning on GetReligion.org from Terry Mattingly:

So, who is the better Christian in the White House race?

The Times of London claims that it wants to know.

Seriously?

Things don’t look good for the old mainline Protestant — that would be Sen. John McCain — but the new era of Oprah-friendly liberal Protestantism is doing just fine. Sen. Barack Obama’s United Church of Christ brand of faith is a hit on the other side of the Atlantic, while the numbers in the pews here in the U.S. are nothing to write home about.

Not everyone liked the reference though... cranky Pastor Dan threw a tantrum:

Almost too many problems to mention here:
John McCain continually fudges his religious identity. Is he an "oldline
Protestant" Episcopalian, or a Southern Baptist, or really not much of anything?

Despite Mattingly's slurs, the United Church of Christ is an overwhelmingly
traditional, even orthodox, denomination. I know people would like to think of
us as somehow "New Age-y". We're not. He knows that.

Yes, Oprah briefly attended Trinity UCC. She left. He knows that too.

Mattingly cites UCCTruths without noting that they're knee-jerk opponents of the national UCC, hence not an unbiased source. He also fails to mention that basically no denomination has "numbers to write home about" these days. He knows that, too. Or if he doesn't, he shouldn't have his job.

The poll in question has less to do with the candidates' actual religion than their public image as faithful people. Barack Obama has been in the national spotlight for four years shaping a religious narrative for himself. Sarah Palin has been known to most people for about two months, and to the extent that people know her faith tradition, they think it's batshit crazy. Can you blame them?
Wank, wank, wank. If Mattingly held himself to his own standards, he'd wonder why the media don't "get" religion.

Either Pastor Dan didn't get his bottle of milk yesterday morning or he lost his pacifier... in either case he clearly didn't read the actual post that Mattingly referenced to UCCtruths. The post by Pastor Ted Weis was about the 40 years of decline within the mainline church and which quoted Dr. David Greenhaw, President of Eden Theological Seminary. The mainline has been in decline and it has nothing to do with UCCtruths being "knee-jerk opponents of the national UCC".

I guess if we aren't all drinking the same punch, we can't be on Pastor Dan's 'A' list. Boo hoo.

It's Not a Matter of "Criticizing" Israel

2008-10-09T14:04:00.011-04:00

In a nutshell, here is the problem with mainline Protestant narrative about the Arab-Israeli conflict:

At the center of the mainline Protestant narrative about the Arab-Israeli conflict is a very simple assertion: Israel is in control of and responsible for the hostility directed at it by its adversaries in the Middle East. The story is told in various ways, but ultimately Israel is portrayed as having the ability and the obligation to bring a unilateral end to the Arab-Israeli conflict through a magical combination of concessions, withdrawals and peace offers that will mollify nations, groups and individuals that worked to prevent Israel’s creation in 1948 and have sought its destruction since then.

This narrative, while comforting, denies the fundamental nature of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Israel cannot control the enmity directed at it and the conflict will come to an end when religious and political leaders that govern the nations in the Middle East choose peace and stop supporting groups like Hamas and Hezbollah as they attack Israel. The fact that these leaders have not chosen peace challenges deeply held mainline beliefs about the perfectibility of human nature and the ability of mainline churches to influence events in the Middle East. But the fact remains peace will come to the region when Arab and Muslim leaders in the region choose peace and not a moment before.

To affirm their brittle and distorted peacemaking narrative, activists, leaders and staffers from these churches and their allies in the Middle East have produced materials related to the conflict that downplay Muslim and Arab hostility toward Israel and Jews in the Middle East and have portrayed the Israeli people and their government as psychologically and spiritually unable to make peace with their neighbors. To buttress their portrayal of Jews as a people who cannot be trusted with self-determination, mainline activists, leaders and commentators enlist the help of Israeli and American Jews whose unreasonable denunciations of Israel have gotten very little traction in Israel, but who enjoy substantial support from audiences in Europe and the United States who exhibit a persistent and unnatural appetite for stories of Jews behaving badly. Mainline activists, leaders, and staffers also invoke Christian Zionist support for Israel in a manner that short-circuits honest discussion about the underlying causes and impacts of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

At times, these activists, leaders, commentators and their allies in the Middle East resort to scripture to portray Jewish sovereignty as a violation of the boundaries set for the Jewish people by the New Testament and Israeli use of force as a cosmological affront to the Christian nomos and Israelis as enemies of God.

Mainline materials about the Arab-Israeli distort history, judge Israeli behavior against a utopian standard of conduct while at the same time denying Israel’s adversaries of moral agency. The overall impact of this narrative is to render Arab and Muslim violence as unremarkable and Israeli use of force as the root of the conflict.

The worst part about this narrative is that it is a beast that needs to be fed with stories of Jews behaving badly. And sadly enough, there are all too many people who are willing to feed this beast.

The Gospel is a living-giving narrative. It strengthens us. We feed on it. It does not feed on us. The story we tell about the Arab-Israeli conflict is a lethal and ravenous narrative. It feeds on us. It demonizes Israel, infantilizes the Palestinians and diminishes our ability to confess to the reality of the living God.

"Hear and understand: not what goes into the mouth defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a person." -- Mark 15:10-11

Guess who is not coming to dinner

2008-09-25T18:52:00.006-04:00

United Church of Christ President John Thomas has declined an invitation to join other religious leaders meeting with the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. From UCC.org:

This evening, September 25, the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will meet with religious leaders at a dinner in New York. The event is co-sponsored by the Mennonite Central Committee, the American Friends Service Committee, the Quaker United Nations Office, the World Conference on Religions for Peace, and the World Council of Churches. While a member of Religions for Peace, the United Church of Christ is not active in its participation. We are, of course, a very active member communion of the World Council of Churches.

I was invited to the dinner but have declined. In previous public statements I have objected strongly to the rhetoric of President Ahmadinejad, rhetoric regarding the State of Israel and the historicity of the Holocaust that is deeply disturbing to all who believe in Israel's right to exist and who acknowledge the on-going pain that the Holocaust and its memory still evokes. While the organizers of this event certainly hope to raise their concern over this rhetoric with President Ahmadinejad, I am not convinced this will be effective. To the contrary, I fear the occasion can and will be used by President Ahmadinejad to claim legitimacy and support for himself by an association with respected United States religious leaders. I respect the sponsoring organizations' intent for dialogue, but fear that the more likely outcome is sowing confusion and disappointment among our own members and, in particular, the American Jewish community.

This is a surprising but welcome gesture by Thomas who has been widely criticized by the Jewish community in the past for statements and actions he has made regarding Israel.

The UCC's Justice and Peace Action Network also made statements in the past that appeared to support Iran's false claims that it would not enrich uranium while the U.S. was pushing for greater measures of accountability. From a 2005 UCC Justice and Peace Action Network alert:

The government of Iran has already submitted to the International Atomic Energy gency protocol and has opened up its facilities to international inspectors. In addition, Iran signed an agreement with Britain, France and Germany that it would stop developing uranium enrichment facilities.

Thomas should be praised for his decision to not attend the dinner this evening. While this is a clear sign that he does take the opinions of the Jewish community seriously, there is much more work that needs be done.

When UCC ministers roar

2008-09-24T10:29:00.006-04:00

The great thing about this political season is that it brings out the worst in some clergy - especially within the United Church of Christ. Here are a couple of classic comments from UCC clergy this week...

"I am deeply concerned about single-issue, anti-abortion voters. I consider them immoral."
-Rev. Willis E. Elliott as posted at the Washington Post "On Faith"

For me, my concern isn't about the abortion debate, it's about clergy essentially telling people how to vote. Stupid comments like this are no better than Catholic Bishops telling their parishoners about the morality of their voting decisions.

This one is pretty good too...

"I am trying to understand why America thinks it's okay for a woman to go to four or five colleges before she got her bachelor's degree to compete with a black man who went to Harvard and graduated at the top of his class"
-Rev. Dr. Susan K. Smith, Advent United Church of Christ in Columbus, Ohio, preaching at Howard University

The elitism in this is actually pretty funny. By her standard, Abraham Lincoln would not have been qualified to run for President. And what's the message in this to the women who struggle to go to college and have to bounce around to different schools to complete their degrees? According to this Yale grad, only Ivy Leaguers should run for public office I guess.

But she didn't stop there... regarding Obama not referencing MLK during his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention:

"On the day he accepted the presidential nomination, he could have at least said Martin Luther King's name"

I guess this is the "sacred conversation on race" I've been missing.

Guest Post: The Limits of (International) Law

2008-09-22T19:42:00.004-04:00

By Dexter Van Zile

Note: This is a much briefer entry than what I have posted previously. I offer the following arguments to spark debate. As time allows, I will provide more detail and narrative to the argument I make below. I am confident that many readers of UCCtruths will understand the underlying truth of the arguments I offer below and in some instances will be able to fill in the blanks on their own.

1. Mainline Protestant peace activists and church leaders who are willing to subject Christian Scriptures to pretty intense hermeneutics invoke international law as if it were inerrant, without assessing whether or not the rulings they invoke are just or fair. When it comes to international law, mainline peace activists and church leaders are fundamentalists.

2. Mainline Protestants know that appeals to law are not by themselves decisive for Christians. Slavery was legal in the Old South where the law deprived Africans of their status as human beings. German law allowed for Jews to be stripped of their citizenship and of their possessions and shipped off to death camps.

3. Mainline Protestant peace activists and leaders who regard nation states with great suspicion have portrayed the system of international law -- created by nation states -- as sacrosanct, inerrant, and a reliable judge of Israeli behavior.

4. It is not. For the past few decades, international law has been used to give Arab terrorists and tyrants the pretext and territory they have used to attack Israeli citizens.

5. In previous historical eras, national laws have been used to deprive people of their God-given rights. (See #2.) In the current historical era, international law has been used to deprive the Jewish state and the Jews who live in it of their right to self-defense.

6. Jews, like all other peoples, have a God-given right to defend themselves as individuals and as a group. This right cannot be taken away from them by the injust, discriminatory and biased application of the principles of international law.

7. Mainline peace activists and church leaders have assisted in the sustained effort to deprive Israel of its rights in the community of nations in a number of ways including the reckless invocation of unjust rulings and legal opinions against the Jewish state.

8. Mainline peace activists and church leaders should abandon the prosecutorial demeanor and attitude they have exhibited toward Israel and the licentious attitude they have exhbited toward Arab leaders in the Middle East.

Making adoption a priority

2008-09-21T15:25:00.003-04:00

A friend just turned me on to an article that appeared in the Wall Street Journal last month regarding new initiatives to promote adoptions of children at risk including orphans. As many of the regulars to the site know, I was adopted as an infant through the United Church of Christ affiliated Crossroad Ft. Wayne Childrens Home and I'm a strong advocate for adoption programs. While Crossroad is no longer handling adoptions, there is clearly an opportunity for our denomination to find new ways of serving the most vulnerable people in our society.

The WSJ article politicizes the issue more than I care for, but there are some important issues that are raised. I'm not a fan of 'Focus on the Family' and I don't have any respect for James Dobson's effort to politicize religion, but they are 100% right about the role faith commuities should play with regards to adoption. From the WSJ:

The theme was "You Are God's Plan for the Orphan," which represents something of a shift, says Kelly Rosati, who oversees Focus on the Family's adoption and orphan-care division and is the mother of four adopted children. "The traditional way of viewing adoption was something you considered if you were facing infertility." You could call it God's Plan B for the Couple. But now, according to Ms. Rosati, "the commitment to adoption is part of a holistic sanctity-of-human-life ethic."

This fall, Focus on the Family (whose leader, James Dobson, has been slowly warming to Sen. McCain) will be launching a different sort of adoption campaign. In cooperation with the state of Colorado, where the Christian organization is based, it will be shining its media spotlight on the 127,000 children in the U.S. who are considered unadoptable -- kids, typically over the age of 8, who are languishing in foster care. Many are racial minorities.

Did you know that there were 127,000 kids in our country that are "unadoptable"? What is your church doing about this? What is our denomionation doing about this? Do we care about 'the least of these' only when it's politically convenient or are we really committed?

It's official: We're nuts

2008-09-19T16:07:00.008-04:00

This could explain a great deal about our denomination. From the Wall Street Journal:

The Gallup Organization, under contract to Baylor's Institute for Studies of Religion, asked American adults a series of questions to gauge credulity. Do dreams foretell the future? Did ancient advanced civilizations such as Atlantis exist? Can places be haunted? Is it possible to communicate with the dead? Will creatures like Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster someday be discovered by science?

The answers were added up to create an index of belief in occult and the paranormal. While 31% of people who never worship expressed strong belief in these things, only 8% of people who attend a house of worship more than once a week did.

Even among Christians, there were disparities. While 36% of those belonging to the United Church of Christ, Sen. Barack Obama's former denomination, expressed strong beliefs in the paranormal, only 14% of those belonging to the Assemblies of God, Sarah Palin's former denomination, did. In fact, the more traditional and evangelical the respondent, the less likely he was to believe in, for instance, the possibility of communicating with people who are dead.

This would explain John Dorhauer's crazy conspiracy theory, our denomination's support for the anti-Semitic organization Sabeel and our denomination's support for convicted terrorists. Simply put, a third of us will believe just about anything.

Guest Post: A Warning, Not a Primer

2008-09-19T15:28:00.017-04:00

By Dexter Van Zile

In 1974, New Seabury Press published Faith and Fratricide: The Theological Roots of Anti-Semitism, by Rosemary Radford Ruether. In this book, Ruether offered a thoroughgoing critique of the New Testament and of the writings of the early church fathers that offered a distorted and inaccurate view of Judaism and Jews to demonstrate the superiority of the Christian church. Ruether noted a troubling aspect of Christian writings: the most powerful expressions of Christ’s divinity and redeeming power were often accompanied by ugly denunciations of Jews. Christianity’s assertions of Christ’s divinity, status as the messiah, and expectations of redemption were so deeply interwoven with enmity toward the Jews that Ruether asked:

Is it possible to purge Christianity of anti-Judaism without at the same time pulling up Christian faith? Is it possible to say “Jesus is Messiah” without, implicitly or explicitly, saying at the same time “and the Jews be damned”?

The interweaving of anti-Jewish polemic with assertions of Jesus’ redemptive power was, according to Ruether, an effort to counter two threats to the early Christian faith: Jewish rejection of Jesus as the messiah and the fact that the world had remained much as it was, rife with conflict and misery even after Jesus’ death and resurrection. The presence of suffering in the world after Christ’s resurrection contradicted a central tenet of Christianity – that Christ had conquered sin and death. Christian writers countered these threats by spiritualizing the redemption Christ brought to the world, claiming this spirituality for the church, and by projecting human failings onto the Jewish people. According to Ruether, the narrative offered by Christian writers and commentators portrays Judaism and its adherents as apostate from God, guilty of violating all the rules that had been handed down to them in their Torah, and then stubborn in their insistence on following these rules once they had been superseded by Jesus Christ, whom they murdered. Jews were portrayed as a carnal people while Christianity and its adherents are portrayed as “spiritual.” Jews were portrayed as unable to understand their own scriptures; Christians are portrayed as having the true understanding of how Jews should interpret their scriptures and ultimately how they should behave. According to Ruether, Jewish scriptures which “contain a record of Jewish self-criticism” were transformed by Christian writers “into a remorseless denunciation of the Jews, while the Church, in turn is presented as totally perfect and loses the prophetic tradition of self-criticism.”

Gregory Baum, a Catholic theologian who wrote the introduction to Ruether’s book, put it concisely when he wrote:

The Church made the Jewish people a symbol of unredeemed humanity; it painted a picture of the Jews as a blind, stubborn, carnal and perverse people, an image that was fundamental in Hitler’s choice of the Jews as the scapegoat.

Baum’s introduction was remarkable in that he had previously argued “the anti-Jewish trends in Christianity were peripheral and accidental, and that it would consequently be fairly easy to purify the preaching of the church from anti-Jewish bias.” After reading Ruether’s work, however, Baum admitted that anti-Jewish trends were not a recent development in Christianity and that “they were, almost from the beginning, linked to the Church’s proclamation of the Jesus as the Christ.” Baum proclaimed that “If the Church wants to clear itself of the anti-Jewish trends built into its teaching, a few marginal correctives will not do. It must examine the very center of its proclamation and reinterpret the meaning of the gospel for our times.”

Ruether’s book prefigured another magisterial and influential text written two decades later – Constantine’s Sword by James Carroll who popularized an insight that had been circulating in academic and theological circles for years: Christian teachings regarding the Jewish people were a necessary and contributing factor to the destruction of the Jewish people in Europe during the 1940s and that Christians needed to come up with new ways to interpret their scripture. To be sure, Ruether was not the first commentator to raise these issues, but she was one of the most fearless and thoroughgoing. In response to the issues raised by Ruether and other theologians, several liberal Protestant denominations in the United States issued statements of contrition regarding Christian teachings about the Jewish people, and promised to fight against anti-Semitism in the future. In their own ways, they recapitulated what the Roman Catholic Church had stated to the world in its document Nostra Aetate issued in 1965 – in light of the Holocaust, Christians were obligated to find new ways to affirm their faith without demonizing Jews.

In light of the work of Ruether and others, liberal Catholics and Protestants began to reinterpret and in some instances, reject the New Testament’s anti-Judaism. For example, in 2004, Westminster John Knox Press published Preaching the Gospels Without Blaming the Jews: A Lectionary Commentary written by Ronald J. Allen and Clark M. Williamson. In this book, Allen and Williamson (who invoke Ruether in their introduction) state explicitly that Gospel polemic against Jews and their leaders should be analyzed, and when necessary, rejected. For instance, the authors assert that Matthew’s Gospel inserted the presence of Pharisees and scribes into the narrative of Christ’s baptism in the Jordan river “so that John can engage in name-calling: ‘You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?’” The authors tell us that “after the Holocaust, preachers should speak against Matthew’s polemic.”

The great irony is that in the years since the publication of Ruether’s book, Christian peace activists have deployed many of the same polemical devices against modern Israel that Ruether documented in Faith and Fratricide. Progressive Christianity’s most powerful calls for peace and liberation are accompanied by ugly polemics that portray Israel and its supporters as worthy of contempt and justify Israel’s banishment from the community of nations. Many peace activists portray themselves as inheriting and embodying the ultimate truths of the Christian religion, while Israel and its supporters are portrayed as embodying all of the worst characteristics of human nature, organized religion, the international system and ultimately as if they are enemies of God, obstructing God’s plan for a peaceful world (in a manner eerily similar to what some Christian Zionists say about those who oppose Israel.)

Adam Gregerman, Ph.D., documented the problem in an article (“Old Wine in New Bottles: Liberation Theology and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict”) published in the Summber-Fall 2004 edition Journal of Ecumenical Studies. Using Faith and Fratricide as a map of Christian anti-Jewish polemic, Gregerman details how modern Christian writers – including Ruether herself – had “perpetuated Christian stereotypes and images of Jews, even as many churches are rejecting anti-Jewish teachings.” He reported how Christian commentators “use the Jews’ sacred texts against them and thereby turn political disagreements into religious indictments.” Gregerman is particularly forceful when he describes how “the most malevolent enemies of Jesus and God and even of ancient Israel are deployed as symbols of Jews by liberation theologians, with no attention to the long history of Christian anti-Judaism, which used precisely these symbols and this type of polemic.

Anglican Priest Naim Ateek founder of Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center, headquartered in Jerusalem features prominently in Gregerman’s piece. Using liberation theology as its framework, Sabeel calls for a one-state solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict in the form of “One state for two nations and three religions.” In addition to its support for a one-state solution, Sabeel is well known for its use of anti-Judaic polemic from the New Testament to portray the modern state of Israel as a cosmological affront to Christian sensibilities. For example, in 2005 Sabeel issued a liturgy titled “The Contemporary Stations of the Cross” that equates Israel’s founding with Jesus’ death sentence and the construction of a security barrier with His death on the cross. With these comparisons, Sabeel transforms two actions taken to achieve Jewish safety in the face of unrelenting violence into two reminders of Christ’s judicial and ritual murder – at the hands of the Jews, of course. This document, published after Gregerman’s article appeared in print, underscores his assertion that critiques motivated by liberation theology

… lead to a demonization of the Jews. These writings do not illuminate the key issues in the conflict and offer little by way of guidance for those on all sides who seek a just solution. As such, liberation theology impedes rather than fosters any serious attempt at understanding or ending the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians.

Gregerman’s article raises an important question for Christian peace activists – similar to the one Ruether asked in 1974: Is it possible for Christian peace activists and mainline churches to assert “peace is possible” without implicitly, or explicitly, saying in one way or another “and Israel be damned”? The willingness of mainline peace activists and church leaders (particularly in the UCC and the Episcopal Church) to tolerate the use of Sabeel’s angry polemic is troublesome, but the problems do not stop there.

Another problem is the manner in which these activists and leaders have adopted the group’s unrealistic prescription for ending the conflict – “End the occupation and the violence will end.” This mantra, put forth by Dick Toll, former chair of the Friends of Sabeel North America in 2005, roots the continued existence of the Arab-Israeli conflict in Israeli policies and takes no account of the enmity toward Jews and Israel expressed by religious political leaders throughout the Middle East. And like the predictions of the world’s imminent redemption put forth by Jesus’ early followers, Sabeel’s “end-the-occupation-and-the-violence-will-end” narrative has proven to be a disappointment. Israel has been attacked from every bit of territory from which it has withdrawn since the Oslo Accords.

This is a point I’ve made before – numerous times – but one that bears repeating. Between 2000 and 2004, Israel was attacked by suicide bombers from the West Bank, with many of the attacks originating from towns from which Israel withdrew its soldiers in the 1990s. In 2006, Israel was attacked by Hamas from the Gaza Strip -- from which it withdrew in 2005. Also in 2006, Israel was attacked from Lebanon, from which it withdrew in 2000, by Hezbollah.

If the safety of your family was at stake, would you still be willing to bet its well-being on the “end-the-occupation-and-the-violence-will-end” narrative after your country was attacked from territory from which it withdrew?

I wouldn’t.

Neither would most of the people in mainline churches; those who would place this bet have no right to expect Israelis to do so after the events of the past few years.

On this score, mainline peace activists and the leaders of our churches have done a very poor job of conveying the hopelessness felt after the Second Intifada by well-meaning, peace-loving Israeli Jews, who if by some reversal of fate were Christians living in the U.S. (yes, I know it’s a bizarre scenario – but stay with me) would likely find themselves at home in our churches by virtue of their temperament and politics.

After the collapse of the Camp David Process, peace-loving Israelis were devastated and many of them laid the blame squarely on the Arab inability to accept Israel’s right to exist. Hirsh Goodman had this to say at the height of the Second Intifada in 2002: “I supported Oslo. I supported talking with Arafat. The greatest disappointment was to discover that despite everything I've believed, everything I've promulgated, that [expletive] never gave up terror.” (We never saw that quote in any background documents prepared by the activists and church staffers now did we?)

Goodman was not the only peace activist to take a different attitude after the Second Intifada. This is how a liberal pro-peace Israeli Jew (who will be left nameless) responded to the “Tear Down the Wall” resolution passed by the United Church of Christ in 2005: “When I hear churches in the U.S. tell us to tear down the wall, it makes me want to build another one right behind it.”

Despite all this, mainline church leaders and peace activists clung to their discredited narrative by denying the concessions weren’t any good (Barak’s “generous offer” was no such thing), or asserting that Sharon’s withdrawal was meaningless (“Gaza is still an open air prison!”) or that the Security Barrier caused and did not prevent Palestinian violence (“Tear Down the Wall!”).

Any suggestion that the peace and justice activists are motivated by a desire to analyze and confront the underlying causes of the Arab-Israeli conflict misses the point. These activists are telling a story, not making peace. They are creating a mythology about the conflict that couples a relentless bill of particulars against Israel with a licentious hagiography that portrays Israel’s adversaries as innocent of all wrong. The goal of this myth is to allow adherents of the “end-the-occupation-and-the-violence-will-end narrative” to remain devoted to their ersatz parousia, and to blame its delay on Israel.

Once again, Jews are defamed when the millennial hopes of Christians are disappointed. One way or another, Christians always seem to come back to their obsession with Jewish people – this time through the modern state of Israel. The only question is how this obsession will manifest itself – through a process of sacralization or demonization. Much of what passes for Christian debate over the Arab-Israeli conflict is an exchange of polemics between those who sacralize the modern state of Israel and those who demonize it. One characteristic the opposing parties share is a belief that the modern state of Israel will play a central role in their respective salvation schemes.

The similarity between these two schemes became obvious to me while arguing with a peace activist at the UCC General Synod in 2005. During the discussion, I pointed out that mainline resolutions always seem to be making demands of Israel while making very few demands of the Palestinians. In response, the activist said “I want Israel to usher in a new era!”

To be fair, the activist was speaking in historical and not eschatological terms, but the millennial overtone was unmistakable. Israel was expected to bring about a new reality in the Middle East through self-reform, sacrifice and risk-taking. Any expectations the activist had of Israel’s adversaries were unstated. This was not an unusual, isolated slip-of-the-tongue by an individual activist but emblematic central aspect of the Christian peacemaking agenda in regards to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

In his address to the Sabeel conference at Old South Church in Boston in October 2007 Archbishop Desmond Tutu challenged Jews to struggle with their conscience over Israeli policies and to “be on the side of the God who revealed a soft spot in his heart for the widow, the orphan and the alien.” He cautioned Jews to not fight against the God, their God who hears the cry of the oppressed, who sees their anguish and who will always come down to deliver them.” He targeted this cri de coeur exclusively at Jews leaving any expectations he may have had of the Palestinian unspoken. Yes, Archbishop Tutu does condemn “acts of terrorism by whoever they are committed,” but when it comes to naming the perpetrators of misdeeds, he names only the Jewish people and their institutions.

It should be noted, however, that Tutu has recently called on the United Nations to “show the same concern for protecting Israelis from Palestinian attacks as it does for Palestinian suffering under Israeli occupation” and even demanded that Hamas “bring an end to the launching of rockets against civilians in Israel.” These proclamations are undercut however by his suggestion, based on tenuous proof, that Israel perpetrated a war crime by killing civilians in a rocket attack on Bet Hanoun in 2006 and by his assertion that the Palestinians are paying the price for Western guilt over the Holocaust. The 19 Gazans who were killed and the additional 50 who were injured as a result of the rocket attack on Bet Hanoun Nov. 8, 2006 were not paying the price for the Holocaust, but were victims of Palestinians rocket teams who use dense urban neighborhoods as their hiding places.

Were these deaths a tragedy? Absolutely. Does Israel share responsibility for their death? Yes, and most Israelis will say so. But the fundamental reality is this: Terrorists who attack civilians while hiding behind civilians guarantee civilian casualties. The math is pretty simple: No rockets into Israel, no rockets into Gaza. What Israelis regard as a tragedy that brings shame on the Jewish state – the death of innocent civilians – is the chosen and preferred strategy of groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. Desmond Tutu knows this. We all know this. And yet mainline peace activists pretend otherwise. The fact that Archbishop Tutu’s lopsided criticism marks an improvement in how he speaks about the Arab-Israeli conflict shows just how bad things are.

Lopsided demands and criticism of Israel are, along with the ugly, demonizing polemic detailed by Gregerman, another salient aspect of Sabeel's reckless application of liberation theology to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Sabeel’s recklessness is evident in the licentious manner with which it uses the Exodus narrative as a framework for the Arab-Israeli conflict. Apparently, Sabeel’s version of ancient Israel’s story of liberation ends with Exodus. It does not include the rest of the Pentateuch which details how God starts holding ancient Israelites accountable – even during their time in the wilderness. Dennis T. Olson highlights this issue in his commentary on Numbers published by Westminster John Knox Press in 1996. He writes:

Before Sinai, Israel was like a newly adopted child who did not yet know the
rules of the household. God, the divine Parent, bent over backwards to satisfy
the legitimate needs of an Israel immediately out of Egypt. But by the time we
reach Numbers, the people of Israel know their responsibilities in the law and
the commandments. Israel must take responsibility and is answerable for its
relationship to God. (Page 63)

In plain language this means that at some point, the Palestinians need to start accepting responsibility for the problems they have created, quit attacking Israel from territory from which it has withdrawn and get on with building their future. If one were to include Numbers in the liberationist canon (which apparently Sabeel does not) Arafat’s failure to take the deals offered to him at Camp David and Taba in 2000/2001 could be compared to the loss of nerve exhibited by the ancient Israelites when the Promised Land was presented to them chapter 13. Arafat spied out the future, was overcome with fear at the responsibility that would come with statehood and turned the offer down, thereby consigning his people to another 40 years of wandering in the wilderness without a state.

Of course, at a certain point comparisons like this can become ludicrous, but not any more ludicrous than using a Christian theology of liberation as a template for a national movement controlled by Arab political and religious leaders who have used liberation as a synonym for the destruction of Israel for the past 60 years. The fact is, Sabeel’s liberation theology has little if any impact on Palestinian society. Yes, Rev. Dr. Ateek has condemned suicide bombing – in English to Christians in the U.S. and Europe – and yes, there are times when Sabeel does offer muted criticism of Palestinian and Arab leaders, but no where does this criticism even approach the ferocity with which it demonizes Israel. In Sabeel’s quarterly newsletter Cornerstone (published in English), Israel is routinely condemned while Palestinian mistakes are almost ignored altogether.

If mainline peace activists and church leaders such were truly intent on promoting peace between the Israelis and Palestinians, they would call both sides to account for the choices they have made. That is not what they have done. Instead, they have followed Sabeel’s example of blaming portraying Israel as powerful enough to bring a unilateral end to the conflict and by portraying the Palestinians as innocent sufferers.

Just as early Christians used a caricature of Jews and Judaism to cope with the continued existence of suffering, sin and death after Christ’s resurrection, modern-day Christian peace activists use a caricature of modern Israel to cope with their failure of the story they have told to describe, explain and predict events in Middle East. Despite all their efforts, despite all their promises of peace, the world remains much as it has been for a long time – dangerous, unpredictable, frightening and a death-dealing challenge to our faith. Instead of acknowledging that their made-to-order parousia did not arrive and searching for a more secure foundation for their faith, adherents of this failed narrative have interwoven anti-Jewish polemic into their Gospel of Peace, falling back into the trap Ruether warned Christians about in 1974.

Mainline peace activists need to remember that Faith and Fratricide was written as a warning, not a primer.

Out of the Mouths of Two Witnesses: Guest Post By Dexter Van Zile

2008-09-12T17:15:00.013-04:00

Beloved, do not imitate evil but imitate good.
3 John : 1:11

For people who bill themselves as committed to non-violence and reconciliation, the so-called peace and justice activists who inhabit the progressive wing of Protestantism in the U.S. ("mainline churches") sure have targeted Israel with a lot of demonizing rhetoric in the past few years. They have also tolerated, and in some instances, defended the use of explicitly anti-Jewish themes from their allies in both the Middle East and the U.S., raising the question of whether these activists are as committed to "peacemaking" as they say they are.

For example, proponents of divestment in the United Methodist Church, defended Rev. Dr. Naim Ateek, an Anglican priest in Jerusalem with a history of using deicide imagery from the New Testament in reference to Israel, arguing that "If Israel is concerned about statements that point out its actions against Palestinians, it should stop those actions rather than trying to silence those who tell the world about them." In other words, these UMC "peacemakers" assert that as soon as Israel stops mistreating the Palestinians, Rev. Ateek and the group he founded, Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center, will back off from his portrayal of Israel as a crucifying nation. The idea that depicting the Jewish state as re-enacting the crime of Christ's murder (and thus affirming its status as enemy of God), does not make for "peace" is lost on activists who seem more interested in generating contempt for Israel and it supporters than they are in promoting peace and reconciliation.

The implicit message offered by mainline peace and justice activists is that Israel – which has been subject to attack by its neighbors virtually every year of its existence – is not entitled to the sympathy or support from right-minded people in the U.S. and that maybe the world would be better off if the Jewish nation were banished from the community of nations and ultimately dismantled. This message (which is offered explicitly by the Mennonite Central Committee) is expressed in the mainline peacemaking narrative that portrays Jewish sovereignty – not the violence and rhetoric used to undermine it – as the ultimate source of suffering in the Holy Land.

The fact that the leaders and legislative bodies of these churches have, to varying degrees, embraced this anti-Zionist narrative and keep Israel's sins – real and imagined – in their minds with greater force and vividness than two successive genocides in Sudan, China's terrible record of human rights, and the mistreatment of women in Muslim regimes throughout the Middle East, speaks volumes about the influence these activists enjoy within their churches.

The anti-Zionist narrative embraced by mainline churches became readily apparent in 2004 when the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) approved a divestment resolution that called on the denomination’s Mission Responsibility Through Investment Committee (MRTI) to "initiate a process of phased selective divestment in multinational corporations operating in Israel." In addition to singling Israel out as a target for divestment, the resolution also charged that the occupation had "proven to be at the root of evil acts committed against innocent people on both sides of the conflict."

This resolution, passed with the support of the PC(USA)’s Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy, which vets "peacemaking" overtures passed by the General Assembly, sparked outrage from Rabbis for Human Rights, a group that promotes Palestinian rights and statehood to condemn the PC(USA) in a July 2004 letter which stated "Your simplistic moral declaration is inaccurate and inadequate to explain the situation in all its tragic moral complexity."

RHR also accused the PC(USA) of ignoring "the homicidal ideologies that have so sadly taken hold among [Israel’s] Palestinian neighbors," and said the resolution averted "its eyes from the attempts to destroy our country that transcend the Occupation and precede it by decades."

In 2005, the General Synod of the United Church of Christ (UCC), passed a divestment resolution that targeted Israel and a "Tear Down the Wall Resolution," which called on Israel to take down the security barrier, without asking the Palestinians to stop the terror attacks that prompted its construction. The resolution, which was also passed by the Disciples of Christ, described Palestinian suffering in exquisite detail, but made little mention of the suffering experienced by the Israelis, or of the Palestinian violence that caused this suffering.

In addition to this, in 2003 the UCC’s publishing house, Pilgrim Press, published Whose Land? Whose Promise? This book, filled as it is with factual errors and hostile anti-Jewish interpretations of scripture would make any self-respecting church official truly concerned about Christian-Jewish relations blanch. One outrageous example on page of 176, Rev. Dr. Gary Burge interprets John 15:6 (a passage in which Jesus states "If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned") as meaning:

The people of Israel cannot claim to be planted as vines in the land; they
cannot be rooted in the vineyard unless they are first grafted into Jesus.
Branches that attempt living in the land, the vineyard, which refuse to be
attached to Jesus will be cast out and burned. (Emphasis added.)

If you do not think that this is outrageous, just ask yourself what the response would be if Pilgrim Press published a book about gay rights that invoked Leviticus 20:13 (which calls for the execution of homosexuals) as providing insight about what rights should be accorded to gays and lesbians living in the U.S. The book would spark outrage and it would be branded as a text of terror. But Rev. Dr. Burge’s book was well-received in both the evangelical and mainline community – a crossover success. Apparently, Pilgrim Press is going to publish a second edition – the book sells. It just goes to show that indeed, there is money to be made and status to be achieved by trafficking in ugly anti-Jewish and anti-Zionist polemic.

The Episcopal Church, which historically has been the most prestigious mainline church in the U.S., has not passed the ugly anti-Israel resolutions passed by the UCC and the PC(USA). Nevertheless, anti-Zionism runs deep in this denomination. It has provided financial and logistical support to Sabeel, the previously mentioned group that traffics in anti-Jewish polemic and portrays the Arab-Israeli conflict as solely a consequence of Israeli policies. In 2007 the Episcopal Peace Fellowship gave Sabeel’s founder, Rev. Dr. Naim Ateek, a "peacemaking award."

Sadly, the Episcopal Church’s Presiding Bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori seems to have adapted Sabeel’s rhetorical techniques to suit her own purposes. The Episcopal Church News Service coverage of her walk through Jerusalem on Good Friday in 2008 included the following passage:

"I was struck at the way we carried on through the normal activities of the
city, crossing busy streets, walking past garbage waiting for pick up, past
people who alternately stared at us, greeted us warmly, or ignored us," said
Jefferts Schori. "This morning we were spat on by a young Jewish
man. How similar must have been Jesus' journeys the last week of his
life." (Emphasis added. One version of the article that originally
included this passage is available here, but it
no longer includes any reference to the young Jewish man spitting on the Bishop,
but believe me, it was there.)

Yes, it was wrong, disgusting and abhorrent for the young Jewish man to spit on an Episcopal Bishop, but for Bishop Jefferts Schori, a privileged Protestant from the U.S. with an entourage that includes her own press officer, to compare herself to Jesus Christ on his way to the Cross is emblematic of just how self-absorbed and self-congratulatory mainline Protestants can get when they go to the Holy Land. Those with eyes to see will regard Bishop Schori’s star turn in the Holy Land for what it is – a sad example of moral obtuseness that responsible Christians should not follow.

To be clear, the Episcopal Church has acknowledged the presence of anti-Semitism in the Middle East. In a single-spaced, 16-page booklet issued by the church’s committee on Socially Responsible Investment, there is one bland sentence about the issue. "The SRI Committee also notes examples of hostility and anti-Semitism of certain Arab states in the region against the state of Israel."

With the detached and dispassionate tone the SRI committee uses to describe antisemitism in the Middle East, it sounds like a public health problem that can be fixed with a few vaccine shipments, some wide-spectrum antibiotics and maybe some mosquito netting. Compare this language with an article Rev. Canon Brian Grieves, director of the Episcopal Church’s "Peace and Justice" Ministries, wrote in 2005 about the impact of the security barrier on Palestinians. In the article, he quotes Episcopalian Michele Spike as follows:

"The Wall invades Palestinian fields, dividing grazing lands – including the
valley of the shepherds at Bethlehem – and, at times, encircling Palestinian
cities." (Emphasis added.)

The Israeli-built security barrier ("Wall") invades, divides and encircles. Antisemitism, on the other hand, is treated as a found object with no life of its own – an artifact "noted" by the SRI committee. With language like this, Arabs who embrace and espouse anti-Semitism are denied agency or any responsibility , but the security barrier’s impact is described in much more expressive terms that make it clear what the author thinks the Israelis are really about – stealing land and placing the Palestinians under siege. Read the rest of the article and you will find no first-hand description of terror attacks against Israelis, just a bland report that "The Israeli government maintains the barrier is built to provide security to Israel." (This under a subheading "Security Issues.")

To be sure, the difference in tone can be explained in part by the different purposes of the two documents – one a journalistic screed by Rev. Canon Brian Grieves, and the other a more business-like document detailing a committee’s deliberations. Nevertheless, the scant public speech in the Episcopalian Church about Arab violence and enmity to Jews and their state is governed by the tone of the SRI document – restrained and scholarly. But when it comes time to talk about Israeli policies regarding the Palestinians, Episcopalian condemnations are filled with active verbs and theological allusions that point out how badly Israeli policies contradict idealized visions of the Holy Land.

The same allusions and even more powerful verbs could be used to highlight hostility and violence toward Jews in the Middle East, but for the most part, these active verbs and Biblical allusions just are not present in the public speech of any mainline church regarding Arab and Muslim hostility toward Jews in the Middle East. (Why? Probably for the same reason that the Barmen Declaration – a ringing a denunciation of Nazi ideology affirmed by Christians in Germany in 1934 – made no reference whatsoever to one of Nazism’s most salient and lethal characteristics – its antisemitism.)

The United Methodist Church did not pass a divestment resolution targeting Israel at its 2008 General Conference, but it did pass two other resolutions (one condemning Israel as a violator of international law and another calling for a study of the denomination’s investments in among other places, the Middle East) which, taken together, set the stage for more divestment resolutions at the next General Conference in 2012.

And prior to passing these resolutions, the UMC published a mission study by one of its staffers, Rev. Stephen Goldstein that portrayed the Israelis as too damaged to be trusted with self-determination, and a children’s story that portrays Israeli security checkpoints as the cause, not the result, of Palestinian violence. (Predictably, the children’s story describes Israeli suffering in diffuse and abstract terms and Palestinian suffering in concrete and experiential terms.)

The Evangelical Lutheran Church (ELCA) has problems of its own to address. At its 2005 Churchwide Assembly in Florida, the denomination played a video on the hotel’s cable system that used ominous images of Israeli checkpoints to raise funds for Augustus Victoria Hospital run by the Lutheran World Federation. (Apparently, Israeli villainy sells!) At this assembly the denomination affirmed a "Peace Not Walls" campaign that placed the onus for ending the Arab-Israeli conflict on Israel.

In August, 2007 ELCA’s Churchwide Assembly passed a resolution that called on Lutherans to explore the feasibility of "refusing to buy products produced in Israeli settlements." In other words, two months after Hamas and Fatah gunmen battled it in the streets of Gaza, throwing one another off rooftops, ELCA’s Churchwide Assembly suggested that maybe it is a good idea to boycott settlers in the West Bank.

Then there was the ELCA organized event in Germany, where Bethlehem Mayor Victor Batarseh, testified against the security barrier built to stop terror attacks from the West Bank. Of course Batarseh, is going to condemn the security barrier. Batarseh, an American citizen, was a member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and was elected mayor of Bethlehem with the support of Hamas. (Fortunately, the denomination’s magazine The Lutheran, was honest enough to cover the concerns raised over the one-sided nature of the conference.)

Weak Affirmations

Invariably, the leaders, spokespeople and activists from these churches will loudly assert that they have not embraced an "anti-Zionist" narrative, and that in fact, they have explicitly and repeatedly affirmed Israel’s right to exist.

Not so fast.

Yes, these declarations have been made, but they are very rarely accompanied by any explanation as to why such an affirmation is necessary. Israel’s right to exist is not a settled issue in the Arab world where the refusal to accept Jewish sovereignty is rooted in part, in Muslim theology – a fact mainline churches are loath to acknowledge.

Moreover, mainline affirmations of Israel’s right to exist are undercut by the alliances these churches maintain with groups like the U.S. Committee to End the Occupation and Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center, an organization whose leader, Rev. Dr. Naim Ateek has explicitly denied the legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish state.

All this, coupled with the willingness of these churches to publish materials that root the continued existence of the conflict in Jewish identity and psychology (The Methodist Mission Manual) and portray Israel’s creation as a violation of the boundaries set for the Jewish people by the New Testament (Whose Land? Whose Promise?), renders these affirmations meaningless because they do not have any effect on how the churches "talk" about the Arab-Israeli conflict. People who truly affirm Israel’s right to exist would talk honestly about the threats it faces. Mainline churches do not.

The upshot is this: The center of gravity of the mainline church’s prophetic voice is decidedly anti-Zionist. Yes, there are times when mainline leaders respond forcefully, for example, when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says something outrageous, but when it comes to addressing the day-in and day-out violence between Israelis and Palestinians, Israel is condemned and the Palestinians are excused.

The Timing

The amazing thing about mainline anti-Zionism is that became more pronounced in the aftermath of the Second Intifada, when Israel most needed – and was most entitled to – support from liberal progressive churches in the U.S. The Second Intifada was a violent campaign of suicide terror attacks that erupted after the collapse of the Camp David negotiations held during 2000 where Ehud Barak offered the Palestinians a state of their own that included all of Gaza and most of the West Bank. Israel made an offer, the Palestinian Authority refused and did not make a counter-offer. During the winter of 2000/01, the PA turned down the Clinton Parameters which would have given the Palestinians a state of their own on even better terms than that Barak offered during the summer of 2000.

In January 2001, Saudi Arabian Ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar bin Sultan warned Yasir Arafat – who had turned down Barak’s offer at Camp David in 2000 – to embrace the Clinton Parameters, but was unsuccessful. "I hope you remember, sir, what I told you. If we lose this opportunity, it is not going to be a tragedy. This is going to be a crime." (The New Yorker, March 24, 2003).

Despite all this, these churches, under the influence of their various cadres of peace and justice activists, passed resolutions and issued publications that held Israel exclusively responsible for the violence of the Second Intifada. The end result was that attacks on Israeli civilians – which should have prompted horror among right-minded people in the U.S. – were understood in this churches to be regrettable but understandable acts of desperation by the Palestinians who wanted peace against the Israelis, who didn’t. In fact, the violence was perpetrated and tolerated by religious and political figures in Palestinian society unable to lead their societies without using Jew-hatred as a unifying cause.

Who is the Model?

To be sure, the polite and genteel anti-Zionism expressed by mainline churches looks almost benign when compared to the explicit anti-Semitism displayed at the UN Conference on Racism and Xenophobia that took place in Durban, South Africa in late August and early September of 2001. At this conference, Arab and Muslim extremists from the Middle East and their allies from the radical left in Europe and the U.S. were able to convince the gathered assembly to affirm an amalgam of ritualistic charges of genocide, racism and ethnic cleansing targeted at Israel. The ritualistic nature of these charges is demonstrated by a few facts: The population of Palestinians has quadrupled in the past 60 years, Israeli Arabs serve in the Knesset and make up nearly one-fifth of the country's population while Arab countries in the Middle East are effectively Judenrein.

These charges were only part of the craziness at Durban, where Jews were singularly denied the right to participate in the proceedings at the conference because they could not be "objective." Security officials told representatives of Jewish groups that their safety could not be guaranteed. Protesters carried signs stating that if Hitler had finished the job there were would be no state of Israel and no Palestinian suffering. During the conference a Jewish doctor was beat up by people wearing checkered keffiyehs – the symbol of the Palestinian cause – who said Jews were the cause of all the problems in the Middle East. Local Jewish leaders attributed the attack to the atmosphere at the UN Conference.

Ya think?

If you’re looking for mainline condemnations of what happened at Durban, good luck. One thing you will find, however, is a quote from Rev. Dr. Robert W. Edgar, general secretary of the National Council of Churches chiding the Bush Administration’s decision to withdraw from the conference, asserting that it prejudged "the conference’s ultimate declaration… The US government made its point, but at an unfortunately heavy cost… In walking out the United States forfeited a critically important opportunity to address with courage the legacy, tenacity and toll of racism."

To be sure, the anti-Zionism expressed by mainline churches in the U.S. is not as virulent as what was on display at Durban, but this is cold comfort. By embracing a more polite form of the anti-Zionism modeled for them by their peace and justice activists, mainline churches that have explicitly condemned anti-Semitism became allies with groups that use anti-Zionism, not as a cover, but a vehicle for their anti-Semitism. One example of this phenomenon was a June 2007 Washington, D.C., rally organized by the U.S. Campaign to End the Occupation. This rally, sponsored in part by the United Church of Christ and the United Methodist Church featured protesters carrying signs that read "F*&K Israel" with the "s" in Israel drawn to look like a Nazi swastika – a clear and undeniable expression of anti-Semitism. Other protesters carried signs that read "From the River to the Sea Palestine Will Be Free" – a clear and undeniable call for Israel's destruction.

The sad reality is this – these extremists at these are not modeling their behavior on the example set for them by mainline churches. It is the other way around. We are following the lead of the extremists.

That’s not the way it’s supposed to be.

The Second Witness

By aligning themselves with the extremist rhetoric of groups like the U.S. Campaign to End the Occupation, and failing to denounce it afterwards, mainline churches became the second witness needed to initiate a public stoning under Biblical law:

On the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses, he that is to die shall
be put to death; a person shall not be put to death on the evidence of one
witness. The hand of the witnesses shall first be against him to put him to
death, and afterward the hand of all the people. So you shall purge the evil
from the midst of you. (Deuteronomy 17:6-7) [The King James Version, which
apparently is much closer to the original Hebrew in this passage, has a much
more evocative opening to this passage: "At the mouth of two witnesses…"]

Deuteronomy, written as an attempt to constrain collective violence in a region and era when it was routinely practiced, understands that most of the people in a crowd lack the nerve to throw stones at fellow human beings, a point underscored by Jesus’ defense of the prostitute in the Gospel of John. The "first stone," French literary critic Rene Girard writes is "not purely rhetorical [because] it is the most difficult to throw."

Why is it the most difficult to throw? Because it is the only one without a
model. (I See Satan Fall Like Lightning, page 56).

By requiring a second witness to enact an execution, Deuteronomy attempts to deprive angry crowds of the model they need to initiate a stoning, just as Christ did when he issued the challenge "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to thrown a stone at her." (John 8:7) Mainline peace activists have facilitated a process that Deuteronomy tries to hinder and which Jesus tried to disrupt – demonization. And in so doing, they have served as an intermediary between explicitly anti-Semitic anti-Israel activists in the hard left and well-intentioned mainline Protestants who would be horrified by the enmity on display at the June 2007 protest. And in the process, these churches became indifferent to the hostility toward Israel expressed by extremists in the U.S. and the Middle East. And why shouldn’t they become inured?

Mainline peace and justice activists, many of whom had been to the Middle East, are not bothered by it, but regard their willingness to rub shoulders with people carrying "F*&K Israel" signs as a sign of their commitment to the cause – of peace. In the world view of these activists, hostility toward Jews, which had previously been taboo in mainline churches, has become an unremarkable and understandable, (albeit regrettable) aspect of the movement, excused by the notion that Israeli policies cause antisemitism. In other words, associating with groups and people that traffic in explicitly anti-Semitic calls for Israel’s destruction became part of the cost of "peacemaking" and anyway, the story goes, people will abandon their anti-Semitism as soon as Israel makes peace with its enemies.

And so the contagion spreads.

Wright Accused of Adultery

2008-09-11T22:05:00.002-04:00

By Pastor Ted Weis, Congregational Church, Little River, KS

Years ago I was part of a large church in a major metropolis where the senior pastor was accused of adultery. It was a gut wrenching experience. For weeks, the leading newspaper had a hey-dey with the story. The congregation was devastated as hundreds left. And worst of all, the charges were found to be true.

So when news broke that controversial Rev. Jeremiah Wright-- one of the UCC's best known preachers, emeritus pastor of the UCC's largest church, and the former minister of Barack Obama-- is being accused of adultery, the reaction here is one of sadness.

According to the New York Post:

Elizabeth Payne, 37, said she had a steamy sexual affair with the controversial, racially divisive man of the cloth while she was an executive assistant at a church headed by a popular Wright protégé.

When word of the unholy alliance got out, Payne's husband dumped her, and she was canned from the plum job at Friendship-West Baptist Church, she told The Post.

"I was involved with Rev. Wright, and that's why I lost my job and why my husband divorced me," Payne said.

She refused to reveal when the adulterous affair started or how she met Wright.

But fellow churchgoers at Friendship-West "found out about the affair in the spring," Payne said.

At the time, she was secretary to the Rev. Frederick Haynes III, a longtime Wright disciple.

In April, Payne organized a series of Texas public appearances by Wright, 67. Weeks before, Obama had disavowed his preacher of 20 years after Wright's anti-government rants came to light.

"Liz was by Rev. Wright's side day and night during those days," a church source said.

"It's all true," said Payne, adding that she has filed a wrongful-dismissal claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to get her job back.

The charges are being taken seriously. Wright this week was speaking at a revival in New Jersey, but the host pastor canceled any further appearances:

More than 300 people had packed the church when Elmwood Presbyterian senior pastor Robert N. Burkins Sr. made the stunning announcement about 7:40 p.m.

"There has been an allegation of impropriety that has surfaced," Burkins explained from the pulpit as all eyes focused on him.

The accusation involves "inappropriate relations with a female in Texas," Burkins said. "These charges are serious and present a profound dilemma. These are unsubstantiated charges that require us to be sensitive. We ask that you all refrain from judgment."

This site has posted other stories on some pretty bad ministers within our denomination and this one is significant. In this case, the "stink test" boils down to whether the incident likely happened and if it demonstrates a fundamental breach of trust that is placed with clergy. Thus far, the layers behind the accusation-- an accusing woman, a divorce, a lost job, secondary eyewitnesses, and a trail of e-mail messages-- don't look good for Wright.

Wright should do himself a favor-- get out of the public eye, surround himself with peers who will hold him accountable, and do the hard work of repentance.

Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite's hatred and bigotry

2008-09-11T12:47:00.010-04:00

Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite, the (thankfully) former President of the Chicago Theological Seminary, is promoting a religious litmus test for Presidential candidates and revealing her deep bigotry towards people who don't share the same faith as she does. Her latest post on the Washington Post's "On Faith" blog should put her comfortably in the company of other bigots like David Duke and Louis Farrakhan. Maybe that's overstating it a bit... Duke and Farakhan have an audience (however small) that takes them seriously while nearly no one knows who Thistlethwaite is or cares what she thinks.

She starts off this week's post with...

"Wives be subject to your husbands, as unto the Lord." So says the Christian scriptures in Ephesians, 5:22. What I would like to know, first of all, is who is going to have the final authority as Vice-President if Sarah Palin is elected, Palin or her husband? In fact, I think the first order of business with Palin is to ask her to give the same kind of speech that was demanded of John F. Kennedy re his Catholicism. Kennedy said he would obey the Constitution over the Pope. Will Palin obey the Constitution over her husband?

Palin, the presumptive Republican vice-presidential candidate, belongs to an Assemblies of God, the largest Pentecostal denomination in the world. Members of the Assemblies of God believe that the Bible in its entirety is verbally inspired by God, is the revelation of God to humanity and is "the infallible, authoritative rule of faith and conduct." That means, in a literal reading of scripture, that the authority in the Palin family rests with her husband.

The "evangelical base" who are reported to be so "energized" by Palin's nomination as vice-president need to ante up here. Do they believe in the literal word of scripture or not? And if they believe in the literal word of scripture, then they need to demand that the we vet not only Sarah Palin, but more importantly, her husband, Todd Palin. Todd, by the way, works for British Petroleum.

For starters, I don't have a problem at all with a public examination of a political candidate's faith since I believe that faith is a reflection of their belief system. Since similar belief systems can span multiple religions, this doesn't mean that a candidate has to have to have the same faith as I do to be acceptable. This is a significant distinction and it's the difference between bigotry and thoughtful discernment.

Thistlethwaite's post, however, reflects the type of bigotry that should be rejected by people of all faiths.

Some people have rightfully questioned Palin's level of experience but she does have a track record of leadership (however small). It is completely fair to examine what role her faith plays in the decisions she makes as a leader and it is completely fair to wonder if, in her time as a Mayor or as a Governor, there ever been a question or a concern about her husband's role in her decision making? I searched the internet thoroughly this morning and amid the rumors circulating out there, I couldn't find a single example of her husband exercising any authority over his wife in their personal or public lives. None. Since Thistlethwaite doesn't cite any examples, I'm assuming she doesn't know of any examples either... and this is where she crosses the line into bigotry.

Without reason or reference, Thistlethwaite is applying her biased interpretation of Palin's faith and using it as a litmus test that the public should use to evaluate her qualifications. By her own admission, Thistlethwaite has aligned herself with the same anti-Catholic bigots of the 60's who, without merit, unfairly questioned Kennedy's allegiance to the constitution.

I encourage you to read Thistlethwaite's whole post. It is clear reflection of an angry person who has been swallowed up by her own hatred and bigotry.

Disingenuously Right

2008-09-10T22:41:00.002-04:00

You have to love this... From USA Today:

A group of ministers filed a complaint with the Internal Revenue Service to stop a conservative organization from encouraging pastors to endorse or oppose political candidates.
The group of 55 religious leaders from Ohio, Indiana, Iowa and other states said Monday the actions by the Alliance Defense Fund jeopardize the constitutional separation of church and state.

"The rightful place of religious leaders and communities of faith in American life is not in electoral politics," said the Rev. Eric Williams, a minister with the liberal United Church of Christ.

Williams is right but he is completely disingenuous.

Williams didn't voice this level of concern when our denomination hosted presidential candidate Barak Obama last year at our General Synod. While a complaint was filed with the IRS and the UCC was cleared, the Obama campaign leveraged the speech for political purposes and the UCC knew the event would be used for political purposes.

That said, he's still right and according to a USA Today poll he's not alone: "Fifty percent of conservatives think churches and other places of worship should stay out of social and political matters."

Hawaii Convention Center trying to keep UCC General Synod

2008-09-10T22:31:00.002-04:00

The Hawaii Convention Center is doing it's best to keep the UCC General Synod after the executive committee of the UCC's Executive Council decided to rescind the selection of the site. From The Pacific Business News:

Hawaii Convention Center officials and Waikiki hotel executives are trying salvage a 2011 religious convention in Honolulu that was canceled due to high airfares.

On Sept. 3, the United Church of Christ said on its Web page that dramatic increases in the cost of air travel forced it to consider alternative sites for its June 2011 general synod.

The group had signed an agreement with the convention center in 2006 to bring 3,000 members and book 24,000 room nights.

Joe Davis, general manager for SMG Hawaii, which manages the Hawaii Convention Center, told PBN Wednesday that the Hilton Hawaiian Village Beach Resort & Spa, Ala Moana Hotel and the Hawaii Prince Hotel have discussed offering incentive packages to the church group.

I think they have their work cut out for them.

Loyola University changes policy on political speakers, UCC cited as example

2008-09-10T14:21:00.005-04:00

Loyola University seems to be taking the high road when speakers running for office plan on speaking at the university. From the Loyola University's The Phoenix:

According to the new rules first proposed in April, on-campus groups may only invite "clearly partisan" speakers affiliated with an active political campaign to Loyola if they extend an equivalent invitation to all other "legally-qualified political candidates."

"The issue is fair access," said Phillip Hale, vice president of public affairs, at a recent meeting with representatives from politically-oriented student groups. Loyola's IRS status as a registered 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, which carries with it specific
regulations, necessitated the tightened policy.

Federal law prohibits Loyola and all other nonprofits from "participating or intervening, directly or indirectly, in any political campaign," the policy says, and Hale said that the IRS often repeals violators' nonprofit status as punishment.

"[If] we're not tax exempt, we close our doors," Hale said.

Increasingly intense scrutiny of nonprofits by the IRS - not conservative pundit Ann Coulter's controversial appearance at Loyola in 2006 - motivated Loyola to adopt the policy, according to Hale.

In fact, the United Church of Christ, also a nonprofit organization, found itself at the center of an IRS crackdown when church member Sen. Barack Obama spoke at their national meeting after announcing his candidacy. If Loyola were to fail to provide equal access to all active candidates, it could face a similar investigation.

The caveat to all of this, of course, is that the IRS isn't enforcing this rule since they didn't find a "fair access" problem with Barak Obama being invited to the United Church of Christ's General Synod last year. The United Church of Christ disingenuously claimed that Obama was invited before he was a declared candidate... although most pundits predicted since 2004 that he would run.

No Permanent Lessons: Guest Entry by Dexter Van Zile

2008-09-09T13:45:00.019-04:00

Introduction: As most visitors to UCCtruths.com know, I have spent most of the past four years detailing how mainline Protestant churches in the U.S. have broadcast an unfair and dishonest narrative about the Arab-Israeli conflict. I started this work in 2005 when he joined the David Project in 2005 and continued while working for the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America -- (www.camera.org).

Over the next few weeks, I will be posting essays on UCCtruths to members of mainline churches with some background about how peacemaking and human rights activism in the progressive church community was used as a vehicle for anti-Zionism in American society. James Hutchins has agreed to let me post these essays here given that the United Church of Christ played a significant role in this phenomenon and will feature prominently in these essays. While I am relying on insight gained while working for CAMERA, my opinions are my own. I ask readers of UCCtruths.com forbearance for the length of this post. Hopefully, in the future, it will be possible to “hide” most of the text to a jump, but for now, it will display in its entirety on the front page.

Below is the introductory essay.

No Permanent Lessons

On a Sunday morning sometime in the mid-1990s, my fiancé (who is now my wife) and I sat through a children’s service at Allin Congregational Church in Dedham, Massachusetts, where I was baptized and confirmed into the Christian faith. The children’s service is an annual rite at Allin Church in which the congregation’s youth conduct all, (or at least most), of the worship service on a Sunday morning sometime between Easter and the end of the school year. The way I remember it, the older kids greet people as they come in the door and hand them their bulletins. The Children’s Choir gives the adult choir the day off and the students in the Sunday school read the scripture, give the sermon, and generally run the show.

At one point during the children’s service, the director of the Sunday school, a well-meaning woman known for reading the bible and taking her faith seriously, offered a brief message to the congregation, the content of which I have long since forgotten, with the exception of one brief passage – words to the effect that “Sometimes we rebel against God, like when the Jews killed Jesus.”

I winced. I was no expert on Christian theology, scripture or Christian-Jewish relations, but I thought that referring to Jews as Christ killers was taboo, or at least considered bad form in most quarters, especially in liberal or progressive churches like ours. And yet here I was listening to a brief homily from the nice lady in charge of the Sunday school offering a medieval reference to Jews killing Jesus. To be sure, this woman was no antisemite, she just didn’t know what she was doing.

Just to make sure that I actually heard what I thought I heard, I looked to my fiancé and asked “Did you hear that?” She looked at me gravely and nodded yes. Later I spoke to the pastor, told him that I was bothered by the Sunday school director’s remarks about the Jews.

“You heard that too? I’m glad someone else heard it. My wife and I were bothered by it too.” The pastor went onto explain that the point of the Gospels was not to show how the Jews opposed Christ teachings. The point was to show how entrenched religious leaders, the establishment, protect their own interest and thwart the purposes of God. The takeaway message was that Christians should read the Gospels as a story about human – not Jewish – sin. It was a reassuring message, but in the years since, I’ve learned not everybody has gotten the memo and that some people who have read the memo have forgotten the message.

About a decade later, about nearly three years after I started my work in the Israel advocacy community, I sat in the pew at Allston-Brighton Congregational Church – the church I joined after I moved from the suburbs of Boston into the city. At the start of the service when the pastor asked for petitions to be included in prayers for the people, I raised my hand and asked the pastor to include a petition for forgiveness for the church’s sins against the Jewish people. To her credit, the pastor had put an acknowledgement of Holocaust Remembrance Day at the top of the order of service.

A few minutes after the pastor gathered all the petitions she read from the lectionary passage from the book of John, chapter 20 verses 19-31 which describe the Savior’s closed-door appearance to the disciples during which Thomas insists on seeing the Christ’s wounds.

As she read the first verse of the passage the tone of her voice revealed a certain uneasiness, as if she were making an on-the-spot emendation to the text while at the lectern, prompting me to reach for my RSV pocket bible which includes the New Testament and the Psalms and read the passage for myself.

The first verse of the passage read as follows: “On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, ‘Peace be with you.’”

Ah, this was the source of uneasiness! What an unhappy coincidence! Here we were on Holocaust Remembrance Day reading from our holy scriptures only to stumble across a nasty bit of polemic against Jesus’ Jewish adversaries.

As she read from the rest of the passage, I opened the pew bible – another RSV – just to make sure and it included the same phrase – “fear of the Jews” which my pastor had emended, midstream, to read “for fear of the religious authorities.” I offered a silent prayer of thanks that my pastor knew what she was doing. This was one of the benefits of the UCC’s commitment to an educated clergy.

Still, reading such a jarring text on Holocaust Remembrance Day was a sad reminder that no matter how much Christians may want to avoid the issue, contempt for Jesus’ Jewish adversaries – and for those Jews who refused to accept Christ’s divinity – was written into the Christianity’s sacred texts, which spoke of the Jews as sons of the devil responsible for Christ's murder and an embodiment of all of humanity's worst traits.

Yes, Jesus was a Jew. And yes, Paul’s letters and the Gospels were written by Jews who still felt some connection to Judaism and to the Jewish people. But because belief in Christ’s divinity was regarded as a heresy to Jewish leaders, Christ’s followers were sometimes thrown violently out of the synagogues to which they had belonged, prompting the creation of a new religion whose future was among gentile communities that had no connection to Judaism or the Jewish people.

The resulting change in the “reading community” proved crucial because the most powerful scriptural expressions of Christianity’s offer of peace and salvation were oftentimes coupled with expressions of disdain toward the Jews who did not accept Christ’s divinity, resurrection or status as the Christ. As Christianity went from being an obscure Jewish sect into a different religion in its own right, harsh intra-Jewish polemic targeted at familiar and intimate adversaries evolved into harsh anti-Jewish polemic used to demonize an alien other. In the centuries to come, contempt for flesh-and-blood Jews, rooted in intra-Jewish polemic recorded in the New Testament, became part of the package of Christianity’s offer of salvation – a demonic two-for-one offer.

The history of Christian anti-Judaism – contempt for the Jewish religion – and its transformation into anti-Semitism – contempt for the Jewish people – is a long and torturous one, told more expertly in a number of texts, including Faith and Fratricide by Rosemary Radford Ruether and Constantine’s Sword by James Carroll which also details how Christianity became the dominant religion in the Roman Empire and then a dominant force in the nation states of Europe after Rome’s collapse. Christianity’s contempt for Jews, coupled with its newfound power, had disastrous results for the Jewish people – and for the church that preached this contempt alongside its message of salvation. This contempt culminated in the nearly complete destruction of Europe's Jews.

In the decades after the Holocaust, theologians and commentators of various stripes went about the task of ensuring that such an event was never repeated. Historians documented how church teachings about the Jewish people helped lay the groundwork for the destruction of Europe's Jews. They studied how the words that came out of Christian mouths and from the ends of Christian pens made life unsafe for Jews in Medieval Europe, deprived Jews in Western Europe of their natural rights after the Enlightenment, and helped render them targets for mass murder in Nazi-controlled Europe. They began to understand that their churches had served as storehouses of invective toward the Jewish people.

With a great sense of urgency, Christians went about the task of unpacking this armory of its weaponry. Christian theologians reinterpreted their scripture. They wrote statements affirming God's love for the Jewish people, and formulated liturgies asking forgiveness for Christian complicity in the Holocaust. They uttered phrases like “Never Again” and “We remember.” They assisted in providing proper memorials to the victims of the Holocaust. One of the most potent expressions of this work was Nostra Aetate, a document published in 1965 by the Roman Catholic Church which suppressed the deicide charge – or the notion that Jews were collectively responsible for the death of Christ. Such work was an absolute necessity not only to protect the Jews, but to protect the Christian church and its ability to profess the Gospel to the world.

If this were a fairy tale, the story would end with, “And they lived happily ever after.” But this is no a fairy tale. It is the real world, where there are no permanent lessons.

Enter Jewish Sovereignty

Concurrent with the effort to rework Christian theology regarding the Jewish people, the modern state of Israel – founded after intense diplomatic wrangling at the United Nations 1948 – demonstrated a capacity to defend its territory and sovereignty against numerous attacks by the Arab nations in the Middle East that refused to accept its existence from the outset.

Despite these periodic attacks against it (which can be fairly characterized as comprising a continuous war of aggression against the Jewish state), the modern state of Israel did what it was supposed to: provide Jews a sovereign homeland where they could rely on themselves – not the good graces of others – for their own safety, freedom and well-being. As dangerous as life can be for Jews in the Middle East, Israel is still a much safer place for Jews than Christian Europe was during the 1940s. More Jews (approx. 33,000) were killed in the course of a few days in a ravine outside of Kiev in 1941, than in all of Israel’s wars since 1948. (About 24,000 Israelis have been killed by violent acts since Israel’s founding.

The relative safety of Jews in the Middle East is not due to the peaceful intentions on the part of Israel’s neighbors. Political and religious leaders in the Middle East speak about Israel in the same manner as the Nazi regime in Germany spoke about Jews before and during the Holocaust. Israel is regarded by extremists in the Middle East as a cancerous entity which must be destroyed, just as the Jews of Europe were portrayed as a blight on Europe.

To be sure, Egypt and Jordan did sign treaties with Israel in exchange for territory, but hostility toward Israel has been a permanent feature of the political and religious landscape of the Middle East. When governments fail to exhibit the hostility toward Israel as required by the people they govern, groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and Hezbollah take up the cudgel against Israel. Hostility toward Israel has become a relay baton passed back and forth between governments and mass movements in Arab societies since 1948.

The Arab peoples are the most numerous victims of this hostility. Indeed, more than an estimated 50,000 Arabs have died as a result of the 1948 War, the Suez War in 1956, the Six Day War in 1967 and the Yom Kippur War in 1973. And these estimates do not include the other 5,000 Palestinians killed during the Second Intifada or those Arabs killed during the 2006 hostilities in Lebanon and the Gaza Strip.

Despite the willingness of Arab leaders to squander the lives of their citizens time and again in an effort to destroy it, Israel survived through a combination of diplomacy, deterrence and use of military force. Israel fields and equips an army of young men and women who are willing and able to kill those who attack Israelis. Israel buys missiles, planes and helicopters and uses them to attack terrorists, sometimes killing innocent civilians nearby.

Israel built (and continues to build) a security barrier on disputed territory in the West Bank in a successful effort to reduce suicide attacks. And apparently, Israel even maintains a stockpile of nuclear weapons as a deterrence against complete destruction. And while Israel has tried to minimize the harm done its neighbors, Israeli soldiers have committed war crimes, Israeli politicians made diplomatic and strategic blunders. They have discriminated against Israeli Arabs living in their midst. In other words, by becoming responsible for their own safety, Israeli Jews became just like any other sovereign people on the face of the planet. They made mistakes, caused other people to suffer, and got blood on their hands. This is the regrettable and inevitable consequence of sovereignty.

A nation can be innocent or sovereign, it cannot be both. Just as Great Britain, France, Spain, America, Holland, and every other Western democracy falls short of perfect conduct – especially in times of peril – so has sovereign Israel. Israelis, like all other self-governing peoples, have chosen sovereignty and in so doing have run into what Reinhold Niebuhr called the forces of “pitiless perfectionism” which motivates what passes for progressive thought in the West. Israel is held to a utopian standard of conduct, while its adversaries are held to no standard at all.

Blinding Utopianism

Early on in its history, Israel enjoyed support from progressives for two primary reasons. First Jews had been victims of fascist violence and hostility, and secondly, during much if Israel’s early history, it was a socialist nation. But as the years progressed Israel became more of a capitalist society and was forced to defend itself and in so doing lose its innocence and glamour. This happened during a historical era when notions of sovereignty, national interest and military force came under intense scrutiny, particularly in the progressive communities of the United States and Europe. While this scrutiny was necessary and brought to light the dangers of unbridled nationalism and inequities of the international system, it was accompanied by a utopianism that undermined the ability of many well-meaning people to think clearly about the legitimate use of power in a dangerous world.

As this scrutiny became more intense and overheated, particularly in the aftermath of the Vietnam war, authority of any type (unless it was wielded by third-world leaders from the left side of the political spectrum) was regarded as something akin to fascism and the use of military force (unless of course it was wielded by liberationist movements) was assumed to be an act of oppression. To be sure, the right tolerated its own dictators and murderers as well, but the progressives were supposed to be better than that.

In the progressive world view, first world countries were regarded as illegitimate wielders of power on the international stage and oppressed peoples were given a license to use any means necessary to achieve their liberation. Reality was, in the main, much more complex, particularly in the case of Israel's use of force against its adversaries, but utopianism is the enemy of understanding. As Niebuhr wrote in 1940 “Utopianism creates confusion in politics by measuring all significant historical distinctions against purely ideal perspectives and blinding the eye to differences which may be matters of life and death in a specific instance.”

Sadly, the issues of life and death in the Middle East have not received responsible treatment from well-meaning (mostly white) progressives in the U.S. intent on doing everything in their power to disassociate themselves from the legacy of racism, genocide, and colonialism that they acknowledged in the 1960s and 70s. In the progressive imagination, Israel’s history was that of a population of white Europeans (who admittedly suffered grave injustices) being thrust into the Middle East where they inflicted injustices on a dark skinned population of indigenous Arabs. Condemning Israel became an obvious way for privileged liberals in the mainline churches to demonstrate their righteous moral character – at someone else’s expense.

With this combination of guilt and utopianism at work in the progressive psyche, it became nearly impossible for well-meaning intellectuals in mainline churches to assess Israeli behavior in a responsible and rational manner. When the modern state of Israel contradicted the image of the defenseless, but morally superior Jew, progressive Christians in the U.S. responded with a rancor that contradicted simultaneous efforts to reform Christian habits of mind and patterns of speech toward the Jewish people. Anti-Jewish invective returned to the public square through the back door of utopianism and liberal guilt.

Storehouses of Invective

In short, mainline churches – following the model of the peace and justice activists in their ranks – began talking about the modern state of Israel in a way similar to the way Christians spoke about the Jewish people in Middle Ages. Just as Jews had been the embodiment of the worst traits of humanity, the modern state of Israel was portrayed as embodying all the worst traits of the nation state. As the Arab-Israeli conflict dragged on, churches began to portray the Arab-Israeli conflict not as a tragic and ongoing war between Israeli Jews and their Muslim and Arab adversaries in the Middle East, but as a Jewish assault on Christian sensibilities that could be brought to an end as soon as Israelis came to their senses and made the proper concessions to its adversaries. In some quarters, Israel was portrayed as a racist apartheid state intent on perpetrating genocide against Arabs.

As a result of this process, the progressive mainline churches have become a storehouse of anti-Jewish invective. This burgeoning storehouse of Christian invective includes tolerance for the application of anti-Jewish polemic from the New Testament to modern Israel, false historical narrative about the conflict, and descriptions of Jews as “disobedient,” “fallen,” hysterical, psychotic and paranoid and not to be trusted with a sovereign state of their own.

This storehouse contains one-sided demands and criticism targeted at the Jewish State.

It includes depictions of Jewish settlers as “killer vines” and references to Israel as a colonialist outpost of European Jews (minus any acknowledgement that Jews from the Arab countries in the Middle East comprise approximately one-half of Israel’s population).

This storehouse of invective includes implicit and explicit depictions of Jews as Nazis as having perpetrated a genocide, or intent on perpetrating a genocide against the Palestinians – despite the reality that the Palestinian Arab population has quadrupled in the past 60 years.

It includes false portrayals of Israel as an apartheid state and assertions that Jewish sovereignty - and not efforts to end it - as the cause of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

This storehouse contains a moral compass which when placed in the Middle East, invariably points critically at Israel.

It is filled with shopworn assertions that Israeli concessions and withdrawals will lead to peace in the Middle East – despite the fact that Israel has been attacked from every inch of territory from which it has withdrawn in the past two decades – from cities and towns in the West Bank, from Gaza and from southern Lebanon.

While this storehouse of invective is camouflaged under numerous protestations that mainline churches affirm Israel’s right to exist, the mainline churches almost always portray Israel as an obstacle, and never as a solution to a problem. (This is Paul Merkley’s description of the World Council of Churches stance toward Israel and the phrase applies to mainline churches as well.)

The most lethal weapon wielded against Israel is silence – silence about the Jew-hatred that permeates the state-controlled media in the Middle East. Peace activists and missionaries returning from the Holy Land, except in a few notable instances, have also failed to acknowledge that religious leaders and extremists in the Middle East talk about Israel the same way the Nazis spoke about the Jews of Europe - as a cancerous blot that needs to be excised for nations in the region to return to their rightful place in world history.

The upshot is this: There is not one propagandistic trope used to justify violence against Israeli civilians in the Middle East that has not made its way to the United States through mainline churches.The narrative is that the conflict is exclusively the fault of Israel, which is the singular source of suffering in the region. Violence and hostility against Israel has, in the mainline community, become unremarkable, understandable and justified. Mainliners who would have previously condemned anti-Jewish polemic from the mouths of their fellow Christians have tolerated and defended it from Sabeel, and said virtually nothing at all about it coming from the mouths of Muslims in the Middle East.

Just as Christian patterns of speech and habits of mind deprived the Jewish people of their safety and natural rights as individuals in Europe, these same patterns of speech and habits of mind have been used to deny Israel its natural rights as a sovereign state, most notably its right to self-defense.

There were people in these churches who knew what was transpiring – people who knew that the Arab-Israeli conflict was more complex than leaders and peace activists in the mainline churches were willing to acknowledge. Sadly, they remained silent about the ugly polemics and dishonest narratives about Israel that became operative in these churches. Experts within these denominations who could reasonably be expected to be on guard against just this sort of thing did nothing in the hopes that the problem would go away, or up until recently, worked in a sporadic ineffective manner.

As a result, efforts to counter the anti-Israel narrative became associated with a right-wing or conservative agenda in mainline churches, when offering a robust defense of Israel against its enemies should have been part-and-parcel of the progressive church community's historical commitment to pluralism, religious tolerance, equal rights and individual freedom.

The same forces which motivate hostility toward Jews in the Middle East deprive women of their rights and makes life intolerable for gays and lesbians in the region. The enmity toward Israel that manifests itself in Arab countries makes Christians unsafe in the region as well. Mainliners know these things, but for the most part, they do not say them out loud and condemn those who raise these issues as being guilty of “Islamophobia.” Instead of providing a model of how people can address these issues in a responsible manner they offer stratagems by which people can ignore the problem altogether.

A straight line cannot be drawn between anti-Zionism expressed by mainline churches and the Christian anti-Semitism of yore. It is not that these churches believe that the only good Jew is a dead Jew. A more accurate and precise assessment is that mainline churches cherish the image of unarmed Jews achieving their physical safety and well-being - not through self defense - but by morally perfect behavior. In the narrative offered by mainline churches, exemplary behavior on the part of the Jewish state is portrayed as capable of mollifying and transforming Israel's enemies into embracing new modes of conduct. To be fair, this is a dream that mainliners hold for all countries – but it is targeted at Israel with an unnerving ferocity. The anti-Zionism expressed by mainline churches is a consequence of dissappointed millenial hopes.

Just as the continued existence of the Jewish people presented a challenge to church doctrine regarding Christ's divinity and redemptive power, the modern state of Israel challenges two ideas cherished and embraced by mainline church leaders, theologians and peace activists: (1) That human safety and well-being can be achieved without the use of force, (pacifism) and (2) that armed conflict can be ended without military and political defeat of aggressors, but rather through reconciliation (peacemaking).

Jewish history disproves these theories. Unarmed, stateless and largely pacifist Jews were unsafe between the Second Temple and Israel's creation, suggesting that pacifism is not as workable a program as its progressive Christian supporters would like. The failure of Israeli peace offers, concessions and withdrawals to mollify hostility toward the Jewish state in the Middle East indicates that peacemaking activities routinely lifted up by mainline Protestants are not up to the task of bringing peace and security to the region. Israel's history indicates that in fact, military strength does, in at least some circumstances, promote well being.

But rather than reassess their beliefs in light of the realities of the Arab-Israeli conflict, mainline leaders, commentators and theologians continue to embrace a prescriptive narrative in which Jewish self-improvement, sacrifice and risk-taking lead to peace. (Similar expectations of self-improvement are not typically targeted at the Palestinians – or any of the Arab states and non-state actors in the region that continue to defame and assault Israel.)

Embracing this prescriptive narrative (which, to be clear, is embraced by many American and Israeli Jews) allows liberal Protestants to avert their eyes from the intractable problems in the Middle East which, if fully acknowledged, would challenge their deeply-held beliefs about pacifism, peacemaking, their ability to influence events, and the nature of the world they live in.

The most troubling aspect about the mainline “witness” regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict is the refusal of these denominations to acknowledge the evil that manifests itself in the form of Nazi-like hostility toward Jews and repeated attempts to annihilate the Jewish state over the past 60 years.

Are the Israelis perfect? No. Is Israel without sin? No.

But how perfect must Israel be in order for mainliners to acknowledge that it is being used as a scapegoat by its neighbors frustrated by their inability to adapt to modernity?

How perfect must Israel be for mainline churches to acknowledge that Israel cannot bring about a unilateral end to the Arab-Israeli conflict?

How perfect must Israel be for mainliners to acknowledge that the Jewish people are the target of hostility inspired by the teachings of not one, but two of the world’s religions, including their own?

How perfect must Israel be for mainliners to remember that Christian enmity toward the Jewish helped make the creation of a Jewish state necessary in the first place and to take this reality into account when speaking about the Arab-Israeli conflict?

How perfect must Israel be for mainliners to acknowledge that if they are going to be “peacemakers” they must talk about all the factors that contribute to the Arab-Israeli conflict?

How perfect must Israel be for mainline pastors realize that they have no right to wear yellow stars and proclaim “I am a Jew” on Holocaust Remembrance Day while their denominations and local churches support and ally themselves with organizations that demonize the Jewish state?

And lastly, how much longer must we wait for mainline officials to come to their senses and realize that the churches they lead have experienced 40 years of decline and some of these churches are dying? What will it take for leaders of these churches to realize that if they cannot reverse the decline of their own denominations they have little call to tell Israel – a sovereign nation that has been under siege for every year of its existence – how to conduct its business?

These are pretty harsh questions to be leveled by a mainline layman without any theological training, especially since that layman has worked for Jewish organizations since the beginning of 2005. Readers will have to decide for themselves which scandal bothers them more – the fact that a Christian working for a Jewish organization is raising these issues or that people on the payrolls of these churches did not.

For those scandalized by my status as untrained layman working for CAMERA, I can only say that I grew up in the UCC and in 2005, I started doing the work that mainline theologians and officials should have been doing all along, but did not: Insist that mainline commentary about the Arab-Israeli conflict be fair and free of anti-Jewish polemic and that Israel’s behavior be assessed fairly – in context – and not in a vacuum.

Would it have been better if the experts in Christian-Jewish relations who worked in denominational headquarters and in seminaries had raised these issues with greater force? Of course. But for the most part, they stayed quiet – and understandably so. They had families to provide for, careers to protect and status to achieve. The costs were (and remain) pretty high for ordained clergy who would offer even a muted defense of Israel. There are hopeful signs that this silence is coming to an end, but then again, there are no permanent lessons.

Next Installment: Out of the Mouths of Two Witnesses

“For people who bill themselves as committed to non-violence and reconciliation, the so-called peace and justice activists who inhabit the progressive wing of Protestantism in the U.S. (“mainline churches”) sure have targeted Israel with a lot of demonizing rhetoric in the past few years.”

Fundraising for 'Steeples' television ad misses mark, $150,000 more still needed

2008-09-03T16:16:00.003-04:00

Reports from Cleveland claim that the fundraising drive for the UCC's "Steeples" national television ad campaign have not gone well. According to staff in the United Church of Christ's national office, total pledges by the September 1st deadline came to $200,000 (with $25,000 coming from a single donor), well short of the $350,000 goal. A final push (surge?) is planned to raise the remaining $150,000.

Will the Steeple Ad Be Effective?

2008-08-22T12:11:00.004-04:00

by Pastor Ted Weis, Congregational Church, Little River, KS

Soon the United Church of Christ will launch a new phase of its "God Is Still Speaking" (GISS) advertising campaign.

This go around, they'll be airing a lesser-known TV commercial entitled, "Steeple" or "All the People." In it, a girl recites the traditional children’s rhyme, "Here's the church, here's the steeple, open the doors, and see all the people." Afterwards, a sequence of shots depicts demographically different people repeating the inclusive refrain, "All the people.” The commercial closes with the tag line, "God accepts all the people. So do we—the United Church of Christ. No matter who you are, or where you are on life’s journey, you’re welcome here."

Compared to the better known and more controversial "Bouncer" and "Ejector" ads, the UC News (March 2004) calls "Steeple" a "more heart-warming" ad. It's not a newly created spot, but one that aired a couple of times for one week during Advent, 2004.

Will it work?

Critics of this site say we're always negative. So instead of us questioning the potential effectiveness of the "Steeple" ad, we'll share a quote that once appeared on the now defunct StillSpeaking.com website:

"We ran the Steeples ad for a week during Advent 2004 and the response from viewers was almost non-existent. Almost no one noticed it."
Frequently Asked Questions About the 2005 Spring Ad Run

Actually, "Steeple" might have succeeded years ago if it didn't have to directly compete against its more controversial sibling, "Bouncer." More importantly, if this ad was the centerpiece of the original GISS campaign, it might have succeeded in unifying our theologically diverse church, instead of galvanizing it as "Bouncer" and "Ejector" did.

Here's hoping someone notices.

The right way for a church to endorse a Presidential candidate

2008-08-19T13:27:00.008-04:00

Some UCC ministers have their shorts in a knot because the Alliance Defense Fund plans to use pulpits to endorse presidential candidates on September 28. From UC News:

The Rev. Eric Williams, senior pastor of North Congregational UCC in Columbus, Ohio, is troubled by ADF's plan.

On Aug. 7, Williams sent a letter to clergy colleagues in Ohio, announcing a counter action. Williams is gathering supporters who will publicly ask the IRS to investigate the ADF, a Scottsdale, Ariz.-based non-profit organization.

"The promotion of tax fraud, particularly to houses of worship, is not a charitable endeavor," Williams told United Church News. "We believe that the ADF should lose its tax-exempt status."

With the support of the Rev. Robert Molsberry, the UCC's Ohio Conference Minister, Williams is calling for a UCC-led nationwide group of 500 ecumenical, interfaith clergy to use their pulpits on Sept. 21 – one week in advance of the ADF's action – to educate congregations nationwide on why church-state separation is important to ensuring religious liberty.

Perhaps Rev. Eric Williams should use the United Church of Christ's General Synod as an example of the right way of endorsing a candidate for office. Based on the appearance of Barack Obama at the UCC's General Synod, here is my list of activities that are permitted and sanctioned by the IRS:

1) When having a candidate for political office speak at your church function, there is no need to invite other candidates as long as you claim that you invited them before they were a candidate

2) Making a campaign pledge during the speech is permitted

3) Promoting the candidate's speech at your church is permitted and so is publicly validating their faith experience

4) Campaign tables, banners and posters are permitted on the sidewalks and public access areas around the church. If questioned about it later, deflect by claiming that you only invited the candidate to speak and you couldn't possibly ask the candidate to take the campaign elsewhere

5) Be creative in your endorsement of candidates. Do not forget the obligatory disclaimer that you are "not endorsing a candidate" and remember... winking and nodding cannot be transcribed in case a copy of the speech filters out to the public

With these helpful tips, you are well on your way to a meaningful (and tax free) campaign endorsement.

UPDATE: On September 8, the Drudge Report linked to a story by the Washington Post on this issue. No surprise, the Post article fails to address how Obama and the UCC established a new precedent for churches and candidates when the UCC was acquitted of bending IRS rules.

The Faith of Barack Obama

2008-08-06T22:03:00.005-04:00

By Pastor Ted Weis, Congregational Church, Little River, KS

Yes, Barack Obama is no longer a member of the United Church of Christ.

But, his faith was born and molded in the UCC.

For this reason, The Faith of Barack Obama will be of interest to those of us within the denomination.

The book is written by Stephen Mansfield, who also wrote The Faith of George W. Bush.

Mansfield probably didn't get much criticism in the evangelical community for writing about Bush, but he certainly is for writing about Obama. And while Mansfield is upfront that he doesn't agree with Obama politically, he argues that the conservative church community has no right to hate Obama simply for his politics.

UCCTruths will provide a full review of Mansfield's book.

That is, if the publisher comes through with their promise of a free copy.

The olympics, Darfur and our idiotic sense of justice

2008-08-06T09:42:00.003-04:00

This doesn't directly relate to the United Church of Christ - but it should. Today, China has blocked the visa for gold winning speed skater Joey Cheek:

Olympic gold medalist and outspoken Darfur activist Joey Cheek has had his visa revoked by the Chinese embassy, hours before the speedskating champion was set to fly to China. And he wasn't even planning on wearing a mask when he got
there.

Chinese officials don't need a reason to revoke anyone's visa but, in their eyes, they had plenty of reasons to snatch Cheek's. He is the founder of Team Darfur, a group of 70 athletes whose goal it is to raise global awareness of the human-rights violations taking part in the Darfur region of Sudan. China's military, economic and diplomatic ties to Sudan have been well-publicized in the lead-up to the Games.

China has been the single biggest obstacle in stopping the genocide in Darfur - a fact regularly missed by the UCC's Justice and Witness Ministries. Instead, JWM is promoting the incredibly stupid and completely ineffective "Tents of Action" which is intended to raise awareness about an issue where awareness isn't the problem - it's a distraction. What's worse, JWM tried to turn the issue into a political football. The way the United Church of Christ has addressed the genocide in Darfur not only exemplifies ineptness, it demonstrates a real lack of leadership and courage within the UCC to do what is right, not just what is politically expedient.

In April, 2004, it was the U.S. that raised global awareness of the crisis in Sudan before the U.N.'s Human Rights Commission in Geneva. It was nearly 6 months before the UCC had any formal reaction. In October of 2006, the UCC's Justice and Witness Ministries exploited the crisis with an email campaign suggesting that the White House wasn't taking a leadership role on the crisis... two weeks before the mid-term elections. It's worth noting that during this period, the U.S. was the only country submitting resolutions to the U.N. security council.

It can be said without doubt that the UCC's efforts (and all mainline churches) have not done a single thing to help end the crisis and if anything, used the crisis as a political football. This does not, however, suggest that the church has all the right answers all the time to every crisis in the world. This crisis, which the UCC called the worst humanitarian crisis in decades, deserved a better response from the church than was given.

So why didn't we?

While Human Rights Watch called on the U.N. to "ensure that any U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing a U.N. force for Darfur calls for U.N. forces to use all necessary means to protect civilians", the UCC couldn't bring itself to back it. I believe this is because of our theological identity as a "Just Peace" church. We choose instead to build tents and pretend in our self-righteousness that we are making a difference.

Don't kid yourself - we are not making a bit of difference to stop this genocide.

Meddling with Catholicism: Nancy Taylor's sermon

2008-07-22T23:15:00.004-04:00

Everything about this is wrong and hypocritical. As I mentioned on Monday, while United Church of Christ leaders go nuts over a phony conspiracy of church stealing by outsiders, we have prominent ministers in our denomination also meddling in other faiths. Here is Rev. Nancy S. Taylor's sermon given last month on her participation in the ordination of woman as Roman Catholic priests:

A month from today, on Sunday, July 22, Quinn Caldwell and I will participate in a different kind of parade. Our sister congregation, Church of the Covenant – a UCC/Presbyterian church, located just around the corner on Newbury Street – will host a solemn celebration of the ordination to the priesthood of five Roman Catholics. Quinn and I are organizing the colorful parade of robed and stoled priests and bishops … some seasoned, others to be newly minted that day.

These are no ordinary ordinations. The event is invitation-only, and will have a furtive quality about it. These are “underground” ordinations because the ordinands are women.

The movement for the ordination of women in the Roman Catholic Church describes these ordinations as “valid but illicit.” They are valid because the women have studied and prepared just as men do. Valid, because the Bishops who will enact the rite of the laying on of hands, have themselves been validly ordained, and are in the great succession that goes all the way back to St. Peter. They are “illicit” because the Vatican says they are.

A recent pronouncement from the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith states this: “he who shall have attempted to confer holy orders on a woman, as well as the woman who may have attempted to receive Holy Orders, incurs … excommunication.”

It is that simple, that stark, and that swift. The very moment these women have hands laid upon them in line with great apostolic succession back to Peter; the very moment that a bishop confers upon them the holy orders for which they have so long studied and prepared, at that self-same moment, they will receive something else as well: automatic excommunication from their beloved Church.

Despite and because of the fatefulness of this undertaking, the ceremony promises to be moving.

Those attending will cry through their laughter and laugh through their tears. The liturgical parade of priests and bishops will be full of color, solemnity and sadness. What they are undertaking is brave. It is also fateful: it will forever sever them from the church they love and seek to reform.

I have not come to bring peace, but a sword, say Jesus.
I have come to set a man against his father,
and a daughter against her mother,
and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.
One’s foes will be members of one’s own household.

This certainly has ecumenical consequences, but don't expect the national office of the United Church of Christ to respond unless it turns into a public relations issue.

Toro rape victim has confrontation with UCC church in Florida

2008-07-21T16:14:00.004-04:00

Angel Toro may have confessed to raping a boy 20 years ago, but the saga has not ended. On Sunday, the victim confronted Chapel on the Hill United Church of Christ in Seminole, FL that Toro last ministered and handed out flyers so the church could identify other potential victims (Toro's confession was related to a Methodist church in Wisconsin, not the church in Florida). As you can see from the video above, the confrontation didn't go well and the police had to be called.

This is a very sad story all the way around. The church should (if it hasn't already) take the necessary steps to make sure there are no victims at the congregation. Acting Sr. Pastor Martin Lewis' comment that "whatever happened in the past, we have no responsibility for" is accurate, but he does have an obligation to make sure that no one was harmed by Toro within the church. As far as the victim goes, he is obviously still dealing with what happened to him and should receive whatever pastoral help our church or any other church can offer. However, ambushing the church (apparently during a service) may not have been the most effective way to deal with this issue. In my opinion, it would have been much more effective to meet with church leaders to discuss his concerns for their congregation.

They all need our prayers.

Free gas for attending church

2008-07-21T14:28:00.003-04:00

I think this is a great idea. From WDAY in Fargo, ND:

Valley City, ND (WDAY TV) - These days, we could all use a little extra gas money. So what if someone told you that you might get free gas just for going to church? For the congregational at United Church of Christ in Valley City, summer has always meant less people filling the pews. But today attendance was good. In fact, the number of people who attended services in June nearly doubled since last year. A possible reason is free gas cards.

Starting last month, peg and other church goers get a ticket for every service they attend; before they leave they drop it in to a bucket. At the end of each month, one ticket is drawn and the lucky winner gets a $50 gas card.

Some have criticized the new program, saying its bribery, but Peg says if it fills the pews and people's gas tanks, she thinks its program that should stick around.

Three women ordained as priests at UCC church

2008-07-21T09:26:00.004-04:00

I have no idea why a Protestant church, much less a United Church of Christ church, would be participating in this... from the Boston Globe:

A group advocating for the ordination of women held a ceremony yesterday in a packed Protestant church at which it declared three women to be Catholic priests and a fourth woman to be a deacon.

The ceremony, like several others that have taken place around the world over the past six years, was denounced by the Roman Catholic Church, and critics said the event was a stunt with no religious significance. The Catholic Church has consistently taught that only men can be ordained as priests, and the Archdiocese of Boston said that the women who participated in yesterday's ceremony had automatically excommunicated themselves by participating in what it said was an invalid ordination ceremony.

And the United Church of Christ is involved because?????

The ceremony was held at the Church of the Covenant, which is affiliated with both the Presbyterian Church and the United Church of Christ. The interim pastor of the church, the Rev. Jennifer Wegter-McNelly, declared the ordination of women "an important part of this church's identity," and said "we stand with you today."

The former president of the Massachusetts conference of the United Church of Christ, the state's largest Protestant denomination, was among several Protestant clergy who attended the ceremony to express their support for the women seeking ordination as Catholic priests.

"Prejudice in liturgical clothing is still prejudice," said the Rev. Nancy S. Taylor, the former conference president, who is now senior minister of Old South Church.

The ordination of women is "an important part of this church's identity." That's fine... but what does the ordination of catholic women have to do with the UCC?

OK... the truth is no one has a clue as to why the United Church of Christ is meddling in the ordination of priests. It is one thing to open our doors and proclaim God's love for ALL of us, but it's quite a bit different when you tell other faiths what they should believe and how they should practice their faith. This doesn't seem right at all.

What is ironic is that while UCC leaders go nuts over a phony conspiracy of church stealing by outsiders, we find ourselves also meddling in other faiths. You would think this would be obvious to Nancy Taylor who is considered by many to be a potential candidate for UCC General Minister and President. I can't help but wonder if there is a creeping anti-Catholicism bubbling in the United Church of Christ.

Dorhauer has a passion

2008-07-19T12:26:00.002-04:00

Saw this fluffy news item pop up today in the East Valley Tribune:

His outspoken passion for justice made the Rev. John Dorhauer mostly “tolerated” when he worked in leadership for the United Church of Christ in St. Louis. But now that he serves as conference minister for the 43 churches of the Southwest Conference in Arizona, New Mexico and El Paso, Texas, the 47-year-old pastor believes he has come to a region and a position where he can be more authentic.

“The work of justice has always been at the center of whatever ministry I do,” he said.

“Twenty years in Missouri was in some ways exasperated because I was tolerated in spite of the justice work that was important to me.” Because Dorhauer did “the other things well,” they put up with his zeal for justice.

Dorhauer's "passion" and "zeal" is another man's lunacy. His horribly written and horrendously edited book, “Steeplejacking: How the Christian Right is Hijacking Mainstream Religion,” is a literary disaster. Nearly half the book covers the Institute on Religion and Democracy yet it doesn't mention a single church that the IRD has "Steeplejacked".

The reality is that Dorhauer's phony conspiracy further divides the UCC:

Dorhauer proudly claims ministers are calling him suspicious of visitors to their churches.
Dorhauer boasts that one of the churches that attended his workshop mistakenly accused a woman of being part of this conspiracy.
Dorhauer concedes that "all I have is circumstantial evidence, around which I have built a theory"
Dorhauer's blog doesn't allow people to challenge his wild conspiracy theories and has refused to provide proof of a church stealing conspiracy within the UCC

Dorhauer stooped to scare tactics and lies last year when he claimed that "insurance companies are telling us that any church that calls a pastor not authorized by their denomination will lose the liability portion of their property insurance." After talking to numerous pastors and insurance agents, I couldn't find anyone to support this idiotic statement.

It's somewhat amusing that he was merely "tolerated" in St. Louis. It's also sad. Why do we, as a denomination, tolerate someone like Dorhauer?

More calls for a conversation on race

2008-07-17T01:08:00.002-04:00

I almost ignored this press release:

New York, July 16, 2008 - A recent New York Times/CBS News poll revealing deep national divisions along racial lines is an urgent reminder of the need for "sacred conversations on race," the head of the National Council of Churches said today.

The poll indicated that a large majority of African Americans - nearly 60 percent - believe race relations in the United States are "generally bad," the Times reported today. Forty percent of blacks said racial discrimination is as bad as ever, while one out of four whites said there is too much emphasis on discrimination. Seventy percent of blacks and half of Latinos said they have been targets of racial discrimination.

"These figures are discouraging but not surprising," said the Rev. Dr. Michael Kinnamon, General Secretary of the NCC. "Last April our churches called for a 'sacred conversation on race' in American pulpits, and this poll shows how badly those conversations are needed."

The call for sermons on race was issued April 3 by the Rev. John H. Thomas, General Minister and President of the United Church of Christ, and promptly endorsed by Kinnamon and other church leaders. Thomas made the call as church leaders gathered on the steps of Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ and defended the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, then the target of a storm of criticism for remarks deemed unpatriotic and radical by critics.

Chalk this one up to Kinnamon and Thomas living in a bubble. What they don't understand is that as long as Wright is being used as the catalyst for a "sacred conversation on race," no one is going to take it seriously.

Prominent UCC minister admits he sexually assaulted teen

2008-07-16T03:17:00.004-04:00

As a follow-up on a story posted last year, Rev. Dr. Angel Toro has now admitted to sexually assaulting a teenager more than 20 years ago. From the St. Petersburg Times:

A former Seminole minister pleaded guilty Tuesday to charges that he sexually assaulted a teenage boy in Wisconsin more than 20 years ago, but some members of his congregation still believe he is innocent.

At a hearing in Barron, Wis., Angel Toro, 57, acknowledged the charges and said that the assault was a mistake and an isolated incident, according to the Leader-Telegram in Wisconsin. As Toro apologized, the now 38-year-old victim walked out of the courtroom.

Toro, who resigned from a Seminole church in 2007, will serve 18 months in jail, receive three years of probation and be registered nationally as a sex offender, according to the Leader-Telegram.

Toro was pastor at First United Methodist Church in Rice Lake, Wis., in 1987, when he assaulted the teenager at the church, authorities say.

Toro resigned as pastor of Chapel on the Hill United Church of Christ in Seminole, FL last year after the charges were filed.

Toro was recruited by the Florida Conference in 1997 to turn around Chapel on the Hill and claimed that he grew the church from 30 members to 400 (although the UCC.org directory cites only 202 members). Toro was touted throughout the UCC as a "success story" and was a featured speaker at local church and conference meetings. Toro was also an active member of the UCC's Stillspeaking Task group. Toro was reportedly featured in the original version of the UCC's 50th Anniversary DVD last year but sources within the national office claim that the DVD's were recalled just after he was charged. A new version of the DVD was quietly released that did not include Toro.

Toro has not been accussed of anything while serving Chapel on the Hill but questions about how Toro was hired remain. According to WQOW TV in Eau Claire, WI (story link no longer online), "Angel Toro was charged with indecent exposure in Florida in 1994" to which he plead no contest.

Amazingly, some people in his church continue to support Toro:

"We will support him and hope that he can come through this turmoil in good shape because he's a good man," said Jeanne Pugh, 84, who is a member of the congregation Toro used to lead. "It's just a tragedy."

Yeah... a "good man" who only admitted to sexually abusing a teenager.

New fund raising campaign for UCC television ad

2008-07-09T14:06:00.003-04:00

The United Church of Christ's Stillspeaking Ministry is set to launch a new fundraising campaign to air the "Steeples" ad (also known as "All the people"). According to literature about the campaign, the national office will only "buy as much air time as grassroots fundraising allows". The advertising campaign is targeted to run the last two weeks of September on national cable networks with additional ad buys in October if enough money is raised.

There are a couple of interesting points to be made about this new campaign. The "Steeples" ad had a run of a week a few years ago and according to the UCC, "viewer response was almost nil". The "Steeples" ad is not as edgy as the other two the UCC ran which may have contributed to the lack of response.

It is also widely believed that in the midst of the pseudo-controversy a few years ago around past television ads that had been rejected by the broadcast networks, NBC actually had approved the "Steeples" ad and claimed that it "contained a positive message asserting only that UCC churches are welcoming and inclusive". Despite the unpublicized network approval, the UCC decided not to run the ad on broadcast television at all and to trump up allegations that the networks had rejected the ads because they were "too controversial." It appears now that the UCC will not even attempt to run the "Steeples" ad on broadcast television networks at all.

Your OCWM dollars at work: More politics

2008-07-09T12:48:00.006-04:00

UPDATE: SENATE PASSES FISA REAUTHORIZATION, 69-28, TELCOS OFF THE HOOK

The United Church of Christ's own in-house political action committee is spending your OCWM dollars campaigning against today's FISA reauthorization. From the Justice and Peace Action Network:

Today, the Senate takes up FISA reauthorization. The bill passed by the House and now under consideration in the Senate would legalize much of the wiretapping of the current administration over the past seven years, and would provide immunity from prosecution for telecommunications companies that have provided personal information on citizens to the government for the purpose of warrantless wiretapping. This is an opportunity to take a stand for checks and balances in government by supporting judicial review for governmental spying, and by supporting fair and equal treatment under the law by holding telecom companies accountable for their involvement in illegal wiretapping activities of our government.

What does this have to do with the United Church of Christ you ask? While you could make up a few a reasons, no rationalization is given on the web site. At least JPAnet is not trying to fool anyone - this is all about politics and has nothing to do with faith... and your contributions to OCWM make it possible.

The Washington Post editorial last week put the issue into perspective:

Reasonable people can differ on the issue of immunity, but the FISA debate hasn't been overpopulated by reasonable people. As a result, the immunity issue has assumed a significance in the legislative process that far exceeds its underlying importance. We understand the heartfelt arguments of those who believe that closing the courthouse door to Americans who claim the warrantless wiretapping invaded their privacy rights represents "an abandonment of the rule of law," as Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, D-Conn., said last month.

But the fact remains that no one can claim with certainty that his or her communications were monitored. The likelihood of prevailing — or even getting very far — with such lawsuits is low. The litigation seems aimed as much at using the tools of discovery to dislodge information about what the administration actually did as it is at redressing unknown injuries. The telecommunications companies complied with a government request after being assured, in writing, that the activities had been authorized by the president and deemed lawful by the attorney general. Punishing them by forcing them to endure the cost and hassle of lawsuits would be counterproductive to securing such cooperation in the future, while offering little prospect of a useful outcome.

More fundamentally, even if we are wrong and retroactive immunity is not warranted, that is the least — not the most — important aspect of the complex FISA debate. The more important concern is to ensure that there are adequate protections in place, including vigilant court oversight, to give intelligence agencies the flexibility they need to intercept international communications without infringing on the privacy rights of Americans.

On that score, Mr. Obama nailed it the other day when he explained his new position — "that the issue of the phone companies per se is not one that overrides the security interests of the American people." Mr. Obama said he would be "happy with a system" that "makes sure that we prevent violations of the American people's privacy even if the phone companies are held harmless. The issue was, 'Can we get to the bottom of what's been taking place?' and, most importantly, 'Do we have safeguards in place going into the future so that Americans' civil liberties are not being violated?'" Those are the right questions, and Mr. Obama gave the right answer.

And one more post on torture...

2008-07-09T00:54:00.003-04:00

Love him or hate him, Christopher Hitchens tackles the issue of torture head on in the August issue of Vanity Fair by subjecting himself to waterboarding. The video is pretty dramatic but worth watching if you, like me, took the idea of waterboarding too lightly. From the article:

You may have read by now the official lie about this treatment, which is that it “simulates” the feeling of drowning. This is not the case. You feel that you are drowning because you are drowning—or, rather, being drowned, albeit slowly and under controlled conditions and at the mercy (or otherwise) of those who are applying the pressure. The “board” is the instrument, not the method. You are not being boarded. You are being watered. This was very rapidly brought home to me when, on top of the hood, which still admitted a few flashes of random and worrying strobe light to my vision, three layers of enveloping towel were added. In this pregnant darkness, head downward, I waited for a while until I abruptly felt a slow cascade of water going up my nose. Determined to resist if only for the honor of my navy ancestors who had so often been in peril on the sea, I held my breath for a while and then had to exhale and—as you might expect—inhale in turn. The inhalation brought the damp cloths tight against my nostrils, as if a huge, wet paw had been suddenly and annihilatingly clamped over my face. Unable to determine whether I was breathing in or out, and flooded more with sheer panic than with mere water, I triggered the pre-arranged signal and felt the unbelievable relief of being pulled upright and having the soaking and stifling layers pulled off me. I find I don’t want to tell you how little time I lasted.

(Gulp) John Thomas was right.

"To call for an end to torture is not to be naïve about the very real threats we face," Thomas told reporters. "It is, however, to attest to the truth that no threat is so great as to justify our surrendering the most central values of what it means to be a Christian."

UCC Ordained Minister: "Boeing as amoral as firms that aided Hitler"

2008-07-04T19:52:00.011-04:00

What would we do without Dick Simpson who penned this gem today in the Chicago Sun-Times:

Boeing pretends to be a good corporate citizen supporting Chicago arts groups and community organizations with grants. The company is listed prominently in playbills and annual reports.

But Boeing also abets torture. It is, after all, a defense contractor as well as a provider of civilian passenger jets. It is locked at the hip and the bottom line with the U.S. government.

Despite our pride in Boeing as a global corporation, it is as amoral as the German corporations that aided Hitler. Only money and contracts count with Boeing.

Boeing's subsidiary, Jeppesen Dataplan, since 2001 has provided flight and logistical support for at least 15 aircraft making 70 clandestine flights for the CIA. Jeppesen allows the CIA to transport prisoners such as ACLU plaintiffs Binyam Mohamed, Abou Elkassim Britel, and Ahmed Agiza to secret locations where they were tortured as part of our government's "war on terror."

Simpson is not only nuts, he's an ordained United Church of Christ minister and a political science professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago. According to Simpson, Boeing is as evil as the Third Reich war machine because they provided "flight and logistical support for at least 15 aircraft making 70 clandestine flights for the CIA."

Nice.

One more note on torture

2008-07-01T15:10:00.002-04:00

I'm feeling compelled to post again on torture since either I didn't make my point very well with the last two posts on this or some people are intentionally misrepresenting what I wrote. Here's another try...

First of all, since United Church of Christ President John Thomas made his statement about torture, I am separating the issue into two key parts: activities our government acknowledges are illegal with activities they believe are legal. This is an important distinction because it makes no sense to protest against something that we already have laws against.

What happened at Abu Ghraib was illegal and those guilty of it were prosecuted. We clearly have laws against what happened at Abu Ghraib and if more people up the food chain are responsible for what happened, they should be prosecuted also. I don't see a debate here.

What is up for debate are the methods our government believes is legal (or at one time were legal) for interogation which include "The Attention Grab," "The Attention Slap," "The Belly Slap", "Longtime Standing", "The Cold Cell" and "Waterboarding". When people claim to be against our government's use of torture and claim "Not in our name", this is what they are talking about, not what happened at Abu Ghraib.

Stop.

If you don't understand the difference between what is believed to be legal and illegal and what people are protesting against, start from the top and read again... and keep reading until you get it (this means YOU Pastor Dan!).

OK... hopefully we are all on the same track so far.

There are two points now to consider:

1) Are these legal methods of interogation moral?
2) Are the protests against them based on morality or are they based on politics?

On the first point, I think well meaning and moral people will disagree which methods of interogation are moral. Is a belly slap immoral? Is waterboarding? One method stings and hurts badly while the other is intended to make you think you are near death. I think there is a difference here and I think opinions on morality are going to vary based on the methods. Effectiveness is a whole other issue but I don't think morality can be weighed by effectiveness so it's immaterial to me. I believe there may be effective interogation methods but that doesn't mean they are moral.

The second point goes to the motivation for protest which I think is a fair question. Pastor Dan calls attention to the ongoing testimony on torture... which has been virtually non-stop since the Abu Ghraib scandal. There is nothing new in any of this.

So again I ask, why now in the midst of an election season is John Thomas issuing statements about torture? While I don't doubt that he really believes what he is saying, I think it's more about political drama just as he has done in the past.

Finally, I need to correct Pastor Dan whose problems with reading comprehension have caused him again to misrepresent my words. On his blog yesterday, he claims...

Calling torture "a morally wrong but necessary thing to do" is hardly rejecting it. Nor is labeling the conversation about as essentially bygones taking a very firm stance. The fact is that senior members of the administration knew and approved of the mistreatment of detainees. What happened at Abu Ghraib and Bagram Air Base and Guantanamo and God alone knows how many secret prisons around the world was not the work of a few bad apples. It was a systemic effort, and the people responsible for putting it into motion still have not been called to account for their actions.

Here is what I actually said:

The moral argument against torture is also disingenuous at this point because we are in a war where we are aiming guns at people and blowing their heads clean off their shoulders. If we as a country accept that this is a morally wrong but necessary thing to do, than I'm quite a bit less sensitive to concerns about a belly slap and I haven't honestly explored it's moral implications.

My statement was in context to the previous sentence was about our country generally accepting war being "a morally wrong but necessary thing to do" - not torture!

Please contribute to UCBMA

2008-07-01T13:52:00.002-04:00

I kick the national office pretty good when they deserve it but I'm not as good about praising the national entities that deserve it. The United Church Board for Ministerial Assistance (UCBMA) needs our help today and I want to encourage everyone to contribute. Here are the details from an email I received today:

You've seen the news reports.

The average price of gasoline in the U.S. is over $4 a gallon. These record-breaking prices have had a dramatic impact on the cost of every commodity used by the nation's families.

Low-income annuitants have been hit especially hard. The ripple effect of soaring energy costs affects what consumers pay for food, utilities and other necessities as well. During the month of July the United Church Board for Ministerial Assistance (UCBMA) – one of the corporations comprising the Pension Boards – will provide $200 one-time Energy Assistance Grants to 1,000 low-income retirees

The Pension Boards of the United Church of Christ has seen a 300% increase in requests for Emergency Assistance not only from the retirees, but also from those active in ministry. We have budgeted $75,000 from the proceeds of the Christmas Fund Offering for Emergency Grants. This budget was based on our past experience, and should have been adequate, absent this current economic situation.

I am requesting that you consider making an extra special contribution to the Christmas Fund during this month. Your contribution of $250, or $100, or $50 or any amount will help to insure we do not have to refuse requests for help from those who serve, and have served, your church so faithfully.

You can CLICK HERE for the Christmas Fund's online giving portal. Or, if you have questions you may feel free to contact the Rev Dr M. Douglas Borko, the Director of Ministerial Assistance. Please accept our gratitude on behalf of the active and retired clergy and lay employees of the United Church of Christ who are supported through the Christmas Fund. Your past, current and future support of this ministry of beloved church is much appreciated and really does make a difference through a direct impact in the lives these servants.

Michael A. Downs

President and CEO
The Pension Boards, United Church of Christ

United Church of Christ: Television Bad

2008-06-30T14:10:00.002-04:00

What's wrong with watching television? And what on earth does this have to do with the United Church of Christ? Well apparently the UCC Office of Communication is part of the "Smart Television Alliance"... I guess because they want to give clueless parents guidance on what is acceptable television. From today's press release:

Cheryl Leanza, Director of the Office of Communications Inc. of the United Church of Christ, added, "The first step is realizing this is a time when many kids begin to view more television, and making a commitment to not allow summer TV viewing to escalate. If your kids do watch television, finding quality programming using advanced technology can be a helpful tool. We can no longer allow summer to be a time when learning stops."

Kids watch more television in the summer... shocker there. I'm thinking that Leanza has too much time on her hands this summer and now she would like to decide for you what is good (and conversely what is bad) on television.

If you are one of the dumb parents out there that don't have a clue on what quality programming is out there, the good people at the "Smart Television Alliance" have a list of shows based on age groups (with a convenient link to their sponsor TIVO in case you want to record the shows). I was disappointed that reruns of 90210 on the Soap Network weren't included on the list, but I was thankful that I could sit my daughter in front the tube to watch "Everybody Hates Chris," "Hannah Montana" and "Deadliest Catch" (which is an AWESOME show).

All said, the idea that my denomination wants to have a say on what is acceptable television is both creepy and idiotic... not to mention a little arrogant. I'd like to meet one person who likes the idea of their church picking out which shows are good to watch. What's next.... are they going to tell us which brand of coffee is acceptable to drink?

I Miss Barack Obama

2008-06-30T09:30:00.002-04:00

By Pastor Ted Weis, Congregational Church, Little River, KS

You've probably noticed. This site has been pretty quiet lately.

That's what happens when a presidential candidate divorces your denomination.

Since then, the only significant item to be discussed here is torture. You want to know what torture is? Not having anything to write about! So permit one more posting about the United Church of Christ's favorite ex-member, Barack Obama.

For a moment, take the long view of Obama's relationship with the UCC. In June, 2007, Obama was the fawned upon rock star speaker at General Synod. Less than a year later, he makes a very public exit from the denomination.

We all know why it happened, but who would have ever thought?

Naturally-- in order to not blame the real culprit in this whole fiasco-- UCC President John Thomas, in his statement about Obama leaving Trinity Church, found an appropriate whipping boy (oops, edit that to scapegoat) in the right-wing media:

It’s also important to name the painful reality that many candidates and public officials now find it nearly impossible to be an active member of a particular religious community, given our divisive political culture.

Never mind what was actually said from the pulpit of that "particular religious community."

Of course, this is all old news. Obama has divorced Trinity and in turn the UCC. He's moved on. With wife Michelle, Obama is busy scrubbing his image in preparation for the fall campaign. But is divorce really that easy? Is putting away your past that simple? How much of it will haunt him in the campaign?

Obama may have left the United Church of Christ, but I doubt the United Church of Christ will leave him. Politically speaking, Obama is very much in line with UCC politics. Internally, Obama's departure will have no effect on how UCC members vote in November. Heck, I bet even Rev. Jeremiah Wright votes for Obama come election time.

But what will the voting public decide? Will they endorse a UCC version of President?

That's what I'll be asking as I (tear) sit idly and watch my favorite ex-UCC member vie for the White House.

Pastor Dan's Tantrum

2008-06-29T00:25:00.003-04:00

I continue to respect Pastor Dan although he seems suddenly unable to comprehend basic moral logic. He's not the only one though and I've gotten plenty of flack for the post on the message board.

For starters, I'm not advocating for torture at all - it is completely immoral and it is wrong. All I'm saying is that the timing of John Thomas' statement on torture is suspicious since this isn't an issue of public dispute and there are no new allegations of torture. Further, as a country we crossed a moral threshold long ago when we decided that a war was necessary. Excuse me if I see a big moral difference between a belly slap and killing someone. Basic logic to me, but not to Pastor Dan.

As far as Abu Ghraib goes, Pastor Dan is completely right and the perpetrators were rightfully prosecuted. It also has nothing to do with Thomas speaking out now.

His example of force feeding a Guantanamo detainee who is on a hunger strike as an example of torture is dubious... would it be more moral to just let him die?

As far as his example of Jose Padilla goes, this is testimony from his defense attorneys who were trying to make the case that Padilla was not competent to stand trial as a result of the alleged torture he received. Pastor Dan makes the idiotic mistake of holding up Padilla's defense attorneys as the final word and he conveniently failed to mention that the judge dismissed the defense experts testimony and actually found Padilla to be competent to stand trial.

Pastor Dan goes on...

Any ninny with half a heart who had thought about these practices for longer than thirty seconds would come to the conclusion that they are disgusting, disgraceful, and completely inconsistent with Christian and American values.

I agree... and his point is....?

Well, he doesn't really have one because he didn't really get the point of my original post. He would rather hyperventilate than read what I actually posted.

Torture as a wedge issue

2008-06-27T18:57:00.007-04:00

My brief post earlier this week on torture sparked a bit of debate on the UCCtruths message board... which is a good thing... I was getting bored with all the Obama and Wright talk and was literally falling asleep reading this blog.

Any debate or statements on torture is pretty mindless at this point and it isn't a moral issue, it is a political one.

I think it's a disingenuous statement since the harshest treatment now is "longtime standing". If there are new allegations, it might be worth exploring but to make it an issue now makes it clear to me that this a political fight, not a moral one.

But since we are on the topic and there is little substance on what United Church of Christ John Thomas is actually whining about... here is the list of the types of torture we have done:

1. The Attention Grab: The interrogator forcefully grabs the shirt front of the prisoner and shakes him.

2. The Attention Slap: An open-handed slap aimed at causing pain and triggering fear.

3. The Belly Slap: A hard open-handed slap to the stomach. The aim is to cause pain, but not internal injury. Doctors consulted advised against using a punch, which could cause lasting internal damage.

4. Longtime Standing: This technique is described as among the most effective. Prisoners are forced to stand, handcuffed and with their feet shackled to an eye bolt in the floor for more than 40 hours. Exhaustion and sleep deprivation are effective in yielding confessions.

5. The Cold Cell: The prisoner is left to stand naked in a cell kept near 50 degrees. Throughout the time in the cell the prisoner is doused with cold water.

6. Waterboarding: The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt.

The moral argument against torture is also disingenuous at this point because we are in a war where we are aiming guns at people and blowing their heads clean off their shoulders. If we as a country accept that this is a morally wrong but necessary thing to do, than I'm quite a bit less sensitive to concerns about a belly slap and I haven't honestly explored it's moral implications.

Having lost the debate on the war seven years ago, Thomas is left with complaining about torture which, in the context of a war where we kill people, is simply a meaningless wedge issue.

John Thomas: Torture bad

2008-06-25T17:13:00.004-04:00

Just in case there was any confusion about torture...

Rev. John H. Thomas, the general minister and president of the United Church of Christ, said torture cannot be justified on a moral grounds. He said no threat is great enough to justify "our most central values of what it means to be a Christian."

Now if we could just get him to agree that his tenure as United Church of Christ President has been torture, we might make some real progress. :)

Trinity clarifies Moss' role

2008-06-13T17:06:00.003-04:00

Just to update the Time Magazine story, Trinity UCC officially has a different take on Moss' role with the church which you can read in this bloated PDF (6MB for 2 pages!).

I don't particularly care about Trinity UCC's internal politics but I think it's a bit of a cop out to claim that the denomination has "certain requirements" before a pastor can be installed. I'm no expert and I could be wrong, but I thought a local church could call any pastor it wanted to regardless of what the denomination says. As I understand it, Moss was not selected through the official "search and call" process in the first place so the sudden adherence now seems to be rather covenient.

But again, like most other UCCers, I could care less what Trinity does internally, it's the bad publicity they've been inflicting on themselves (and ultimately on the rest of us) that gets on my nerves. Hopefully I won't have to mention them in this space for awhile.

He's Back: Wright Makes A U Turn

2008-06-04T20:20:00.003-04:00

It now appears that Jeremiah Wright isn't leaving Trinity United Church of Christ after all... From Time Magazine:

Wright was officially to have stepped down last Sunday, June 1. And from the pulpit at 7:30 a.m. that day, Wright's hand-picked successor, the Rev. Otis Moss III, preached what should have been his first sermon as senior pastor of Trinity, one of the Chicago's largest congregations and among the most influential religious institutions in America. Instead, on church bulletins on June 1, Moss was identified simply as "pastor" rather than "senior pastor," even as Wright assumed the title "pastor emeritus." Indeed, Trinity members familiar with the developments say that on May 27, Moss was summoned to the church's massive brown sanctuary for a meeting that included Wright, several church board members and other senior leaders. According to those sources, Moss, 37, expected the meeting to finalize transition plans. Instead, Wright suggested the board merely declare Moss "senior pastor-elect" because the younger cleric needed "supervision" — effectively ensuring Wright remains Trinity's preacher-in-chief. Wright's essential argument hinges on a technicality: Moss is an ordained Baptist minister who has yet to be fully ordained in the United Church of Christ, the predominantly white protestant denomination of which the roughly 8,500-member Trinity is the largest congregation.

The national office is quick to clarify our polity:

Officials at the United Church of Christ's national headquarters in Cleveland are aware of the leadership tension at Trinity. However, they say, individual U.C.C. churches are autonomous and the national body can do little to intervene. Barbara Powell, a U.C.C. headquarters spokeswoman, noted that "Trinity didn't follow the normal U.C.C. guidelines for the [pastoral] search" (Wright handpicked Moss, apparently without a formal search committee), but said it was hard to imagine that Moss wouldn't successfully complete the ordination process.

Whether Trinity followed the search and call process or not really isn't relevant - local UCC churches are free to select any pastor they like regardless if they are ordained in the United Church of Christ. I also wonder if it's any of their business to be dishing to the media the circumstances of Moss' selection - that is a matter for Trinity to communicate.

As far as the church goes, Trinity is turning into soap opera thanks primarily to Wright. It's just sad that they have let him drag the church through this mess.

Obama dumps Trinity United Church of Christ

2008-05-31T18:34:00.004-04:00

You probably could have seen this coming but it's still a shock. The major news outlets are reporting that Presidential candidate Barack Obama has quit Trinity United Church of Christ. From ABC News:

Sources tell ABC News that Obama felt that as the campaign continued, the media would continue to focus on the church, to the detriment of the church community, that Obama would be held responsible for what happened in the church, and that the Church would be held responsible for his campaign. It would be best, Obama felt, to simply cut ties. He has not yet joined a new church.

As he distanced himself from Wright on April 29, Obama expressed disappointment in how the media maelstrom had intruded on the church.

"When I go church it's not for spectacle, it's to pray and to find to find a stronger sense of faith, it's not to posture politically it's not to, you know, it's not to hear things that violate my core beliefs," he said. "And I certainly don't want to provide a distraction to those who are worshipping at Trinity. As of this point I'm a member. I haven't had a discussion with Rev Moss about it so I can't tell you how he's reacting and how he's responding ... there’s been great damage."

Obama will address the matter this evening at a campaign stop in South Dakota.

I don't see any winners in this decision. Politically, I can't see how this helps Obama and if anything, he's alienating his church which has served, on a small level, as a base of support. It would have been one thing if he quit Trinity at the height of the Jeremiah Wright controversy but I can't imagine how quitting now limits the political damage he may have suffered.

Trinity comes out of this looking like a bunch of extremists and the United Church of Christ loses the opportunity to claim a potential President as one of our own. The spin is that he doesn't want his candidacy to draw the wrong kind of attention to Trinity. It may be true, but it's a weak response to a politically shrewd move that doesn't have much of an upside for anyone.

Trinity UCC sermon turns ugly

2008-05-29T21:07:00.004-04:00

I guess this is a new spin on the "Sacred Conversation on Race" compliments of Trinity United Church of Christ. This is what happens when you let an insane Catholic priest like Rev. Michael Pfleger spew his venom in your church.

Leave economics to the economists

2008-05-28T11:29:00.004-04:00

There is a reason why theologians should stick to theology and leave economics to the economists. In her "On Faith" commentary today, outgoing Chicago Theological Seminary President Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite demonstrates why she should stick to subjects she actual understands.

In her rant this week, Thistlethwaite manages to mangle disconnected facts to suggest that there is a connection between lower interest rates, the war with Iraq and the mortgage lending crisis leading to the sin of greed. Thistlethwaite states:

Low interest rates are one big factor in the temptation to greed found among mortgage lenders. Alan Greenspan, when he was Federal Reserve Chairman, was not being evil in continuing to lower interest rates; he wanted to keep the economy growing even though the country was pursuing a war and paying for that war on credit. Perhaps his political bosses told him, “Keep the economy humming.” Who knows? All we know is that, for example, in 2001, we saw news stories that stated, “In an effort to battle U.S. market conditions this year, Greenspan has been forced to roll up his sleeves and unleash five 0.5 percentage cuts in the Federal funds rate. This drop from 6.5% to 4% is unheard of and the current rate is at its lowest level in seven years!” In the beginning, these rate cuts were necessary to help the market in the post 9/11 recovery. The thing that opened the door for the predatory lenders was keeping the rate so low for such a long time and lack of oversight.

‘Hurray!’ said the banks. 'Let’s make money off of these low interest rates and package lots of attractive mortgages.' But the banks added to the conditions that made for the sin of greed, because they didn’t just sell people on the idea of low fixed interest rates, they tempted home buyers with the idea they could get even lower interest rates by choosing variable rate mortgages and even interest-only mortgages.

Meanwhile, there were these two wars still going on and the wars were being paid for on credit. This disastrous run-up in debt, in turn, lowered the value of the U.S. dollar abroad. The falling dollar meant that the U.S. had to pay for its oil abroad with ever more devalued currency. At the beginning of the Iraq war, oil was selling for $25.00 a barrel, but remember those were dollars worth far more than the dollar is worth today.

Interest rates are at the root of the problem, but not for the reason she states.

The value of currency is most closely related to the interest that can be generated from holding that currency. When the U.S. lowered interest rates after 9/11, most other central banks around the world did not lower their rates. The euro, which has maintained higher interest rates, has been more attractive to other central banks. Our trade deficit (imports exceeding exports) also contributes greatly to the slide of the value of the dollar. Oil prices have increased (as the price of all imported goods have increased) as the value of the dollar decreased. The silver lining is that with the lower dollar, our exports should increase.

Besides being completely wrong about the causes of the decline of the dollar, Thistlethwaite is also wrong to associate the value of the dollar with the debt from the war. To understand this, you need to understand what the cost of the war is in relationship to GDP. The total current defense spending today represents about 4% of GDP. In 1980, defense spending as a percentage of GDP was 4.9 percent under President Carter and in 1968 was 9.5 percent under President Johnson. There is no historical relationship at all between defense spending and the value of the dollar and Thistlethwaite's claim that there is... well frankly... it's a lie.

The bigger picture here is just how unintelligently she tries to connect low interest rates to the temptation to sin through greed. The sin of greed has always been there regardless of interest rates. Right now we point to mortgage brokers putting together loan packages for borrowers they knew couldn't afford the loans. Twenty years ago, the Savings and Loan crisis was fueled in part by speculative loans made because interest rates were high. This is not exactly rocket science but it's clearly beyond Thistlethwaite's intelligence.

UCCtruths Message Board in top 2% of Yahoo Groups

2008-05-27T12:43:00.002-04:00

The UCCtruths Message Board recieved the distinction of being a "Power Users Group" meaning that it now ranks in the top 2% of Yahoo groups based on the number of members and message posted. There are currently 533 members on the message board and it just crossed the 25,000 messages posted mark on May 13th.

So what does this disinction get you? 50% off of Yahoo hosting and free 24x7 chat support... neither of which I use.

Pulpit Politics

2008-05-21T19:37:00.002-04:00

I'm still amazed by the IRS vindication of the United Church of Christ but I'm even more amazed that the IRS also vindicated Southern Baptist minister Wiley Drake who blatantly endorsed Mike Huckabee on church letterhead.

The offenses identified by the UCC complaint to the IRS are arguably peripheral next to the complaint against Drake, but that doesn't mean that the UCC didn't walk into a gray area by identifying Obama as a Presidential candidate in promoting his General Synod speech on the UCC web site - an action expressly prohibited by IRS guidelines. In the grand spectrum of all church-state offenses that are possible, it was probably minor.

The only logical conclusion I can make is that the IRS is giving churches great latitude in their freedom of speech before threatening their tax-exempt status. That may be the more prudent approach. As long as they are consistent, I can live with it although I think it should be clearly reflected in their guidelines.

UCC vindicated by IRS

2008-05-21T12:11:00.007-04:00

The IRS has sent a letter to the national offices indicating that the United Church of Christ did not violate rules against political intervention when Barack Obama spoke at the UCC's General Synod last year. According to UC News:

The Internal Revenue Service has concluded that the UCC did not violate tax laws when U.S. Sen. Barack Obama addressed the denomination's 50th anniversary General Synod in Hartford, Conn., in June 2007.

In August of last year, UCCtruths received a copy of the complaint filed with the IRS. In the complaint, direct references were made to campaign statements made by Obama during the speech, references to his candidacy on the UCC web site and pictures copied from the UCCtruths web site that showed Obama campaign workers at the entrance to the convention facilities.

The response from the IRS is precedent setting in that it seems to change their existing rules that prohibit churches from referencing an invited speaker as a candidate and that the speaker make no campaign references. From current IRS guidelines:

• The individual speaks only in a non-candidate capacity;
• Neither the individual nor any representative of the organization makes any mention of his or her candidacy or the election;
• No campaign activity occurs in connection with the candidate’s attendance; and
• The organization maintains a nonpartisan atmosphere on the premises or at the event where the candidate is present.

In addition, the organization should clearly indicate the capacity in which the candidate is appearing and should not mention the individual’s political candidacy or the upcoming election in the communications announcing the candidate’s attendance at the event.

Clearly from the IRS response to the UCC, these guidelines are not firm and it opens up the spectrum of accepted political activity that churches may participate in and still be compliant with the IRS.

A healthy discussion on race

2008-05-20T17:57:00.002-04:00

Not all "conversations on race" this past Sunday reflected the ugly race baiting exhibited by UCC President John Thomas. Some, in fact, were simply beautiful. From the Reading Eagle:

The Rev. Debra Hepburn, who is black and from the Pentecostal tradition, was asked by the church’s pastor to engage the congregants in what the UCC calls a “sacred conversation” about race.

In the impassioned and powerful cadences associated with black spiritual traditions, Hepburn spoke to the small, white congregation at the Brecknock Township church about the meaning of sacred conversation.

She was accompanied by Sister Bernice Greene, a gospel recording artist from Bethlehem who performed two solos in a traditional style.

“The sacred conversation is not between you and me, but between us and the divine one,” said Hepburn, who is ecumenical director for the Lehigh County Conference of Churches.

She spoke of how the sacred conversation should inform conversations between people who have differences.

Hepburn told a story about dealing with severe racial intimidation aimed at her 16-year-old son, who is a student at Liberty High School in Bethlehem.

“My husband and I went to God and prayed as to how we could touch the lives of the parents whose son had perpetrated horrible things against our child,” she said.

The couple opted to meet with the perpetrator’s family, Hepburn said, using independent mediation.

“We met last Sunday for three hours, and we talked about hard journeys from both ways,” she said. “And we left the room with peace and resolutions that everyone could live with.”

Hepburn urged her listeners to be what God intended them to be.

“Our natural course is to be loving,” she said.

I was emailed this article from someone who attended the sermon and called it sincere and moving. We are fortunate as a denomination that our local churches can see past the failings and agendas of the national office to do some really great work. My church didn't participate in the discussion on race this past week, but if it had, I would hope it would have been as good as the one started by Alleghenyville United Church of Christ.

UCC President John Thomas stoops to race baiting

2008-05-19T21:23:00.007-04:00

Just when you think United Church of Christ President and General Minister John Thomas couldn't do more damage to the denomination and to his own reputation, he finds new ways to disappoint. From his sermon yesterday in response to his own call for a conversation on race:

The ugliness we watched on television as media manipulators tried to scare people from voting for a black candidate by presenting a deliberately frightening caricature of his black pastor reminds us how ugly the conversation on race can be.

This is clearly and plainly race baiting... and it's contemptible.

It was one thing for Thomas to argue that Jeremiah Wright's sermons needed "context" to be properly interpreted. It's an entirely different thing to then claim that the media interest in Wright's sermons stemmed from an evil plot to scare people away from voting for Obama. History is full of clergy who have said stupid things and, regardless of their color, the media has a field day with them. Whether it's Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell or Louis Farrakhan, the media never misses a beat to show stupid comments from clergy.

Thomas' comments weren't just stupid because they were wrong, they were stupid because they undermined the purpose of the sermon which was supposed to foster a "sacred conversation on race". Like some have speculated about Wright, I wonder if Thomas isn't adding fuel to the fire to undermine Obama's campaign. This supposed "sacred conversation on race" only succeeded in putting Wright's inflammatory comments back into the spotlight just as it was starting to die down. Is this any way to start a conversation on race?

I guess I'm also dumbfounded that anyone, especially the leader of a denomination struggling for credibility, would make such an unsubstantiated claim without any supporting information or logic that might give credence to the statement. How does he read that and feel good about it?

The media gets it - the "sacred conversation on race" is about Jeremiah Wright

2008-05-19T09:55:00.004-04:00

Shockingly, the United Church of Christ's spin machine could not shape the message for newspapers reporting on the "Sacred Conversation on Race" called for by our denominational leaders. While media coverage of the "sacred" conversation was sparse, the ones that did cover it all mentioned Jeremiah Wright as the catalyst:

From the headline in Bangor Daily News: "Rev. Wright debate brings racism issue to UCC sermons".
From The Philadelphia Inquirer: "Wilson was invited to deliver the Sunday sermon as part of a "sacred conversation on race" declared by national United Church of Christ leaders after the stormy reaction to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's denunciation of the U.S. government."
From Greenwich Time: "The United Church of Christ asked pastors across the country to hold "sacred conversations" on race yesterday. The call, according to the organization's Web site, came in light of the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., the pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago whose racially charged comments has been closely linked to the presidential campaign of Sen. Barack Obama."
From the Kennebec Journal: "The national office of the United Church of Christ, which has 5,700 affiliates across the country, called for all churches to talk about race Sunday in part because of comments made by Chicago pastor the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, a former UCC pastor.
From the Chicago Tribune: "They joined hundreds of United Church of Christ congregations across the country in the dialogue on race, sparked last month by the controversial statements of Sen. Barack Obama's longtime pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. of Trinity United Church of Christ on Chicago's South Side."

The UCC shell game for promoting the "sacred" conversation seemed to be designed to provide cover for Wright and the denomination without actually admitting it. It's refreshing that the media actually saw through this and put the "sacred" conversation in it's proper context.

The Philadelphia Inquirer article actually went further and deeper on the Wright connection to the "sacred" conversation:

Wilson, pastor of Healing Stream United Church of Christ in Kensington, staunchly defended Wright in a May 6 Philadelphia Daily News column, and he offered a similar justification with the Wayne congregation during coffee hour yesterday.

He asserted that, like Wright, some African Americans believe the U.S. government is responsible for instigating the AIDS epidemic, even though there is no evidence to support that view. He said many blacks feel that way because of the nation's history of slavery and oppression of minorities.

"For 400 years, we were slaves in this country, we were ripped from our homeland," Wilson said. "So as black people we have lived in situations where you might well say, 'Well, that never happened.'

"Do I believe that the U.S. government put AIDS in our communities? I don't know," Wilson went on. "I wish that I could say no, but I know the government has done other things in the past."

Some members of the congregation gently pushed back.

Phil Clark, a scientist who works in the pharmaceutical industry, said that there was no evidence that the government had anything to do with starting the AIDS epidemic and that it did not have the technology at the onset of AIDS to create the virus.

In the end, I don't think our denomination's call for a "sacred" conversation will have much of an impact at all. If this were a genuine effort at discussion, which I think is needed and is healthy for our nearly all white denomination, this would have already been a part of our social infrastructure and not something spurred by the media frenzy around Jeremiah Wright. During John Thomas' tenure as UCC President and General Minister, the national office of the UCC has largely been out of touch with the concerns and needs of the local church and their handling of the Jeremiah Wright situation amplified the disconnection even more.

While the Wright controversy alone won't hurt the denomination, as Barack Obama gains a higher profile with his inevitable nomination for President, the UCC will find itself under greater scrutiny and for many in the UCC it will be an eye opening experience.

The double standard over Obama's use of religion

2008-05-17T19:29:00.004-04:00

Mollie over at GetReligion.org sees the double standard on mixing religion and politics in advertising:

Do you remember back in December when all hell broke loose because Mike Huckabee put out a television ad wishing Iowans “Merry Christmas” while seated in front of a bookcase that looked like a white cross? There were dozens of broadcast reports and newspaper stories analyzing whether it was proper to evoke a cross in a political ad. Well, apparently crosses are fine in political ads now. And you don’t even have to use the subliminal ones. Barack Obama has been using fliers in southern states that really pound home his Christian bonafides, touting himself as a “committed Christian” who has been “called to Christ.” Kentucky has a primary on Tuesday and the fliers have been sent out far and wide to evangelical voters.

More than a few folks on the message board were a little perplexed about why I was making an issue out of Obama's brochure and I think Mollie sums it up pretty well. I would add that the hypocrites at Americans United for the Separation of Church and State pounced on Huckabee's Christmas television advertising last year:

Huckabee, by contrast, has been specific, said Barry Lynn, executive director of the advocacy group Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. "Jesus and Mike Huckabee are both products being sold by this commercial. And I don't see how anyone could view it otherwise," Lynn said.

As expected, Lynn is silent about Obama's brochure.

Sounding Off on Trumpet Magazine

2008-05-15T23:08:00.004-04:00

By Pastor Ted Weis, Congregational Church, Little River, KS

It may not be the way the United Church of Christ wants a sacred conversation on race, but Stanley Kurtz rummaged through several issues of Rev. Jeremiah Wright's Trumpet magazine to better comprehend Wright's world view:

I obtained the 2006 run of Trumpet, from the first nationally distributed issue in March to the November/December double issue. To read it is to come away impressed by Wright's thoroughgoing political radicalism. There are plenty of arresting sound bites, of course, but the larger context is more illuminating-- and more disturbing-- than any single shock-quotation. Trumpet provides a rounded picture of Wright's views, and what it shows unmistakably is that the now-infamous YouTube snippets from Wright's sermons are authentic reflections of his core political and theological beliefs. It leaves no doubt that his religion is political, his attitude toward America is bitterly hostile, and he has fundamental problems with capitalism, white people, and "assimilationist" blacks. Even some of Wright's famed "good works," and his moving "Audacity to Hope" sermon, are placed in a disturbing new light by a reading of Trumpet.

After you finish reading Kurtz's article, you get the sense that for Rev. Wright, everything is black and white-- an "us" verses "them" race mentality where liberation for blacks is available only through religiously baptized left-wing politics.

Kurtz goes on to ask:

Is Wright an anti-white racist? He would certainly deny it... Wright, however, rejects the notion that "black racism" is even possible. That is why he prefers the term "white supremacy" to "racism." "Racism," says Wright, is a "slippery" and "nebulous" term, precisely because it seems potentially applicable to blacks and whites alike. The term "white supremacy" solves this problem, and Wright deploys it at every opportunity.

While Kurtz doesn't buy Barack Obama's plea of ignorance about Rev. Wright's extreme political views, Kurtz's review confirms what Obama said about his now famous pastor in his Pennsylvania race speech:

The profound mistake of Reverend Wright’s [is]... that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country... is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past.

Since Wright is the only reason the UCC is calling for a "sacred conversation" this Sunday, it's appropriate we ask questions not just of ourselves, but also about him:

Does Wright yearn for true reconciliation between the races? Or, the defeat of one race and triumph of another? What, if any, progress does he see in America's race relations?

That's what I'll be asking Sunday.

Church and State: Obama to "do the Lord's work"

2008-05-14T16:46:00.007-04:00

Any bets that the hypocrites over at the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State will, again, have nothing to say about this?

A Sacred Farce on Race

2008-05-12T15:59:00.006-04:00

The "sacred conversation on race" called by our denominational leaders is a farce because it only came about to blunt the criticism we received because of Jeremiah Wright's comments. No honest person can claim that this conversation would have happened otherwise. I'm glad that at least one minister with standing in the United Church of Christ recognizes the disingenuous nature of this "sacred conversation on race" albeit for different reasons. From Rev. Dennis Sanders:

The United Church of Christ, the denomination that Wright is ordained in, has decided to make next Sunday, May 18, a day to have a "sacred conversation on race." On the surface it seems to make sense; let's talk about this issue that has had such a prominent role in American history. I've heard others talk about having a conversation about race and again, it sounds good. But in the end, this conversation ends up not really being a conversation at all. In some ways, it seems more like a play, where persons of color and whites have roles to play, where the script has already been written well in advance.

The pastoral letter on racism from the leaders of the United Church of Christ is interesting, in that it paints an extremely dark view of race relations in the United States circa 2008. This is a sample:
The Pastoral Letter on Racism documented what it called “a sobering truth” – namely, that despite the meaningful progress achieved during the civil rights era, “quality of life for the majority of racial and ethnic people is worse today in many ways than it was during the 1960s.” The letter went on to name a number of disturbing trends that signaled growing racial intolerance and hostility: increasing inequities between the rich and the poor; charges of “reverse racism”and attacks on affirmative action; a resurgence of racially motivated hate crimes and; fear of “foreigners” surfacing in movements such as “English Only.” Seventeen years later, in 2008, we might wish to believe that we have made significant progress in addressing and reversing those alarming trends. Lamentably, that claim cannot be substantiated.

We have witnessed a systematic assault on affirmative action policies at the state and national level. In the wake of the “war on terror,” our Arab American and Muslim brothers and sisters contend daily with discrimination, racial profiling,and misunderstanding about the true nature of Islam. As unemployment rates soar and jobs are outsourced overseas, frustration and rage are unleashed upon the most vulnerable within our borders – immigrants and those who some call “illegal aliens.” After more than two years, thousands of dispossessed residents of New Orleans are still in diaspora, awaiting our government’s promise to help rebuild their homes and neighborhoods. The divide between rich and poor is greater than at any time since the Great Depression. Despite the rise of a Black middle class over the past 40 years, the average net worth of White families in 2008 remains 10 times greater than the average net worth of Black families. Racial segregation in our public schools has intensified and has now been condoned by the United States Supreme Court.
There is a lot here to agree with in some case and a lot to disagree. On the belief that the quality of life for persons of color is worse than it was in the 60s, I have to respectfully disagree. I've said this before, but back in the 50s, my father could not get a hotel room or eat in a restaurant when he made trips to his native Louisiana from Michigan. Black people were getting killed by whites and all-white juries let them get away with it. Is life a racial utopia? No. We still have problems. We still have cops shooting unarmed blacks and too many who think hanging a noose is funny. But we are not the America of the 50s and 60s where whites were trying hard to keep blacks down.

The letter also seems to ignore the most important change of the last 40 years: a political party is on the verge of nominating a black man for President and all indications point to this same black man becoming the 44th President of the United States. A nation that once treated its African immigrants as property might very well elect someone of African heritage.

Barak Obama's historic run for the presidency can't by itself atone for America's racist past, but it is important and can show that we have come a long way. To not hold this up is puzzling.

But maybe what is most puzzling about this letter is that this isn't as much a conversation as a monologue. It lists a litany of problems and says white people don't care and that life is hard for persons of color. I'm not saying any of this is a falsehood, but there isn't much room in this letter for a conversation on race. It has one view and one view only.

Indeed it has only one view because this is not an authentic call for a conversation on race. I talk to a number of different ministers all over the political and theological spectrum of the UCC and I don't get the sense that there is any enthusiasm at all for this "conversation". This Sunday we will be a denomination of mostly white people pretending to have a conversation on race and we'll pat ourselves on the back for this phony gesture of social justice.

U.S. News and World Report covers the United Church of Christ

2008-05-10T18:09:00.001-04:00

U.S. News and World Report had an interesting conclusion in it's article on the United Church of Christ:

Whether an unabashedly progressive church can become a growing part of the American religious landscape is still an open question. "They may become the refuge for liberals from all sorts of denominations, " says University of California-San Diego sociologist John Evans, though he sees no evidence that the UCC's liberal branding campaign has worked. In the meantime, just as leaders of evangelical churches tend to be more politically conservative than most people in their pews, so the leaders of the UCC will probably continue to be to the left of most of their flocks. And that may only contribute to the view, particularly among many younger Christians who are leaving both mainline and evangelical churches, that overly ideological leadership is one of the weaknesses of contemporary institutional Christianity.

UCC gets ripped

2008-05-06T09:32:00.003-04:00

I don't make it a habit to post entire articles, but this article needs to be posted in it's entirety to be understood. From RealClearPolitics.com:

Examining the United Church of Christ

By Stephan Thernstrom and Abigail Thernstrom

In his recent incendiary remarks, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Jr. claimed that criticism of his views is nothing less "an attack on the black church launched by people who know nothing about the African-American religious tradition." Can it really be that millions of black Americans regularly choose to listen to viciously anti-white and anti-American rants on Sunday mornings?

Happily, Chicago's Trinity Church is an outlier in that regard. Most black churchgoers belong to congregations that are overwhelmingly African-American and are affiliated with one of the historically black religious denominations such as the African Methodist Episcopal Church (AME) or the National Baptist Convention. Rev. Wright's Trinity Church, on the other hand, is a predominantly black branch of a white denomination that is not part of "the African-American religious tradition." The United Church of Christ (known until 1957 as the Congregational Church) has a little over a million members; a mere 4 percent of them are black. Fewer than 50,000 blacks in the entire nation worship at a UCC church.

In contrast, 98 percent of the National Baptist Convention's 4 million members are African Americans. Add in black Methodists and Pentecostals, as well as other black Baptists, and the total comes to more than 14 million members of an organized, predominantly African-American church. These churches include a substantial majority of all black adults today. In terms of sheer demographic weight, they clearly represent the "African-American religious tradition"-as Rev. Wright's branch of a overwhelmingly white denomination does not.

These churches vary in many respects. Some-by no means all-played a crucial role in the civil rights revolution of the 1950s and 1960s. The civil rights movement, as the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. said, "came not from secular forces but from the heart of the Negro church." The movement's glory days are long gone but black churches remain more politically engaged, on the average, than their white counterparts. A 1998 study found that 35 percent of them had projects to increase voter registration, five times the rate of white congregations. Almost half informed their congregants of opportunities for political activity, double the white rate. They were also far more likely to have had political candidates and elected officials as guest speakers.

Some of these churches are led by figures like Rev. Wright, an adherent of what is called black liberation theology, which rejects racial integration and stresses the experience of black bondage. But not many. C. Eric Lincoln's mid-1980s survey of the leaders of 2,150 black churches found that two-thirds of them said they had not been influenced by "any of the authors and thinkers of black liberation theology." Indeed, 63 percent did not believe that the black church had "a different mission from the white church." A third did not even think it was "important have black figures in [their] Sunday school literature."

This integrationist vision is at one with the values of most Americans. A glance at the National Baptist Convention and the AME web sites is revealing. They feature what one might expect of any religious denomination-a statement of their creeds, the tenets of the theology and worship practices that distinguish their faith from others. There is almost no indication that these churches are predominantly African American. The closest they come to mentioning race is the AME's statement that its basic beliefs do not "differ from what all Methodists believe." The church, we learn, separated from the main Methodist body two centuries ago because of "man's intolerance of his fellow man, based on the color of his skin."

The web sites of Rev. Wright's Trinity Church and the national body to which it belong stand in shocking contrast. Before the Trinity site was sanitized in early 2008, its material seethed with racial animus and hostility towards America. It described itself as "Afrocentric"; its motto was "Unashamedly Black, Unapologetically Christian." Its quasi-literate foundational document, "The Black Value System," devoted much more attention to blackness than to Christianity. It is the manifesto of a church for people of the black race, designed to be an "instrument of Black self-determination." Blacks were depicted as a race apart-the scurrilous perspective that pervaded Rev. Wright's April 27 Detroit speech, in which he contended that blacks and whites had completely different brain structures, one left-dominant, the other right-dominant. This is nothing more than an updated version of the pseudo-science once used to defend segregation in the Jim Crow South.

It is no accident that Rev. Wright's Trinity Church is affiliated with the highly progressive United Church of Christ. The UCC had its first Jeremiah Wright back in the 1960s, when it tolerated the activities of Rev. Albert Cleage of Detroit, a pioneer preacher of the gospel of Black Power. Cleage was determined to "dehonkify" Jesus. Jesus was black, he insisted, and a black revolutionary. He went on to form his own Black Christian Nationalist Church, later renamed the Pan-African Orthodox Church. This racist conception did not trouble the leadership of the United Church of Christ, which saw it as helping to "make the church more sensitive to and aware of its need to respond to the agenda of black people."

The web site of the UCC currently features plans for a May 18 "sacred conversation on race" in which white participants will need to acknowledge "the sins" of their "ancestors" and their own "failures to confront racism." Non-whites who have "suffered the ravages of racism" will be expected only to keep their "rightful indignation" and their "temptation to despair" under control. The conversation is desperately needed, we are told, because "the quality of life for the majority of racial and ethnic people is worse today in many ways than it was during the 1960s"-a ludicrous claim.

Clearly, Rev. Wright does not speak for mainstream black churches-and he has done them a gross disservice by claiming to do so. He shares neither their vision nor their values. Why their relative silence in the face of Rev. Wright's rants? Perhaps they believe they are protecting Sen. Obama, but if Wright convinces white Americans that his hateful speeches reflect the ways African-American churchgoers think and worship, the quest for racial equality will be set back decades.

Stephan Thernstrom is Winthrop Professor History, Harvard University. Abigail Thernstrom is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and the vice-chair of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

Presbyterians admit and confront "anti-Jewish" sentiments

2008-05-05T14:23:00.004-04:00

In a stunning article on the PCUSA web site, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A) is acknowledging anti-Jewish sentiment within it's ranks:

We Presbyterians can celebrate the extent to which we have been able to rid our teaching, preaching and actions of such prejudice. We take these principles and commitments seriously and we believe that the official policies and statements of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A) live up to this standard.

However, we are aware and do confess that anti-Jewish attitudes can be found among us. Our conversations with Jews in the last several years have renewed our concern to guard against anti-Semitism and anti-Jewish motifs and stereotypes, particularly as these find expression in speech and writing about Israel, the Palestinian people, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and steps toward peace. Once again, many Presbyterians have become aware that strains of an old anti-Jewish tradition are present in the way we ourselves sometimes speak and in the rhetoric and ideas of some writers that we may read regarding these matters.

Examples of such an anti-Jewish theology can unfortunately be found in connection with PC(USA) General Assembly overtures, such as the overture on Confronting Christian Zionism, adopted by the 216th General Assembly in 2004. Some of the authors cited in the rationale of that overture make use in their writings of arguments suggesting or declaring that the Jewish people are no longer in covenant with God, or make statements that echo the medieval Christian claim that the Jews are to blame for the crucifixion of Christ. The rationale and background sources cited in any overture are not General Assembly policy, but Presbyterians need to read such materials with awareness of these themes of classic anti-Jewish teaching.

When our analysis or critique of the Israeli-Palestinian situation employs language or draws on sources that have anti-Jewish overtones, or clearly makes use of classic Christian anti-Jewish ideas, we cloud complicated issues with the rhetoric of ignorance or subliminal attitudes, or the language of hate, and undermine our advocacy for peace and justice. Critical questions such as ending the occupation of Palestinian territory by Israel or the future of Jerusalem are complex and difficult. It does not help to import stereotypes, anti-Jewish motifs or classic ideas of Christian anti-Jewish theology into our discussions.

Similarly, in a few materials that have been circulated by Presbyterians, one finds characterizations of Zionism that distort that movement. They do not accurately present the history of the Zionist movement or acquaint readers with its internal debates and ethical concerns. Instead, Zionism is often presented as a monolithic force or merely as an extension of European colonialism and result of anti-Semitism, and nothing else. In such materials, the problems and suffering of the Palestinians are attributed solely — and inaccurately — to Zionism alone. The origins, development and practices of Zionism and its relationship to the realities of the Israeli-Palestinian situation are much more complex than such a picture presents.

This is certainly wonderful and welcome news and it should help foster better interfaith relations between Presbyterians and Jews. This is also significant because the Presbyterians were largely responsible for starting the anti-Israel divestment movement that spread across the mainline denominations a few years ago. Victor Makari of PC(USA) championed divestment as did his son, Peter Makari, for the United Church of Christ. You will recall that at the 2005 General Synod, UCC President John Thomas and Peter Makari modified a resolution to include divestment language over the objection the committee at General Synod that specifically removed any reference to the controversial action. Since 2005, Thomas has been roundly criticized by every major jewish group in the United States.

Why Rev. Wright should be the next UCC President

2008-05-02T10:09:00.003-04:00

From the quantity of email I have received this week, it's obvious that most people think I am either joking or exploiting the Rev. Wright controversy by suggesting that he should be the UCC's next President. Neither is true and I genuinely want Rev. Wright to be the next President of the UCC. Part of the reason some folks might be suspicious of my support is the cavalier way I first suggested Rev. Wright by taking jabs at our current leadership. I understand the confusion, but let me be very clear - Rev. Wright should be the next President of the UCC because:

Rev. Wright knows more about church growth than anyone else in the denomination right now and he's proved it at Trinity UCC. First and foremost, our denomination needs a leader focused on church growth.

Rev. Wright is probably second to Barack Obama as being the most visable person in the UCC to the public. While he is considered controversial, he makes the UCC visable and relevent. It also doesn't hurt that he can get attention for the denomination in a way that our current leadership has failed to do.

We are a church full of pew sitters who are not engaged or aware of what our denomination does. Yes we have a sizable group of folks who are active, but they represent only a small percentage of our denomination. For the most part we go to church on Sunday, get the feel good message and go home to our regular lives often forgeting the lessons of the sermons (and I'm as guilty as anyone of that). Rev. Wright's pressence as the leader of our church would be a welcome shock to our rather sedate denomination and it is our best chance to save our denomination that is slowly dying.

I have been extremely critical of Rev. Wright's sermons and even if he becomes President of our denomination, I will still be critical of him or anyone else who gets elected. This criticism, however, doesn't diminish what he can bring to the denomination as a whole and the value that he would bring to us as President.

Et tu, Brute? Thomas distances UCC from Wright

2008-05-01T15:40:00.003-04:00

Just got this in a broadcast email from United Church of Christ President, John Thomas:

While there is high regard for Rev. Wright's ministry and leadership at Trinity UCC in Chicago during the past thirty-six years, and for his prophetic, scriptural preaching, many of us today are troubled by some of his controversial comments and the substance and manner in which they have been communicated, both by him and as characterized by the media.

Following Rev. Wright's insightful interview with Bill Moyers on Friday, many in the UCC hopefully anticipated that the prophetic voice of the church would be more clearly understood by the public and affirmed. But, unfortunately, following widespread critique of his handling of questions and answers at the National Press Club, that deep hope has turned now to unsettling despair for many. There is a collective and abiding sadness and anger in the present moment, regardless of theological or political persuasion.

I guess I shouldnt be surprised, but I am.

I'm serious - Jeremiah Wright for UCC President

2008-05-01T10:11:00.002-04:00

Some people think I'm kidding about supporting Jeremiah Wright for United Church of Christ President and General Minister - I'm not. Maybe the way I posted on it while taking jabs at our current leadership made it look less than serious, but I am completely serious.

I receieved a gracious email last night from Lynne Simcox acknowledging receipt of my suggestion and that it would be forwarded to the search committee. I would encourage others to send respectful emails to Lynne suggesting Wright as well by emailing GMPSEARCH@aol.com.

I will also start adding banners and other material to this site to promote Wright - feel free to use the graphics as needed to promote Jeremiah Wright for UCC President and General Minister.

Jeremiah Wright for UCC President

2008-04-30T13:48:00.005-04:00

I'm guessing that about half the people viewing that headline just had a stroke and fell over. For the rest of you still reading, stick with me here.

John Thomas' tenure as the President and General Minister of the United Church of Christ will end next year when a new President will be elected at General Synod. The search committee is already beginning the process and they've already asked for names of potential candidates (just email gmpsearch@aol.com). I'd like to be the first to kick off the "Wright for UCC President" campaign and I hope you will join me by emailing gmpsearch@aol.com with a strong recommendation that Wright be considered.

Why should Wright be the next United Church of Christ President?

1) Wright epitomizes the leadership of the UCC and the transition to President will be a smooth one. His "God Damn America" sermon wasn't all that different from John Thomas' claim that the Axis of Evil “runs the length and breadth of Pennsylvania Avenue.”

2) Wright already has the full support of the United Church of Christ executive council. This is a big step to getting elected as President.

3) The United Church of Christ would save at least $2-3 million in advertising costs - Wright is a walking, talking publicity machine! He literally pays his own salary for 10 years on the first day.

4) John Thomas has already destroyed our interfaith relationship with the Jewish community, Wright can only be seen as an improvement.

5) Sales of United Church of Christ merchandise and DVD's of Wright's speeches would explode based on what the news media would purchase and profits could fund new church starts all over the country

That's enough reasons for now, I'm sure people will chime in with more ideas.

Forward this to as many friends as you can and be sure to suggest Wright for President of the United Church of Christ by emailing gmpsearch@aol.com today!

Report: Wright Feels Betrayed

2008-04-30T13:34:00.001-04:00

By Pastor Ted Weis, Congregational Church, Little River, KS

After the controversial remarks made by Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Jr. during the Q & A at Monday's National Press Club meeting, many pundits think Wright is intentionally seeking to bring down Barack Obama's presidential hopes.

Why?

An unnamed source tells the New York Post:

"After 20 years of loving Barack like he was a member of his own family, for Jeremiah to see Barack saying over and over that he didn't know about Jeremiah's views during those years, that he wasn't familiar with what Jeremiah had said, that he may have missed church on this day or that and didn't hear what Jeremiah said, this is seen by Jeremiah as nonsense and betrayal," said the source, who has deep roots in Wright's Chicago community and is familiar with his thinking on the matter. "Jeremiah is trying to defend his congregation and the work of his ministry by saying what he is saying now," the source added. "Jeremiah doesn't care if he derails Obama's candidacy or not... He knows what he's doing. Obviously, he's not a dumb man. He knows he's not helping."

Ironically, in Wright's address before the National Press Club-- that is, his speech before the Q & A time, remarks that didn't make the sound clip bites-- Wright spoke eloquently about race and black church history, suggesting:

Maybe this dialogue on race, an honest dialogue that does not engage in denial or superficial platitudes, maybe this dialogue on race can move the people of faith in this country from various stages of alienation and marginalization to the exciting possibility of reconciliation.

I know a good place to start.

Obama Finally Condemns Rev. Wright

2008-04-29T14:26:00.008-04:00

By Pastor Ted Weis, Congregational Church, Little River, KS

Injuring. Sad. Angry. Disrespect. Shocked. Not grounded in truth. Insult. Contradiction. Objectionable. Inexcusable. Betrayed. He didn't show much concern for me. Offensive. That's enough. Great damage. Won't be the same anymore.

At a press conference this afternoon (transcript here), Presidential democratic candidate Barack Obama used all the above words to condemn and disassociate himself from his former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Jr.

"He made a caricature out of himself," Obama said to summarize Rev. Wright's "performance" over the weekend and on Monday at the National Press Club (transcript here).

Obama was somber throughout and was clearly heart broken about his 20 year relationship with Wright publicly going up in flames, and maybe his campaign too.

"It's a fiasco," said Michael A. Genovese, chairman of the Institute for Leadership Studies at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles. "With friends like these, who needs enemies?"

In parting ways with Wright, Obama's relationship to Chicago Trinity UCC is now strained and his rapport with the United Church of Christ suffers a severe blow, especially since the national office has nary said one critical word of Wright.

What's especially ridiculous about this whole controversy-- as it relates to the United Church of Christ-- is this has little to do with theology and everything to do with left-wing kook politics.

As pundits ask whether Wright deliberately sabotaged Obama's campaign, what will the national office say now? That'll be an interesting press release. "All this underscores the need for a sacred conversation?" "Sometimes we disagree among ourselves in the UCC?"

Wright isn't someone to disagree over. His arrogance and politics need to be firmly rebuked.

Obama finally gets it. Will Cleveland?

The Wright Way

2008-04-29T09:43:00.004-04:00

Great commentary from Eugene Robinson:

We all have our crosses to bear. The Rev. Jeremiah Wright has become Barack Obama's.

I'm sorry, but I've had it with Wright. I would never try to diminish the service he performed as pastor of his Chicago megachurch, and it's obvious that he's a man of great charisma and faith. But this media tour he's conducting is doing a disservice that goes beyond any impact it might have on Obama's presidential campaign.

The problem is that Wright insists on being seen as something he's not: an archetypal representative of the African American church. In fact, he represents one twig of one branch of a very large tree.

And despite how hard the UCC's national office tries to support Wright, I suspect that most UCC members are rightfully embarrassed by him. His antics at the Press Club made him look like the court jester, not a prophet "speaking truth to power".

Washington Post editorial: It's about Wright, not black churches

2008-04-29T01:11:00.004-04:00

From the Washington Post editorial page:

THE REV. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., whose incendiary and controversial sound bites have knocked the presidential campaign of Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) off balance, strutted to the microphone of the National Press Club and made an audacious claim: "This is not an attack on Jeremiah Wright. It is an attack on the black church." No. The harsh spotlight under which the Chicago pastor finds himself is exactly where it belongs.

As pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago for 36 years (he recently retired), the Rev. Wright has a record of good works. From services for the homeless and the elderly to the poor and those in prison, his church has practiced the most giving and generous teachings of Christianity. But with the good came charged rhetoric that has come back to haunt him and Mr. Obama. Most famously, in a 2003 sermon, the Rev. Wright said, "The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, not God bless America. God damn America, that's in the Bible, for killing innocent people."

Yesterday, the Rev. Wright was unrepentant. He refused to disavow his oft-repeated belief in the sinister myth that the AIDS epidemic is a genocidal government plot to exterminate African Americans. He stood by his blame-America-for-Sept. 11 stance, saying, "You cannot do terrorism on other people and expect it never to come back to you."

Wright lights the fuse

2008-04-28T09:52:00.004-04:00

Trinity United Church of Christ's former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, gave an indignant speech this morning before the National Press Club and African-American church leaders. The speech and Wright's response to questions afterwards will undoubtedly reignite the controversy around his sermons.

In his speech, Wright disowned the controversy by claiming that the media reporting and the public response was not about him, it was about the black church as a whole. Wright also mentioned the call to have a national conversation on race which was first raised by presidential candidate Barack Obama and formalized by the United Church of Christ's national office.

Throughout the question and answer period of his speech, Wright continually deflected questions about his sermons often answering a question with another question. When asked about his "God damn America" sermon, he asked "Did you hear the sermon?" When asked about his allegation that the U.S. governemnt created the AIDS virus to commit genocide on African-Americans, Wright asked if the questioner had read Horowitz's book and then claimed that he believed the government was capable of it. When asked about his controversial sermon that appeared to blame the U.S. for 9/11, Wright claimed to be quoting an ambassador although Wright clearly subscribed to the belief in the sermon.

On any level, the speech was a trainwreck. Wright didn't accept responsibility for his sermons or take ownership of his own words. By deflecting the controversy as commentary against the black church, Wright has also ignited a completely manufactured racial conflict and has unfairly cast a negative view of the black church and the United Church of Christ. Wright has effectively sabatoged the black church, the United Church of Christ and Obama's candidacy to protect his own ego.

While I personally agree with the spirit of Obama's call for a national conversation on race, it can not and should not be orchestrated as a defense of Wright's sermons. The controversy is not about race, it is about Jeremiah Wright. If we are going to have a real national conversation on race, it should be done in the spirit Obama's unifying optimism that we can overcome our shameful history.

The Wright Context

2008-04-26T09:55:00.003-04:00

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright, in an interview with PBS newsman Bill Moyers broadcast Friday, says his fiery comments, including his controversial “God Damn America” proclamation, have been taken out of context by the news media.

Barack Obama’s former pastor says people should listen to his entire sermon to have a complete understanding of his message.

FOXNews.com has compiled video from the full sermon delivered by Wright on April. 13, 2003, from the pulpit of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.

Was criticism of Wright’s fiery sermons “unfair” and “devious,” as he argued in the PBS interview?

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Wright on Moyers

2008-04-25T22:53:00.006-04:00

You couldn't have watched Bill Moyers interview with Jeremiah Wright and not come away with a greater respect for Wright, where he's come from and where Trinity United Church of Christ has come from. I was particularly impressed with his knowledge and study of the Old Testament and how he brings it into context for today's world. That said, it was not much of a journalistic interview with challenging questions. Not surprisingly, it was clear Moyers came into the interview as an advocate and not as a journalist. As Moyers questioned Wright about Louis Farrakhan, I thought he might actually examine Wright's more controversial comments, but he didn't take it that far.

The two biggest concerns about Wright's sermons -his blaming America for 9/11 and his claim that America created AIDS- were not sufficiently addressed at all. Although Moyers referenced Wright's "canard" about the origination of AIDS in the introduction of the show, it never came up in the interview.

Moyers did spend a fair amount of time trying to apply context to Wright's post 9/11 sermon, but all it really did is confirm that Wright connects many of the historically bad things the U.S. has done to 9/11 in a biblical context. The irony is that Moyers back in 2002 was furious when Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell suggested that what happened on 9/11 was God’s judgment on a decadent America:

Repugnant? Of course, but under that Bill of Rights they so detest they are entitled to their repugnant opinions. But such rights cannot mask their repulsiveness as human beings – piously spreading their virus of holy hate from the safety of plush studios and stately pulpits where they are isolated from the consequences of their malevolence. Let God do the dirty work – while they rake in the takings of bigotry and bile. We must say to these people – over and over again – what Mohammed Ali said to bin Laden: God is not an assassin.

There isn't a whole lot of difference between what Robertson and Falwell did to Wright claiming that "America's chickens are coming home to roost". They may use different examples to make their point, but they all came to the same conclusion. Moyer's disdain is clearly reserved only for those he simply doesn't like. Hardly respectable. For Wright's part, he's entitled to an opinion like everyone else is... no matter how assinine it is.

In the end, the interview isn't going to change many opinions... those who were outraged by his comments are still going to be outraged and those who weren't alarmed probably found the interview affirming. For me, there are many elements of truth to what Wright says, particularly as he discerns the difference between allegiance to our country and our allegiance to God. While some pundits might confuse this as being unpatriotic, it is not. In spite of the many elements I might agree with Wright on, I simply can not accept that a pastor -any pastor, not just Wright- would blatently lie from the pulpit and not feel some obligation to clarify or apologize for it. In this specific case, it was a particularly egregious lie that is perpetuating a myth held about the origin of AIDS.

For our denomination, it's particularly disappointing that in light of the attention that Wright has brought us, none of our leaders can muster the honesty or the courage to embrace Wright as a brother in Christ while making it clear that we do not embrace everything he says.

Adding "context" to Wright's sermons

2008-04-25T09:46:00.007-04:00

Defenders of Rev. Jeremiah Wright from Trinity United Church of Christ have used terms like "soundbite" and "context" to suggest that the public can't interpret what they are hearing without more information... but then come up pretty shallow on just exactly what everyone is missing.

Theology elites like Walter Brueggemann condescendingly insist that the general public is too stupid to interpret what Wright is really saying. Brueggemann claims that "righteous indignation" over Wright "smacks of embarrassing ignorance" without really pealing back what people are missing.

In tonight's interview with Bill Moyers on PBS, Wright plays the same card:

“The persons who have heard the entire sermon understand the communication perfectly. When something is taken like a soundbite for a political purpose and put constantly over and over again, looped in the face of the public, that’s not a failure to communicate. Those who are doing that are communicating exactly what they want to do, which is to paint me as some sort of fanatic or, as the learned journalist from the New York Times called me, a ‘wackadoodle.’"

No one is claiming that there is a "failure to communicate"... this is just more spin. Yesterday ABC News posted a partial transcript to Wright's post-9/11 sermon and if you read it, the context doesn't change anything. In fact, the context of the sermon validates the concerns that many people are echoing about Wright. This also explains the lack of depth in using "context" as a defense for Wright's sermons.

Be careful what you wish for

2008-04-23T02:01:00.002-04:00

If nothing else is certain in the Jeremiah Wright controversy, the United Church of Christ's relentless defense of his hate filled sermons demonstrates a level of concern not seen before in the history of our denomination. There are two main targets for the UCC's self defense campaign: the general public and the members of the United Church of Christ.

Polls taken after the surge in media coverage made it pretty clear that an overwhelming majority did not view Wright favorably. A March 17th Rasmussen poll demonstrated that only 8% view Wright favorably while 58% have an unfavorable view of Wright which wasn't far off from the 55% that were disturbed by Wright’s statements according to a March 25th NBC/Wall Street Journal poll.

You can pretend that polls don't matter but the reaction from the national office makes it clear that the public response to the Wright controversy justified full page newspaper advertising and a call for "a sacred conversation about race" as part of a broader defense campaign.

To be candid, I'm glad that the controversy has caused people outside and inside our denomination to question our values and our beliefs. Since the formation of the United Church of Christ over 50 years ago, most of our churches have existed in relative obscurity in the broader religious landscape. Insulated by the unique autonomy empowered to our local churches and a discretionary covenant shared with our associations, conferences and national office, local churches have never had a publicly recognizable identity as a denomination - until now.

The consequences of this new attention rightly scares our national leaders. UCC President John Thomas was so concerned that late last month he alerted Conference Ministers to anticipated attacks on "some of our justice commitments". After decades of maintaining a low level of visibility from the local church, Thomas is rightly concerned that the national office, like Wright, will be questioned and publicly castigated for pushing a bizarre political agenda that includes supporting Puerto Rican terrorists and promoting anti-Israel positions that some view as bordering on anti-Semitism.

At one time, the national office was all too eager to ride on fellow UCCer Barack Obama's coattails to generate attention for the denomination... but as the ancient proverb suggests, "be careful what you wish for".

Thomas Hears Pope's Rebuke

2008-04-22T09:04:00.001-04:00

By Pastor Ted Weis, Congregational Church, Little River, KS

UCC President Rev. John Thomas and Ecumenical Officer Lydia Veliko were among an ecumenical contingency of 200 Christian leaders who gathered in New York City to hear Pope Benedict XVI at an evening ecumenical prayer service on April 18.

In a press release leading up to the meeting, Thomas expressed optimism about what the Pope might say:

"As participants in many rounds of theological dialogue between Reformed Christians and Roman Catholics in the United States, we are committed to a vision of unity that can overcome the many differences that still inhibit a fully shared participation in God's mission here and throughout the world. I look forward to hearing a word of ecumenical hope from Pope Benedict that can be lived out between UCC churches and Catholic parishes around the country."

While it's nice that Rev. Thomas offered polite words about going to hear to the Pope, Thomas is no fan of Benedict XVI, an opinion he made quite clear in 2005:

"Today as the conclave announces its decision, the offering of prayers for this new pontificate is the most appropriate response from other Christian leaders," the Rev. John H. Thomas, UCC general minister and president, said in a written statement to United Church News. "Nevertheless, I acknowledge that I personally greet Cardinal Ratzinger's selection with profound disappointment. Cardinal Ratzinger's long tenure in the Vatican has been marked by a theological tone that is rigid, conservative and confrontational."

With this in mind, I'm sure that Rev. Thomas didn't enjoy hearing this veiled, but clear rebuke:

"Too often those who are not Christians, as they observe the splintering of Christian communities, are understandably confused about the Gospel message itself. Fundamental Christian beliefs and practices are sometimes changed within communities by so-called "prophetic actions" that are based on a hermeneutic not always consonant with the datum of Scripture and Tradition. Communities consequently give up the attempt to act as a unified body, choosing instead to function according to the idea of "local options". Somewhere in this process the need for diachronic koinonia – communion with the Church in every age – is lost, just at the time when the world is losing its bearings and needs a persuasive common witness to the saving power of the Gospel (cf. Rom 1:18-23)."

Translation: That's not an endorsement of the "God Is Still Speaking" campaign.

At least Rev. Thomas went to hear someone he doesn't agree with.

But if he didn't go, what would that have said?

I'll bet the conversation over hors d’oeuvres with colleagues afterwards was interesting.

Spin control: Wright to do Moyers interview

2008-04-21T11:23:00.006-04:00

Trinty United Church of Christ's former minister Jeremiah Wright is slated to do an interview with PBS's Bill Moyers according to UC News and this PBS press release.

Wright should find a comfortable home on Moyer's show - Moyers doesn't pretend to be balanced and his passion and support for liberal politics has been a staple of his career. Moyer's himself has conceded that a journalist's job is not to be balanced:

The journalist's job is not to achieve some mythical state of equilibrium between two opposing opinions out of some misshapen respect -- sometimes, alas, reverence -- for the prevailing consensus among the powers-that-be. The journalist's job is to seek out and offer the public the best thinking on an issue, event, or story.

Of course, "the best thinking on an issue" is subjective to the view of the journalist. Don't expect much more than a puff piece from Moyers interview.

Obama Worships at UCC Church

2008-04-21T07:01:00.002-04:00

By Pastor Ted Weis, Congregational Church, Little River, KS

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Sunday worshiped at a church that's part of his denomination, St. Mark's UCC in Lebanon, Pennsylvania:

Illinois Sen. Barack Obama paid a surprise visit to Lebanon County when he attended Sunday morning's worship service at St. Mark's United Church of Christ.

About 200 people gathered in the 426 N. Eighth St. church's sanctuary afterward to catch a glimpse of the Democratic presidential hopeful... For almost an hour, Obama shook hands, posed for pictures and signed autographs at the front of the sanctuary for everyone who patiently waited to greet him.

Since everything a politician does is carefully scripted, we'll do our part here as media hacks to over analyze Obama's steps.

A member of the Penn Central conference, St. Mark's is one of six UCC churches in Lebanon. Two UCC churches in Lebanon were "Five for Five" churches in 2006, but St. Mark's wasn't one of them. "Five for Five" churches are those who give to all of the UCC's one time yearly offerings. While the UCC Coalition doesn't list them, UCC.org's "Find a Church" reports that St. Mark's is an ONA church, or open and affirming, meaning that the church welcomes into their full life and ministry persons of all sexual orientations and gender identities. As we reported earlier, Pennsylvania is thick with UCC churches, so Obama inevitably had to pass over several possibilities. St. Mark's doesn't have a website, so here's guessing that Obama's campaign sought the advice of Penn Central Conference Minister, Rev. Dr. Marja Coons-Torn.

In all likelihood, Obama's appearance was designed to garner some "Obama At Church" photos and headlines to hopefully take the sting out of his "bitter" comment, when he privately told a San Francisco fund raiser audience that rural people cling to guns and religion. Lebanon County has one third class city and is 54% farm land, so Obama decided to go into the bitter heartland.

Pennsylvania's primary vote is Tuesday. Obama and Hillary Clinton are neck and neck in the polls.

Was this the first time that Obama stepped foot inside any church or a UCC church since the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Jr. controversy broke out?

Obama Keeps Backing Away from Wright

2008-04-17T10:22:00.004-04:00

By Pastor Ted Weis, Congregational Church, Little River, KS

Speaking to Jewish community leaders yesterday at Congregation Rodeph Shalom in Philadelphia, Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama continues to back away from the rhetoric of his pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Jr.:

The Illinois senator has been working to reassure Jewish voters nervous about his candidacy after publicity about anti-Israel sentiments expressed by his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and criticism from Hillary Rodham Clinton during a February debate that he hadn't immediately rejected an endorsement from black Muslim leader Louis Farrakhan. Obama responded that he already denounced Farrakhan, but would reject his support as well.

Obama told the group he had not been aware of Wright's more incendiary speeches before launching his presidential campaign last year, even though he had been a member of Wright's congregation for nearly 20 years. Obama said he had spoken to Wright and privately conveyed his concerns about some of the sermons once he learned of their content. But he acknowledged that he had declined to be more public in his criticism until recently, since Wright was preparing to retire from ministry at Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ.

"You make a decision about how are you going to handle it," Obama said. "Do you publicly denounce his comments? Do you privately express concern but recognize you are still part of a broader church community that is going to be transitioning? I chose the latter."

But do Obama's remarks contradict what he said earlier in his well-known race speech on March 18?

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy and in some cases pain For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in the church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely – just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

You decide.

Obama Insults His Own

2008-04-15T04:29:00.001-04:00

By Pastor Ted Weis, Congregational Church, Little River, KS

You know that Presidential candidate Barack Obama is under heavy criticism after uttering the following put down about rural Pennsylvanians:

"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them... And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

You know too that Obama is a member of the United Church of Christ. But do you know, and ironically, does Obama realize how many of these rural and religious Pennsylvanians he insulted are members of his own denomination?

According to the Center for Rural Pennsylvania and their report, "Religious Establishments in Rural Pennsylvania":

The religious establishments with the most congregations in Pennsylvania’s rural counties were: the United Methodist Church, the Catholic Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Presbyterian Church, U.S.A., and the United Church of Christ. These same congregations were also the top five congregations in urban counties.

Looking at the delegate distribution from the 26th General Synod, nearly 15% of the United Church of Christ's 1.2 million members reside in Pennsylvania. That's 182,779 people. In fact, the UCC is so big in Pennsylvania it has not two, but four Conferences in the state-- Penn Central, Pennsylvania Northeast, Pennsylvania Southeast, and Pennsylvania West. With the exception of Penn West, each of these conferences are among the top 10 in delegate ranks at Synod.

Obama's unguarded words, spoken at a closed fund raiser in San Francisco on April 6, likely hit the intended target of dipping into the pockets of some rich elitist Democrats. But the spray of the buckshot has at least one Pennsylvania UCC member fretting.

The UCC Pennsylvanians who are fans of the "God Is Still Speaking" commercials likely won't take offense. They understand Obama is talking about those other churches-- the ones with bouncers and ejector seats. However, it was the UCC that once had on its rolls a historic church in rural Kansas called Beecher Rifle & Bible Church.

Obama knows his words have hurt him politically-- he's still spinning what he meant to say.

There's a lesson for us all:

The tongue is like a rifle-- you can always reload, but once you pull the trigger, you can never put that shot back into the barrel.

A Lesson for the Media

2008-04-14T06:55:00.001-04:00

By Pastor Ted Weis, Congregational Church, Little River, KS

Here's a lesson, given by Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Jr. and the UCC national office, that the media will understand:

March 21 and 23:
Writing for the The New Yorker magazine, reporter Kelefa Sanneh visits Trinity United Church of Christ for Good Friday and Easter services.

April 3:
Trinity United Church of Christ tells the media "no more" at the "Sacred Conversations" press conference and establishes rules for any reporters inside the sanctuary.

April 7:
Time stamp for Sanneh's The New Yorker story, "Project Trinity: The Perilous Mission of Obama's Church."

April 12:
UCC.org has a link to The New Yorker article prominently featured on its home page.

April 12:
Rev. Jeremiah Wright, in his first public sermon since the firestorm over his remarks began, fiercely criticized the media in a funeral message:

Reflecting on the late [appellate judge R. Eugene] Pincham, Wright said his faith “was not the jingoistic, chauvinistic ‘you’re either with us or against us’ demonizing kind of faith.” Wright said Pincham was friends with “Jews, Muslims, rabbis, imams, fathers in the Catholic church and [Louis] Farrakhan in the Islamic faith.”

Escalating into full-preaching mode, Wright thundered, “Fox News can’t understand that. [Bill] O’Reilly will never get that. Sean Hannity’s stupid fantasy will keep him forever stuck on stupid when it comes to comprehending how you can love a brother who does not believe what you believe. [Pincham’s] faith was a faith in a God who loved the whole world not just one country or one creed.”

At that point, congregants nearly drowned Wright out with a booming standing ovation.

Wright also referred to Fox News as “Fix News.”

So much for encouraging the media to take its spotlight somewhere else.

"Let's Talk About Race" Ad

2008-04-10T03:45:00.003-04:00

By Pastor Ted Weis, Congregational Church, Little River, KS

Coming in the Friday, April 11 edition of USA Today is another full page ad from the United Church of Christ.

In an advance mass e-mail, UCC President John Thomas writes:

Our ad invites the nation to enter a sacred conversation on race and asks other communities of faith to join our preach-in scheduled for Trinity Sunday, May 18.

Together, as we ready ourselves for this important preaching opportunity and the intentional dialogues that must follow in the months to come, this ad clearly puts the UCC on public record as a church willing to grapple forthrightly with difficult issues. Ours is a risk-taking church.

This newest one, which comes on the heels of last week's New York Times ad, is entitled, "Let's Talk About Race."

OK. I accept.

Let's talk about how this ad frames the question and sets the agenda.

First, notice how this ad doesn't mention the Barack Obama-Jeremiah Wright flap and more importantly, the UCC's relationship to it. Why is boldness suddenly shy? It's like the parent talking to their child about the birds and the bees, but too embarrassed to admit the part they played in bringing little johnny into the world.

If Obama and Wright were members of another denomination, there's no way the UCC jumps into the fray and places this ad.

So really. Why are we calling for a dialogue on race? And doing so now?

The ad's lack of full disclosure is telling. It suggests that one motive for keeping silent is denominational self-preservation.

Try saying with a straight face that you're Jeremiah Wright's denomination, you won't scold his outrageous statements, nor condemn his award to Louis Farrakhan, all the while insisting on the need to discuss race.

Difficult, huh? The general public won't buy it and I think our leaders realize this. Better then to avoid the connection and instead say this:

Sacred conversations are never easy, especially when honest talk confronts our nation's painful past and speaks directly to the injustices of the present day. Yet sacred conversations can, and often do, honor the value of diverse life experiences, requiring an openness to hear each others' viewpoints.

Instead of acting like the Old Testament prophets-- who told it like it was and willingly took the hit to their reputation-- the ad takes the soft sell route.

Never mind that we're the religious body that's home to this race controversy. Ignore the fact that none of our national leaders have the courage of Obama, who said in his race speech that Wright remarks were distorted and divisive. Forget that.

Instead, simply present yourself as the denomination that calls for a sacred conversation about race. That strategy raises the odds of the denomination looking much better in the public eye. We look spiritual, reasonable, and hip all at the same time.

If the average irreligious USA Today reader doesn't recognize the UCC connection to the Obama-Wright controversy, the strategy of the ad just might work to enhance our reputation.

Image is certainly on the mind of our President:

No single newspaper ad will ever fully capture our denomination's diverse story or our justice legacy, but as the media spotlight continues to focus on the UCC like never before, it is imperative that we be proactive in sharing who we are and what we're about, lest others continue to define us in narrow and distorted ways.

But for those in the general public who do know the UCC connection, who've read or seen Rev. Thomas' defense of Wright, and don't approve of Wright's remarks, the ad won't work.

The effect will come off like this: "A UCC pastor makes outrageous claims about race and then the UCC tells me that I'm the one who needs to have a dialogue about race? I'm the one who needs to be lectured? It's like being the innocent bystander who sees a fight on the school playground, but instead of the bully going to the Principal's office, I get sent."

Despite the flaws and motives of this ad, the truth remains that, "we have an opportunity to make America a better nation." Sometimes, when the family of an alcoholic is asked to sit down for treatment, they protest saying, "But I'm not the one who needs therapy!" And yet, if they choose to sit down and talk, they too can learn something valuable.

The American public may not feel like they have to sit down and talk about race. But if they do, I'm sure they'd learn something good.

Meanwhile, Rev. Thomas should be proactive in taking this risk-- the Friday before Trinity Sunday, May 18, go and talk about race on the O'Reilly Factor or Hannity & Colmes, and state clearly that Wright was wrong.

Sacred places provide good cover

2008-04-07T10:51:00.003-04:00

Here's an interesting column from the Sunday Chicago Tribune:

The wounds inflicted on Barack Obama by the hateful speech of his pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, are serious and profound.

Why else would ministers gather at Obama's church in Chicago—Trinity United Church of Christ—to hold a news conference demanding a "sacred" national dialogue on race?

"The intersection of politics, religion and race has heightened our awareness of how easy it is for our conversations about race to become anything but sacred," Rev. John Thomas, president of the United Church of Christ, said last week. "That's why we are calling for sacred conversations, and for the respect of sacred places to begin right here and now."

In other words, listen up you reporters: Back off.

Clearly, it's difficult enough to pray and reflect upon the story of the Good Samaritan without pesky reporters asking you to defend Wright's indefensible, hateful words.

It's got to be tough when reporters ask about that 10,000-square-foot suburban mansion the church bought for Wright, the one along the golf course, the one with the $1.6 million mortgage held by the church.

Wright has damaged Obama by cursing America from the pulpit, breaking one of the 10 Commandments along the way, shouting "G-d damn America!," blaming our nation for the 9/11 terrorist attacks and suggesting our government infected people of color with AIDS.

"And, they will attack you, if you try to point out what's going on in white America, the U.S. of KKK-A!" Wright was quoted as saying.

Now that he's retired, I wonder if he'll play a tape of that one while he's out on his deck, perhaps holding a new titanium driver, smiling, absently listening to himself shouting "white America, the U.S. of KKK-A!" but also thinking ahead, to the water hazards and sand traps on that back nine.

OUCH!

Thomas plays race card to dodge Wright criticism

2008-04-03T20:23:00.011-04:00

In an effort to change the focus of mounting criticism, United Church of Christ President John Thomas today called for "a nationwide 'sacred conversation' about race in the United States" at a press conference today at Trinity United Church of Christ. From the press conference:

"On Sunday, May 18, 2008 – the Sunday after Pentecost, which also happens to be called Trinity Sunday in the ecumenical calendar – we are asking our 10,000 UCC pastors across the nation to use their pulpits to address the subject of race. We believe this is an important first step in beginning the broader conversation that needs to take place in our nation, in our communities and, especially, in our houses of worship. Over the next six weeks we will be equipping our pastors and lay leaders to help them prepare for May 18 and for the important conversations to follow."

The effort to have a national conversation on race would be admirable had it not been hastily called for in response to the criticism that Thomas and the UCC has been facing in defense of comments in sermons and in publications by Trinity's former minister, Jeremiah Wright, Jr. who did not even attend the press conference. As disgusting and vulgar as it sounds, Thomas appears to be playing the race card to dodge the criticism which ultimately undermines the very conversation on race that he and others are seeking.

The consequences of this will be damaging on a number of levels. First, Thomas has made it pretty clear that he's not going to actually respond to the concerns raised within and outside of the denomination on Wright. Like so many other actions he and the national office have taken, it will be local pastors left to react and they really aren't being given much to work with here.

Second, members of the UCC are pretty wise to what is going on here. The problem isn't race, it's about Wright's comments and Thomas' reaction to them.

Finally, all this has really done is guarantee that this issue won't die down anytime soon.

(AP Photos / M. Spencer Green)

Trinity UCC in crisis mode: Top Obama advisor gets crisis PR firm to step in

2008-04-03T17:52:00.007-04:00

And some of you wonder why I'm so cynical about the United Church of Christ... this is from TPM's (Talking Points Memo) Greg Sargent:

Here's an interesting peek at some of what was going on behind the scenes in Chicago during the controversy over Jeremiah Wright, the pastor at Obama's Trinity church.

I'm told that top Obama adviser David Axelrod privately tried to help Trinity with its raging public relations problem by asking one of Chicago's top P.R. firms to go in and help the church deal with its P.R. mess.

Axelrod confirms to me that amid the controversy, Trinity put out word that it was overwhelmed by media calls and in need of help. Axelrod confirms that he called Jim Terman, the president of Jasculca-Terman and Associates, a major Chicago P.R. outfit that specializes in doing crisis P.R. management for corporations and large institutions.

"I called Jim Terman and asked if they were interested in helping out and they followed up with the church," Axelrod emails, adding that his involvement ended there.

Terman himself confirmed that Axelrod had asked him to help Trinity -- and confirmed that his firm was currently doing pro bono work on the beleagured church's behalf.

"Trinity is a well respected institution in this town, though you wouldn't believe it from the national press," Terman said, adding that he has known Axelrod for 25 years. "David was interested in helping the church -- the guy he's working for happens to be a member of the church."

It's unclear whether Axelrod was operating partly out of worry about how the controversy was impacting Obama -- after all, the church was the first to sound the call for help. But this is nonetheless noteworthy -- a glimpse at a previously-unseen aspect of the Obama camp's efforts to deal with the whole situation.

UCC national office in crisis mode: John Thomas lays out strategy

2008-04-02T16:07:00.005-04:00

In an email to Conference Ministers last week, United Church of Christ President John Thomas laid out the strategy for countering the negative perceptions about the United Church of Christ. Some of this is old news (like the New York Times ad) but there is some new points here. From the email:

Friends:

I hope you all had a good Easter celebration, both spiritually and physically renewing.

I know many of you have been wondering about how we are planning to address the continued media issues surrounding Trinity Church as well as other issues that are likely to arise during the course of the campaign. Our first priority has been to seek to be supportive of Trinity. Several ideas have surfaced and were explored and some of you have been waiting to hear about planning. I'm sorry we weren't able to get back to you but we needed to hear from the folk at Trinity about what would be most useful to them. As you might imagine, in the midst of Holy Week and the other political and media distractions, it has been difficult for them to respond as promptly as we might like. Here's where we are:

1. We had considered a gathering of UCC folk at Trinity next week. However, Trinity has asked us not to do this. Media presence has been intense and intrusive. Reporters have been calling members at home, including those on the home bound list. Threats against Trinity, Jeremiah, and Otis have been made. Security has had to be significantly increased. Events at Trinity, especially worship, is taking place in the midst of a siege of TV trucks, etc. As a result, adding another event that would subject their members to another round of this is not deemed wise. In light of this we have discussed what other ways we might be supportive. What we have agreed to is this: For the weeks between now and Pentecost we will seek to have members of the United Church of Christ who are willing and able to do so to come to Trinity for their 11 a.m. worship. I am in the process of identifying a church leader who can be a representative to offer words of greeting and support during the service. Cally, Linda, Edith, and Steve have agreed to be present for one Sunday. I suspect that most of those who come will be from the Chicago area; I will be in touch with Jorge Morales about this as soon as I am able. We will also prepare an invitation that you can send out to folk in your conference.

2. We have discussed with Trinity a press conference in Chicago, tentatively set for next Thursday. Participants would be Otis Moss, myself, and Michael Kinnamon of the National Council of Churches. The focus of this would be a statement calling on all who are involved in the political process - candidates, media, campaign workers, etc. - to respect the sacred space of our churches and our church communities. In light of what Trinity has been experiencing, we believe it is important that our congregations and denominations not be seen merely as fair game for scoring political points. This would be seen by Trinity as support, and would also set a wider context. We are awaiting confirmation from Otis Moss on this; Michael has agreed to be present if the press conference happens. We may also try to place an op ed piece in relation to this. Should I go to Chicago, I have also expressed a desire to visit with Jeremiah if that would be welcomed. I'll let you know as soon as I have confirmation of plans.

3. Recognizing that all of our churches are dealing with the turmoil from this, Steve Sterner has written a letter to pastors. The letter is attached and I would be grateful if you would use your electronic networks to make this available to as many of your pastors as possible.

4. We are working on a YouTube "introduction to the UCC" which we will send to media outlets and make available on the web. The effort here is to present a broader picture of the UCC. It will be crafted from new narration wrapped around existing footage.

5. Ben Guess is in conversation with Gotham about the production of a print ad that could be placed in a major newspaper and also be available to all of our churches for placement in local papers. Again, this would be an effort to interpret the witness of the UCC in a more honest and holistic way. We will need to do fundraising for purchasing space in a major paper and paying for production. This would need to be coordinated with you as there may also need to be local and/or regional fund raising for local placement. We have no budget for this so we will need to have the capacity to seek funds for our costs here.

6. We are designing a major interpretation piece for use as we move ahead in anticipation of attacks against the UCC related to some of our justice commitments. We anticipate these attacks continuing and intensifying as long as Barack Obama's This would be on the web, with several "layers" moving from the general to the specific. We imagine an introduction to the UCC, and then links to specific issues, each of which would be described with further links to more detailed documentation. Broad themes here would include: Human Rights (Wilmington 10, Puerto Rican Political Prisoners, Death Penalty, etc.), Environmental (Pastoral Letter on the Environment, Vieques, Toxic Waste and Race), Inclusion (glbt issues, gay marriage,) Women's Issues (ordination, language, etc.), Global Justice (Israel-Palestine, Hawaiian Apology, etc.). Don't hold me to this exact list or design. We are now seeking to contract with a seasoned UCC member with journalistic experience who can manage this for us under Ben's supervision. This will need to be ready soon. It will be designed to be a resource for media but also for our own members who will need information quickly when an issue surfaces in the campaign. We will want to work with you to determine the best methods for quick response to issues using this resource once it is available.

7. We continue to respond to media inquiries here. I am grateful to many of you who have alerted us to articles and stories that have appeared in your own settings. I am also grateful for the excellentarticles you have authored for your pastors and congregations. It has been impressive and inspiring!

I think this is as full a picture as I can give you at this time. Let me know if you have questions and please share Steve's letter as widely as possible.

John

He just doesn't get it.

NY Times ad to run Wednesday, USA Today is next

2008-04-01T19:29:00.006-04:00

According to an email from the national office late today, enough money has been raised by the United Church of Christ to run a full page ad on Wednesday in the New York Times and a follow-up ad in USA Today. from the email:

As of noon today, we had exceeded our goal of $120,000, and the donations are still pouring in, because people understand the need for a proactive message about the United Church of Christ.

In fact, the support has been so widespread and positive that we're now asking that we continue the momentum and place a second complimentary ad in USA Today. The next ad - in coming days - would specifically invite the entire nation to join our UCC churches in a sacred conversation on the issue of race.

On Thursday, I will be traveling to Trinity UCC. There, at a press conference scheduled on the 40th anniversary of Martin Luther King's last sermon, I will join the Rev. Otis Moss III, pastor of Trinity UCC, and the Rev. Michael Kinnamon, general secretary of the National Council of Churches.

Together, we will call upon UCC pastors and our ecumenical colleagues to devote May 18 - which liturgically falls on Trinity Sunday - to preach on the important subject of race in the United States. Our hope is that May 18 will become a significant step toward honest dialogue, education and conversation.

All of this would be great if we would first have an honest conversation within our denomination about how our own ministers treat race. Calling for a national discussion on race sure beats having a discussion within our denomination.

Italian group demands prophetic apology from Wright

2008-04-01T17:17:00.001-04:00

And now this response to the prophetic Rev. Wright:

“We write on behalf of the 103 year old Order Sons of Italy in America (OSIA) and our 550,000 family members throughout the nation, and our anti-defamation arm, the Commission for Social Justice (CSJ), to strongly and unequivocally reject and condemn recently reported remarks made by the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. According to MSNBC and other published and internet sources, Rev. Wright in 2007 stated: “[Jesus’] enemies had their opinion about Him . . . . The Italians for the most part looked down their garlic noses at the Galileans.” He then called Jesus’ crucifixion “a public lynching Italian style” executed in “Apartheid Rome”.

And just in case you thought they had a political axe to grind:

OSIA’s and the CSJ’s purpose here is not political. We desire no involvement in the current presidential campaign, nor do we wish to become embroiled in a political maelstrom. Still, one of the three candidates will, in all probability, become the next leader of the free world and the next president, thus representing all of the US’s 300 million-plus citizens, 26 million of whom are of Italian heritage. We believe that Senators Clinton, McCain and Obama must unequivocally condemn the words and sentiments voiced by Rev. Wright, and clearly disavow his actions.”

Hey... I don't know what they are getting so worked up about, after all Jeremiah Wright is speaking prophetically... just ask Walter Brueggemann:

The current spasm of "righteous indignation" concerning Jeremiah Wright, Sen. Barack Obama's pastor, smacks of embarrassing ignorance. Such a critique of Wright is ignorant of black preaching rhetoric and the practice of liberation interpretation. It is also disturbingly ignorant of the prophetic traditions of the Bible that regularly expose the failures of society in savage rhetoric. I am grateful for the ministry of Wright, a colleague of mine in the United Church of Christ, who for a very long time has been a faithful pastor and a daring prophetic figure. It is odd when right-wingers misconstrue this belated Jeremiah as they do the original Jeremiah, who knew about God's passion for truth-telling in risky places.

Really Walter, who is embarrassed now?

While I deeply respect Brueggemann, I'm throwing him under the bus on this one. You can line up a thousand PhD's and I'll never understand how they can claim that racial slurs and lying about the development of the AIDS virus is prophetic. This isn't a "right wing" thing, it's common sense.

Jeffrey Lord: Why isn't Thomas going on TV?

2008-04-01T03:35:00.007-04:00

Jeffrey Lord, former Reagan White House political director and fellow UCC'er, is a fan of UCCtruths... and asks the same question I've been asking... from American Spectator:

Critic James Hutchins, the bane of Thomas's existence over at UCC Truths, has already raised the obvious point about the impending ad. Instead of resorting to the safety of a static ad in the pages of the New York Times, why isn't Thomas investigating a chance to make his case for the UCC and defend his friend Wright on a Fox show like The O'Reilly Factor? After all, he's the one who had a campaign to get himself on TV talk shows. To which I would add, why not make the rounds of Hannity and Colmes or any conservative radio talk show that would book Thomas? One suspects the reason, of course, is that Thomas has the same thought William F. Buckley once attributed to a liberal who refused his entreaties to appear on Buckley's Firing Line television show: "Why does baloney reject the grinder?"

The reason seems obvious to me: a $120,000 newspaper ad affords Thomas the luxury of not having to respond to criticism or serious questions. For a national office that bellyached not long ago about not being invited on the Sunday morning talk shows, you would think this would be the ideal time to tell the story about what the UCC is all about... and it would be much cheaper than the New York Times ad.

NY Times UCC Ad is publicized

2008-03-31T16:19:00.006-04:00

I'm not so sure about this. Strictly looking at the content, it's fine and accurate... and there's much to be proud of here... but it's not really addressing the issues that concerns people inside and outside the UCC, namely the Jeremiah Wright issue and the IRS investigation.

Here is the text of the ad (see the pdf here):

Much has been said about the United Church of Christ in recent weeks, much of it hurtful for many in our country, including members of Trinity UCC in Chicago. That is why we are eager to share the broad and diverse story of the United Church of Christ, one that we celebrate.

With all Christians, we rest in God’s amazing grace and hear God’s voice in the words of Scripture. Yet, the UCC is unique to some because we do not require uniformity of belief. We are a church of open ideas, extravagant welcome and evangelical courage. Our passion for democracy extends to both government and church, where decision-making rests within each congregation. We support liberty in our pulpits, just as we affirm the individual conscience of our 1.2-million members to agree, disagree and wrestle with life’s biggest questions in a spirit of love.

Our story is this nation’s story. We are the people of the Mayflower. More than 600 of our 5,700 congregations were formed before 1776. Eleven signers of the Declaration of Independence were members of UCC predecessor bodies. As early abolitionists, we came to the aid of the Amistad captives and founded hundreds of schools across the South after the Civil War. We were the first mainline church to ordain an African-American (1785), a woman (1853) and an openly gay pastor (1972). We were also the first to form a foreign mission society (1810). Our multi-ethnic membership includes persons from every immigrant group, as well as native peoples and descendants of freed slaves.

Our unity is not dependent upon uniform agreement, but in our shared allegiance to Jesus.

According to email this afternoon, the national office has raised $82,597 and needs another $37,500 to get the ad run. I'm really trying to be objective here but I just don't see this as money well spent. It wasn't the newspapers that set up the perception of the UCC in the mass media - it was the television media and, all joking aside, I think Thomas needs to get off his butt and start making some national television appearances while the issue is still hot. By itself, this ad will do next to nothing to change the eroding perception of the UCC.