~~~~

"Biblical scholars note that it was the role of the prophets to bear witness to painful truths. Often they counseled that walls of false security and comfort must be torn down in order for true healing and restoration to take place in the community. It was Jeremiah's unique and difficult call to speak these unspeakable truths in counsel with the king".

-Ripped off from the UCC's OurFaithOurVote.org site because we think it sums up UCCtruths.com pretty well.

~~~~~

Charity Navigator is America's premier independent charity evaluator. They help charitable givers make intelligent giving decisions by providing in-depth, objective ratings and analysis of the financial health of America's largest charities. Use Charity Navigator's simple searchable database to find a charity you can trust and support.

March 9, 2007

The Dorhauer Seminar

By Rev. Dr. Bryan Moore

I have been asked to write a review of John Dorhauer’s presentation for UCCtruths and for BWF. What follows is more of a report than a review. I will save my comments (the few that I will make), for the end.

At the beginning of the meeting I approached John and let him know that I had been asked by UCCtruths and BWF to write a review. He appreciated the upfront approach. (ed. note: I was unaware Rev. Dr. Moore was also writing this review for BWF. There was no coordination between BWF and UCCtruths on this review.)

John is a 1988 graduate of Eden Seminary and is presently an Associate conference Minister for the Missouri Mid South Conference. He is also the author of the book Steeple Jacking, which is an examination of how in his opinion outside entities and influences are hijacking mainline churches. He was asked by the Penn SE Conference staff to come and address the ministers of the Penn SE on this very topic.

John began his presentation with some personal reflections on his experiences with dealing with churches that were in turmoil over Synod resolutions. He shared how the turmoil saddens and tears him apart. He explained that initially he went into these situations assuming the main problem was disagreement with the synod’s resolution but that this was a wrong assumption that lead to unfruitful tactics. He went on to say that they began to notice things that indicated more than just some internal conflicts within a given church. They found things that indicated intentional outside interference which I will share in the following.

John’s main thesis is that the IRD (Institute for Religion and Democracy), is a strong conservative political organization with substantial financial backing. The IRD works primarily through renewal groups in mainline denominations (Methodist, Presbyterian, Episcopal and even the UCC), to disrupt the local church and cause it to be preoccupied with wedges issues. They do this, not to get churches to leave the denomination or to benefit financially but to preoccupy their time and energy so that they are not speaking prophetically and tending to justice issues in society which might upset the plans of certain political interests.

As an example of how the IRD works through renewal groups to get to the churches he spoke of the close connection between the Biblical Witness Fellowship (BWF), its director and the IRD. He made the case for this by explaining that the director of BWF has spoken at events backed by the IRD and is a signatory on IRD promoted documents. He indicated that the BWF may have received funds from the IRD but that they have not found any evidence of that yet. The BWF website answers that charge directly; “BWF receives little or no funding from outside organizations…Well over 99% of all BWF support comes from grassroots UCC members. This stands in contrast to the UCC, which receives only 41% of its support from grassroots members and the remainder from an array of foundations…and sources some of which in fact do represent an extreme ideological interest. BWF, however, has never had any organizational connection to nor has it ever received any financial support from the IRD.” (www.biblicalwitness.org/fact_vs.htm)

As I listened to John it appeared to me that he bases his thesis on at least three things. First, he has observed that in the churches he has had to deal with he has found some kind of matrix document. This matrix document in varies forms comes from some outside source (internet), and it invariably puts the denominational stand on social issues and the Bible in a bad light. These matrixes compare the UCC stand on issues such as sanctity of life, homosexuality, the authority of scripture and the ordination of gays and lesbians etc. to the what the Bible says, the position of the local church, and the stand of the historic Christian church. Seeing this pattern again and again was for John a eureka moment - that the problem in the local church might be due to more than a churches disagreement with a particular Synod resolution. It might be because an outside source is agitating them.

Second, he discovered a letter by Avery Post from the early 1980’s which warned of the influence and agenda of the IRD. It was Post’s opinion that the IRD wants to silence the prophetic voice of the mainline churches. In that letter he urged the leadership of the UCC to prepare its churches to deal with this threat. The letter was a response to a Readers Digest article which was a follow up to a TV advertisement run by the IRD which said our church offerings might possible be going to support communist in South America through the National Council of Churches.

The third aha moment for John was after April of 2005 when the UCC started to run its national ad campaign, God is Still Speaking. There were many phone calls received from many different parts of the country which voiced an identical complaint. Speaking of the ad campaign they said in so many words “You are not fooling us, you are trying to stuff the gay, lesbian, and transgender agenda down our throats.” That for John was an indicator that there was a some kind of coordinated outside effort to cause foment within the local church.

John went on to compare the tactics of the IRD and some of those involved in renewal groups to the methods used by Neo Nazi groups to recruit extremist like Timothy McVea. How they look for some poor disenfranchised young males who they can manipulate and mold and who will do their bidding. He went on to say how the same principle applies to outside sources who seek to find a disgruntled church member and encourages them to get involved in a local UCC church to ferment division over wedge issues, stop giving to OCWM or make resolutions to leave the UCC.

To document his opinion he cited a situation in St Louis involving two churches “Parkway UCC” and “Redeemer UCC” and two perpetrators, Mark Freed and George Dome. I did not understand the discussion at that point because I am not familiar with the situation. Perhaps someone with more knowledge of it can fill in the blanks.

John also drew a commonality between the IRD and the KKK. He did this by sharing that the KKK reprinted some piece of literature written by someone associated with the IRD. I am not sure why he shared this – it seems quite ad-homonym to me.

John concluded his presentation by talking about reactive and pro-active strategies to deal with this IRD conspiracy. Reactive strategy involves what to do when a church has already been affected by an outside source and is ready to leave. If that is the case let them go, it is no use to try and get them to stay. But if it is a vocal minority and not the majority the best strategy is to identify allies in the local church and sit down with them and ask them if there are other folks who want to defend the heritage of the UCC. Then help them realize that they are dealing with a takeover from outside the church. John went on to explain that we coach them on strategies like publicly naming the individuals who are fomenting the dissent, and describing the tactics that they are using.

John further explained that what he discovered is that the tactics used by these vocal minorities resemble domestic abuse or bullying – he said we encourage those being abused to name the abuse. Just as naming the abuse in domestic violence situations can transform the situation so it can have the same effect in church takeover situations. In some cases naming the abusers is appropriate as well.

John went on to talk about proactive strategies – or immunizing our churches with an unapologetic apologetic of what we stand for – and why we are a part of this church. So that when BWF or vocal minorities or outside sources push wedge issues into a local church to disrupt its life, they will be prepared to stand up for themselves and prove that BWF etc. statements are not true.

We ended our time together with open discussion. Several folks spoke in support of Mr Dorhauer’s suppositions. John Brown and I raised concerns about the veracity of John’s thesis and how most churches that have had difficulty with the decisions of Synod did not need any outside source to foment turmoil.

Rev. Dr. Bryan Moore comments

John and I know each other a little bit and though we are at opposite ends of the spectrum theologically we enjoy each other and, would in another world, be fast friends. Having said that I must also say that I find his position factually challenged. He, in my opinion makes some giant leaps of faiths in interpreting the meaning of events and what or who is behind them. In all fairness I must add that I believe that John is earnest about his thesis though I believe wrong about his conclusions.

John’s thesis that the IRD is manipulating renewal groups solely for political purposes is based on his interpretation of why the churches he has had to deal with had these matrixes which put the UCC in a bad light, Avery Post’s letter and the common response of those who called after the God is Still Speaking ads and the supposed close connection between the director of BWF and the IRD.

As I listened to his interpretation of the events I kept saying to myself “that quite a leap,” or there are other better and more plausible ways of understanding the same phenomena, etc. For instance, his assertion that the discovery of these matrixes points to some intentional malevolent outside collusion is a giant leap of faith. The evangelical church of most any stripe has used this kind of document to make comparisons of many topics where more than one position is being espoused. That churches and church members who found GS pronouncements upsetting where able to lay there hands on material of this nature does not prove that there is some grand conspiracy – a better and more plausible explanation is that the concerned party did a little research and found a resource that dealt with his or her concerns and used it as an aid to explain their position, etc.

As I mentioned earlier John quoted extensively from a letter by Avery Post. He used Posts comments in a way that I was uncomfortable with and which I believe gave undue credence to Post’s comments. He seemed to take Post’s comments about the IRD and its intent as gospel, as proof of his thesis about the IRD when all that was in the letter where Post’s opinion of the events that lead up to the Readers Digest article. John gave great authority to Post’s words because they backed his thesis and not necessarily because they were true.

As for the commonality of comments received after the God is Still Speaking campaign (“you are trying to push the gay agenda down our throat,” being proof that there was a well organized conspiracy behind them) I would say “hold the phone.” No one contacted me or people in my church and that was the exact sentiment I and many others (who where not contacted by anyone), had. I even contacted Ron Buford (then coordinator for the ‘Still Speaking’ campaign) and told him so in an email.

In conclusion let me say that John and others who hold to this conspiracy theory are in earnest. Many if not all of them believe that this is the best explanation for much of the turmoil in our churches. At the meeting I cautioned against seeing this as the main reason for the ferment within our churches and encouraged all to honestly look at the problem through more than just this lens. Think about it!

Dr. Bryan Moore

_______________