 |
|
| Yahoo Group - Discernment |
|
July 10, 2004 Dear friends, Over the past few years, I have warily watched, as have many of you, the growing groundswell of conservatism rising within the ABC/USA. These have been uneasy times, for the brushfires of conservative action which have arisen across the denomination have often brought the suppression of soul freedom, religious liberty, and local church autonomy along with them. Many of us have weathered these storms by believing that, in the long run, enough people who value authentic Baptist principles would stand and resist the onslaught, that a diversity of theology and ideology truly could and would exist within the ABC. As I view the state of affairs within the ABC now, I believe that such thinking is naïve and dangerous. I am of the firm opinion that a plan and structure is in place to engineer a conservative takeover of the heart and soul, even the entire body, of the ABC. The intent of this action is to silence the prophetic voice of the church and to remove those dissenters from participation in the life of the denomination. This plan is well-orchestrated, well-funded, and so solidly in motion already that cessation of such action may not even be possible. In the next pages, I will outline how I believe this plan is in motion and why I believe such a plan even exists. I. THE TAKEOVER STRUCTURE In the past several years, a number of significant structural changes have been enacted within the ABC/USA to permit the possibility of denominational control by a powerful interest group. As a member of the General Board(GB), I have participated in many of these decisions myself. Taken alone, each one seems rather innocuous; together, they constitute a formidable and threatening obstacle. I have broken these changes into three major areas as follows: 1) centralization of power -- Prior to this June’s meeting of the General Board, each GB member had responsibility to serve either on the Board of National Ministries or the Board of International Ministries. Because the number of GB representatives is currently over 100, each program board had a large number of representatives and thus had a wide array of perspectives and opinions represented. However, beginning with this June’s meeting, a new board is in operation. This board is entitled the Mission, Vision and Planning Task Force and has a primary function of “developing mission and vision and performing oversight and evaluation at the denominational level”. Members of this board will not serve on a program board, but will devote their time to set the denominational vision. The membership of this board is TEN PERSONS, all of whom are currently appointed by the ABC President in consultation with the General Secretary. At this time, this board has only two women and is predominantly clergy. This board is also expected to work in close conjunction with another newly formed group, the Staff Leadership Council (SLC). Again, prior to this June’s meeting, each regional Executive Minister served on the Regional Executive Ministers Council. The function of this group was to coordinate the work of the staffs of the General and Regional Boards. Since each region’s Executive Minister had standing with this Council, a diverse array of perspectives was present. Beginning with this June’s meeting, this group was to be replaced with the SLC. Composed of the General Secretary, the Executive Directors of both National and International Ministries, two other denominational staff, and only THREE regional Executive Ministers, the SLC is charged with working with the MVP Task Force to oversee the denominational mission and vision (in addition to some other duties). Not only is this a much smaller group than previously existed, only three regional voices are to be heard in the important work of planning the denominational vision. Note that between the SLC and the MVP Task Force, a net total of approximately 20 people are charged with hammering out the direction the ABC is to go. The rest of the GB members at this juncture seem not to have much input or influence over what this group does. In addition, unbeknownst to much of the denomination, the Ministerial Leadership Commission was disbanded last fall. Responsibilities of the Ministerial Leadership Commission included setting ordination standards, maintaining the Clergy Professional Registry, overseeing programs such as Centers for the Ministry and American Baptist Personnel Services, and providing resources for local church pastors and other professional leaders. Upon the recommendation of a special task force, the GB voted to give oversight of many of these functions to the Office of the General Secretary. This raises the very real possibility that critical issues such as determining denominational ordination standards and performing gatekeeping tasks for the Professional Registry will be decided by a handful of people, all located within the Office of the General Secretary. Concerns about reciprocity, i.e. recognizing ordinations across regional lines, may likely also be decided by the General Secretary. This action removes these functions from a more independent arm of the ABC and gives that authority to a few at the top of the denominational ladder. 2) regional control of denominational financial resources – Many of you know that the ABC has over the past year ratified and phased into existence a new Budget Covenant. The nature of the Budget Covenant is that every ABC body, including each region and each denominational program board, must agree to the terms of the entire covenant for such an agreement to take effect. This has long been a bone of contention among the regions, for some have not wished to support certain portions of the ABC with their regional dollars. Thus, as a result, a new Budget Covenant was implemented which allows each covenanting partner to choose how their money will be distributed. Most partners chose to follow a plan which is very similar to the way which money has been collected and distributed for years, a plan which allows a fairly equitable disbursement of funds across the ABC. However, four regions have chosen what is called “the flex plan”. This strategy allows the regions to support ONLY those pieces of the ABC which they want to support. For instance, if a region disagrees with the philosophy or fiscal structure of National Ministries, the region can decide to withhold ALL of their money from National Ministries. If they want to give all of their funds to one particular piece of the ABC, they are free to do so. As I understand the situation, this plan was developed as a means of compromise with those regions who were unwilling to support the entire ABC equitably and thereby as a tool to help them remain in covenant with the rest of the body. All of those regions have chosen the flex plan. These regions are the ABC of the West, the ABC of the Northwest, the ABC of the Pacific Southwest, and the ABC of Puerto Rico. If one plays out this structure to a possible conclusion, theoretically the flex plan can be used to starve off arms of the ABC which are not in theological or ideological agreement with the regions. If enough regions choose the flex plan and decide to withhold funding together from particular portions of the ABC, there will be no chance for those portions to survive. Furthermore, as a provision of the new Budget Covenant, all regions will be keeping approximately 10% more dollars for themselves than under the previous covenant. Ideally these dollars are to be used to staff each region with a Mission Support person, yet this is not a mandate. Each region now controls more of the total pie and can do with that money as they choose. In addition, the new Budget Covenant gives denominational blessing for regions to hold their own regional fundraisers to benefit the programs and mission of the region, provided that such fundraisers do not interfere with scheduling of previously established denominational appeals, such as the One Great Hour of Sharing Offering. In my view, what has been accomplished by this action is the enabling of denominational takeover. This new covenant has laid out an ideal formula for some pieces of the ABC to be gutted financially or to be held hostage unless practices conform to the desires of those who control large chunks of financial resources. At what price does this covenant come? My former colleague at the First Baptist Church of Granville, the Rev. Dr. George Williamson, Jr., predicted a similar conclusion in these words from the church newsletter nearly a year ago: The new Budget Covenant, with two options, represents a compromise with the conservative, especially the religious-homophobic forces in ABCUSA. Three of our regions have withheld funds from the denomination ever since our church was retained as a cooperating member of the denomination, and our Rochester Genesee region led in accepting the other disfellowshipped churches as remote members, thereby re-including those churches in the denomination. The new Budget Covenant is a compromise with those regions…The likelihood that the new Budget Covenant will further weaken the denomination financially is very high…The small majority that has sided with us in our GLBT stance is paying a fateful price. 3) regional absolute power – Despite our Baptist heritage of local church autonomy, there has been a definite shift of power and control away from the local church to the regions as a whole. The most glaring example of this shift is to be found in the disappearance of the right of a local church to appeal their dismissal from their region. Those of you with knowledge of what occurred during the disfellowshipping of my church in Granville and the four California churches know that this appeal process was the vortex around which the entire process whirled. At that time, a very clear appeal process was outlined in the ABC/USA Standing Rules. Basically, the process allowed a dismissed church to appeal that dismissal to the General Board, wherein both the local church in question and the Region Board were granted leave to prepare written briefs in support of their respective positions. After a period of review and consideration of each perspective, the General Board was empowered to decide if the church dismissal was to be upheld or overturned. Even though the General Board in their June 1999 meeting demonstrated that this process did have flaws, at least the church had a voice and the region had to be accountable for whatever action was taken against a local church. In June 2002, the appeals process was removed from the Standing Rules by the General Board. If a region dismisses a church at the present time, the region must notify the church and a denominational committee. The General Board “shall acknowledge the church’s dismissal as an ABC/USA Cooperating Church” and, according to the Standing Rules, “shall highlight the right of the church to appeal by means of Rule 5.3.3”. The aforementioned rule states that if a church wishes to remain a Cooperating Church, they must make written request to the General Board and will be given 18 months to secure membership in another region. If they fail to secure such membership within the allotted time, they will cease to be recognized as a Cooperating Church of the ABC/USA. When this change to the Standing Rules was approved, I was a neophyte GB member. In fact, this happened during my first meeting as a GB representative. The language of the new rule puzzled me, especially the use of the word “appeal” when no appeal process was apparent within the new rule. As I and another new GB member pursued this topic with denominational staff, seeking clarification of what this meant and where the appeal process went, the primary response was political sidestepping. Finally, after our repeated attempts to figure out what recourse truly was open to a dismissed church, a denominational staff person admitted that the denomination had ceded this ground to the regions, in effect letting the regions govern themselves and hold ultimate control over what churches made up their collective body. The regions do not have to report a reason to the GB as to why churches are dismissed and they are not accountable to anyone or any larger body for their actions. Regions now have the green light to dismiss churches at will for whatever reason they choose and there no longer remains any denominational recourse for the local church except to try to find another region that will take them in. If no other region steps to the plate within 18 months, the church is out. No questions asked, no mention given except a few lines on a sterile report glanced at during the GB meetings and approved without anyone batting an eye. At the time that this system of permitting churches to find new regional homes was created, I believe the idea then was to create a compromise for the five churches dismissed by their regions during the late 90’s. If those churches could stay in the ABC and their clergy could be protected, then a victory of sorts could be had. The problem arose when more churches were disfellowshipped and more new regional homes needed to be found. What I see happening now is regions dismissing churches for matters of theological or ideological disagreement with no accountability needing to be made to anyone. Several regions have added additional criteria to their minimal qualifications for a Cooperating Church, going beyond and becoming more restrictive than what the ABC Standing Rules dictate. These new criteria have allowed more ease for regions to dismiss Welcoming & Affirming churches, for example, and have also created a new class of churches within regions, those which belong to the region but not to the ABC. Churches, then, which have many strong and longstanding ties to the ABC but which are theologically distasteful to the region may be summarily dismissed, while churches which have no affinity for the ABC or an understanding of ABC life may become contributing members of regions and provide substantial resources to their regional boards, resources which the regions may keep under the new Budget Covenant. So, in light of these substantive changes, one possible and very real scenario is that regions will dismiss whatever churches are bothersome or problematic and invite in new churches which more closely match the regional perspective on theological and ideological issues and which can provide considerable resources. The dismissed churches will be forced to find new regional affiliations, which in the current climate of the ABC is no easy task. I think the window of opportunity for such churches is rapidly closing, as regions are reluctant to take on the appearance of becoming a liberal region for taking too many dismissed churches. If those churches do not find a new regional affiliation, the denominational diversity is weakened and some differing viewpoints against the majority are effectively eliminated. At the very least, regions have the capability now to “cleanse” their membership and remove churches which do not fit in some way. I also believe that what will eventually happen is the dismissal of entire regions by other regions. As the regions retain more of their own funds and have license to raise funds for themselves almost as they choose, a region’s ability to become powerful goes hand in hand with their ability to court the perspective in society which wields the most influence. If enough regions gain enough strength and power, the effort to “cleanse” the denomination of diverse regional voices will surely follow. Already the word underground is that an effort will arise this year to have the status of the newly formed Evergreen Region nullified on the basis that they are a “Welcoming & Affirming region”. Based on what happened during the GB vote last year when this region’s status was approved, the success of such an action is certainly possible. If success is found here, other regions will likely be next in line for dismissal on similar grounds. II. THE TAKEOVER RATIONALE One might look at all the shifts taking place in the ABC and surmise that these events are coincidental, that structural changes are indeed happening but that no overarching plan exists which drives the changes. For this very reason, many have been reluctant to put voice to a growing uneasiness about what is occurring. Yet I contend now that evidence exists which does point to a larger plan, one which threatens the diversity of the ABC and which has an eventual goal of ridding the ABC of various “liberal” voices. To the discussion of the origin and perpetuation of this plan I now turn. Within ABC circles, the most clearly organized voice for conservatism belongs to American Baptist Evangelicals (ABE). While recent estimates indicate that ABE has nearly 600 member churches, stated goals for this organization are to reach 1000 member churches. Many of you are familiar with this group already; those who are not can get up to speed by checking out their website. My focus here is not to discuss the goals and strategies of ABE per se, for the umbrella structure is so much greater than ABE alone. According to an article recently posted on their website, ABE belongs to a larger group called the Association of Church Renewal (ACR). The ACR’s purpose statement is as follows: “…to encourage and support renewal and reform leaders from the ‘mainline’ denominations, assisting them in developing their ministries’ witness to orthodox Christianity in both church and society.” To fulfill this purpose, the ACR will focus on concerns and issues such as orthodox faith, holy living, moral relativism, marriage and family, human sexuality, neo-pagan worship, and world mission and evangelism. They also have stated goals of assisting renewal groups (like ABE) in building networks, sharing strategies and resources, and promoting orthodox leadership in mainline denominations. However, this movement does not begin with the ACR. The ACR itself is part of a yet bigger parent organization entitled The Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD). This group’s purpose is to reform the church to renew democracy. The mission statement document of the IRD includes the following: Even today, the triumph of democracy is far from assured. In our own society, cultural trends are sapping the virtues and institutions of “civil society” necessary for democratic life…Perhaps the most serious threat to American democracy comes from the fragmentation of the family, the building block of society. This document goes on to mention that the mainline denominations are led by people who have lost their focus on the Gospel and have turned toward political agendas “mandated neither by Scripture nor by Christian tradition”. In doing so, they “have gone awry and inflicted serious damage upon the church and society”. The IRD exists, then, to right the ship. Through information and organization, the IRD seeks to monitor and critique statements of church leaders and programs of church agencies. Their organizational work is concentrated within Protestant churches and they purport to have committees active within many mainline denominations. The stated goal is not only to build up churches which proclaim biblical and confessional teachings with authority, but also to fortify civil society. To quote, such churches will “offer their own contribution to addressing social problems, rather than demanding that the state act alone”. A recent article published in the New York Times provides further insight into the IRD. In a piece entitled “Conservative Group Amplifies Voice of Protestant Orthodoxy”, authors Laurie Goodstein and David Kirkpatrick argue that the IRD has “helped incubate traditionalist insurrections against the liberal policies of (denominational) leaders”. The IRD and associated allies claim that they are saving mainline denominations from themselves by agitating for a return to Biblical orthodoxy. Diane Knippers, president of IRD, calls for splitting of mainline denominations along the lines of divorce for irreconciliable differences, as long as the liberals are the ones who leave. Primary funding for the IRD is provided by the Scaife family (those who provided the resources in Kenneth Starr’s pursuit of President Clinton), the Bradley and Olin Foundations, and the Ahmanson Fieldstead & Company. Significant members of the advisory board include Roberta Ahmanson of the aforementioned company, Father Richard John Neuhaus, Mary Ellen Bork (wife of Judge Robert Bork), and Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard and Fox News. The article quotes Roberta Ahmanson’s motivation for being part of the IRD stems from the fact that “my husband and I are classical Christians…Christians should stick to the fifth century St. Vincent of Lerin’s orthodox standard of what has been held everywhere in every time by everyone.” I include all of this information to demonstrate that the plan for takeover of the ABC is indeed well-organized, well-funded, and already in motion. I can no longer believe that the seismic shifts occurring within the ABC are random, haphazard, or coincidental. Some people within the ABC with whom I have shared these insights over the past weeks have expressed the desire that perhaps an amicable split is possible, that the conservative/fundamentalist faction and the moderate/liberal faction can hammer out an agreement to dialogue together, split resources if necessary, and sever relationship if inevitable. I contend that this will not happen, for a sharing of resources is not the goal. In the current climate of the ABC, I have not sensed room for a diversity of perspective, a desire for dialogue, or a willingness to share. I believe the larger agenda is to engineer a takeover of the denomination’s resources, name, structures, and assets. True success will be measured by taking over the Sunday pulpit, the internal structures, and the ability to influence the world through foreign missions. The changes we have seen thus far are only the beginning, I fear, for those of us who dare to believe differently and would propose an environment where true diversity is not only possible, but valued. I close the end of this letter with more words from George Williamson, a continuation of the quote begun earlier in this document. The small majority that has sided with us in our GLBT stance is paying a fateful price. The coming months and years will doubtlessly witness major changes of unpredictable sorts. Our role in this denomination, profound of late, needs to be persistent and transforming. For years now, we have seen this as part of our remarkable calling. Thank you for your patience and diligence in digesting these thoughts. As always, I welcome your comments. The
Rev. Heather Rittenhouse A Response By Daniel Pryfogle July 13, 2004 Dear Heather: Thank you for these important reflections. I agree with your main conclusion: conservatives are engineering a takeover. Those plans proceed without restraint as moderates adopt politics of appeasement. This was certainly true in the SBC takeover. But whether moderates fight or appease may be moot. Perhaps what we are seeing is the unraveling of an institution that will unravel one way or another. What is unlike the SBC takeover is the degree to which liberal ABC voices might let go of things out of sheer frustration and exhaustion, or out of newfound delight in ministry beyond the depressing concerns of Valley Forge. I could be wrong about this, but I believe the numbers who continue to fight for the preservation of the historic ABC are quickly dwindling. Here's something that intrigues me: I think the numbers on the conservative side, those folks with energy to attempt a takeover, are dwindling, too. People who are interested in preservation or takeover are institutional loyalists, I suppose, whatever their theological leanings. The conservatives may not have any nostalgia for the “good old days” of American Baptists, but they like the idea of the institution in their control. So they are not anti-institutional. That characteristic puts them in a smaller group. I have wondered aloud recently if these conservatives are the ones not doing so well (by quantitative measures) in their home churches or who would not fare well in bigger ponds. “Successful” conservatives are the mega-church pastors, whose operations become quasi-denominations in themselves. (Willow creek, for instance, has the Willow Creek Association, a network of churches.) So these “successful” leaders, it seems to me, have no interest in denominational politics. They and their churches -- and the growing number of mega-church devotees in small congregations across the U.S – don’t need the denominations. The same can be said of liberal churches. They don’t need the denominations, either -- at least not in the traditional sense of regarding the denomination as expert, resource, and mission manager. For instance, my two home churches, Lakeshore and Pullen, make little or no use of denominational resources, rarely attend denominational events, and are certainly not waiting by the phone for someone from Valley Forge to call. Lakeshore does connect with the American Baptist Seminary of the West, but that's because the school is as much on the margins of denominational life as Lakeshore. Pullen and Lakeshore can’t be faulted for their lack of interest in the ABC. They are not abdicating a prophetic role in Baptist life. In fact, their prophetic role is taking on fresh dimensions as leaders in both churches invest in new institutions and new associations that stand for justice. So the crowd interested in preservation and takeover is small. And Valley Forge’s energy as an institution is consumed with the negotiation and waging of this “little war.” All of this begs the question: Where do we in the welcoming and affirming movement want to invest our energy? You end with a quote from George Williamson: “Our role in this denomination, profound of late, needs to be persistent and transforming.” I’m wondering if our “persistent and transforming” role is ABC-specific. I’m wondering if our role is larger and, at the same time, more local. I’m wondering if something is emerging in North American Baptist life that beckons us to the creative dimension of the prophetic task (“to build and to plant,” Jeremiah calls it), a work that will be salt and light in our world. The Rev. Daniel Pryfogle is interim director of the Association of Welcoming & Affirming Baptists, a minister-at-large for Lakeshore Avenue Baptist Church in Oakland, Calif., and a member of Pullen Memorial Baptist Church in Raleigh, N.C.
A RESPONSE TO HEATHER’S LETTER By Dale EdmondsonAugust 10, 2004I find Heather’s paper provocative and disturbing. I know her to be a member of the General Board committed to the historic vision of American Baptists and, therefore, take her concern seriously. I do not dispute the facts she lists. But do I need to accept the idea about a right-wing conspiracy for a denominational takeover for me to be concerned? The facts themselves seem enough to call for one to demand leadership be accountable. In place of conspiracy, couldn’t an equally plausible scenario be a denomination with a fatally-flawed organizational structure and a leadership fearful and placatory at its core (David Gregg has described it at “impotent at the center”), leaving a situation ripe for ABE-types to exploit? There may be a conspiracy, but I think focusing on that notion (with the accompanying need to define it and see everything through its eyes) can lead to misdirected energy and the creation of a mind-set of suspicion. Daniel has made some observations that are also provocative. My own summary of them: 1. That although the described dismantling of our denominational structure is going on, it may be the inevitable end of a structure whose time has come. 2. That many members and congregations, both liberal and conservative, have increasingly less interest in institutional concerns. 3. That although the fundamentalists may be active in institutional issues, their own number shows signs of diminishing. 4. That new cooperative configurations are taking shape, more concerned with mission than institutional structure. 5. That we must give thoughtful attention to where we should invest our primary time and energy in order to accomplish our ends. Even if Dan’s points prove to be valid, I’m left with some concerns: 1. Isn’t it important to insure that certain historic principles, such as our Baptist freedoms, are made integral to whatever kind of new organizational realities take form? 2. Doesn’t current leadership have moral and fiduciary responsibility toward the people, living and dead, who have given substantial sums over the decades to endowing ventures such as International Ministries and other denominational endeavors with the understanding that they would be carried out based on assumptions that are now under attack? 3. How can our mission concerns best be carried out with regard to the many whose attitudes and spirituality continue to be shaped through the ABC denominational web? 4. Aren’t “justice issues” involved, on the one hand, in highjacking the trust of a host of people (by “ABE-types”) and, on the other hand, in abandoning that trust (by “progressive types”)? If so, do these issues require either active opposition or realistic acceptance from us? The Rev. Dr. Dale Edmondson is the chair of the Communications Committee and a member of the council of the Association of Welcoming & Affirming Baptists. He is the retired pastor of Judson Memorial Baptist Church of Minneapolis, a welcoming and affirming congregation. |