Isn't it amazing how the liberals took over the denominations

"Isn't it amazing how the liberals took over the denominations?" "Yes but now God¹s people are going to take them back."

Overheard in the hall at the Confessing the Faith conference in Indianapolis October 24-26, a gathering of conservative mainline Protestants.

When I told someone about my trip to Indianapolis to report on the conservative Episcopalians, United Methodists, Presbyterians and United Church of Christ members gathered for the Confessing the Faith Conference, he asked, "Do they really think they are working for peace and justice?"

The answer is, "no, not at all." They think they are reclaiming the apostolic faith, renewing the faith of their fathers that has been corrupted by liberal modernism that has produced a world of soft porn TV and urban violence, a world of abortions and "the homosexual agenda."

The most striking thing about the conservatives' gathering is perhaps to contrast it with Claiming the Blessing. It was multi-denominational, it was multi-issue, it was supported by well-funded and relatively mature alternative institutions, from a seminary to a think tank to parachurch organizations to publishing houses. Claiming the Blessing is fairly unique in that it's a coalition of three groups around a single dominant issue, in one denomination.

The takeaway: these people network, find larger common cause, organize and mobilize more effectively than progressives. That's a fundamental truth about the fundamentalists and progressives. You can map it on the internet by doing a Google search on abortion-right to life; 112 sites show up, almost all of which are linked to each other. They know what they are doing.

Do the same search on Abortion-freedom of choice and only 62 sites show up, almost none of which refer to each other. The left exists as isolated islands. That difference in approach, that networked approach, allows the conservatives to grow faster. A year ago that same search found 45 sites on right to life and 35 on freedom of choice.

What I found in Indianapolis was a powerful, networked, dedicated learning community taking a patient, long-term strategic approach to taking back the institutions of the mainline churches. There was absolutely no talk of splitting or leaving the church. They are convinced they are right and are willing to work long and hard to reclaim what they think is theirs.

I learned some big things. First, the threat of a split is a scam. They are not planning to leave; they are not planning to turn their alternative institutions into more than alternatives, other than alternative ordination, which they plan to increase. The two political strategy sessions I attended, one on strategy, the other on grass roots tactics, focused on giving their frustrated faithful reason to hang around and be patient as they try to take over the institutions, on providing success stories and techniques.

When they use the language of splitting or schism, they want to scare their target and ours, the "Moveable Middle". Like a lot of political speech it's not what they say, but the effect of what they say that we should look at. If they raise the fear of a split it could freeze the MMs and keep them from voting for same sex unions.

How do they plan to gain power? With unbelievable patience and through a deep analysis of how power works in the denomination, probing for the vulnerabilities and waiting to strike till they have power. The basic technique outlined in both political sessions - which, incidentally, and as they indicated, not accidentally, were the only two sessions not taped is to eagerly take on low level committee work in the church, in the diocese and at the national church level. You could get tapes on their warlike spirituality sessions, like "prayer our underused weapon," or on ministering to the sexually broken that helps people "overcome homosexuality". But you couldn¹t get tapes on the strategy and tactics they are employing to gain power within the denominations.

Work for years, making your way up the committee hierarchy, from the committee caring for the cathedral grounds to the standing committee. Make common cause on the issues you can with the liberals and progressives, become known and trusted. Don¹t be under cover; tell them you are an evangelical or a conservative because it will change the tenor of the conversation of the committee and its agenda. Wait a decade or more, and then, as one United Methodist speaker said, when you have enough power on enough boards, enough votes to call in and enough people who¹ve built relationships with board members, strike on a key strategic issue like the presidency of a seminary. They call the seminaries the wellspring, grabbing it and grabbing Sunday school were key objectives.

Second lesson: they are everywhere. Jim Simons, rector of St. Michael's in the Valley in the diocese of Pittsburgh, has risen up to be on two significant national bodies, the 12 person council of advisors of the president of the House of Deputies, which meets three to four times a year with the presiding bishop and the president in attendance, and the committee that schedules every piece of legislation, resolution or any other calendar item at General Convention. "As someone serving on a parachurch organization, (the American Anglican Congress) it's nice to have the inside track; I can say this because this session is not being taped," Simons told his session. I tried to slink a little lower in my chair and not be noticed. Never really been a spy before; don¹t really like the feel.

Simons went on to say that they had a conservative on every committee or interim body of the national church and that he¹d gotten an email the previous day from our very own Louie Crew suggesting running the "very conservative" Herb McMullan for executive council. That email was a victory for their patient strategy of working their way up the denominational volunteer hierarchy, building relationships, Simons said.

"Do what it takes to work your way into the system; do the stuff no one wants to do, be diligent and pay your dues," he told them.

Lesson three: find the weak and vulnerable points in the system. Simons ran and almost won a spot on executive council last convention, but has since discovered that the provinces occasionally get an automatic spot that no one contests. He¹ll try that next time.

Church property is another key point for all the conservatives. They are doing research and coming up with a plan to somehow encumber property that they think will prohibit the next Jane Holmes Dixon, from exercising her power over a church building. They are looking for "creative ways to retain property and create disincentives to people like the former Bishop of Washington from taking it over."

This is one of the most consistent themes in their approach, a war college like dissecting of the ways in which they lost and finding the weak points in the opposition that could enable them to win next time around. Probably the most interesting one of those techniques is the lesson they learned from progressives' use of the AIDS Quilt, which I will talk about a little bit later. These are smart resistance techniques. I was reminded of the Bosnians who figured out that the American stealth bomber was great at hiding from radar but was not set up to block out cell phone signals, so they placed people on the hillsides saying to each other, in Bosnian, "can you hear me now?" till their gunners literally got a picture of the stealth bomber and shot it down.

The more I was around them, the more I admired their ingenuity and persistence while at the same time I got more and more scared at what they relentlessly want to accomplish. It was kind of like getting to watch the Nazi's try out the techniques of blitzkrieg in the Spanish Civil War before they unleashed them on the rest of Europe; amazingly inventive yet frightening and deadly in their effect.

Similarly, they are researching elements of the agreements the Episcopal Church has with the global Anglican Communion for loopholes. Rev. David Anderson, an Episcopal priest who¹s one of the leaders of the American Anglican Conference, a group by the way, which says it will have 1,000 trained delegates at the next general convention, says they are looking to "create a constitutional crisis by studying canon law carefully to ascertain the loopholes that tie the national church leadership in knots. There will come a point where conservatives can get away with a lot because the cost of coming down on us is too high. It's like fishing with a light test line; you have to know when to reel it in and when to let it out."

Interestingly, the tactic they are talking about is exactly the kind Jack Duval, director of the International Center of Nonviolent Conflict talks about that the smartest non-violent anti-war activists are using; "driving up the costs of maintaining control." They use the same tactic in letter writing, bragging about writing a single letter that will send the progressives into a fit and make the denominational bureaucracy have 10 committee meetings. For them that's a win.

Diverting focus from issues important to progressives is also important. The issue of Sudanese and Pakistani Christian human rights is an explicit diversion (the institutes for Religion and Democracy, the conservative think tank, sponsors the Alliance for a New Sudan). For a picture of George Bush smiling with them after he signed a new policy against genocide in Sudan see their site http://www.ird-renew.org/.

Sudan serves two purposes, they said at the conference: 1) it diverts attention away from Palestine and Israel; having committees focus there and not on the west bank is an explicit tactic; and 2) they also say being out front on issues like this allows them to make common cause with progressives on a human rights issue. Building relationships through issues like that is, they revealed in strategy sessions, a key to their plan to gain control of the denomination by working their way up the committee hierarchy.

Intriguingly, they said putting progressives into internally conflicted positions, where we don¹t know which side any particular conservative is on is something they are intentionally aiming for. If you don¹t know how to evaluate them as individuals or their stance because they champion some justice issues while they are dead set against others such as sexuality or avoiding pointing the finger at Israel, they have succeeded.

If you are confused, they said in Indianapolis, and your resistance is lowered, then they have accomplished their aims.

The conservative United Methodists used a variant of the "cross up the progressives through what they believe" tactic on gay issues. First, they embedded the issue of "homosexual conversion" in other conversion issues, with attractively laid out testimonials by a former KKK leader from Mississippi now working for racial reconciliation, a woman who aborted her child who now devotes her life to working with at risk neonates, and then plopping in a ³converted² lesbian or gay man.

At the United Methodist General Conference those tactics allowed them to get a resolution passed outlawing discrimination against "converted gays" as a potentially persecuted minority. "We get the liberals conflicted," they said. "They have a strong belief in inclusion of any group and they have a belief about sexuality. Inclusion wins." And they have gained ground in their battle to make being LGBT into a "sinful choice" rather than a natural expression of gender preference.

They also try as much as possible to get a woman or a person of color as their spokesperson because they know it¹s harder for progressives to challenge them. "They can say things a lot stronger than a bald headed white male can," they said, "and fighting with them shames North American Christians." They also use young people in the same way.

Fourth lesson: these testimonials are part of a larger strategy that they learned from progressives when the AIDS Quilt was presented at General Convention. Remember, every time they lose they pour over the loss and try to reverse engineer it. Their lesson: Non-legislative events often shape the debate and are more powerful than the debates or explicit lobbying.

With a lip curled deeply in disgust the Rev. John Guernsey, rector of All Saints in Woodbridge VA, recalled seeing the quilt and the impression it made. "They laid it out, and it was huge, and we knew what it was about but who could be against these dead people? And they shaped the debate on sexuality at that convention."

They are also doing all they can to tag progressives with wedge issues; issues that move the middle because they are extreme or can be depicted that way. If a particular progressive makes an outlandish statement, they circulate it, suggest it as sermon fodder and mobilize against it. They said they are figuring out how to use the scandal in the Catholic Church over priestly abuse against gays, but didn¹t have any campaigns on that ready yet.

Meanwhile, they have learned to manage their image to the point that they are fairly successful at not being tagged by progressives with similar, inflammatory, mobilize-the-faithful or move-the-middle wedge issues.

Though they are classic fundamentalists, in that they are militant, separatist and literal where possible, they have become adroit at presenting what they called a "winsome witness;" a soft and friendly face to the public when they are fighting tooth and nail on an issue. They have volunteer chaplains designated to counsel and pray with their floor battlers when they sense them becoming irritated, frustrated and combative, calm them down and get them smiling and seeming unperturbed.

But unlike the fundamentalists of 20 years ago, they are aware of managing how they are perceived and have become subtle at not presenting a single issue as a target. For example, a Presbyterian group called "One by One," campaigns on sexual issues. They have brochures against sexual abuse, domestic abuse, and pedophilia. But if you want to join, the only real issue on the membership brochure is "conversion of homosexuals."

The point is, they line up two or three things you can¹t disagree with, and that you would even make common cause with. Then they take action on the single issue that's really at the heart of their agenda. But you haven't been able to target them on that single issue because they immerse it in issues you agree with. Obscuring their real purpose, surrounding it with stories that cause even people in this room to agree with them has become a key technique.

"What sells now is Oprah spirituality; people telling their stories. The liberals can't disagree with them and they ignore them because they are not strictly on the legislative agenda they are pursuing, but using them enables us to shape the debate," said one of their leaders.

I don¹t know what will happen with the issue of same sex blessings at general convention. But I do know that if progressives use only straightforward, linear focused legislative techniques to win the day for justice, we could lose without really knowing what happened to us. The real battle the conservatives are fighting is behind the scenes in the arcana of canon and property law and Anglican Communion covenants, on committees where they build relationships and in soft focused testimonials and multi-pronged efforts that make it hard to pick out the target.

They have taken the lesson of the AIDS quilt to focus on emotional events outside the legislative hall that shape the debate. From what I've seen, they are playing a deeply sophisticated and subtle game and playing it in a relentless and patient style, determined to take the time it takes to win.

So the fact is that no American has a right to marriage, they must seek permission from the state.

No American has a right to have their marriage recognized by the state. For instance if you are homosexual there is nothing stopping you from getting "married". But for purposes of determining rights and obligations in regard to property and child custody and taxes, the state has the right to define what is or is not a "valid" marriage. Every state has laws prohibiting polygamy and incest and many states have instituted laws prohibiting marriage between members of the same sex (it was more or less presumed for the last 10,000 years). But the courts have been undermining the right of the people to define marriage and have usurped the power to redefine what is a valid marriage, which is the perogative of the legislatures.

Now that the threat exists that the courts are going to find some constitutional right to make the states recognize illegal marriages or invalid marriages and then force that right on other states, it appears that the only way to prevent such a travesty is a constitutional amendment.

The Constitution was designed to be amended for just such a purpose. Polygamy and Homosexuality should not be "official sanctioned". They are unhealthy lifestyles that are both physically and emotionally harmful and put unnatural burdens on children that should not be encouraged or ratified by the government.

It appears what the article objects to isn't so much just that we're taking back our denominations, but the fact that we refuse to live in little ghettos ruled over by the sort of cultural 'elites' (using both terms loosely) typified by john f. kerry and the like. To the extent that what kerberos is seeing is the fact that our social (and political)activism extends outside the limits of the sorts of social ghettos the remnants of European Christianity have been forced to accept - he/she/it/ is entirely correct...what he/she/it needs to get past is the fact, unlike Europe, here in the USA we are a vital and growing force in our society. Oh well, I guess you have to live here to understand it, eh?

I am advocating is the threat to individual freedoms, and the possible development of a theocratic type political structure within our country, which has always resulted in oppression of the people, posed by the religious right. And of their infiltration and hijacking of the Republic Party which poses a threat to the political process..

You must evaluate my statements based on evidence as being true or false.

Alright. So where is your evidence?

Fact #1: There has never been a (Federal) theocratic political structure in this country, nor any threat of one. There is, however, a strong atheistic political structure which has been usurping our freedom for decades.

Fact #2: The expansion of political franchise and “human rights” has come only after the work (and blood) of those Christians (and other religious people) whom you feel so free to disparage. Abolitionists were primarily Christian; the women's suffrage movement was supported by Christians; and the civil rights' movement couldn't have happened without the support of churches.

Fact #3: No increase in the powers of the Federal government can be attributed to (Christian) religious influence. The obverse is unfortunately the norm: atheistic restrictions on speech, imposition of draconian laws specifically against Christian organizations, and illegal (ir)religious tests for Federal appointments.

I know of no prominent individual Christian or Christian organization that advocates civil law based solely on faith. Yet, they do want laws that allow them to practice their faith. At times, that means they will work for, or against, particular legislation.

However, correlation does not equal causality. You cannot outlaw everything that happens to coincide with any religion, nor can you prohibit public discourse or action because a particular subject may include elements of both civil and spiritual relevance.

The question has never really been whether we will have morality imposed on us; it is whose morality. Unfortunately, that answer isn’t being decided by the people, is it?

"It seems that not only has Kerberos missed the point entirely, so has everyone else, including my elect brothers."

No I did not miss the point that the article is about how fundamentalist are reclaiming power within their churches. And you are correct the discussion quickly got away from that as a topic.

However, as one who has studied the rise of fundamentalism in America for some time now it is a given that the end result is directed towards the acquisition of political power, and the implementation of the America as a Christian nation myth, as a legal reality.

If it were just about redefining their churches as a redefinition of their personal theistic beliefs, this article would have not gotten a second glace from me. After all we do have freedom of religion in this country. For the time being anyway.

Fact #1: There has never been a (Federal) theocratic political structure in this country, nor any threat of one.

You are correct there has never been such a structure as men of reason have seen that there has not been one since the founding of our country.

“There is, however, a strong atheistic political structure which has been usurping our freedom for decades.”

And where is this strong atheistic political structure.

“Abolitionists were primarily Christian”

As were slaveholders, however the abolitionists have a very short history compared to the slaveholders.

“the women's suffrage movement was supported by Christians;”

Socialist Christians who also brought about the insane debacle known as prohibition, which they have now reincarnated in the current day war on drugs. A plan I might add that didn’t work for prohibition and doesn’t work for drugs. However both were very successful in increasing the size and power of the federal government.

“and the civil rights' movement couldn't have happened without the support of churches.”

Predominantly black churches. Southern Christians were more than willing to kill to thwart the civil rights movement, which is why Johnson had to call out the National Guard

“No increase in the powers of the Federal government can be attributed to (Christian) religious influence.”

Already refuted above.

“The obverse is unfortunately the norm: atheistic restrictions on speech, imposition of draconian laws specifically against Christian organizations, and illegal (ir)religious tests for Federal appointments.”

And which laws are you talking about. Certainly you aren’t talking about the laws we have, which uphold the Constitution, preventing Christians from forcing others to practice their religion in public schools and on taxpayer owned property. Were there some laws passed that prohibited Christians from attending a church of their choice or from practicing their faith in their daily lives that I missed.

“I know of no prominent individual Christian or Christian organization that advocates civil law based solely on faith.”

Nor do I, they advocate civil law based on biblical law, a system that is currently in place by many Muslim country in the world. (Of course based on Islamic law)

“The question has never really been whether we will have morality imposed on us; it is whose morality.”

Am I to gather from this response that you have decided that someone or something will dictate to you your own personal morality and that you have no say in the matter. That’s too bad, however I am not willing to accept that.

No I did not miss the point that the article is about how fundamentalist are reclaiming power within their churches. And you are correct the discussion quickly got away from that as a topic.

You own first comment was about "what they have in store for us". The discussion was never about the main topic.

However, as one who has studied the rise of fundamentalism in America for some time now it is a given that the end result is directed towards the acquisition of political power, and the implementation of the America as a Christian nation myth, as a legal reality.

I get the impression that if I told you I just bought a car you'd think it was a step toward sinister theocracy.

After all we do have freedom of religion in this country. For the time being anyway.

You meant this, I don't doubt, as a warning about what we're up to. But it sure sounds like a threat.

The Christian right has no understand or interest in individulism and freedom which is what America was orginally about.

Actually that statement shows an igorance of the dominant world view at the time of the framers and a lack of understanding of orthodix Christian theology.

First, let's start with the Declaration of Indepencence. Recall the source of human rights posited by the Framers? Individual rights are not granted by the state but are inalienable rights endowed by our Creator. This view follows directly from the dominant biblical view at the time of man as an image bearer, created by God to glorify God.

Next, let's look at the anti-establishment clause of the Constitution. At the time of the framing of the Constitution, several states had state churches. As I recall, the state church in Virginia was Presbyterian; the state church in Massachusetts was Congregational. The purpose of the anti-establishment clause was not to exclude religion from public life, but rather to avoid a national church.

I would also point out that public education was started in the colonies to train people in the Scriptures. I suggest you look up "the olde deluder law".

In short, the dominant view in the US has been that the individual was responsible to seek out religous truth for themselves and to worship God as their concience dictated. The result was true individual freedom and responsibility, not a license for libertine behavior.

Indeed, what you call "the religious right" is, for the most part, the philosophical and theological heir of the founders of this nation.

So you admit that your first point was totally without merit. I appreciate your honesty.

As to the strong atheistic structure; I can see why you would refuse to answer. Let's start with a socialist, activist judiciary that imposes its godless beliefs on an unwilling public. Then let's add the ACLU, the American Bar Association and the myriad of Alphabet Agencies that operate completely outside of Constitutional review.

Oh my, not PROHIBITION! That straw man hasn't existed in our lifetimes. And as to its progeny, the infamous WOD, you might be surprised to find how many Christians oppose government's handling of the mess.

As to your crass and senseless response to abolition:

…abolitionists have a very short history compared to the slaveholders

Unfortunately, you are correct. Christians spent much of their history as slaves before they began work on abolition for others. I would suggest you read Philemon where Paul pleads for a slave to be accepted back into a household as a brother. Christian doctrine preached equality long before it became fashionable…

Predominantly black churches. Southern Christians were more than willing to kill to thwart the civil rights movement, which is why Johnson had to call out the National Guard

Your selective ignorance of Christianity is apparently only matched by your ignorance of history. Where does Christ preach racism? Which commandment would that fulfill? Which denomination was that calling for the killing of civil rights’ workers? Which Christian church did Johnson’s National Guard attack?

Certainly you aren’t talking about the laws we have, which uphold the Constitution, preventing Christians from forcing others to practice their religion in public schools and on taxpayer owned property. Were there some laws passed that prohibited Christians from attending a church of their choice or from practicing their faith in their daily lives that I missed.

I don’t support public education at all. I support limited government and the separation of GOVERNMENT from religion (that little First Amendment thing). When homosexual marriage becomes law, it will shortly become impossible to read Scripture or to counsel someone from a Biblical perspective. This has already occurred in other countries thanks to your socialist, atheistic brethren. I support a Federal government that performs only within the limits of its Constitutionally expressed powers.

… they advocate civil law based on biblical law, a system that is currently in place by many Muslim country in the world. (Of course based on Islamic law)

You are an outright liar. Show me one major Christian organization that supports a theocratic state. There is not one single such organization on this continent. Your complete dishonesty is abhorrent to reason…

Am I to gather from this response that you have decided that someone or something will dictate to you your own personal morality

No, you can understand that I will not let law be incongruent with morality. You argue for a law divorced from morality. That is impossible, except you have immoral laws.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.