del.icio.us
E-mail this
Facebook
The Institute on Religion and Democracy says it's only trying to help:
"The IRD has found it necessary to be a prophetic voice in the churches. We propose a turning back to the Gospel of Christ crucified. In the words of theologian and IRD board member Thomas Oden, we 'are not presuming to create new doctrine but hold firmly to apostolic teaching in ways especially pertinent to current circumstances. The theology is orthodox, reliable, stable, beautiful, familiar, and glorious' . . .
"We help church members work for renewal within their denominations - giving them the facts, helping them to network with like-minded members, and teaching them how to work effectively within their denominational systems. The IRD drafts resolutions for church assemblies and sponsors educational events seeking to mobilize grassroots support for church reform. We do this through our denominational programs: UMAction, Presbyterian Action, and Episcopal Action. . . .
"Marriage between a man and a woman is God's plan for the human family."
Talk to Action's John Dorhauer says IRD is helping like a wolf helps a shepherd:
"On the website of the Institute on Religion and Democracy, in their very own mission statement, they talk about training activists. [I don't find that precise word--HH] It is the role of these activists to show up in churches and dismantle them. Trained by others in the art of dissent, they are clever manipulators of thought and action who know the things that make for unrest. Sent from another place with a particular mission, they first appear as eager new members who are gladly received into the life of their new target. They are wolves in sheep's clothing. . . .
"Once on boards, they . . . try out motions intended to curtail the liberality of thought . . . . For example, a known infiltrator at one of our area churches--Vice Chair of the church's council after only two years in the church--brought a motion to the council limiting what a Sunday School teacher could talk about in an adult Bible Study. . . .
"It should also become the standard practice of every church that they do a new-members class before taking in new members. If folk are going to join a particular church and denomination, they should . . . . know that there will always be an atmosphere of open and mutual respect. And no one should be asked to join the church unless and until they can demonstrate their appreciation for and comfort with this openness."
and otherwise. Recently updated blogs are in bold text.
You have lost me here. If the IRD truly believes in their version of orthodoxy, and the churches they are ministering to do not, isn't this just a good bit of intramurals?
As the IRD is claiming to be orthodox, and working for orthodoxy, I would say they are advertising themselves quite properly rather than as a "wolf in sheeps clothing".
Am I missing something here?
Perhaps the Talk To Action people can use the internet to find out more information about the IRD.
I am sensing that the Talk To Action people are against any discussion of orthodoxy, hence are claiming that there is something unethical about having the discussion, showing all the charm and grace of Joe Stalin.
JBP
I do not see any false pretenses in the IRD action, nor do I see anything "liberal" about squashing discussion in the name of authoritarianism.
It certainly reads to me that the heterodox authoritarians in the churches hierarchies are threatened by dissent, and would like to squash it.
Myself, I would rather have a truly liberal church, with a strong central orthodoxy, and freedom to use good judgement for individual circumstances.
JBP
Have you ever run across a ready pool of people like this? People willing to be "trained by others in the art of dissent," who "are clever manipulators of thought and action who know the things that make for unrest." People who are "sent from another place with a particular mission" that is nasty to the core?
Come now! The whole thing sounds preposterous to me. I wonder what Dorhauer is thinking? You know, a guy can CLAIM anything. Why should I believe Dorhauer? Looking at his vast conspiracy theory, I sure would be dubious.