Reacting to the recent General Assembly, the Presbyterian Layman has published a statement by their Board of Directors, titled “A call to arms.”

After listing some of the Assembly actions which they say “violate the faith and life of Biblical Christianity,” they then “urge the sessions of faithful congregations to take the following actions: 

•          Form alliances with like-minded churches in your presbytery. There is strength in numbers. A call to arms is a call to unite. 

•          Restrict all mission and per capita gifts to ministries that are trusted by your congregation, and do not send undesignated money in any form to denominational entities, boards or agencies. 

•          Be prepared to defend the property rights of your congregation against claims of ownership by the PCUSA.”

The full statement >>

Randall Balmer’s 2006 book, Thy Kingdom Come: How the Religious Right Distorts the Faith and Threatens America, offers an interesting view of how the Religious Right only slowly coalesced around opposition to women’s right to choose, over a decade after the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. They constructed an “abortion myth,” he argues, to convince the American people that they had been united in opposing abortion all along. In fact, many evangelicals either ignored the Supreme Court action, or supported it, until the 1980s.

He writes: 

The abortion myth serves as a convenient fiction because it suggests noble and altruistic motives behind the formation of the Religious Right. But it is highly disingenuous and renders absurd the argument of the leaders of Religious Right that, in defending the rights of the unborn, they are the "new abolitionists." The Religious Right arose as a political movement for the purpose, effectively, of defending racial discrimination at Bob Jones University and at other segregated schools. Whereas evangelical abolitionists of the nineteenth century sought freedom for African Americans, the Religious Right of the late twentieth century organized to perpetuate racial discrimination. (Pp. 16-17)

This book is online on Google Books

The Great Evangelical Decline — maybe?
[6-9-08]

On June 6, we posted a brief reflection on recent comments by Christine Wicker, author of The Fall of the Evangelical Nation: The Surprising Crisis Inside the Church, who claims that “Evangelical faith has been dropping since 1900, when 42 percent of the U.S. claimed that distinction. Every year, Religious Right evangelicals, such as those who lead the Southern Baptists, are a smaller proportion of the country.”

We invited comments, and received some suggestive thoughts from the Rev. Michael Ryan Walker, who is serving as the Theologian in Residence at Highland Park Presbyterian Church in Dallas, TX. Formerly the Executive Director of Presbyterians For Renewal, he is currently a Ph.D. Candidate in History of Doctrine at Princeton Theological Seminary.

He writes:

Doug,

I enjoyed your piece reflecting on Wicker's book on the Religious Right. Most of all, I appreciated your open-ended question about whether or not those in the "more progressive religious groups" should consider ways of creative collaboration with evangelicals for the sake of church renewal.

One important thing that might help more progressive folks to think this through would be to think in categories other than those of the so-called "culture war." It is true that the battle lines in the church often reflect the battle lines in the culture, but that ought not be the case, for the church ought to do more than unselfconsciously reflect the patterns of the culture in which we find ourselves. Thankfully, we don't just have to think wishfully about this, because there are a great many "evangelicals" in the PC(USA), including myself, who would recoil at the thought of being labeled as part of the "Religious Right."

Yes, I help lead the effort to maintain church standards that I think are important, including the standards for sexual conduct of ordained church officers. I'm sure some conservatives share my position because they are "conservatives" in the cultural sense -- they may long for a yesteryear that never really existed, or be motivated by fear and a sense of alienation. But I think I have a healthy sense of what's worth fighting for not due to personal anxiety but rather due to careful consideration of the church's witness in the world down through the centuries and continuing through today, including how the church has understood its mission through the lenses of Scripture. For me, Scripture, tradition and life in contemporary community lead me to support some positions within the church that the Religious Right would like to have govern the whole nation.

What distinguishes evangelicals in the PC(USA), on our better days, is our theological center. Those who share evangelical theology are often all across the map when it comes to secular politics. The church has never made our understanding of the role of the secular government, for instance, a dogma to be believed by all, and for good reason. So we can differ on those issues.

Do you think the "more progressive religious groups" are united by a common theology or by a common position in the culture war and secular politics, which bleeds over into their involvement in related matters in the church? I'm sure it's a mixed bag.

In any case, evangelicals in the PC(USA) tend to be motivated by theology, believing that it can't be reduced to politics. One way to consider collaboration with evangelicals might be to think through whether or not we share some theological commitments that would benefit church renewal, commitments that lead to passion for things not defined by the culture war, things that might, at the same time, be central to church renewal.

A couple years ago I attempted to articulate, in brief, what I mean by the term "evangelical." Click here for that post >>

All the best,

Michael
 

If you have thoughts in response to Michael Walker,
or to Christine Wicker,
please send a note,
to be shared here.

The numbers may be accurate

The Great Evangelical Decline — maybe?

On June 6, we posted a brief reflection on recent comments by Christine Wicker, author of The Fall of the Evangelical Nation: The Surprising Crisis Inside the Church, who claims that “Evangelical faith has been dropping since 1900, when 42 percent of the U.S. claimed that distinction. Every year, Religious Right evangelicals, such as those who lead the Southern Baptists, are a smaller proportion of the country.”

We invited comments, and received some suggestive thoughts from Michael Walker, who is serving as the Theologian in Residence at Highland Park Presbyterian Church in Dallas, TX. Formerly the Executive Director of Presbyterians For Renewal, he is currently a Ph.D. Candidate in History of Doctrine at Princeton Theological Seminary.

He writes:

    Doug,

    I enjoyed your piece reflecting on Wicker's book on the Religious Right. Most of all, I appreciated your open-ended question about whether or not those in the "more progressive religious groups" should consider ways of creative collaboration with evangelicals for the sake of church renewal.

    One important thing that might help more progressive folks to think this through would be to think in categories other than those of the so-called "culture war." It is true that the battle lines in the church often reflect the battle lines in the culture, but that ought not be the case, for the church ought to do more than unselfconsciously reflect the patterns of the culture in which we find ourselves. Thankfully, we don't just have to think wishfully about this, because there are a great many "evangelicals" in the PC(USA), including myself, who would recoil at the thought of being labeled as part of the "Religious Right."

    Yes, I help lead the effort to maintain church standards that I think are important, including the standards for sexual conduct of ordained church officers. I'm sure some conservatives share my position because they are "conservatives" in the cultural sense -- they may long for a yesteryear that never really existed, or be motivated by fear and a sense of alienation. But I think I have a healthy sense of what's worth fighting for not due to personal anxiety but rather due to careful consideration of the church's witness in the world down through the centuries and continuing through today, including how the church has understood its mission through the lenses of Scripture. For me, Scripture, tradition and life in contemporary community lead me to support some positions within the church that the Religious Right would like to have govern the whole nation.

    What distinguishes evangelicals in the PC(USA), on our better days, is our theological center. Those who share evangelical theology are often all across the map when it comes to secular politics. The church has never made our understanding of the role of the secular government, for instance, a dogma to be believed by all, and for good reason. So we can differ on those issues.

    Do you think the "more progressive religious groups" are united by a common theology or by a common position in the culture war and secular politics, which bleeds over into their involvement in related matters in the church? I'm sure it's a mixed bag.

    In any case, evangelicals in the PC(USA) tend to be motivated by theology, believing that it can't be reduced to politics. One way to consider collaboration with evangelicals might be to think through whether or not we share some theological commitments that would benefit church renewal, commitments that lead to passion for things not defined by the culture war, things that might, at the same time, be central to church renewal.

    A couple years ago I attempted to articulate, in brief, what I mean by the term "evangelical." Here's that post:

    http://www.michaelryanwalker.com/2005/03/13/evangelical-and-reformed/

    All the best,

    Michael

The numbers may be accurate

A little confirmation of Walker’s claim of “decline” just turned up in the form of a Washington Post report that “the number of people baptized in Southern Baptist churches fell for the third straight year last year to the lowest level in 20 years, and membership in the nation's largest Protestant denomination decreased by close to 40,000 to 16.27 million last year. Leaders of the convention say the numbers could represent a turning point for the organization.” The annual Southern Baptist Convention opens tomorrow in Indianapolis.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/07/AR2008060701821.html

And if there is one, what does it mean?

Here’s a view of the Religious Right you haven’t seen here: 

Evangelical faith has been dropping since 1900, when 42 percent of the U.S. claimed that distinction. Every year, Religious Right evangelicals, such as those who lead the Southern Baptists, are a smaller proportion of the country. Every year, their core values are violated more flagrantly by the media, scientific discovery and mainstream behavior. Every election, politicians promise to serve them and then don't because evangelicals lack the power to make them.

What all this means is that we were duped.

All the hype proclaiming an evangelical resurgence was merely that - hype, a furious shout from a faith losing its grip, manipulation by a relatively small group of dedicated, focused, political power-seekers.

Christine Wicker, formerly religion reporter for the Dallas Morning News, has recently published a book which explores what she sees as the precipitous decline of evangelical churches, especially since the 1950s – a trend which has been ignored as the American people have been convinced they saw growing power on the Religious Right.

A mild word of warning: Her book, The Fall of the Evangelical Nation: The Surprising Crisis Inside the Church, is dismissed by the reviewer for Publishers Weekly as “a tendentious, confused book about the alleged demise of conservative evangelicalism.” I have not seen the book, but she has published a brief version of it on The Huffington Post. And it makes me think.

In this article Wicker points to “just three of the many reasons” for the decline:

First, the Alcoholics Anonymous movement, started by devout Christians, offers a view of repentance and new life that asks people to trust themselves to whatever they understand as God, and to “repent” by asking forgiveness of the people they have hurt. “There was no doctrine, no institution, no demand for monetary support.” So AA opened the way to renewal of life without the absolutisms of the evangelical churches.

Second, in an increasingly pluralistic society, it has become more difficult for evangelicals to draw a sharp line between themselves and the unsaved rest of humanity. It’s hard to make such clear judgments today, she says, when “ ‘the other’ is likely to be your son-in-law or grandchild.”

And third, she blames (or credits) “The Pill. Nothing in history has changed human relations as much as that little white pill.” Our awareness of sexuality and of our humanity in general have been changed profoundly. The evangelical churches have steadfastly insisted on sexual abstinence outside of marriage, but that puts them increasingly out of touch with their own members, as well as the broader population and its culture, as our understand of sin has changed.

“And,” she goes on, “God – or our understanding of what God is, which is all we actually have – changes, too. Human understandings are remolded so that faith can remain vital and effective during new times.”

Is this, then, the end of evangelical religion? Well, Wicker admits that revivals have happened before, and one may happen again. But it’s no sure thing. She says, “Evangelical faith is failing in so many other ways that a growing number of Christians believe a New Reformation is needed.”
 

Now, what does this mean for people who may not be a part of the evangelical movement, in general or within the Presbyterian Church? This is not a matter for smugness; after all, the more mainline and liberal churches have been declining in numbers and wealth and influence for decades.

But it does raise important questions for those of us in the more progressive religious groups.

First, have we engaged too strenuously in “viewing with alarm” what we have seen as the growing threat posed to American freedoms and pluralism (and lots of other things too) by what we have seen as the growing power of the “Religious Right”?

And second, have we offered any alternatives to people who are increasingly unsatisfied with the beliefs and ways of life that have been set forth so compellingly – because with such absolute assurance – by the evangelical churches?

And third (not last, because there are many more questions!), are we called, perhaps, to join with our sisters and brothers on the Right, in seeking a “New Reformation” for all of our communities of faith together?

So what do you think?
What are your thoughts about "the decline of the religious right"?
And how might progressives be responding to it?
Just send a note,
to be shared here.

Don’t get too excited; this is not as titillating as it might sound!

Jeremy Adam Smith has written in Public Eye magazine about the realities of family life among members of the Religious Right. George Lakoff in his book Moral Politics noted that "Models of idealized family structure lie metaphorically at the heart of our politics. ... Our beliefs about the family exert a powerful influence over our beliefs about what kind of society we should build."

For the Religious Right and conservative political leaders who appeal to them, the family is clearly a major focus. Smith says the family for them is “a major arena of political struggle and a showcase for the world they want to live in.”  He continues: 

But recent research into the daily lives of evangelicals also reveals the degree to which their ideal is vulnerable to social and economic forces that all American parents must confront. ... Even as Christian Right leaders are "talking Right," as University of Virginia sociologist W. Bradford Wilcox puts it, some of the evangelicals who form the base of their movement are "walking Left" and embracing a more moderate way of political and family life. This creates a fissure in the Christian Right that no manifesto can close.

As one example of the various ways the realities of family life and attitudes differ from the views proclaimed by Religious Right leaders, he says:

But for all its gains in the political realm – which have captured most of the outraged attention of the political Left – the Christian Right continues to lose the culture war. According to Gallup polls, in 1982, only 34 percent of Americans "believed that homosexuality was an acceptable alternative lifestyle." Last year, 61 percent of those polled by People for the American Way supported at least civil unions for gays. Families are more egalitarian than ever, with more and more men participating in housework and childcare, and with more and more mothers working.

Video on the Institute on Religion and Democracy is now available free online – with a full transcript

Click here for the video online, with full transcript – at no cost.

Since its beginning in 1982, the Institute on Religion and Democracy has continuously undermined the United Methodist Church and other mainline Protestant denominations by attacking the character of church leaders.

This film – 25 minutes long – attempts to shine light on the divisive tactics used by the IRD .

As the IRD has been largely successful in setting the agenda for the destruction of the church's social witness in key areas, this film intends to expose the true intent of their efforts to "renew" the church.

Since the Presbyterian branch of IRD, Presbyterian Action, seems to work in ways similar to those used by their Methodist wing, this makes interesting/enlightening/disturbing viewing – but helpful.

You’ll find it all here >>

Comments from the producer of the film >>

Celebrity worship is a threat to evangelicalism
[12-14-07]

The celebrity worship prevalent in evangelicalism poses great risk to the soul, says columnist William McKenzie, and it can lead a movement off track.

He begins:

If you spend any time within evangelicalism, you hear people speak in reverential tones about the pastor at this church, the seminar led by this speaker or the book by this author. It's easy to feel as if you need to hear that speaker, attend that church or read that writer to establish your credentials as a believer.

He sees this focus on persons as a real threat to the integrity of the evangelical churches, and bases his argument on a recent book by Frank Schaeffer entitled Crazy for God. The book details the story of his father, Francis Schaeffer, who “ran L'Abri Fellowship in Switzerland, where he attempted to give an evangelical response to the day's counterculturalism.” Francis Schaeffer was one of the pioneers of modern evangelicalism, and himself became “a worshipped figure,” and that, argues Frank Schaeffer, led to the “evangelical icon worship” that grew up around such leaders as Pat Robertson, James Dobson, James Robison and Jerry Falwell. And these charismatic leaders, he goes on, were the shepherds “led the sheep directly into the Republican Party.”

McKenzie agrees with Frank Schaeffer when he says: "Big-time American Christianity is incompatible with the Gospel. It is part of the entertainment business. No matter what you think you are doing, you are really just another celebrity in a celebrity-obsessed culture." 

The full article, in the Dallas Morning News >>

Why speak out against the Institute on Religion and Democracy?     [12-11-07]

Steven D. Martin , who recently produced a short, critical film about IRD with the title, Renewal or Ruin?, has posted the first in a series of very personal statements about the reasons for his concern about IRD.

He opens:

I begin with an apology. I am one of those people who stays in the background, consuming the pearls that appear on this site, but rarely contributing. I've decided that it is time for me to jump into the game. I will, God willing, contribute regularly to Talk To Action about a subject that I'd rather not talk about, but must.

I tend to want to stay in a state of blissful ignorance: that's why when people started sounding alarm bells some years ago about the Institute on Religion and Democracy, I didn't pay much attention. Something so sinister either must be either an illusion conjured up by alarmists, or must operate on such a high level as to not affect me as I work in the trenches of pastoral ministry. My denial changed at Annual Conference in June of 2006.

[10-31-07]

David D. Kirkpatrick, a correspondent in the Washington bureau of The New York Times who covered the religious Right in the 2004 election campaign, provides a long, detailed survey of major changes going on now in the evangelical churches and their leadership.

The extraordinary evangelical love affair with Bush has ended, for many, in heartbreak over the Iraq war and what they see as his meager domestic accomplishments. That disappointment, in turn, has sharpened latent divisions within the evangelical world — over the evangelical alliance with the Republican Party, among approaches to ministry and theology, and between the generations. ...

Meanwhile, a younger generation of evangelical pastors — including the widely emulated preachers Rick Warren and Bill Hybels — are pushing the movement and its theology in new directions. There are many related ways to characterize the split: a push to better this world as well as save eternal souls; a focus on the spiritual growth that follows conversion rather than the yes-or-no moment of salvation; a renewed attention to Jesus’ teachings about social justice as well as about personal or sexual morality. However conceived, though, the result is a new interest in public policies that address problems of peace, health and poverty — problems, unlike abortion and same-sex marriage, where left and right compete to present the best answers. ...

The full article >>

But someone else says:

For a very skeptical response to this article, see a short comment by Susie Bright, who is described as "an author, editor, and journalist known for her original and pioneering work in sexual politics and erotic expression." She argues that the sexual hang-ups [I’m using nicer words] of evangelicals are still strong, and their disillusionment with Pres. Bush does not indicate a real change in their values.

Jim Berkley, Director of Presbyterian Action at the Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD), has recently attacked the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice for not being "Christian" – though it intends to serve as an interfaith advocacy group.

Frederick Clarkson analyzes Berkley’s criticism and shows how Berkley distorts or ignores the established views of the PC(USA), since he wants to assert (contrary to the Presbyterian Church’s view) that all abortion is absolutely wrong.

Berkley’s blog, entitled "A Really Crass ‘Religious’ Coalition" >>

Clarkson’s critique >>

Frederick Clarkson is an independent journalist, author and lecturer who has done extensive research and writing about politics and religion – focusing on the Religious Right – for more than twenty years.

Read our original report >>

Doug,

I just saw your post about Jim Berkley written by Frederick Clarkson. Since only those who agree with Clarkson are allowed to make comments on his site, it is good to have a site where one can send a letter. I think if I had seen Clarkson's article the title alone would have clued me to the fact that it wasn't a very good article. Jim Berkley is a man of integrity whether you agree with his faith positions or not. And they are faith positions not political positions.

I wonder if any have considered how Christians who believe abortion is the killing of babies really see the issues. It is one thing to have policies in the PCUSA which both affirm a women's right to choose abortion while still insisting it is more than a political issue since life is sacred and another to have various groups within the Church aligned with a group which actually promotes abortion. And the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice does promote abortion.

You do no one a service when you malign a brother in Christ for their position which they hold because of their faith in Christ. You may disagree with that position, with that brother, but say why don’t agree rather than using shoddy material by someone who neither knows Jim Berkley or his good character.

In Christ,

The Rev. Jerry Falwell, who died on May 15, was a significant and polarizing figure in American politics and religion during the last 30 years.

For many of us, his death is an occasion for reflecting on the rise of the Religious Right in the United States, and its current role in our society and our political life.

So here’s a survey of some of the commentaries on Jerry Falwell and his significance for us today.

We've included comments from

The National Association of Evangelicals recently affirmed its stance on caring for the environment—indirectly rebuffing complaints that its vice president for governmental affairs, Richard Cizik, is too engaged in environmental issues—and endorsed a statement condemning torture.

Focus on the Family chair James Dobson and two dozen other evangelical leaders, had asked the NAE board to oust Cizik because of his "relentless campaign" against human-induced global warming. Other signers of the letter included Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council; Gary L. Bauer, onetime Republican presidential candidate and now head of Coalitions for America; and Paul Weyrich, a veteran political strategist.

The only NAE board member who opposed Cizik publicly was Jerald Walz, recently named vice president for operations of the Washington-based Institute on Religion and Democracy. The IRD customarily aims its critiques at the leaders of mainline Protestant denominations and the National Council of Churches. Presbyterians may well be aware that Presbyterian elder Alan Wisdom is another Vice President of the IRD and Director of Presbyterian Action for Faith and Freedom (formerly called Presbyterians for Democracy and Religious Freedom).

Witherspoon Issues Analyst Gene TeSelle offers these thoughts:

The two dozen conservatives had denounced the Rev. Richard Cizik, vice-president of the NAE, for his emphasis on "creation care," claiming that it confused the meaning of "evangelical" and weakened their emphasis on abortion and same-sex marriage.

As a number of evangelicals pointed out, the letter raises the question of who is trying to capture their movement. The conservatives claim that environmentalism is a liberal, even pagan cause. But by limiting the evangelical agenda to issues of abortion and sexual morality they may be making evangelicalism captive to a right-wing political agenda, identified in recent years with the Republican Party.

The board did not respond directly to the letter, but it reaffirmed its support for the 2004 Call to Civic Responsibility, which urged evangelical engagement on seven key issues, including religious freedom, the sanctity of life, justice for the poor, and environmental protection.

As a member of the PC(USA) group that is developing a "new Social Creed" for the 21st century on the model of the 1908 Social Creed, I am struck once again at the way concern about social, economic, and political justice unites mainstream Protestants, evangelicals, and Roman Catholics.

There are, to be sure, doctrinal and moral issues that divide these groups. But they are reading the same Bible, and if they listen they hear the message of the law and the prophets about justice to the poor, to sojourners, and to the oppressed. Even though the issues that divide us are important ones and cannot be ignored, we should rejoice at the many manifestations of unity as we seek to be obedient in the midst of the world of work, investment, and buying and selling.

The Washington, D.C.-based Family Research Council (FRC) is sponsoring the Oct. 15 event, which it describes as an examination of how the gay-rights movement allegedly threatens religious liberty. The gathering will take place at Tremont Temple Baptist Church in Boston and it will be simulcast to churches throughout the nation. (Ann Romney, wife of Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, has agreed to speak.)

The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director, noted that in September the FRC and allied groups held a "Values Voter Summit" in Washington that featured copious amounts of gay bashing and attacks on church-state separation. Lynn said he expects more of the same during "Liberty Sunday."

How Biblical is the Christian Right?   [5-8-06]

Margaret M. Mitchell, Professor of New Testament and Early Christian Literature at the University of Chicago, looks at the ways in which the Christian Right uses the Bible in arguing for its agenda. It’s not simply a matter of Biblical literalism, for they use a variety of approaches to scripture, just as did the early Christian scholars whom she studies.

Of the early scholars, she says:

Biblical interpretation ... was not just a neutral quest for the meaning of the text, but always an attempt to bring the text to the work at hand (catechetical, apologetic, pastoral, and theological). Early Christian biblical interpretation, from the get-go, was an agonistic endeavor (building arguments through appeals to some texts, read in certain ways, against others who read either the same texts differently and/or different texts).

And so it is today:

The Christian Right represents biblical interpretation in a conjunction of two selective circles: of what are the key issues in the political realm and what are the central passages in the biblical record. It represents an odd alignment of each. The canonical delineation is striking—a focus on the Old Testament, with special prominence given to Judges and 1 and 2 Chronicles, as well as to Genesis and Leviticus; and in the New Testament, to selected moralizing passages of the Pauline letters and Revelation. It is easy to see then what is missing: the prophets of Israel and the teachings of Jesus (the Gospels). Along with them go concern with social/political issues such as economic inequality, peace-making, love and forgiveness, and critique of religious hypocrisy (just to choose a few!).

The key to this selectivity is the wholesale adoption by the Christian Right of one strand of biblical thinking, apocalyptic.

Publishes "Following the Money: Donors and Activists on the Anglican Right"   [4-28-06]

by Frederick Clarkson    [3-20-06]

This article is posted here with the kind permission of its author.  You will find it, and many more resources on the Religious Right, on the website Talk to Action.

You can tell a great deal about an organization by its leader. That person is, after all, the person who was hired to carry out the agenda of the board of directors. That person is normally the principal spokesperson; the person who gives the speech; the person whom the reporter asks for even when he sometimes has to settle for someone else. And whenever an organization goes through a transition after the departure of a longtime leader, who the next leader is often signals the organization's direction.

Thus, the announcement of the new president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy, a Washington, DC-based organization with a 20 year history of seeking to undermine mainline Christian churches deemed "too liberal" – is a bellwether moment.    More >>

Lobbyist Jack Abramoff has apparently worked closely with a number of leaders on the Religious Right, enlisting their anti-gambling rhetoric to oppose the establishment of casinos that would have infringed on the territory of his tribal clients. Focus on the Family founder James Dobson was one of the central figures, and others were Tony Perkins, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, and Ralph Reed. Gambling money went at least to Reed.

Three days after Abramoff's indictment Dobson declared, "If the nation's politicians don't fix this national disaster, then the oceans of gambling money with which Jack Abramoff tried to buy influence on Capitol Hill will only be the beginning of the corruption we'll see." He concluded with a denunciation of vice: "Gambling--all types of gambling--is driven by greed and subsists on greed."

Eighty-six evangelical Christian leaders have decided to back a major initiative to fight global warming, saying "millions of people could die in this century because of climate change, most of them our poorest global neighbors." But the National Association of Evangelicals has refused to take a stand, in spite of the urging of some of its members, and in spite of its declaration last year of an Evangelical Call to Civic Responsibility.     The New York Times reports on the action against global warming >>

An "evangelical mutiny"?

In a brief essay, John Dorhauer argues that "renewal groups" such as those that work through the Institute for Religion and Democracy [including "Presbyterian Action," of which the Rev. Jim Berkley is the Interim Director .] should be seen for what they really are: "... trained activists intent on the demise, the destabilization, and the destruction of Mainline Protestant Christianity. They use cleverly chosen wedge issues to divide otherwise united congregations and denominations. They produce, print, and circulate periodicals, pamphlets, and diatribes filled with innuendo and misinformation intended to inflame the passions of otherwise content congregants."   

Dorhauer continues:

This is not to argue that the church should be a monolith of convention and homogeneity. It should reflect the rich diversity of opinion and principle of which every human family and institution is composed, be those principles liberal or conservative, orthodox or reform. And always the church should invite the kind of dialogue and debate that honors all such voices. But that advocate for reasonable debate cannot be the creation of a `renewal group' that begins the dialogue with an accusation of heresy and apostasy; that trains activists and tacticians to destroy and destabilize the church; and that circulates material meant to defame, defraud, and defy.

It is imperative that we in Mainline Protestant churches know what we are up against. To call these organizations intent on our demise `Renewal Groups' is a gross mischaracterization of their true purpose.         The full essay >>

The view from the Right

Evangelicals offer thoughtful and subtle views on "the health of the nation"
[10-10-05]

What Should Liberal Christians Do?

Frederick Clarkson, an observer of the religious right, will appear on NPR’s Fresh Air along with Christian Right leader D. James Kennedy

Dr. Clarkson, who was one of the team that produced A Moment To Decide in 2000 as part of his ongoing study of right-wing religious-political movements, sends this note:

Dear Friends and Colleagues,

I will be a guest on National Public Radio show, Fresh Air with Terry Gross on Wednesday, May 18th.
http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=13

The first half of the show includes an interview with Christian Right leader D. James Kennedy, the head of Coral Ridge Ministries. The second half is an interview with me. The general themes are separation of church and state, Christian nationalism, and theocratic movements in the U.S. Kennedy was, in 1973, one of the leaders of the conservative schism that became the Presbyterian Church in America.

To find out where and when you can hear the program in your area, here is the station list and program schedule. Times vary. http://www.npr.org/wheretohear/?prgId=13

-- Fred

Many friends have urged us to link to Bill Moyers' remarks upon receiving the Global Environmental Citizen Award from the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School. Arguing that evangelical Christians and their views now dominate the political scene in Washington, he warns that their expectations of the impending apocalypse (as expressed most widely in Timothy LaHaye's "Left Behind" series) lead to their passionate support of Israel as the best way to bring on the return of Christ. And these views also lead to a careless attitude toward the environment - since God will take care of it all anyway.

Following the 2004 presidential election, Dr. Arch Taylor wrote an essay exploring the main characteristics of American evangelical religion as it may have impacted the election.

Are you dealing with folks who are turned on by the "Left Behind" series of evangelical end-time thrillers?

Nicholas Kristoff, one of the New York Times' most thoughtful columnists, took note recently of the latest volume in the hugely popular series. This installment, with the title "Glorious Appearing," tells the story of Jesus' return to Earth "to wipe all non-Christians from the planet. It's disconcerting to find ethnic cleansing celebrated as the height of piety."

He concludes: "People have the right to believe in a racist God, or a God who throws millions of nonevangelicals into hell. I don't think we should ban books that say that. But we should be embarrassed when our best-selling books gleefully celebrate religious intolerance and violence against infidels. That's not what America stands for, and I doubt that it's what God stands for."

The National Association of Evangelicals is working on what could be a groundbreaking framework for political action.

While it is grounded in biblical morality and evangelical scholarship, the framework for public engagement strongly endorses social and economic justice and warns against close alignment with any political party. It affirms a religiously based commitment to government protections for the poor, the sick and disabled, including fair wages, healthcare, nutrition and education, and declares that Christians have a "sacred responsibility" to protect the environment.

But it also hews closely to a traditional evangelical emphasis on the importance of families, opposition to homosexual marriage and "social evils" such as alcohol, drugs, abortion and the use of human embryos for stem-cell research. It reaffirms a commitment to religious freedom at home and abroad.

Oh my.  As of noon on Wednesday, April 21, the poll seems to have disappeared.  When your WebWeaver looked at the results about 24 hours ago, the votes seemed to be running about 2 to 1 for the Washington Office and same-sex marriage, and against a Federal Marriage Amendment.  We wonder where it all went.

Ahhh -- The Layman explains:  The Layman Online recently offered a series of poll questions on marriage in order to provide readers with an opportunity to share their thoughts on this issue. Unfortunately, some people abused this voting privilege and sought to affect the results by voting multiple times – forcing the cancellation of the polls. The Layman Online regrets the inconvenience to its readers.   [4-21-04, 5:00 pm]

The Layman is sponsoring a brief poll , asking opinions on same-sex marriage, the Federal Marriage Amendment, the Washington Office statement on that subject, and "who speaks for you" on such questions.

You may be interested to see what the results are - and to let your own voice be heard.

To see the current results, click on each of the "take the poll" links below; you can cast your vote if you haven't yet; if you have voted, you'll jump directly to the results chart.

Poll # 1: Who Speaks For You.  Take the poll

Poll # 2: Marriage and the Washington Office.  Take the poll

Poll # 3: The Federal Marriage Amendment. Take the poll

The Evangelical Roots of American Unilateralism: the Christian Right's influence and how to counter it   [4-5-04]

Duane Oldfield, associate professor of political science at Knox College and the author of The Right and the Righteous, has written a special report on the Christian right and the unilateralist foreign policy of the present administration.

Presbyterian News Service reports on the COM vote in the Presbytery of Western North Carolina, recommending that the Presbytery not validate the ministry of the Rev. Parker T. Williamson as chief executive officer of the Presbyterian Lay Committee and editor in chief of its publications.

The Guardian (in Britain) has an analysis of the role of evangelical's in the recent struggles in the Church of England over the appointment of Jeffrey John a gay priest as a bishop. Noting that "the word evangelical is now firmly linked in the public imagination with intolerance and bigotry," the author points to what a change this is from the origins of the evangelical movement in Britain, when it "had a reasonable claim to be the social conscience of the nation." It provide the motivation for the campaign to abolish slavery, for prison reform and the limitation of child labor.

Author of the article is the Rev. Dr. Giles Fraser, vicar of Putney and lecturer in philosophy at Wadham College, Oxford. He doesn't really explain how the shift has come about, except for pointing to its historical roots. His view of the future is not hopeful: accommodation to the evangelicals, he asserts, will be in vain, and many of them have already determined to separate.

This makes interesting reading for us Presbyterians in the USA.

Presbyterian News Service has reported that five Presbyterian pastors recently visited the Presbyterian national office in Louisville, to tape near the main entrance their "Call to Confession and Repentance," calling the church "irretrievably apostate under current management."

Their call for repentance, widely circulated, has so far garnered about 100 signatures.

Responding to Jerry Falwell's widely quoted condemnation of Islam as a terrorist religion, the National Council of Churches has issued a statement which concludes by stating that "we ... affirm to our brothers and sisters in Islam that we condemn and repudiate Jerry Falwell's hateful and destructive statements delivered on CBS's "60 Minutes," October 6, 2002, and we call upon President George W. Bush to repudiate and condemn Falwell's remarks."   [10-9-02]

The Witherspoon Society's executive committee has been fascinated by the statement published on PresbyWeb on October 2, 2002, in which five Presbyterian pastors have issued a "call to confession and repentance."  We have been especially interested in the suggestive placement of one comma in a crucial sentence as they "call all churches that wish to be part of the faithful remnant of the Presbyterian Church, USA, to: ... remain within the denomination while refusing to fund any work of the denomination, which is antithetical to the will of God."

[10-4-02]

[8-29-02]

James Tuckett, a.k.a. The Old Gray Dog, has posted on the Confessing Church website "seven principles of Christian financial stewardship taught in the New Testament." [Underlining is Mr. Tuckett's.]

You might find it interesting. Your WebWeaver notes just a few points:

1. Women may be pleased to discover that by citing the King James Version of all the NT passages, you're relieved of all stewardship obligations. This seems to be a matter for men only!

2. Principle 4 states: "Giving money to the Lord's work is a matter of personal choice." The explication of this principle implies that things like per capita payments are coercive, and therefore "legalistic and/or carnal."

3. In a "Special Message for the Congregations of the Confessing Church Movement," the Old Gray Dog advises their congregations to "Stop all undesignated giving. How can your stewardship be personal, purposeful, and thoughtful if you do not know where the money is going, how it will be spent, or what, specifically, it will be used for? This would include all denominational giving. (e.g., Special Offerings, "mission" giving, per capita)."

[8-29-02]

Today is indeed our official National Day of Prayer.

Here are three items that will tell you more.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State has issued a press release detailing the background of the occasion, and the extent to which is has become the property of the Christian Right. The occasion is directed by the NDP Task Force, which is a private nonprofit group that is headed by Shirley Dobson, wife of Religious Right broadcaster James Dobson. It operates from the headquarters of Dobson's Focus on the Family in Colorado Springs, Colo. The Task Force's events have reflected a fundamentalist Christian view of the world and advanced the claim that America is a Christian nation.

In Ventura County, CA, there will be two prayer gatherings - one exclusively evangelical Christian, the other interfaith.

[2-20-02]

The Army of God, a radical antiabortion group now under government scrutiny for their ties to antiabortion anthrax hoax letters, is branching out to spout new, violent rhetoric against gays.

Frederick Clarkson's report is published on Salon.com, where you can read the first part on their public web site. The rest of the article is on "Salon Premium," for which you must subscribe at $6 a month or $30 a year.

Clarkson notes that the Rev. Michael Bray, a "chaplain" of the Army of God, proclaimed "Let us give thanks," after sword-wielding officials in Saudi Arabia beheaded three gay men New Year's Day.

Should you not choose to pay for the Salon article, here are links to some of the Army of God pages that will give you a taste of what has aroused Clarkson's concern.

But be warned - it's ugly stuff.

The events of September 11 have made all of us aware of "fundamentalism" in a new way.  But just what is it, what are the roots from which it draws such strength, and how can we understand and respond to it?

Check out other comments by attorney Doug Nave and elder Marcia Casais, each offering their own concerns with the Layman's notion of voting "in lockstep," as Justice calls it. [3-8-01]

Promise Keepers has announced its schedule of 18 conferences in 2001, including six locations where they will hold major gatherings for the first time. The year's theme will be ''Turn the Tide: Living Out an Extreme Faith.''

But most evangelicals reject calls for leaving the denomination

Yet the Layman presents a wide variety of news that is found nowhere else, and many of us take it very seriously.

On this web site, we will offer space for those who may wish to provide what they see as corrections to the reporting or the interpretations given in the Layman.  It is not our intent, nor is it within our capabilities, to "prove" any particular story is right or wrong.  Rather we hope to provide space for other points of view and other accounts of "reality."

On September 16 the Institute for Democracy Studies (IDS), a New York-based think tank, issued a press release summarizing a forthcoming study on the conservative movement in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).

It should be no surprise that the study traces the career of J. Howard Pew of Sun Oil, a member of the right wing of the National Association of Manufacturers, which from the beginning of the New Deal was hostile toward its policies. Pew funded a series of right-wing ventures including the Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary and periodicals like Christian Economics, Christianity Today, and The Presbyterian Layman.

More broadly, the study looks at the self-proclaimed "renewal groups" in the PC(USA) and takes seriously their strategy of not leaving the church but trying to take it over. The five-year plan of the Presbyterian Coalition, the authors say, has been greatly enhanced by the emergence of the Presbyterian Forum, which has brought advanced techniques for managing political conventions to the annual General Assembly. Political operatives practiced in the management of political conventions know how to script an hour-by- hour scenario and bring about the desired outcome.

In recent years the Forum has set up "war rooms" on the edge of the General Assembly, featuring networked computers, copy machines, and a hospitality room. All developments in committees and on the floor of the Assembly are monitored; commissioners are instructed how to move nominations and draft minority reports; and strategies are planned down to specific motions and "talking points."

The operative most responsible for these strategic advances is a seasoned political professional named Clarke Reed, a veteran of conservative Republican politics since the 1964 Barry Goldwater campaign. He served as GOP party chair in Mississippi and in 1996 was the campaign finance chair for Governor Kirk Fordyce. Reed, along with Robert Dooling, created the Forum in 1997 in an apparent end-game strategy to take over the church.

The conservative movement has long denounced the mainline churches for their social witness positions on a host of issues, from civil rights to the status of women, economic justice, the environment, and nuclear disarmament. In the first draft of the Coalition's strategy paper, its "visioning team" called for the defunding or elimination of several Presbyterian agencies, including "the Congregational Ministries Division, the Presbyterian Health, Education and Welfare Association, the Advisory Committee on Social Witness [Policy] and the Women's Advocacy Committee." The Coalition has called for severe reduction of the national church structure and decentralization of its functions to presbyteries and congregations. While this proposed devolution uses populist rhetoric, its intention is to disempower the national organization, where mainstream trends continue to be evident.

The rightist coalition has focused on wedge issues like "radical feminism" or "the homosexual agenda" in the name of fidelity to Scripture and the Presbyterian confessions, denouncing them as "alien ideologies" and calling for "the theological and moral examination of church officers and the disciplining of flagrant violations of constitutional standards." They have clearly stated their intention to use church judicial structures to conduct purges of moderate and liberal elements from positions of leadership.

IDS president Alfred Ross said, "We believe that if the Right comes to power in the Presbyterian Church, as they have in the Sou