How's this for being disingenuous:

Linda Bales, an executive with the United Methodist Board of Church and Society, participated in a panel discussion on advocacy with representatives from the Episcopal and Evangelical Lutheran churches. She explained to non-Methodists that her agency bases its advocacy positions on the denomination's Social Principles, which outline the church's position on social and economic concerns and other human issues based on a "sound biblical and theological foundation."

"We're not lobbyists," said Bales, "but we do mobilize people to be a prophetic voice. We play the United Methodist card whenever we can, reminding politicians that there are 8 million United Methodists in the U.S. Of course, not all agree with every position we take. Our General Secretary, Jim Winkler, regularly speaks out against the war in Iraq and gets numerous pieces of hate mail because of that."

So essentially what Linda Bales is saying is that although they don't represent 8 million United Methodists, she doesn't mind pretending that the UMC lobbyists (and yes, they are lobbyists) represent 8 million people.

Where I come from, we call that lying. Bales calls it a "prophetic voice".

Reposted from UCCtruths.com

Update from Washington Post: Bob Edgar gets cocky at IRD news conference: "I was brought in to do three things: raise money, raise money and raise money. Thank you for highlighting that secular as well as religious organizations now recognize the importance of the National Council of Churches."

The Institute on Religion and Democracy, the conservative religio-political watchdog group, has released a report detailing the funding sources for the National Council of Churches. The report details how actual financial contributions from member churches has declined while the shortfall has been made up by non-religious foundations with clear political motives. The report is significant since the National Council of Churches and it's leadership has not been transparent at all about the sources of funding it receives. From the executive summary of the report:

For 25 years the Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD) has questioned whether the NCC truly speaks for the 45 million believers in its 35 member denominations. The council's uniformly liberal positions have not corresponded to the moderate and conservative views of most active church members.

Inevitably, the political alienation between the NCC and its claimed constituency begot a financial alienation. Gifts from member denominations dropped through the 1980s and 1990s. By 1999 the NCC was in desperate financial straits. Amidst multi-million dollar debt, unsustainable deficit spending, and open talk of the council's possible dissolution, the NCC brought in a new general secretary, the Rev. Dr. Robert Edgar.

Edgar has been widely credited with rescuing the dying church council from collapse. But the NCC's fiscal stabilization has not resulted from a renewed surge of support among member denominations committed to Christian unity. In fact, those gifts have continued to decline, from $2.9 million in fiscal year 2000-2001 to $1.75 million in 2004-2005—a drop of 40 percent in four years.

Instead the council was saved by other means-means that have brought about a little-noticed transformation in the NCC's identity. First, Edgar granted financial and administrative independence to the NCC-affiliated Church World Service relief agency. Then he sharply trimmed expenses and staffing in what remained of the council. Most important, Edgar has pursued new income from non-church sources. The NCC's "other" income has grown from $800,000 in 2000-2001 to $2.9 million in 2004-2005-a more than threefold increase.
~~~~
The NCC has also sought and received funding from secular foundations and other non-church organizations. In fact, in the fiscal year ending June 2005, it received $1.76 million from such organizations. This total surpassed the $1.75 million that year from member communions, signaling a radical new development in the council's history.
In analyzing the council's financial statements, we found a number of surprising funding sources for a church group that has as its primary purpose seeking Christian unity. Among those institutions contributing at least $50,000 to the NCC in 2004-2005, ten of the sixteen were non-church bodies. These included:

$344,514 from the National Religious Partnership for the Environment
$300,000 from the Knight Foundation
$225,000 from the Tides Foundation
$150,000 from the Ford Foundation
$141,450 from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation
$100,000 from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund
$85,000 from the AARP (formerly the American Association of Retired Persons)
$80,000 from the Wyss Foundation
$60,000 from the Sierra Club
$50,000 from the Connect US Network

These gifts are far greater than the donations that the NCC receives from most of its member denominations. They suggest, for instance, that the council is more dependent financially upon the Ford Foundation than upon 32 of its 35 member denominations.

For years, the National Council of Churches and leaders of Protestant denominations have attacked the Institute on Religion and Democracy as being part of a right-wing conspiracy against mainline churches. UCC President John Thomas last year called the Institute on Religion and Democracy "a sophisticated 'inside the beltway' organization well funded by conservative foundations and closely aligned with a neo-conservative political agenda" and "encourages grass roots dissenting movements within denominations using classic political organizing around 'wedge issues,' issues such as gay marriage or ordination, or Middle East policy." As we mentioned last June, the IRD is hardly "well funded". According to GuideStar.org, which provides financial information on 1.5 million non-profit organizations, the "well funded" Institute on Religion & Democracy generated $1.1 million in contributions in 2004 (the most recent IRS 990 form available online). Contributions to the "well funded" IRD equate to less than 10% of the UCC's OCWM basic support for the same year and less than 1% of all mainline churches combined. More from the report:

It is curious, in light of the NCC's own funding and programmatic partnerships, that the council has faulted the IRD for receiving support from conservative foundations. One wonders if NCC leaders would be willing to subject their own funding to similar scrutiny.

It should be noted that there are some important differences between the NCC and the IRD: The NCC is a church body, supposedly focused on achieving unity among all Christian churches and believers in the United States. The IRD is a parachurch group devoted to advancing a particular set of convictions about democracy and Christian faith.

The NCC receives very few donations directly from individual church members—most of whom would not support its one-sided political focus. The IRD receives most of its funding from church members who know and support the IRD's theological and political positions.

The NCC lobbies for and against legislation on dozens of different issues every year. By contrast, it is rare that the IRD takes positions on specific pieces of legislation.

In its lobbying, the NCC claims to speak for "the churches." The IRD has never claimed to speak for anyone other than its own friends and supporters.

The NCC and its allies have been trying to influence the outcome of elections. The IRD avoids any activity that would imply endorsement or opposition to particular candidates or parties.
We should be clear that there is no necessary sin in a Christian organization—the NCC, the IRD, or the Salvation Army—accepting contributions from or forming alliances with persons or groups who may not themselves be Christians. The problems come when the non-church funding and alliances loom so large that they cannot help but change the nature of a Christian organization. Then serious questions arise: Are the non-church funders and allies determining the programs and positions of the Christian organization? Or are organization leaders reshaping their programs to fit the priorities of the funders and allies?

These sorts of questions have surfaced within NCC circles on at least four occasions in recent years—without receiving a clear answer. So the questions remain open: Is the NCC still fundamentally "a community of Christian communions"?

Regardless of your opinion of the IRD or the NCC, the report raises serious questions about the National Council of Churches and it's sources of funding. Bob Edgar, like the UCC's John Thomas, doesn't like to have his motives questioned and will undoubtedly respond by claiming a right-wing conspiracy instead of actually explaining why the National Council of Churches hasn't been more transparent about it's sources of funding. In September, 2005, the United Methodist Church (Edgar's own church and the largest member of the National Council of Churches) sent a "letter of concern" to the NCC over the departure of the Antiochian Orthodox Church and called for “immediate steps to understand” why the Orthodox church left the NCC. In the same letter, the United Methodist Church also expressed it's "disdain" over a politically loaded fund raising letter that Edgar sent out in June of 2005.

Edgar's initial reaction to the criticism he received from the letter was to suggest a conspiracy by "those who try to dilute our witness and mislead our friends by suggesting that the National Council of Churches is a partisan, left-leaning organization." However, his tune changed after the UMC letter. Thomas Hoyt, then President of the National Council of Churches, said that Edgar now “has acknowledged that the letter was sent from the development office without proper review."

The IRD, on the other hand, has a clear political agenda. Unlike the National Council of Churches, their agenda is transparent and their sources of funding are very public. But the biggest difference between the NCC and the IRD is their constituency. Whether you love them or hate them, the IRD's members voluntarily and directly subscribe to their values and principles. The 45 million members that the NCC claims to represent are buried under multiple levels of bureaucracy between their local churches, associations, conferences and denomination offices that there is literally no connection between the NCC and it's members. Further, since the NCC claims to speak with a prophetic voice on a range of issues, it has a moral obligation to publicly disclose it's sources of funding and political alliances - but it does not. At a minimum, the IRD report provides a level of transparency that the NCC won't disclose on it's own.

Reposted from: UCCtruths.com

In a press release today from the National Council of Churches, leaders in the United Church of Christ are again promoting the myth that big media is locking them out:

"Media consolidation is a question of justice," said the Rev. Robert Chase, UCC's communications minister and current chair of the NCC Communication Commission, which includes the nation's major Orthodox, Anglican and Protestant faith groups.

He recounted the difficulties his denomination had placing paid TV ads that broadcasters judged as "too controversial." He said the ads promoted welcoming and inclusion. "It's time to return the airwaves to the people," he said.

This really isn't all that surprising. Bob Chase and other UCC leaders have lied continually about the reasons why the television ads were rejected. As we demonstrated back in February, 2005, the ads were not rejected because they "promoted welcoming and inclusion," they were rejected because criticized other churches. In fact, one ad was even accepted. From NBC's response to the FCC:

As the UCC admits, it never requested the Station to air the advertisement at issue, called "Night Club." Instead, in February 2004, the UCC, through its advertising agency, approached the Network with the ad, which portrayed other churches and religions as discriminatory in their refusal to accept people who are African- American, Hispanic, disabled, or gay. The Network concluded that the "Night Club" ad inappropriately suggested that churches other than the UCC are not open to people of diverse races and backgrounds and therefore violated the Network's policy against addressing issues of public controversy through paid commercial advertisements.

Accordingly, the Network refused to air the ad.

In November 2004, the UCC approached the Network a second time with the "Night Club" ad and also offered another commercial announcement. The other commercial, which the Network accepted, contained a positive message asserting only that UCC churches are welcoming and inclusive. The Network again rejected the "Night Club" ad as unacceptable under Network policy, however, and offered suggestions to the UCC for modifying the "Night Club" ad to address the Network's objections. The UCC responded to these offers not by telling the Network to run the acceptable ad or modifying the objectionable ad, but rather by filing the Petition – more than 10 months after the objectionable ad was first presented – against a station to which the ad had not even been offered.

There's also another problem with this press release. Rev. Gerald F. Kicanas, bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Tucson states "We represent a vast number of people in this country and it is that voice that needs to be heard." While that might be true for Roman Catholics, the UCC national office does not and can not speak for or represent it's members. While the public debate on media ownership rules is a good one, UCC leaders can't speak for denomination members anyways. It's also a bit absurd for a Roman Catholic Bishop to suggest that the Roman Catholic Church is somehow under-represented in the media.

Late last October, just before the mid-term elections, the United Church of Christ's Justice and Witness Ministries issued an "Action Alert" calling for the U.N. to send Peace Keepers to Sudan by encouraging people to pressure the U.S. government via an email. The logic? According to the alert, "It is time for the United States to take the lead in pressuring the Sudanese government to end the violence and allow desperately needed humanitarian aid to reach civilians."

Today, the U.N. Human Rights Council rejected a proposal to hold the Sudanese government responsible for halting atrocities in Darfur. As the Associated Press reports, "the council, which took over from the discredited U.N. Human Rights Commission June, is dominated by African and Muslim countries that have sided with China, Cuba and other countries in preventing criticism of any government but Israel."

Make a mental note of that: China and Cuba, not the U.S., prevented the resolution from going forward. Instead of actually doing the right thing by leveraging the resources of the National Council of Churches and our ecumenical partners overseas to apply pressure to the countries blocking progress on the Sudan crisis, the UCC chose to play politics just before an election by suggesting that the U.S. was not taking the lead on Sudan.

OK, we get it. The UCC's Justice and Witness Ministries doesn't like the Bush administration... but is that worth dangling the lives of hundreds of thousands of people? As UCC members, do we really want to support these games?

The UCC's "Action Alert makes it clear that neither Justice and Witness Ministries nor it's Executive Minister, Linda Jaramillo, is really being serious about Sudan. Justice and Witness Ministries exists, in great part, by money raised by Our Churches Wider Ministries (OCWM) which receives it's resources from the generosity of UCC members. It would be too easy to tell other UCC members not to contribute money, but most churches barely contribute today. By the UCC's own numbers, less than 1% of churches give 10% or more of their current operating expenses to Our Church’s Wider Mission Basic Support. Encouraging people not to contribute to OCWM would literally be "preaching to the choir".

So what should you do?

Talk about it with other church members and educate them about the difference between political games and the real work of justice.

As if we needed evidence, it's clear that National Council of Churches Bob Edgar's web site, MiddleChurch.net, was more about politics and the election than it was about building bridges. Edgar's life as a Congressman-turned-minister has been steeped in partisan politics... and at times to the detriment of the National Council of Churches.

Last September, the United Methodist Church (Edgar's own church and the largest member of the National Council of Churches) sent a "letter of concern" to the NCC over the departure of the Antiochian Orthodox Church and to “take immediate steps to understand” why the Orthodox church left the NCC. In the same letter, the United Methodist Church also expressed it's "disdain" over a politically loaded fund raising letter that Edgar sent out in June.

Edgar's initial reaction to the criticism he received from the letter was to suggest a conspiracy by "those who try to dilute our witness and mislead our friends by suggesting that the National Council of Churches is a partisan, left-leaning organization." However, his tune changed after the UMC letter. Thomas Hoyt, President of the National Council of Churches, said that Edgar now “has acknowledged that the letter was sent from the development office without proper review." That's the way the National Council of Churches admits a mistake without actually admitting a mistake.

The entertainment was great and the artwork was beautiful... but no one dared to mention the crimes committed by the artists (or the victims they killed and maimed) at an art show honoring convicted terrorists at the UCC headquarters last evening. For a church so vocal against violence and armed conflict, the silence said more than the art.

In his closing remarks, UCC President John Thomas referred to the artwork of Oscar Lopez Rivera and Carlos Alberto Torres as the "imaginative vision of Shalom" while plainly ignoring the violence which lead to their imprisonment in the first place. Thomas's fawning over convicted terrorist Alejandrina Torres without mentioning her crimes or her victims also spoke volumes about his character, his faith and his politics. Apparently, his often repeated message of peace and non-violence doesn't apply when it comes to people like Alejandrina Torres who was caught on surveillance video building a bomb in the 80's as part of her activities with the FALN. Instead of seizing the moment to, again, preach against violence, Thomas embraced the indignant and unremorseful Torres. Certainly an "imaginative vision of Shalom".

More disappointing than Thomas was Linda Jaramillo, the UCC's executive minister of the Justice and Witness Ministries, who called Alejandrina Torres a "friend" and "role-model".

The event did feature some beautiful demonstrations of Puerto Rican pride, but this pride really had nothing to do with the FALN terrorists, the artwork or Alejandrina Torres.

From the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA):

Sadly, the Episcopal Church is not a trustworthy observer of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The church’s leaders and constitutive bodies routinely issue one-sided statements about the Arab-Israeli conflict, and its publications portray Israel as exclusively responsible for violence in the region. Moreover, the church has provided substantial support for anti-Israel activists in both the U.S. and the West Bank. Its so-called peace activism amounts to an ad hoc anti-Israel media campaign that serves to delegitimize Israel’s rightful place amongst the nations of the world.