How Low Do You Go?
A new message, about the proposed Liebury. This is so out of hand.
Friends,
The information below is from a United Methodist minister colleague in Tennessee, the Rev. Steven D. Martin. It is important that United Methodists (and those of you who have United Methodist connections) who have signed our petition objecting to building a Bush partisan think tank at Southern Methodist University know that right-wing elements of our church are trying to destroy the key agency of social justice ministry in the UMC with a malicious and expensive law suit. I ask you to contact leaders in the UMC about this matter, especially during General Conference which is in session now through May 2, 2008.
Rev. Andrew J. Weaver, New York City
Organizer of www.protectSMU.org
+++++++++++++
For some time we have been watching the Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD), a so-called "renewal group" that attacks and undermines the mainline churches. As a United Methodist pastor, I have been particularly concerned about the IRD's attacks on my denomination. I have addressed these concerns in several ways, one of which is to create the video, Renewal or Ruin?, which is viewable in its entirety online.
After learning about the IRD by accident when I witnessed it attempting to manipulate events at my Annual Conference from behind the scenes, I have been watching it for several years. I have been reading everything I can find about this organization and its divisive tactics. I thought I had seen everything. However, I have just learned that the IRD has made a significant move that puts the future of the United Methodist Church (UMC) and its General Boards and Agencies at risk.
I have long believed that the IRD functions as a strategy center, not as a renewal group. While the language of its writers is often couched in terms of church renewal, it is overwhelmingly critical of denominational leaders and structures. The actions of the IRD in regard to a little-known coalition proves this point.
In 2004 an apparent victory for moderation was won when the General Conference defeated a resolution to cripple the financing and mission of the UMC's General Board of Church and Society (GBCS), the agency tasked with interpreting the church's social teachings to the world. However, in recognition of the minority's concerns regarding the use of endowment funds, which provide significant funding to its ministries, in spite of over forty years of consistent legal opinions permitting their use, the Board elected to seek legal judgment from the courts on this issue. To settle this matter once and for all, the GBCS filed a request for a declaratory decision on the use of the United Methodist Building Endowment Fund with the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.
Five persons only peripherally related to this issue intervened in this case, turning a fairly simple matter of clarification into an expensive contested lawsuit. The Coalition for United Methodist Accountability (CUMA), an organization comprised of the IRD, Good News, and the Confessing Movement (three powerful and well-funded right-wing organizations claiming to work for the renewal of the UMC), is financing the legal expenses of the five individuals who have intervened against the GBCS's request for a declaratory decision on the use of the United Methodist Building Endowment Fund.
It turns out that all of the interveners were recruited to join the action against the GBCS by Mark Tooley, director of the IRD's UM Action project, or the law firm Gammon and Grange, based in Arlington, Virginia.
Why are IRD, Good News, and the Confessing Movement funding the case against GBCS? In a 2004 article published in Good News magazine, Tooley said, "If income from the Methodist Building and old Board of Temperance investments were restricted to alcohol-related work, it would be a devastating blow to Church and Society's ability to lobby for its more favored liberal political causes." Furthermore, Tooley gloats: "Even more devastating would be any legal finding that required Church and Society to reimburse the millions of dollars it has spent over the years from old Board of Temperance assets, in seeming violation of the 1965 trust agreement’s expectation that all income was to be reserved for alcohol-related work."
Forty years of legal opinions have clearly allowed the Board the latitude to use these funds as it has. But how and why did the IRD get involved in this legal case?
The five interveners against the GBCS are C. Pat Curtin, Carolyn Elias, Leslie O. Fowler, John Patton Meadows, and John Stumbo. All are United Methodists and each has been a delegate to the General Conference at one time or another. The interveners testified that they do not all know one another and, when deposed, at least one of them stated he did not know the identities of the other interveners. None of them initiated his or her participation in the lawsuit against GBCS.
Only one of the interveners, Mr. Stumbo, indicated that he and his wife, Helen Rhea Stumbo, an IRD board member, anticipated being asked to contribute to the legal fees related to the intervention against the GBCS.
Ms. Elias said she thought it was Mark Tooley who asked her to be an intervener and that she had no idea who was paying her legal expenses. Mr. Fowler said he was asked to be an intervener by the law firm, Gammon and Grange, and that he had no idea who was paying for his legal expenses. Mr. Curtin said he had heard the IRD was paying his legal expenses. In a sworn deposition made public by the court, John Patton Meadows, an intervener and a Deputy U.S. Attorney, admitted he was not paying his own legal fees nor was he sure who was paying them, but he thought it was CUMA who was doing so. Meadows also acknowledged that he had sent an email to the General Secretary of the GBCS from his work computer in the North Alabama U.S. Attorney's office, saying that he wanted to see him "muzzled" for questioning President George W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq.
Meadows also admitted in his deposition that he had received confidential legal documents belonging to the GBCS prior to or during the 2004 General Conference, but that he did not allow that to inhibit him from reading them.
None of the interveners did any research into the background and history of the case beyond reviewing documents provided to them by Tooley, the law firm, and other individuals. Each of the interveners admitted he or she was unaware of any restrictions placed on any gifts given to the GBCS.
The IRD is involved in this case because it has long proclaimed that it would like to bring down the GBCS (as well as the Womens' Division of the General Board of Global Ministries). Tooley's own words in Good News magazine in 2004 assert this.
Now is the time for action. Please circulate this posting as far as you can -- especially among United Methodist General Conference delegates with whom you have contact.
Rev. Steven D. Martin
Clergy member, Holston Annual Conference
Friends,
The information below is from a United Methodist minister colleague in Tennessee, the Rev. Steven D. Martin. It is important that United Methodists (and those of you who have United Methodist connections) who have signed our petition objecting to building a Bush partisan think tank at Southern Methodist University know that right-wing elements of our church are trying to destroy the key agency of social justice ministry in the UMC with a malicious and expensive law suit. I ask you to contact leaders in the UMC about this matter, especially during General Conference which is in session now through May 2, 2008.
Rev. Andrew J. Weaver, New York City
Organizer of www.protectSMU.org
+++++++++++++
For some time we have been watching the Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD), a so-called "renewal group" that attacks and undermines the mainline churches. As a United Methodist pastor, I have been particularly concerned about the IRD's attacks on my denomination. I have addressed these concerns in several ways, one of which is to create the video, Renewal or Ruin?, which is viewable in its entirety online.
After learning about the IRD by accident when I witnessed it attempting to manipulate events at my Annual Conference from behind the scenes, I have been watching it for several years. I have been reading everything I can find about this organization and its divisive tactics. I thought I had seen everything. However, I have just learned that the IRD has made a significant move that puts the future of the United Methodist Church (UMC) and its General Boards and Agencies at risk.
I have long believed that the IRD functions as a strategy center, not as a renewal group. While the language of its writers is often couched in terms of church renewal, it is overwhelmingly critical of denominational leaders and structures. The actions of the IRD in regard to a little-known coalition proves this point.
In 2004 an apparent victory for moderation was won when the General Conference defeated a resolution to cripple the financing and mission of the UMC's General Board of Church and Society (GBCS), the agency tasked with interpreting the church's social teachings to the world. However, in recognition of the minority's concerns regarding the use of endowment funds, which provide significant funding to its ministries, in spite of over forty years of consistent legal opinions permitting their use, the Board elected to seek legal judgment from the courts on this issue. To settle this matter once and for all, the GBCS filed a request for a declaratory decision on the use of the United Methodist Building Endowment Fund with the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.
Five persons only peripherally related to this issue intervened in this case, turning a fairly simple matter of clarification into an expensive contested lawsuit. The Coalition for United Methodist Accountability (CUMA), an organization comprised of the IRD, Good News, and the Confessing Movement (three powerful and well-funded right-wing organizations claiming to work for the renewal of the UMC), is financing the legal expenses of the five individuals who have intervened against the GBCS's request for a declaratory decision on the use of the United Methodist Building Endowment Fund.
It turns out that all of the interveners were recruited to join the action against the GBCS by Mark Tooley, director of the IRD's UM Action project, or the law firm Gammon and Grange, based in Arlington, Virginia.
Why are IRD, Good News, and the Confessing Movement funding the case against GBCS? In a 2004 article published in Good News magazine, Tooley said, "If income from the Methodist Building and old Board of Temperance investments were restricted to alcohol-related work, it would be a devastating blow to Church and Society's ability to lobby for its more favored liberal political causes." Furthermore, Tooley gloats: "Even more devastating would be any legal finding that required Church and Society to reimburse the millions of dollars it has spent over the years from old Board of Temperance assets, in seeming violation of the 1965 trust agreement’s expectation that all income was to be reserved for alcohol-related work."
Forty years of legal opinions have clearly allowed the Board the latitude to use these funds as it has. But how and why did the IRD get involved in this legal case?
The five interveners against the GBCS are C. Pat Curtin, Carolyn Elias, Leslie O. Fowler, John Patton Meadows, and John Stumbo. All are United Methodists and each has been a delegate to the General Conference at one time or another. The interveners testified that they do not all know one another and, when deposed, at least one of them stated he did not know the identities of the other interveners. None of them initiated his or her participation in the lawsuit against GBCS.
Only one of the interveners, Mr. Stumbo, indicated that he and his wife, Helen Rhea Stumbo, an IRD board member, anticipated being asked to contribute to the legal fees related to the intervention against the GBCS.
Ms. Elias said she thought it was Mark Tooley who asked her to be an intervener and that she had no idea who was paying her legal expenses. Mr. Fowler said he was asked to be an intervener by the law firm, Gammon and Grange, and that he had no idea who was paying for his legal expenses. Mr. Curtin said he had heard the IRD was paying his legal expenses. In a sworn deposition made public by the court, John Patton Meadows, an intervener and a Deputy U.S. Attorney, admitted he was not paying his own legal fees nor was he sure who was paying them, but he thought it was CUMA who was doing so. Meadows also acknowledged that he had sent an email to the General Secretary of the GBCS from his work computer in the North Alabama U.S. Attorney's office, saying that he wanted to see him "muzzled" for questioning President George W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq.
Meadows also admitted in his deposition that he had received confidential legal documents belonging to the GBCS prior to or during the 2004 General Conference, but that he did not allow that to inhibit him from reading them.
None of the interveners did any research into the background and history of the case beyond reviewing documents provided to them by Tooley, the law firm, and other individuals. Each of the interveners admitted he or she was unaware of any restrictions placed on any gifts given to the GBCS.
The IRD is involved in this case because it has long proclaimed that it would like to bring down the GBCS (as well as the Womens' Division of the General Board of Global Ministries). Tooley's own words in Good News magazine in 2004 assert this.
Now is the time for action. Please circulate this posting as far as you can -- especially among United Methodist General Conference delegates with whom you have contact.
Rev. Steven D. Martin
Clergy member, Holston Annual Conference
Labels: Bush Legacy
posted by Ruth at 5:42 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home