Irony of ironies, those excluding me include Parker Williamson.
The Association for Church Renewal kicked off two days of meetings this morning (March 9) in Arlington, Va. Given that their Web site issued a wide-open invitation to all who wanted to come, I made my plans to attend. I sent a courtesy e-mail to the organization’s president, David Runion-Bareford, March 5 to let him know I would be attending as press.
He responded by saying, “Thanks for your interest. We cannot invite you to join us. Our meeting this week is a membership meeting which is not designed to be available to the press.”
Sounded nice enough, except those words run contrary to the Web site’s invitation, posted November 2008:
Dear Companion in Christ,
We are writing to you today as brothers and sisters in Christ who share our passion for the renewal of the mainline churches in North America. …
… The next meeting of the Association for Church Renewal is scheduled for March 9 & 10, 2009 at the Holiday Inn, Key Bridge, Arlington, Va. (Washington, D.C.) from 9:00 A.M. Monday until Noon on Tuesday. It is our prayer you will join us. …
…We strongly invite you as the Executive of a Renewal Ministry, a Renewal Leader, or simply a passionate renewalist in one of the mainline churches of North America to join us for this important meeting!
In the years I served as moderator for the Presbyterian Coalition and as president of the board for Presbyterians for Renewal, I heard many times of the Association for Church Renewal, a gathering of executives and other renewal leaders from the PC(USA), the United Methodist Church, the Anglican Communion Episcopal Church, the Disciples of Christ, the United Church of Canada, the American Baptist Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the United Church of Christ, and the Church of the Brethren. Various renewal leaders in the PC(USA) have attended from time to time over the years, including Betty Moore, Paul Detterman, and Terry Schlossberg, but all have withdrawn except Parker. Apparently he often has been the only Presbyterian to attend. Nevertheless, I’ve wanted to attend at least once, but the opportunity never presented itself.
Now in my role as editor of The Presbyterian Outlook, as someone who still works and prays for spiritual renewal and reformation in my denomination, and as one who recognizes the pivotal role that the ACR performs in shaping such efforts across denominational lines, I have wanted to better understand and faithfully tell the story of ACR.
When I saw the wide-open invitation to attend their meeting, I jumped at the opportunity. So when I was told I was not welcome, I challenged Mr. Runion-Bareford.
… The Web site says nothing about “members only.”
Are you saying that everyone who wants to be there is welcome except for the press?
You operate behind closed doors? You hold secret meetings?
My friend Parker Williamson would never abide having meetings closed to the press; I am copying this letter to him, given that he is quoted extensively on your Web site.
Please explain.
Parker, editor emeritus of The Layman, long has championed the open meeting policy in our denomination, as have Jerry Van Marter of the Presbyterian News Service, and all my predecessors here at The Outlook. He has been quick to cry foul whenever he has run into resistance from denominational entities, most especially the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy. Admittedly, when the Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity in the Church (of which I was a part in 2001-2005) was granted special permission by the GA to hold some of its sensitive discussions in closed session, it did so to the consternation of Parker and other press members, although it held scrupulously to the guidelines as stated, and it kept 80-90% of its meeting times open.
In the light of his strong convictions on doing work in the light, I did send a copy of my note to Parker. He responded graciously, drawing a distinction between meetings of “official church gatherings that were funded and presumably accountable to the people in the pews”, and meetings “of any private, membership organization” such as “board meetings.” He concluded, “So I think David’s response to you is appropriate, and I hope that on reflection, you’ll think so as well.”
While I agree with such a distinction, on reflection I did not and do not think David’s response is appropriate. I wrote back:
Thanks, Parker, for your response. I certainly respect the right of organizations to have closed board meetings. It’s just that this meeting on Monday-Tuesday is being marketed on the ACR Web site as an open meeting. That sounds like a newsworthy gathering. To specifically exclude only the press sounds unethical and irresponsible to me.
Indeed the exclusion of this editor is particularly stunning in the light of the fact that on at least one occasion, the March 2003 meeting, the press was allowed to cover the meeting, for the Layman itself did report about it: http://layman.org/News.aspx?article=12483
Nevertheless, Mr. Runion-Bareford closed the door:
Having carefully considered your e-mail and your correspondence with Parker, I have to insist that you do not attend our meeting. The integrity of a meeting where those who are serving Jesus Christ in Renewal come together to share their common vision and challenges requires a trust and openness that precludes the presence of press. The invitation we made is clear in its intent. I do not, upon reflection, believe your desire to attend this meeting has the integrity and best interest of renewal at heart. If you do come uninvited the membership of the ACR will decide whether to permit you to be seated in the room or not - but my expectation is that your journey would be in vain. This is not a personal matter, but the wellbeing of our membership must be assured.
So trust and openness is precluded by the presence of the press? Rather, it thrives under a cloak of secrecy?
And, this fellow whom I’ve never met has passed judgment upon my motives, deeming them to be sinister, and then he adds, “This is not a personal matter.” Huh?
Irony of ironies, every one of these reasons he outlines for excluding this member of the press echoes the reasons that have been used in the past to exclude other members of the press, including Parker, from what should have been open meetings of General Assembly entities.
Recognizing the handwriting on the wall, I decided to save my gasoline and stay home.
So now I better understand the frequent complaint of Parker Williamson arising from times when he has been excluded from meetings that seemingly should be open to the press.
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
pastor, FPC, Kingsville, TX
Senior Pastor, First Presbyterian Church of Eustis, FL
These kinds of actions by people who feed on a steady diet of the Layman and it's constantly negative, divisive, legalistic tripe continue to keep controversy and division alive and well. Who benefits from division? Who benefits from exclusion? Who benefits from controversy? It sure as heck isn't the VAST MAJORITY of faithful Christians trying to find their way as part of the congregations in the PC (USA).
If I had to guess, the people that benefit from constantly creating divisive and exclusive moments are folks like Williamson, the sad, angry people at the Layman and now apparently this group who is advocating for renewal.
Get a life. The average person in the pew doesn't give two figs about this silly stuff that we spend valuable resources, time and energy fighting over when we could be out in the world joining God in God's work.
Something tells me that in the great big velvet painting of everything, God doesn't give two figs about our self-imposed doctrinal squabbles either. What might that be? Oh yeah, Scripture: Walk humbly, do justice, act with mercy, make disciples, love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul mind and strength and don't make the rules and regulations so heavy that no one can bear them and then not lift a finger to help.
Jesus said that last part, I can't claim it.
Welcome
ACR Website Notification
I don't believe the ACR's public actions in this case sends a very good message concerning their behind-the-scenes activities.
...
...
The right of freedom of association for an entity not receiving our money extends to deciding when their meetings are closed to the press, and when they are not. Freedom of association has as its inherent, implicit, negative right the right to not associate with someone or some entity.
Might there be issues which the members of ACR need to discuss that would be harmed by the press reporting on the conversation? Can you not think of any? If someone wanted to talk about the rationale for staying or leaving the denomination, and wanted to have a rationale discussion of the pros and cons and the strategies for a way forward, can you not see how such a conversation could be hampered by the press reporting on it before official decisions have been reached by the group? Should ACR have to telegraph its every future move to its ideological and theological adversaries, or open up its members to potential retaliatory targeting by denominational officials or groups on the opposing side of the spectrum?
I even tend to defend some ACSWP's process on the closed door/open door issue: Let's argue about position papers once they are written; we don't need to know every detail of every conversation that went into writing that paper. In fact, it's harmful to the church to have this information prematurely. I could care less about what went into the soup, but I want to know what the soup is, and I reserve the right to say whether I think it is a good soup or a bad one, and whether it needs more salt.
Walter Taylor Is So Right!
Whatever work for renewal that you have done in the past has been negated by your participation in and support of the PUP Report which has caused much pain and havoc within our denomination. With your "secret" PUP meetings, you approved of and supported a report that is contrary to God's Word and which goes against over 2,000 years of church doctrine which clearly deems homosexuality as an unacceptable human expression of sexuality. Indeed, your article is indeed a case of the "pot calling the kettle black." Your work of renewal ended when you, along with Mark Achtemeier and Mike Loudon, caved in to the radical left of our denomination. Shame on you!
Open Meetngs
In addition, there are, however, a couple of issues that Mr. Haberer does not face.
1) Were any of his offering dollars going to the organization who barred him from coming? I think not. The ACR does not get its funding from the PC(USA), nor from the offering plates of Presbyterian congregations.
2) Was Mr. Haberer desiring to attend the meeting as a committed Renewalist? It would not appear so, but rather as a member of the press, and the editor of a journal that many of us believe has a liberal bias, even if it does from time to time open its pages to others.
A Missed Opportunity
I also agree that the reasons given for closing the meeting to the press sound like the justifications given by denominational entities for closing their meetings to the press.
Perhaps the ACR did not intend for the meeting to be open. I can understand that. But in that case, I would not have put a notice of the meeting on my organization's website.
Open meetings
