"Winter 2006 Witness Correction
In recent correspondence we have been made aware that according to Gene Kraus, Interim Conference Minister of the So. Illinois Conference, there was no effort on the part of the Illinois South Conference to organize or support opposition to the Love Won Out Conference in St. Louis, which was held February 25th. The Witness incorrectly reported that this effort, endorsed by the Missouri-Mid South Conference, was also enjoined by the So. Illinois Conference. Rev. Kraus has written that his office takes no position for or against the "Love Won Out" ministry. We are grateful for this correction."

The `Winter 2006' refers to the latest quarterly publication of their journalistic rag, `The Witness," an uncommonly inaccurate and inflammatory piece of yellow journalism that sets new lows in the reporting industry.

The act of retraction is unusual for them, but is less about the retraction than it is about sending messages to the BWF's constituency - who knows how to read between the lines and pick up the hidden messages in this paragraph.

First, there is the fact itself that the paper printed incorrectly that the Illinois South Conference of the United Church of Christ "endorsed" a peaceful protest that had been organized by local grass roots organizations (which included GLBTQ groups from all over the St. Louis Metro area) when the "Love Won Out" conference came to the city. (If you do not know anything about "Love Won Out," it is a nationally organized event to which parents drag their homosexual children in an effort to convert them.) That reported fact was factually incorrect - but it does not matter. Its function was not to relay information, but to portray entities within the United Church of Christ as endorsing a `gay agenda' - a tactic that works quite well for them because of its ability to enrage constituents.

Second, there is the fact that the paper also incorrectly printed the same fact about the Missouri Mid-South Conference (upon whose staff I reside) - which has no mechanism in place with which to endorse such an event. So, when it first appeared in print it was wrong. But the editor, David Runnion-Bareford , cannot help himself, and here in the retraction prints the same misguided information in order to reinforce his message: "endorsed by the Missouri Mid-South Conf. and `enjoined' by So. Illinois..."

None of this is close to accurate information about what actually happened on that Saturday in St. Louis - but that does not matter. Runnion-Bareford is able, even in the retraction, to reinforce his message: the UCC is exploiting our churches by continually throwing the gay agenda in our faces!

He needs to do this, because he knows that the most divisive wedge issue today is homophobia, and that it plays well in Peoria. This is an example of how he will distort actual information, with just enough truth in it, to enliven the passions of his minions and inspire - manipulate is actually the better word - them to rise in anger against the evil Institution that is the United Church of Christ.

But one further subtlety needs to be noted, and that can be found in the statement that "Rev. Kraus says his office TAKES NO POSITION for or against the Love Won Out Conference."

Well, again, there is enough here that passes for truth; but its more `truthiness' than factual reality. What is most true is to say that given our polity, Rev. Kraus' office would find it very difficult to take a position for or against the conference. While it could be done, it would take months of work given the polity and structure in which we function. To suggest that he could neither support nor protest the work of the Conference makes him

·    Appear wishy-washy, fulfilling the oft-repeated accusation that the UCC doesn't stand for anything
·    Offensive to those for whom the gay agenda is THE issue of the day
(And the most subtle piece of all - clever, really, when you think about it)
·    Offensive to those who SUPPORT gay rights, insinuating that the religious office which he represents doesn't have the courage to come to their defense.

Like most leaders of these `renewal movements,' Runnion-Bareford is practiced in the art of deception. This may appear to be a retraction, but it serves for him a greater purpose. Obfuscation serves well here his greater need: enrage a constituency pliable enough to swallow what he is feeding them.

It works.