The invitation itself was for these "thousands" to post their stories about being `ejected' from the UCC.

 This is their response to what they have referred to as the "whimsical new UCC ad" (which, by the way, you can view by clicking here or on the picture of the thumb pushing a button in the left column on the front page here at talk2action), an ad which features people being ejected from their pews for various reasons. The ad, which played very well to those who have historically felt disenfranchised from of by the church, is viewed by the BWF and its ilk as the newest indicator of how far gone the United Church of Christ is.

The invitation was clearly a hit: two people in two months have responded.

Oh, dear - so much to write about, so little space in which to do it.

One of the mythologies of these renewal groups is this created narrative that the hierarchy of the United Church of Christ conspires to remove members and ministers from their ranks because they will not tolerate conservative theologies.

I have personally witnessed this and been accused of it myself many times. Goerge Dohm lost his standing as a UCC minister when he a.) returned to a church from which he had resigned to perform services and sacraments - a clear violation of our ethical code; b.) stood in the pulpit of that same church seven months after he resigned and preached that the UCC was like dog-crap cooked into a brownie; c.) continued to meet with ranking members of that church (who called themselves his disciples) to plan the takeover of the church, promising them that is they took it out of the UCC he would return as their pastor. It came as no surprise that a Committee on Ministry found him to be unfit for Ministry in and on behalf of the UCC. And yet George and others to this day believe that there was a conspiracy to remove him because of his conservative theology.

Last week I heard the same thing when a pastor wrote me asking to list him on our supply pastor's list which we post on our Conference Website. I wrote him back asking if he had taken Boundary Training - our policy is that we do not list anyone who has not. He was the fourth one THAT WEEK to whom I had sent the same response.

When I checked his file I saw that he had refused to take boundary training four years ago when it became mandatory for all our clergy with standing. The policy was clear: take it, or lose your standing. He did not take it - he in fact refused. Rather than lose his standing, he retired. A letter in his file reveals that he was allowed to keep his standing as long as he did not perform active duties as a pastor of any kind - it even named specifically in that letter short term pulpit supply. I wrote him back and reminded him of  HIS OWN DECISION.

His response to me was telling: "I guess I wonder why this is called "Boundary Training" and is it being used
>to weed out those who theological views that do not comport with certain
>General Synod decisions?"

The irony here is that I have close friends who lost their standing before the same committee because they would not do the Boundary Training, (and since I served on the Committee that made that decision, I had a hand in them losing their standing) and he got to keep his standing - but I am still accused by him of fabricating this policy to weed out conservatives.

This particular example truly displays the tendency of this faction to take the truth, filter through their lenses, and come out with something that just doesn't make any sense.

What is profoundly sad here is that while the United Church is doing everything possible to build a table of fellowship at which all are welcome, this radical faction continues to conspire to foment dissent; they continue to train activists to pull out entire churches; they continue to put into print articles with half-truths and outright lies in order to entice people to leave us. And when people do leave, they turn around and accuse us of a witch-hunt that does not exist.

Of the two people who responded to this invitation to join the "Fellowship of the Ejected," one writes:

"Don't believe one moment that the UCC is "open and affirming." They are "selectively opening and affirming." I have found if you ask the hard question such as "How can bisexuality be considered a Christian lifestyle because it automatically engages one in adultery?" I have constantly been ignored by conference and denominational officials. I'm glad to be out of the UCC."

Ignore for a moment her misunderstanding about the sexual orientation to which she refers in her statement. It is her final sentence that is most revealing to me: "I am glad to be out." This is not a woman who was rejected: she left. That she may have encountered reasonable people who did not agree with her is probably a given. I do not believe that any one of them said to her - "Get out! We reject you." She left, and is glad of it.

That is good - for her own sake more than anything else. But to construe such decisions as the acts of a church hierarchy kicking people out because of their theological views is just another in a long line of fabricated half-truths that is fast losing its cache.

I mean, really: two people wrote back.