While it has become popular for renewal groups to portray themselves as victims, popularity does not amount to evidence.

In my time (now over ten years) in service on Church and Ministry committees I have seen liberal and conservative pastors examined for ordination: it has been my consistent experience that those with more liberal theologies gave the committees on which I served more pause than conservative ones - even though in the end it was ALWAYS AND WITHOUT EXCEPTION a matter of the candidates ability to articulate and defend a theological perspective rather than the particular theological perspective espoused that determined one's fitness for ministry.

In my time in service on the these committees I have seen conservative and liberal pastors brought in for disciplinary reviews: NOT ONCE was a candidate's theological perspective asked about, challenged, or considered in any way when testing whether or not one's ACTIONS, BEHAVIORS, or ETHICAL PRACTICES would deem someone unfit for ministry in and on behalf of the United Church of Christ.

The problem here is that some pastors involved in or connected with `renewal groups' have been trained to act in ways that are not ethical. For that they will be disciplined. The claim that they are singled out because of their theological beliefs is unfounded, and is a tactic meant to obfuscate the truth and deflect attention from the unethical behaviors of some among them who believe that because of the truth they shepherd, some noble end justifies their less than noble means and exempts them from punishment.

Flaw #2: "In contrast to official UCC policy."

We are a free church with a covenantal polity. Which means that every member, every church, every conference, every office within the denomination is free to determine its own policy, practice, principle, and theology.

I am not sure to what the author refers when writing about "official UCC policy'" (I note that they refer not to theology here, but policy) but I will presume he or she is writing about our General Synod actions. No church, no pastor has ever been disciplined or persecuted or shunned for not following the direction of General Synod which, as every UCC pastor knows, does not speak FOR the church, but TO the church. Even when churches, at the behest of their pastor, vote to break covenant by cutting off their funding to the United Church of Christ because they disagree with the "official policy," no disciplinary action is taken. Churches in covenant with the UCC are free even to cut off their funding without consequence.

Flaw #3: "Congregations committed to the historic faith often have difficulty finding a pastor."

There are two problems here. The first is the arrogant assumption that the narrow theological territory that pastors are permitted to inhabit by `renewal groups' like FWC reflects in toto "the historic faith." It does not.

The second is that churches that are more conservative (and there are many in the United Church of Christ) have difficulty finding a pastor. This is most certainly not true. Churches that underpay their pastors have difficulty finding one. Churches that have a reputation for being clergy killers (and any who have served in ministry know what that means) have a hard time finding pastors. Churches in isolated rural towns often have difficulty finding pastors. But no church has a hard time finding a pastor because it is committed to the historic faith.

And finally what I think is the most serious flaw in the argument:

Flaw #4: all of the problems listed are peculiar to those "involved in renewal efforts."

The flaw here is the naming of their tactics, their efforts, their intent as one of "RENEWAL."

The United Church of Christ is rich in the tradition of the Reformation. It is constantly seeking to renew, reform, and revitalize its mission. It is not now, nor ever has been, opposed to reform or renewal. It invites it. It seeks it out. It longs for it. In fact, the more we change, the more renwal groups grow irate. Kind of ironic, no?

What the UCC cannot tolerate are the guerrilla tactics employed by some who believe that their theological perspective gives them the right to destroy rather than renew; to deceive rather than revitalize; to disrupt rather than reform. Believing that a theology empowers one to act in ways beyond reproach is both arrogant and dangerous; and it would be a fool who would entertain such practices without some level of accountability.

Renewal groups have a history and a reputation of seeing themselves as bastions of truth and orthodoxy, and some among them believe that such righteousness makes them impervious to the sound judgment of those who disagree with their theology.

Their narrow vision of what is possible, and the arrogant notion that outside of their orthodoxy there can be no truth, make it difficult for them to entertain the notion that their practices, their actions, and their behavior may in fact be seen by others as detrimental to the health and vitality of the body - and that for that they will be held accountable.