These activists are trained to work their way into positions of power - especially when it is known that there might soon be a pastoral transition. They are looking to get onto Councils and Boards where they can effect meaningful change. They are taught to look for allies along the way - but to do so in ways that do not attract attention to them. They are very good at having the kind of casual conversation about a variety of topics that allow them to know immediately whether the one to whom they are talking and visiting will ever support their effort or not - and the one to whom they are speaking will never know that they have been used in this way. They can do far more than a previously known disgruntled member, because no one suspects a new member of harboring any rancor against a church he or she has just joined; and at the same time, the know disgruntled member attracts the kind of attention that keeps everyone on the lookout for their next move.

Once on boards, they begin to maneuver their way into power. They try out motions intended to curtail the liberality of thought and the extent to which an extravagant welcome can be maintained. For example, a known infiltrator at one of our area churches - Vice Chair of the church's council after only two years in the church - brought a motion to the council limiting what a Sunday School teacher could talk about in an adult Bible Study. This was just the start for this church.

The point is, be wary. This is perhaps the hardest message for church leaders to hear: to move from a position of extreme welcome to visitors and prospective members to one of presumed caution and suspicion is not palatable: not at all.

But there are some simple steps that can be taken without ever threatening any new member who comes simply to enjoy the fellowship provided by your church. First of all, do not receive any member until you know with great certainly from where they are transferring their membership. A call to the pastor of that church does not seem overly paranoid, and can reveal a lot about one for whom caution should be reserved. Finding out that there were problems in the previous setting should not prevent a church from receiving a new member, or lead one to draw the conclusion that this is a trained activist. But it does signal to the leaders, or at least to the pastor, that this person should be watched, and that the church should wait until there is implicit trust in this person and their dedication to the mission, vision, and purpose of the church before they are given positions of leadership, power, and authority.

It should also become the standard practice of every church that they do a new members class before taking in new members. If folk are going to join a particular church and denomination, they should do so fully aware of and fully invested in the life, mission, and vision of that church. It is essential that in these classes that the especially controversial positions of a church and denomination are discussed and that at the very least everyone know that there will always be an atmosphere of open and mutual respect. And no one should be asked to join the church unless and until they can demonstrate their appreciation for and comfort with this openness. Let me be clear here: this is not to say that every member that comes into a denomination or a church must every position they have taken. But they should appreciate that in any denomination there is space for dissent, respect for the other, and covenant even with those whose positions are contrary.

If these steps are taken, it increases the likelihood that activists, moles, and outside agitators are found before they begin their work. For the preservation of a local church, these simple steps should become standard operating procedure.