Faith and the Common Good: November 2012

Friday, November 30, 2012

Taxes and Job Creators

I came across the data below today and I thought I would share it. I certainly don’t claim any strong expertise in tax and economic policy, but I have a fairly good “bologna detector” and when I hear people claim with metaphysical certainty that any kind of increase in taxes on upper income earners is bad for economic growth and job creation my detector goes off. I always wonder how people who believe that explain the extraordinarily high tax rates for upper income Americans during times of great economic growth and high employment. Consider this data from the Congressional Research Service and the IRS and remember it the next time you here people speak with uncompromising certainty of the danger to job creation of higher income rates on the wealthiest among us:

Wednesday, November 28, 2012

John Wimber and the "Prophetic Movement"

Gary Tyra’s The Holy Spirit in Mission is an important book, successful in significant ways and even in its weaknesses an occasion for deep reflection. Tyra, associate professor of biblical and practical theology at Vanguard University, is at his best when he focuses on the biblical and pastoral aspects of “prophetic speech and action in Christian witness”, as the subtitle puts it. In those chapters focused on biblical interpretation and pastoral wisdom Trya provides not only fresh insights but also a model for the kind of scholarship that can effectively bridge the gap between Pentecostal experience and non-Pentecostal habits of thinking. As the global Church becomes increasingly shaped by Pentecostal experiences foreign to the faith journey of many other Christians it is necessary for the good of Christian unity and fellowship that patient, careful work be done to overcome suspicions and misunderstandings between Christians who have experienced the work of the Holy Spirit in different ways. This effort to bridge communities leads Tyra to make an understandable decision to limit his study to prophetic speech and action, and avoid discussion of the ecumenically sensitive topic of modern-day prophets and apostles. Given how controversial this subject is even within charismatic and Pentecostal circles, it is understandable that Tyra would seek to avoid the topic. Tyra skillfully shows how the biblical narrative illustrates the central role prophetic speech and action and he draws on his pastoral experience to suggest ways that openness to prophetic leading can be responsibly incorporated into individual and congregational life.

Had Tyra limited himself to biblical and pastoral counsel his strategy of encouraging the prophetic guidance of the Spirit while avoiding the controversy of a modern day office of prophets and apostles would have been successful. Unfortunately, Tyra decided to devote a chapter to contemporary church history to prove that “missional faithfulness and the global growth of Pentecostalism” are intrinsically tied to prophetic speech and action. Any attempt to demonstrate the role of prophecy in Pentecostalism without touching on the delicate topic of “prophets” is extremely challenging because many of the stories that seem most to validate the power of prophecy in Pentecostalism’s growth are unavoidably connected to the actions of highly controversial prophets. Nowhere is this clearer than in the history of the widely influential Vineyard Churches. Yet, astonishingly, Tyra seeks to tell the story of prophetic speech empowering the Vineyard movement without including the controversy over the role of prophets that caused such division within the leadership of the Vineyard movement. Tyra limits his account to one interview he conducted with Lance Pittluck an American Vineyard pastor and current board member. Pittock claims that the growth of the Vineyard movement in England was due to a prophetic word heard by John and Eleanor Mumford. If this were the simple truth then the story would fit neatly within Tyra's book. Unfortunately, this is only a narrow slice of the story of how supposed prophecy influenced the Vineyard in England. This broader narrative is expertly told in William Kay’s 2007 book Apostolic Networks in Britain, published as part of Paternoster’s “Studies in Evangelical History and Thought” series edited by, among others, Mark Noll and David Bebbington.

In Kay’s telling, the story of the Vineyard in England is inextricably tied to the controversy around the notorious Kansas City Prophets and the broader controversy over modern day prophets. Whereas Pittock’s account of the Vineyard in England focuses on the type of prophetic speech that does not rely or eoncourage a view of an office of prophet, and is therefore easy to fit into Tyra’s broader discussion, Kay’s thicker narrative puts the controversy over modern day prophets at the center of an understanding of how the Vineyard ministry evolved in England and leads to major questions over how John Wimber himself came to view prophetic knowledge. According to Kay, “Paul Cain, the most prominent of the Kansas City Prophets, told John and Eleanor Mumford that the revival would ‘probably find its starting point…when the Lord will just start to move throughout London and throughout England.” What Pittock sees as a wholesome prophecy given by the Mumford’s to Wimber was in fact part of deeply divisive stretch in the history of the Vineyard movement. I quote Kay at length:

Paul Cain went to see Wimber at the end of 1988 to warn him to give greater priority to holiness within the Vineyard movement. Cain brought with him the background influences of the Latter Rain movement....[which] developed an eschatology all of its own. By identifying the new apostles as ‘manifest sons of God’ whose task would be to restore the church, it rapidly generated hyper-real expectation of its proponents and their central place within the unfolding drama of the end times and, in doing so, moved outside the normal parameters of bliblical doctrine…there is no evidence that Latter Rain beliefs were transmitted directly through Cain to Wimber. Nevertheless Cain made an impact on Wimber.

Several participants tell the sotry of these extraordinary events. The meeting between the two men was engineered by Jack Deer, a onetime professor at Dallas Theological Seminary, who had been fired from his position because o fhis conversion to Third Wave beliefs. Deere had asked Cain for a sign by which he could persuade WImber to meet together. Cain replied, the day I arrive there will be an earthquake in your area.’ When Deere asked whether the earthquake would be a big one, he replied, ‘no, but there will be a big earthquake in the world on the day I leave.’ So Wimber reluctantly welcomed Cain to his home in Anahiem on 5^th of December 1988. Cain, in prophetic mode, told WImber to ‘discipline and rasie up a people of purity and holiness’ and that Wimber’s role ‘would be significantly altered—more authoritative (not authoritarian) and directive.’ He also told Wimber that, if he issued this call for holiness, Wimber’s son Sean would be delivered ‘from rebellion and drug addiction.’ The earthquake on 3^rd of December 1988 occurred at 3:38 am, the day that Cain had reached California. Cain left on the morning of December 7^th when the Soviet-Armenian earthquake occurred at 10:51 p.m. (Pacific Standard Time).

In August 1989 Cain prophesied ‘revival will find its starting point sometime in October [of 1990] when the Lord will just start moving through London and through England’. In June 1990 Sean Wimber came back to the family home and returned to the faith. Wimber saw this as a patterning event symbolic of the global revival. ‘As more prodigals return’, Wimber said, ‘pockets of revival spread throughout the house of God’. In obedience to these prophecies, WImber moved with his family to England and organized a series of regional conferences entitled “Holiness unto the Lord’ throughout the United Kingdom…

The predicted revival failed to materialize. WImber initially attempted to account for this by explaining that revival was to come in stages, but this was unconvincing. In January 1991 at the Revival Fire conference Wimber had to face criticism. He then asked the question, ‘did revival come in October?’ and with evident disappointment he answered it himself, ‘no, it has not in England at this time.’ And he went on to state that, rather than revival, America would experience the judgement of God in the First Gulf War because of the nation’s rejection of the Lord. When the First Gulf War eneded rapidly and without any setbacks for the Americans, the role of prophets, which had been a matter of dispute in the Vineyard since the early 1990s, boiled over at a Vineyard Board meeting at Snoqualmie Falls, Washington, in May 1991. Wimber fell out with Cain and later with the entire prophetic movement: ‘I don’t believe there are such things as prophets today’.

The dramatic difference between Tyra’s telling and Kay’s does not impugn the motives or memory of Lance Pittluck. What Pittluck may have heard was a partial truth, the kind of sanitized history that we are all inclined to pass on about groups we are committed to. Tyra would have been better served by either not trying to use contemporary history as a proof for his thesis or by telling the full history in a way that includes the controversy over modern-day prophets that is so clearly at the heart of the Vineyard’s ministry in England. As it stands, his attempt to simplistically bind his biblical and pastoral wisdom to contemporary history is a significant weakness in an otherwise strong book.

Tuesday, November 27, 2012

Pentecostal/Charismatic self-criticism

Self-criticism and self-analysis is a sign of health for individuals and groups. Every person and movement is open to growth and prone to temptation and decay. The best and most productive criticism is that which comes from within a movement because it demonstrates clearly that such criticism is not "anti" the cause, but is rather deeply concerned for the integrity of the cause. Because a focus of my writing has been with trends in charismatic and Pentecostal circles some, most notably Samuel Rodriguez, have accused me of being somehow "anti-Pentecostal" or secretly uncomfortable with the growth of Pentecostalism around the world. To those critics I offer these words from Lee Grady, the editor of Charisma magazine which is arguably the flagship publication of the charismatic movement. Grady raises concerns that I have never even touched on in my writing and does so with a level of concern and condemnation that is significant to see.

In some charismatic circles today, people are claiming to have spiritual experiences that involve communication with the dead. One Michigan pastor told me last week that some church leaders he knows promote this bizarre practice…Although little is said about these experiences from the pulpit (since the average believer is not ready to handle this "new revelation"), people in some streams of the prophetic movement are claiming to have visitations…And we are expected to say, "Ooooooo, that's so deep"-and then go looking for our own mystical, beyond-the-grave epiphany. That is creepy….Those who seek counsel from the dead-whether through mediums and séances or in "prophetic visions"-are taking a dangerous step toward demonization.

Not long after ecstasy became known as a recreational drug, someone in our movement got the bright idea to promote spiritual ecstasy as a form of legitimate worship…Recently I told a friend in Pennsylvania that when people get tired of this drug imagery it won't be long before we see some Christians having sexual experiences at the altar. "It's already happening," my friend said. He described a recent "worship concert" in which one of the musicians simulated sex while stroking a microphone and whispering sensual phrases to Jesus. What is next-orgasmic worship? God help us…I know of a case where a man was caught planting fake jewels on the floor of a church. He told his friends he was "seeding the room" to lift the people's faith. I know of others who have been caught putting gold glitter on themselves in a restroom and then running back in a church service, only to claim that God was blessing them with this special favor. Where is the fear of God when Christians would actually fabricate a miracle?

This is a time for all true believers with backbones to draw clear lines between what is godly worship and what is pagan practice.

Wednesday, November 21, 2012

Rodriguez Plays the Race (and Religion) Card

(This post is an updated and combined version of two earlier posts)

I want to respond clearly and concisely to the anti-Pentecostal and anti-Latino charges in the hopes that readers will then turn to my actual reports and see for themselves the content of what I have written.

Anti-Pentecostal?

My reporting on the charismatic movement and Pentecostalism has been with regards to the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR), a movement that key Pentecostal figures and denominations agree is very problematic. For Rodriguez to say that criticism of NAR means that a person is against charismatic/Pentecostal expressions of Christianity is absurd on its face. Consider just two examples of criticism of NAR written by Pentecostal leaders. First, from a post I did a while back when similar charges were made against me:

I am hardly alone in viewing the New Apostolic Reformation, as envisaged by C. Peter Wagner, as a significant movement and a troubling one. I would point readers to none other than Vinson Synan, the noted Pentecostal leader and highly regarded scholar of Pentecostalism. In 2010 Synan wrote a fascinating memoir entitled An Eyewitness Remembers the Century of the Holy Spirit. The 12-chapter, 206 page book includes three chapters that touch directly on Wagner’s life work. The most important of these chapters is called “The New Apostolic Reformation” and it is dominated by Synan’s reflections on Wagner. I would encourage anyone who has questions about this movement’s importance and potential danger to the Pentecostal movement to read that chapter and reflect in particular on these words from Synan:

From the outset, I was concerned about any movement that claims to restore apostolic offices that exercise ultimate and unchecked authority in churches. The potential for abuse is enormous. Throughout church history, attempts to restore apostles as an office in the church have often ended up in heresy or caused incredible pain. These attempts seemed similar to the Discipleship/Shepherding movement that had done so much damage to the charismatic movement….In 2005, in the General Conference of the Pentecostal Holiness Church, I warned the bishop and delegates about adopting apostolic language in the manual of the denomination. I predicted that we might see “short-term growth, but long-term confusion.” (183-184)

A second example that shows major Pentecostal leaders expressing serious concern about NAR and similar movements within Pentecostalism comes from the leadership of the Assemblies of God. I would refer you to the complete statement titled “Endtime Revival—Spirit-Led and Spirit-Controlled”, but here is a key quote from a section titled “Deviant Teachings Disapproved”:

The problematic teaching that present-day offices of apostles and prophets should govern church ministry at all levels. It is very tempting for persons with an independent spirit and an exaggerated estimate of their importance in the kingdom of God to declare organization and administrative structure to be of human origin. Reading in the Bible that there were apostles and prophets who exerted great leadership influence, and wrongly interpreting 1 Corinthians 12:283 and Ephesians 2:20 and 4:11, they proceed to declare themselves or persons aligned with their views as prophets and apostles. Structure set up to avoid a previous structure can soon become dictatorial, presumptuous, and carnal while claiming to be more biblical than the old one outside the new order or organization. (emphasis in original)

I have always tried to be quite clear in my writing that I am concerned about precisely these wrong interpretations and dangerous structures that I see in the New Apostolic Reformation. Rodriguez’s attempt to equate those criticisms with criticisms of the entire Pentecostal and charismatic world is understandable given his own considerable activity in the NAR and his active and spirited collaboration over many years with one of the most controversial NAR figures, Cindy Jacobs. But any reader or writer who allows themselves to be confused by Rodriguez’s baseless charge against me will be doing a real disservice to the genuine concerns of many thousands of people, Pentecostals and charismatics most definitely included, who are concerned about NAR.

Anti-Latino?

Now I turn to the charge that I am anti-Latino, again noting that Rodriguez gives absolutely no evidence for this charge and that Dalrymple did not press him for any substantiation. Of course, there is no evidence given because there is no evidence to be found. I could bore you with details of my extensive work with Latino students and families from my time in Southern California, and I could dig up criticism of Rodriguez from Latinos, but this would only serve to dignify Rodriguez’s remarks. My writing about Rodriguez, which is the only writing I have done specifically referring to the Latino community, is no more anti-Latino because it criticizes aspects of his public ministry than it is anti-male because Rodriguez is a male, or anti-American because Rodriguez is an American. My criticism is about specific words and actions that Rodriguez has spoken and done in his public ministry, not about his ethnicity. If criticizing a person who happens to be from an ethnic minority makes someone “anti” an ethnic group, then Rodriguez must be quite the anti-black leader because of his withering criticisms of the Obama administration. But of course that is nonsense—some of Rodriguez’s closest ministry partners are African-American just as some of my closest friends are Latinos.

What I would urge everyone to do is to look carefully at the six articles I have written that seek to investigate the public record of Rev. Rodriguez and see for their self if any of the criticism is anyway based on the ethnicity of Rodriguez. The interested reader might also read my essay on Alan Hirsch, or my criticisms of Eric Metaxas---neither of whom are Latino but with whom I take serious, substantive issue with.

For convenience, here are links to the six major essays I have written about Rodriguez:

1. On Rodriguez’s work with Oak Initiative.

2. On Rodriguez’s resignation from Oak Initiative and participation in the New Apostolic Reformation.

3. On Rodriguez’s stances on mercury poison and the environment.

4. On statements by Rodriguez that I judged as anti-Muslim bigotry.

5. On Rodriguez’s work with TheCall Detroit.

6. Most recently, on Rodriguez’s rise to leadership and its impact on American politics.

Saturday, November 17, 2012

Am I "Anti-Latino"?

Over the past sixteen months I have written six different pieces of what I would characterize as serious reporting on Samuel Rodriguez, with a number of other shorter blog posts/ responses. I am glad to see that Timothy Dalrymple has become the first reporter besides me to interview Rodriguez and to ask him for the record some difficult questions about his public statements and organizational commitments. I wish the interview had been done differently (to say the least), but I do appreciate that some key questions were asked and that Rodriguez was invited to give a thoughtful response. Unfortunately, instead of careful responses what Rodriguez has given is inflammatory charges, with not even a shred of evidence quoted or linked to, of anti-Latino and anti-Pentecostal bias on the part of either me or Mark Silk. Given the context of Rodriguez’s smear, it seems quite clear that Rodriguez was referring to me and to my work reporting on him and on broader issues about the New Apostolic Reformation. I am quite disappointed and dismayed that Dalrymple did not ask any follow up questions about these accusations and did not challenge Rodriguez to give documentation. Dalrymple also allows to go unchallenged Rodriguez's claim that I have lost "any sort of legitimacy as a commentator on issues of the public sphere." Tim mentions that he will share his opinions on the interview on Monday, but would it have been to much to ask that he press Rodriguez for any type of substantiation for his charges? I want to respond clearly and concisely to the anti-Pentecostal and anti-Lation charges in the hopes that readers will then turn to my actual reports and see for themselves the content of what I have written. I earlier responded to the charge that I am anti-Pentecostal, now I turn to the charge that I am anti-Latino, again noting that Rodriguez gives absolutely no evidence for this charge and that Dalrymple did not press him for any substantiation. All we have is the assertion that I am “a very discriminating, very bigoted anti-Pentecostal, and in my opinion anti-Latino” writer.

Of course, there is no evidence given because there is no evidence to be found. I could bore you with details of my extensive work with Latino students and families from my time in Southern California, and I could dig up criticism of Rodriguez from Latinos, but this would only serve to dignify Rodriguez’s remarks. My writing about Rodriguez, which is the only writing I have done specifically referring to the Latino community, is no more anti-Latino because it criticizes aspects of his public ministry than it is anti-male because Rodriguez is a male, or anti-American because Rodriguez is an American. My criticism is about specific words and actions that Rodriguez has spoken and done in his public ministry, not about his ethnicity. If criticizing a person who happens to be from an ethnic minority makes someone “anti” an ethnic group, then Rodriguez must be quite the anti-black leader because of his withering criticisms of the Obama administration. But of course that is nonsense—some of Rodriguez’s closest ministry partners are African-American just as some of my closest friends are Latino.

For convenience, here are the six essays I have written about Rodriguez:

1. On Rodriguez’s work with Oak Initiative.

2. On Rodriguez’s resignation from Oak Initiative and participation in the New Apostolic Reformation.

3. On Rodriguez’s stances on mercury poison and the environment.

4. On statements by Rodriguez that I judged as anti-Muslim bigotry.

5. On Rodriguez’s work with TheCall Detroit.

6. Most recently, on Rodriguez’s rise to leadership and its impact on American politics.

**This post was updated on November 18.

Am I Anti-Pentecostal?

Anti-Pentecostal?

Friday, November 16, 2012

What the NHCLC Would Have Us to Believe

My last post reported on the NHCLC’s official statement in response to my open letter. As you’ll recall, my letter asked Samuel Rodriguez and the NHCLC to explain why they had joined in two separate amicus briefs in support of major power companies and to describe how this action fit with the mission of the NHCLC. The answer to this particular inquiry is rather stunning to me. The NHCLC, through its Legal Counsel the noted attorney Matthew Staver, issued the following reply:

Regarding the amicus brief, NHCLC worked with CORE, the Congress on Racial Equality, but CORE, not NHCLC, filed the amicus brief. NHCLC was unaware that its name was listed and did not consent to the name being listed. CORE has already issued regrets to NHCLC for listing its name. NHCLC would not have and did not give consent to be listed.

Let’s examine this statement carefully and line by line. First of all, there were two amicus briefs filed. One, filed on March 7, 2010, before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, the other filed on February 7, 2011, before the Supreme Court of the United States, Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City. It is in the nature of amicus briefs to be perfectly clear who filed the brief and whom the brief speaks for. The entire purpose of these briefs is to add an additional voice to the court’s record on the case and so it is vital that it be clear whose voice is represented in the brief. I believe that a simple reading of these briefs make perfectly clear who filed them and whose voices were intended to be heard. In the case of the 2010 brief before the Fifth Circuit, page one reads the following: “BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE THE AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION AND THE AFFORDABLE POWER ALLIANCE” (caps in original, bold/underline emphasis added). CORE is not listed as being responsible for the brief, the Affordable Power Alliance (APA) is. And who is the APA? The first page of the brief immediately defines the APA this way: “comprised of the Congress of Racial Equality, the High Impact Leadership Coalition, the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, and the 60- Plus Association”. Of course, this is not a surprise since that is the makeup of the APA in all of its public statements. Any visitor to the APA’s website will find it identified as being composed of these same groups.

In the second amicus brief, the one filed for the Second Circuit, the cover page reads “BRIEF FOR AMICUS CURIAE NATIONAL BLACK CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND AFFORDABLE POWER ALLIANCE” (emphasis added). On page two of the brief the APA is defined this way:

The Affordable Power Alliance, an ad hoc coalition of civil rights, African American, Latino, small business, senior citizens and faith- based advocacy organizations. Its members include:

§ The Congress of Racial Equality, which was founded in 1942 and is the third oldest and one of the “Big Four” Civil Rights groups in the United States;

§ The High Impact Leadership Coalition, a national coalition of faith-based leaders, ministers and churches;

§ The National Hispanic Christian Leader- ship Conference, the largest Latino Christian organization in America, with 16-million Latino evangelical members and 24,000 member churches

In both cases the law firm that filed these briefs gave no indication that the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) was actually doing the filing, rather than the APA as a whole. It is very much worth noting that the law firm that represented the APA in these two filings is Troutman Sanders LLP, and the lawyer for this firm is in both cases presented as Douglas A. Henderson. Troutman Sanders is a major international law firm with “more than 600 lawyers and offices located throughout the United States and China”. Energy and Industry Regulation are one of its five primary areas of focus and its client list is a veritable whose who of major oil and power companies. In the two cases that the APA used Troutman Sanders for, the companies the APA was speaking in defense of included Shell, Exxon, BP America, Dow Chemical, Chevron and the American Petroleum Institute.

What the NHCLC would have us to believe is really quite remarkable. They would have us to believe that a high-powered law firm filing in defense of some of the most powerful companies in the world in cases before two of the Supreme Court’s Circuit Court of Appeals made two interwoven mistakes: one, they made a mistake in their filing by listing APA as the filer of the briefs, not CORE which supposedly was really responsible for the filing; two, they made a mistake by clearly identifying the NHCLC as an equal member with the APA in its description of the APA. In each of these mistakes the NHCLC would have us believe that Troutman Sanders never checked with the NHCLC to gain its consent. This would be a remarkable set of errors, made by a remarkably competent lawyer, working for a remarkably respected law firm, on behalf of remarkably powerful companies, before remarkably prestigious courts, but I don’t see any other way to explain the situation if what the NHCLC is saying is true.

I find it quite extraordinary that the NHCLC expects people to believe its version of events and I note for anyone interested that neither the APA’s website or the NHCLC’s website make any public expression of the story that the NHCLC has told me. Samuel Rodriguez is still pictured on the leadership page of the APA, no mention of any regret is made anywhere on the APA or CORE websites, and the NHCLC continues to list without clarification its role as a member of the APA and a partner with CORE in its leadership. All of this fits the pattern of behavior I experienced following my last two encounters with the NHCLC, first over Samuel Rodriguez’s leadership role in the Oak Initiative, and second concerning the contradictory positions staked out by Rodriguez on the question of EPA regulation of mercury. I fear that the many good works of the NHCLC are threatened by a crisis of leadership and a radicalization of purpose deeply at odds with the public image presented to its member congregations, partnering organizations and the media at large. At a time when America needs voices of integrity and clarity on the major issues we face we find from the NHCLC anything but those virtues in case after case.

Thursday, November 15, 2012

Rodriguez/NHCLC respond to open letter

Matthew Staver, NHCLC Chief Legal Counsel

My last post featured an open letter to Samuel Rodriguez and the leadership of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference (NHCLC). This letter, which was sent directly to Rev. Rodriguez and to his press secretary, featured four questions:

1. When will you correct your website by removing Rev. Harkins from your Board of Advisors and taking down his picture from all promotional materials associated with your organization?

2. Why has Rev. Harkins been listed on your advisory board when, according to him, he has “no association with NHCLC, or the advisory board in any way”?

3. Are there other figures on your publicity materials that are similarly unaware of the way that their reputation is being used to enhance the public image of your organization?

4. The NHCLC has been a part of amicus briefs siding with major power companies. Is the leadership of NHCLC aware that the organization is siding with power companies in these lawsuits? How does this relate to the stated mission of the NHCLC?

Shortly after sending this letter and posting it at this blog I received communication from Matthew Staver, Chief Legal Counsel for the NHCLC. This demonstrated to me how seriously the NHCLC viewed my questions and I was pleased to correspond with Mr. Staver about the questions. After doing his own research into the questions, including the question related to the involvement of the NHCLC in legal briefs on behalf of major oil and power companies, Mr. Staver issued the following statement in response to my questions:

Regarding the website, the list of Advisors was done some time ago regarding Mr. Harkins. NHCLC was unaware that he wanted to be removed. NHCLC has sent him an email to confirm his desire and upon hearing from him will remove his name if that is his desire.

No one else to our knowledge is on the Advisors list who desires to be removed.

These answers are extraordinary and are worthy of considerable dissection and analysis, which I intend to give them in the days to come. For now I want to briefly note a few facts.

First, while I am obviously not privy to any private correspondence or discussion between CORE and NHCLC, I have seen no indication of any public sign of “regrets to NHCLC” from CORE. Nothing was sent to me indicating regret by CORE, CORE’s website has no sign of that regret, and the Affordable Power Alliance which CORE and the NHCLC are key members of gives no indication of any disagreement between them at its website.

Second, Rev. Harkins is still listed as a member of the Board of Advisors, with his picture, ironically, just above Mr. Staver’s at the NHCLC website.

Third, the amicus briefs that I linked to in my open letter were quite clear in their inclusion of the NHCLC within the filing paperwork. In the amicus brief filed before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals the very first page says the following: “BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE THE AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION AND THE AFFORDABLE POWER ALLIANCE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES UPON REHEARING EN BANC” and then reads “Counsel for Amici the American Farm Bureau Federation and the Affordable Power Alliance (comprised of the Congress of Racial Equality, the High Impact Leadership Coalition, the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, and the 60- Plus Association)”.

The amicus brief filed before the United States Supreme Court reads on page one “BRIEF FOR AMICUS CURIAE NATIONAL BLACK CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND AFFORDABLE POWER ALLIANCE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS” and on page two defines the Affordable Power Alliance quite clearly:

The Affordable Power Alliance, an ad hoc coalition of civil rights, African American, Latino, small business, senior citizens and faith- based advocacy organizations. Its members include:

§ The Congress of Racial Equality, which was founded in 1942 and is the third oldest and one of the “Big Four” Civil Rights groups in the United States;

§ The High Impact Leadership Coalition, a national coalition of faith-based leaders, ministers and churches;

§ The National Hispanic Christian Leader- ship Conference, the largest Latino Christian organization in America, with 16-million Latino evangelical members and 24,000 member churches

While I appreciate the prompt and courteous response of Mr. Staver on behalf of the NHCLC, I believe his answers raise profound questions about the direction of the NHCLC and its stewardship of the trust and interests of the thousands of congregations and millions of individuals it claims to be working on behalf of. These questions must be raised with all clarity and candor precisely for the welfare of those congregations and individuals, as well as for the broader integrity of the other institutions that Rodriguez is a significant part of. I know that I will continue to raise these questions and I trust that more and more writers will be doing the same.

Tuesday, November 13, 2012

Open Letter to Rodriguez/NHCLC

Dear Rev. Rodriguez and the leadership of the NHCLC,

On November 9, I published an article on Rev. Rodriguez and the NHCLC. In this article I noted that the Rev. Derrick Harkins, head of Faith Outreach for the Democratic National Committee, is listed and pictured at the NHCLC website as a member of your Advisory Board. Shortly after posting this article I received a public comment from Rev. Harkins, followed up by a personal email from him, both attesting to his shock that he was being publicized as a supporter of the NHCLC. Here are the exact words as they appear at my article’s web page:

I wanted to take a moment to let you know that that it came as a surprise to me that I was still listed as an Advisory Board member to the NHCLC. I have not had any connection with them or Sam Rodriguez in more than six years, and stand at polar opposites with Rev. Rodriguez on most issues. At the time when immigration reform was being debated in Congress (2006-2007), I was one of a very few African American clergy to voice my support. I gladly collaborated with a number of groups working toward the same end. Unfortunately since then Rev. Rodriguez has embraced some perspectives that differ from my own. I have no association with NHCLC, or the advisory board in any way, and will inform them to remove any reference to me.

Thank You

Derrick Harkins

These comments from Rev. Harkins prompt me to ask the following questions of the leadership of the NHCLC:

1. When will you correct your website by removing Rev. Harkins from your Board of Advisors and taking down his picture from all promotional materials associated with your organization?

2. Why has Rev. Harkins been listed on our advisory board when, according to him, he has “no association with NHCLC, or the advisory board in any way”?

3. Are there other figures on your publicity materials that are similarly unaware of the way that their reputation is being used to enhance the public image of your organization?

Given the public nature of these questions this letter will be published as an open letter, as will any reply you send to me.

Sincerely,

Greg Metzger

Saturday, November 10, 2012

Miller Lite (On Samuel Rodriguez)

Derrick Harkins and the DNC's Faith Outreach are publicly stating concerns about Samuel Rodriguez, but not Lisa Miller at the Washington Post. I have written in the past about the strange journalism of Lisa Miller on the subject of Samuel Rodriguez, but her latest column raises the issue afresh. Her dogged determination to portray Samuel Rodriguez as a combination of a victim of Barack Obama and the GOP is striking, as is her breathtaking ignorance of Rodriguez’s complicated, dare we say unstable, track record. For anyone still new to the story of Rodriguez, or in need of a refresher course on his delicate relationship with integrity, I offer the following links.

On Rodriguez’s relationship with Muslims:

http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Samuel-Rodriguez-Extremism-and-the-Oak-Initiative-Greg-Metzger-09-14-2011-.html

http://debatingobama.blogspot.com/2011/09/tabachnick-was-right-i-was-wrong-and.html

http://www.talk2action.org/story/2011/9/2/133338/8422

http://www.talk2action.org/story/2011/11/7/101314/647

http://debatingobama.blogspot.com/2011/10/demonstrating-samuel-rodriguezs.html

http://www.talk2action.org/story/2011/11/10/15483/310/Front_Page/Christian_Resistance_to_TheCall_Growing_in_Detroit_and_Beyond

On Rodriguez’s various stances on Environmental Issues:

http://www.talk2action.org/story/2011/11/17/174448/81

http://www.talk2action.org/story/2011/9/26/13031/1119

http://www.creationcare.org/view.php?id=428

On Rodriguez’s unique blend of Christian nationalism and immigration reform: