THE SWORD OF THE SPIRIT P.O. Box 8617, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48107 U.S.A. (313) 662-9000 December 9, 1991 Fr, George Montague, Fr. Tom Forrest, Charles Whitehead, Fr. Killian McDonnell, Vinson Synan, Larry Christenson, Charles Simpson, Fr. Guido Gockel, Joe Difato, Fr. Peter Hocken, Dennis McBride, Ray Nethery, Al and Patty Mansfield, Paul DeCelles, Kevin Ranaghan, Gabriel Meyer, Jim Jones, Ed Lebeau, Norm Houde, Hans and Susie Eisenhardt, Apostolic Pro-Nuncio Agostino Cacciavillan, Bishop Joseph McKinney, Bishop Kenneth Povish, Bishop Robert Carlson, Fr. Francis Martin, Roger Foley, Bishop Sam Jacobs, Fr. Fio Mascarenhas, George Martin. Dear May the grace and peace of the Lord Jesus be with you. In the course of the past year you have probably heard a great deal about The Sword of the Spirit and covenant community, both through media reports and through materials sent to you by The Word of God. We have so far said very litle about all of this, in part because we do not believe that pursuing these controversies is helpful. But we have known and worked with many of you for years, and we would like to say a few things to you. Tt seems to us that most of the fundamental issues and concerns now being raised have to do with covenant community and our practice of covenant community. In some ways that is appropriate, because our sense of call to work for renewal within the church through community goes back many years, and even antedates the charismatic renewal. A number of us were involved in renewal community prior to charismatic renewal, we wrote about it (the writing of Building Christian Community was begun before charismatic renewal, for example), and those of us who were at Notre Dame in the 1960s talked together about community. In some respects, we even viewed chasismatic renewal itself as an empowering for the work of renewal upon which we were already engaged. One could say that our call to renewal community is more foundational than our call to charismatic renewal. 7 Some years ago there was tension in the charismatic renewai over the issue of community. As happens so often in movements of renewal, those of us engaged in building covenant communitics tended to universalize our own calling. Deep convictions about what we were learning, maiched by the energy, zeal and self-confidence of a robust and rapidly growing movement led vs to proclaim the call to community widely and often, and since we ‘were also in positions of influence within the structures of the renewal, many others felt thatPage 2... community was being forced upon them, or that what they were engaged in was being denigrated. We were also naive about what was required to make community work, and we encouraged people to attempt community life when they were not in a position to succeed at it Covenant community spread and bore fruit in spite of these failings, and in many places uround the world today people experience the benefit of community life. Not all of these communities sprang directly from what we were doing, but many did, and many others were helped in their own community life by our teaching or advice. We certainly could have handled our call to renewal community better than we did in relationship to others, But it is important to see that, from our perspective, community had been a central element of the vision from the beginning. ‘The charismatic renewal itself was spreading at that time, and we witnessed phenomenal growth in almost every domain: conferences grew massively, New Covenant magazine increased in circulation, books and tapes sold thousands, service committees and other renewal structures multiplied rapidly. Those of us involved in leading communities were prominent in this early growth, and it affected our view of ourselves. Clearly, there was a great “anointing” of God on the growth of the renewal, and we atwibuted more of the success to ourselves than was right. As a result, some of those who worked with us experienced from us an attitude Of superiority, and relationships within the renewal suffered. We believe that communities have been, from the very beginning, critically important Centers of vitality for the growth of the renewal. Much that has happened in the renewal could not have happened without the sacrifice and commitment of thousands of people who had gathered in covenant communities. ‘The renewal owes much to the covenant communities. At the same time we recognize that our attitudes and approach were often overbearing, and thet some of the difficulty in relationships in the renewal could have been avoided had we conducted ourselves with more humility. Today in the renewal we face further very serious difficulties. First of all, there is the reality of a split within The Sword of the Spirit, a split which has meant not only disruption, of community life for hundreds of people, but also a very painful division among leaders who have worked together for many years. We very deeply regret the split, and we regret pe attendant scandal, which is now affecting tens of thousands more through the media, The consequences of such scandals are serious. The loss of faith, vision and zeal is enormous/ More than two years ago, those of us who have been involved in the leadership of The Word of God met together with some brothers from outside of The Sword of tie Spirit to try to work through our differences. At that time we made the following public statement: “The Council has gone through a period of serious examination of the nature of government within The Sword of the Spirit, who exercises it and how it gets applied to the local communities".Page 3... “In addition we recognize that we have not always handled our disagreements in good order as brothers in the Lord...As a result, we have sometimes harmed one another [and] damaged: relationships. “We have met together to discuss this situation and have each sought to take responsibility for our contribution to the problem. We have made progress toward both 1a healing of personal relationships and agreement for a future governmental framework that will allow us to work together..." ‘Unfortunately, the apparent progress which we made in the meeting was lost shortly thereafter, and in the end we divided. Nonetheless, we still endorse that statement as a good summary of the problems, and as an admission that we all contributed to the difficulties, and we recognize even more clearly the scandal and loss which has been caused. ‘There is secondly today considerable criticism of covenant community, at least as it is practiced in The Sword of the Spirit. That criticism generally falls into three categories: (1) specific criticisms of teaching and practice within some of the communities; (2) personal attack ‘on some leaders of The Sword of the Spirit; (3) accusations of “cultlike tendencies" or related serious aberrations. Criticism in the first category is legitimate and reasonable. Of course, we recognize that individual leaders have made mistakes in their exercise of leadership, and that we have need to examine and re-examine our approaches and teachings, and where necessary to adjust them. We are ready to receive just criticism in these matters, and to enter into discussion of them with those who have concems. But criticisms in the second and third category are not legitimate, and they do a great disservice to the renewal. ‘There is room for disagreement among leaders, certainly, and there is a place for accusation of objective wrongdoing (though that should not normally be public), but attacks ‘on the character, or personality of others should not take place in the renewal. The allegations of “cultlike" tendencies or practices seem to have originated with people who engage in work with "cults" or “totalist groups", We disagree seriously with their methodology and their conclusions with respect to The Sword of the Spirit. We disagree as well with much of the theory, based often on analyses of addictive behavior or “dysfunctional” families and groups. It is inappropriate for such untested theories to be the basis of evaluation, much more so when the investigations are heavily biased from the start. Evaluations made without our participation are not just. Indeed, the “cult watch" groups operate without accountability for unfounded allegations. Evaluations made on the basis, of social theories about which Christians may freely disagree, are useful only as an illustration of the underlying disagreement. Evaluations made by those who hav> already stated their opposition to us are neither reasonable nor just. Yet we have been publicly castigated on the basis of just such evaluations. ‘We have not - in spite of what some have said - been secretive about our approach , to community life. Most of what we teach has been published in one form or another. Our communities have been open to guests and visitors since the beginning. Most of you have stayed in our homes and communities, living daily life with us.Page 4... In Jesus Our Lord, Bruce Yocum Gerry Rauch On behalf of the Council of The Sword of the Spirit $e: Members of the Council of The Sword of the Spirit: Steve Clark, Marke Kinzer, Jimund DeGroote, Vie Barretto, Fr. Herb Schneider, Manuel De Unquidi, Carlos’ Mantica, Mike Guenther, David McGill, Prentice Tipton, Vie Gutierrez, Doan Peres, Carlos Alone ‘Verges, Dick Higley, Paul Dinolfo, Paco Gavrilides, Francisco Zunica.