Monthly Reading Discussion: Requirements for social movements

Screenshot 2015-03-26 at 21.38.25The Presbyterian Church USA recently announced they would start to perform gay marriages. There has been an incredible split forming among their ranks, and they are going to face more opposition in the coming months. Do you think that it would be appropriate to agitate against the Presbyterian Church? Yes or no, and why? Thinking of the keywords from this month’s reading, who would be the appropriate group of people to agitate against, and to what end?

Discussion focus: What does it mean to be a militant or moderate activist, which kinds of activism techniques will be better suited for each type of activist, and when should activism and agitation against a target should start or stop?

Please confirm attendance on the Facebook event page so that I have an idea of how many to expect.

(1)Herbert W. Simons, “Requirements, Problems, and Strategies: A Theory of Persuasion for Social Movements.” The Quarterly Journal of Speech, Volume LVI, February 1970, Number 1.

Direct link to download:

(2)”New York Congregation Is the First to Leave Presbyterian Church (USA) Following Vote to Approve Gay Marriage”
Direct link:

This reading is aimed specifically at leaders of a social movement. This is not an instruction manual or paint-by-numbers guide with guaranteed success, it is a scholarly article that presents some of the most valuable roles that a social movement must consider.There are some very important issues raised about how a social movement leader should interact with followers. Many social movement members will not be fit to lead.

The burden of command, as the military might call it, is a very serious responsibility and is integral to the success or failure of a functioning group. This discussion is about recognizing that leaders of a social movement have a responsibility to help others find ways to be of benefit.  If a man or woman is simply lacking in command or fails to perform a leader’s roles and responsibilities, it does not mean that person is unable to be of benefit to a given movement– what it means is that it’s the leader’s responsibility to find ways to engage followers in a manner that allows them to be productive.  This discussion is also explicitly about what a leader must do to take care of followers.  Again, this is a leader oriented discussion with a side-discussion on what a demonstration in or around your community might look like.

Key words: Moderate, militant, power-vulnerable, power-invulnerable.

The Google+ Hangout video chat seems to be really difficult to work correctly, so we’ll do this month’s discussion via TinyChat. A link to the video chat room will be posted one hour before the start time. As always, you do not have to do the reading but you will get more out of the discussion if you do!


Swiss Kinist

The acceptance of Sodomite marriage is just the last stages of a terminal illness caused by sin (in the PC-USA). Even if you take away this issue, they are still corrupt. It starts with sin and lukewarmness, then an embracement of the love of the world, and to be accepted by the world. It starts slow and gradually becomes what we have today. I would rather focus on the churches that are lukewarm, and still have a chance to be pulled back to a fervent faith.

Thomas Buhls

Theological issues aside, next month’s discussion on April 23rd is about requirements for leaders of social movements and how those requirements might translate into a demo or other kind of agitation in your area.


Protesting PC-USA would be a GREAT idea, and would actually answer one of the big criticisms secular WNs have leveled at Christians in the movement. When Linder banned Christians from VNN (little loss IMO) he suggested Christians focus on fixing things in their churches before engaging in apologetics, and William Pierce said more or less the same thing on a few occasions.

PC-USA would be a very “soft target”, and the dividends from publicly calling them out on their heresy would be immense!


“Protesting PC-USA would be a GREAT idea”

Do it!

If you don’t make a stand somewhere, the creeping tenacity that these Jew funded and supported SJW have will eventually move up against, intrude, and subvert your beloved Orthodox Church.

I don’t say this to be fastidious or anything like that. Those SJW have shown how tenacious they are in the case of (uber liberal) California, and how they got homosexual marriage passed in the Supreme Court of California…after it failed three times in separate popular referendums.

Nothing will stop them unless you (WE!) make a stand!

Thomas Buhls

I don’t really like using the word “Church” when talking about PCUSA, and while there’s a semantic difference between my definition of Church and their definition of Church, the public would unequivocally see a “protest against a Church” and see the agitators as “the anti-Christ” unless it is very carefully structured. I think that a “protest” in the popular sense of the word would be a mistake, too. It might be better handled with a pray-in or praying outside like we occasionally do with Planned Parenthood.

Fr. John+

The PCUSA has already ‘schismed’ at least three or four times, since the Fundamentalist/Modernist controversy- the OPC, the ‘Bible Presbyterians,’ the PCA, the various ‘kinist’ synods (and their vocal, but mentally-beknighted deniers).

So, fighting the PCUSA will be like fighting the TEC (The Episcopal Church) in the 1970’s- utterly useless. Because the root from which all these cults and schism groups come from is filioquist, apostate Romanism.

Sad to say.

Leave a Reply