University of Virginia Library

Outreach or Overreach?

In the fall of 1970, several Congregation for Reconciliation members interested in the issue of colonialism formed a study group to explore the Angola situation more fully.

Early in March 1971 the research committee presented a resolution to the Congregation calling for social action against the Gulf Oil Corporation. Two controversial issues developed around the resolution. First, several members questioned the wisdom of adopting a social-action project of national scope. It seemed to them a matter of overreach rather than outreach. For so small a group to take on the fourth largest oil company in assets in the world appeared absurd. The Congregation had already proved itself skilled in social action on the local level. Some wondered if a move to a national issue, however, might indicate both foolhardiness and an unrealistic assessment of the Congregation's social-action skill and resources. It would surely be interpreted by the Congregation's detractors as arrogant self-aggrandizement.

Second, in response to this action, Gulf could file a slander or defamation suit against the Congregation, just as it had threatened to do against the Ohio Conference of the United Church of Christ. The Congregation was divided. To some, if the Congregation was unwilling to risk its life, it should get out of the social-action business. For others, the possibility of a legal action which could affect the financial resources of each member was clearly intimidating.

The gravity of the issue led to tabling the resolution and scheduling a workshop to explore the legal ramifications with a lawyer. They then learned that only those voting in favor of the action resolution could be sued. This provided a test of social-action commitment unequaled in the life of the Congregation. Many members agonized over their decisions. The workshop had been well attended, but when the Congregation convened in a business

---

113

Since the resolution embodies the basic rationale for what later grew to a national movement, it is important to examine the entire document.

WHEREAS, the Portuguese territories of Angola, Mozambique, Guinea Bissau, remain the last major European colonies of that continent;
WHEREAS, the United Nations General Assembly "reaffirms the inalienable right of the peoples of the Territories under Portuguese domination to achieve freedom and independence, in accordance with General Assembly resolution 1514, and legitimacy of their struggle to achieve this right" (Resolution 2270, November 17, 1967);
WHEREAS, the United Nations General Assembly "strongly condemns the activities of the financial interests operating in the territories under Portuguese domination, which exploit the human and material resources of the territories and impede the progress of their people towards freedom and independence" (Resolution 2270);
WHEREAS, Christian teaching proclaims release to the captives and liberty to the oppressed (Luke 4:18);
WHEREAS, currently, many Angolans, some of whom are members of the Christian community, are imprisoned because of their struggle for freedom and independence;
WHEREAS, the Gulf Oil Corporation, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, has been doing business in Angola since 1957 and considers Angola "A vital source of oil" (Gulf statement, September 10, 1970) and thus provides economic support to Portuguese colonialism in Angola; and
WHEREAS, the Ohio Conference of the United Church of Christ has recommended that its members participate in a selective

---

114

patronage campaign by discontinuing the use of Gulf products and turning in their Gulf credit cards: therefore [be it] [Resolved by] the Congregation for Reconciliation, a member of the Ohio Conference, as a matter of conscience and Christian responsibility, [That it] supports the right of the Angolan people to achieve freedom and independence and their struggle toward that end.lb SEC. 2. [It] calls for the release of all political prisoners.
SEC. 3. [It] expresses its disapproval of the Gulf Oil Corporation's business involvement with the Portuguese government in Angola.
SEC. 4. [It] recommends to its own members and to American Christians and the American public that they refrain from purchasing any product of the Gulf Oil Corporation while the business relationship of Gulf Oil Corporation with the Portuguese Government in Angola continues.
SEC. 5. [It] commends the Ohio Conference of the United Church of Christ for initiating the said campaign of selective patronage and authorizes its officers and the Angola committee to participate in and support the said campaign by lawful means and in all lawful ways. [3]

By calling for social action under the legitimation of United Nations Resolution 2270 and scripture, the appeal extends to secularists and Christians alike. Further, the phrasing is clearly an extension of the resolution passed by the United Church of Christ. This would provide legal argument for the complicity of the Ohio Conference of that denomination in boycott activities generated by the Congregation. Finally, the Congregation sought to protect itself by specifying authorization only of such activity using "lawful means."

The boycott resolution could probably have passed when first presented in spite of the feeling by some that the enormity of the undertaking was patently absurd. The Congregation has almost never denied an action committee the right to pursue a project in

the name of the Congregation. Holding the workshop and seriously considering the legal ramifications prior to the vote promoted an image of responsibility in action to community leaders, pastors, and denomination executives who knew the

---

115

Two years after the resolution's adoption, the support base for the Gulf boycott had mushroomed beyond the point where a lawsuit leveled at the Congregation would have stopped the movement. The legal risks taken on March 11 then ceased to be an issue in the minds of the members of the Congregation for Reconciliation. For two years, however, those who had voted to support the national boycott of one of America's largest corporations had, in their minds at least, run a risk for their commitments far beyond all but a few church people. Even in a social-action oriented congregation, that some would abstain when personal risk to property was threatened is predictable.

No doubt some abstained not for want of conviction but in protest to a division of the Congregation's attention between local and national issues. We can understand how the proposed action goal must have seemed a totally unrealistic and wasteful squandering of precious resources in time and energy for a congregation of about thirty members.