Virginia, Akinola, and the IRD

I'm sending a version of this letter to a number of media outlets that have published recent articles about the exit of eight Virginia parishes from the Episcopal Church. This was a lead story on the BBC website on Sunday. It's a sad comment on journalism today that so few writers actually do any in-depth investigation of their stories, which are often fed to them by special-interest groups skilled in getting their message out, with the spin they desire. In addition to the plethora of already-biased media channels, this passes for complete and accurate news, which it is not, while the public remains unaware of who is behind the stories and the events. I'm trying to do my bit for transparency.

To the Editor:

The recent exit of several Virginia parishes from the Episcopal Church has been overplayed in the media as if it heralds a mass exodus from the denomination. In fact it represents a small minority of Episcopalians whose opinions in no way represent the mind of the Church, as was decisively shown at the most recent General Convention in June, 2006.

The exiting Virginia parishes have voted to put themselves under the authority of the Anglican Archbishop of Nigeria, Peter Akinola, an outspoken opponent of homosexuality. Currently proposed Nigerian laws, supported by Akinola, will make any meeting between two or more people, one of whom is gay, a criminal offense punishable by five years in prison. In northern Nigeria, Islamic law makes homosexuality punishable by death.

The announcement about the Virginia parishes has been directed by the skillful spokespeople at the Institute for Religion and Democracy (IRD), a neo-conservative Washington think-tank that has innumerable connections, through its board of directors and officers, to the conservative Washington area parishes that have recently left the Episcopal Church. These parishes have been home to prominent conservatives such as Oliver North and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, as well as top-level IRD Episcopalians. For instance, Fox News commentator Fred Barnes is a member of the Falls Church congregation, and serves on the Board of the IRD; Fox has covered this story extensively and sympathetically, interviewing Barnes as part of a roundtable discussion, but never mentioning his IRD connection.

Virtually unknown to the people in the pews of American churches, the IRD has worked for decades within the mainline denominations to discredit and silence their historically prophetic voices on issues of human rights, social justice, peace, and interfaith dialogue. The IRD was instrumental in starting, promoting, and organizing the work of the American Anglican Council (AAC), the main organization which has worked from within to breed dissension and schism in the Episcopal Church. Funded by some of America's largest right-wing donors, the IRD has gained considerable influence in the current administration: its leaders, such as Father Richard John Neuhaus, a neo-conservative Roman Catholic, are some of President Bush's closest advisors, credited by the President as helping him articulate his positions on abortion, end-of-life issues, same-sex marriage, and stem-cell research.

Interested people who would like to read an accurate and detailed account of the history and politics that have led to this point may find it in my recent book, Going to Heaven: The Life and Election of Bishop Gene Robinson, published by Soft Skull Press, Brooklyn, NY.

A scathing op-ed ("Don't look now, but Virginia is seceding again") appeared in today's Washington Post; however, there was no mention of the IRD's involvement. The UPI had previously distributed a story that seemed clearly built on an IRD-engineered press release.

As has been true for so many conservative/liberal debates in the U.S., conservative special interests are far more skilled and far more aggressive in getting their message out than the progressives. The Left sits back, taking the non-confrontational high road, or arguing within itself about methods, and  whimpering about the Right's nasty tactics, meanwhile getting blindsided and caught without adequate preparation or response. It's time to take back the debate from those who have appropriated it. Perhaps observers think this is all a soap-opera confined to one wealthy denomination - but in fact, as the IRD figured out a long time ago, a great deal is at stake, perhaps even the country's soul.

The IRD was founded by neoconservative Catholics to counter liberation theology in central America. When their efforts were soundly discredited, it began to focus domestically, setting its sights on the World Council of Churches, which it perceived as a liberal threat, and the progressive wings of the mainline American denominations which it said wielded a "disproportionate influence" on American political life. Funded by major right-wing donors like the Ahmundson, Scarfe, and Coors family foundations, and with connections in major media outlets as well as top hierarchy of the denominations, the IRD established alliances with evangelical, fundamentalist Protestants. It created special  "action" branches to work within the Presbyterian, Methodist and Episcopal Churches. Over more than two decades, these action arms have sought to influence the seminaries, intra-denominational organizations, and general conventions of those churches, moving them toward the right and breeding dissension. It has also gained, as I stated in my letter, great influence in Washington and in the present administration.

Like it or not, religion does affect policy, and strong religious voices have always held oral sway in this country. If you care about which voice is being heard by policymakers, the first step is to be informed about who's controlling - and funding - the debate.

Comments

[Brett]

This is a great letter. I have never heard of the IRD but will keep my feelers out for them in my own denomination, the Presbyterian Church (USA). We left-leaning Presbyterians have also had a tough time getting and keeping our acts together on this issue. Please let us know if your letter is published, and it gets any feedback.

[Dave]

Yes, do let us know if you have any luck placing this letter, or otherwise pressuring major news organizations to cover this story more effectively.

[Sämczyk Dubwoolie]

"Perhaps observers think this is all a soap-opera confined to one wealthy denomination - but in fact, as the IRD figured out a long time ago, a great deal is at stake, perhaps even the country's soul."

If the soul of the United States is at stake merely because of aberrant power-mongering by various factional (and self-dubbed) "Christians," then this country's soul has already exceeded its shelf life, may it rest in peace. But from what I understand, there's a rather massive wad of anarchic jism about ready to fly, oh...any year now, and if it does, the U.S.'s soul should be restored to its original street-fighting sheen in no time.

Your comments on contemporary journalism are completely accurate, but if "the public remains unaware of who is behind the stories and the events" reported, it's because the public prefers to remain so. Critical reading, discernment, and sensitivity to bias (such as the bias that's embedded in your hyperbolic assertion above) are not skills _hoi polloi_ possess now, nor are they skills deemed useful today. In another 15 years or so, assuming civilization endures, those skills will have become thoroughly obsolete. We reap what we sow. So be it.

[beth]

I figured someone would pick up on that phrase and make me clarify it! Thanks for your comment, Samczyk. Yes, I was being somewhat hyperbolic, and you're right to call me on it.

The "soul of the country" isn't going to be lost or won because of denominational infighting -- if America had a "soul" I think it may have already lost it, in large part, to the same temptations the prophets of every religion have always warned about - though that is not at all true for many individuals here, of every possible religion and non-religion.

What I was referring to was the IRD's fear, back near its founding, that the mainline denominations - to which many of the people in governmental elected office belong - had disproportionate power and influence on moral issues, and that those opinions were affecting American policy in a left-leaning direction. When the leaders of those churches spoke out for human rights and against war-mongering, when they called for compassion toward all people and greater understanding among religions, when they suggested that America had a moral responsibility toward the less fortunate of the world or toward the earth itself - to name just a few issues - these religious conservatives who believe in Americaan exceptionalism based on their concept of it as a Christian theocracy started to get very very nervous. The two worldviews didn't fit. As the decades have passed and and a postmodern worldview has gained strength, the Bush-style Christians have become more and more determined to stamp out voices of moral progressivism, wherever they arise in society: in churches, academia, national public radio and tv - and so on. That's the purpose of think-tanks like the IRD. I find that abhorrent, and think their insidious tactics needs to be brought to light.

On the other hand, I basically agree with your last paragraph. It's easy to lay blame at the feet of the media, but it's a willfully ignorant public that is really at fault. We do reap what we sow - but I'm not at the point yet of saying "so be it." Again, thanks for writing.

[Liz]

If you haven't already seen it, this article is a must-read to understand where the schism in the Episcopal church grew from:
Avenging Angel of the Religious Right
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/01/06/ahmanson/index.html?pn=1

[Jim Berkley]

Cassandra,

As a conservative, both in religion and in politics, reading your posting and the comments reminds me of reading "Screwtape Letters." Everything is turned around. All that is "good" in one circle is considered "bad" in another, so that in the letters, the Lord God is "the Enemy," and virtue is despicable. Viewpoint makes SUCH a difference!

I'm NOT saying that the writing here is despicable or anything like that. What I AM saying is that some of the values held dear to conservatives are pointed out by liberals as "evidence" of how awful conservatives are, and some of the values held by liberals are fingered by conservatives as being the exact things that make them so dreadful. Yet both sides would point to their own attributes as points of pride, hallmarks of their achievement!

For instance, that IRD is considered conservative theologically and to some extent politically looks to be a right damning charge, self-evident in its "Yuck!" factor on your blog. You'd think that knowingly and brazenly being conservative in public and consorting with conservative supporters pretty well indicts the lot of us.

Just a comment from another world, another viewpoint.

One other thought: It seems you need to be careful about distinguishing between principles and means. You appear quick to assume that those who are politically liberal love the poor, want peace, want justice, and just generally care about people, and that those who are politically conservative don't.

What you've done is confuse the principles with the means toward those principles. Could it be that BOTH liberals and conservative DO love the poor, want peace, want justice, and just generally care about people, and yet they each determine a different MEANS to go about effecting those principles?

For instance (and vastly oversimplifying things), on economics: Democrats want the poor to do better, so they give them things like guaranteed higher wages, preference in education, and welfare. Republicans want the poor to do better, so they prime an economic system that produces more opportunity and wealth for the poor, allowing them to rise above their circumstances. Notice that both sides want the same end: fewer poor people; less misery. The principle to help the poor is shared. What is different is what either side determins to be the best MEANS to achieve that end.

As I read your posting, it is just absolutely assumed that the liberals care and the conservatives don't. That's no more than bias and shallow analysis. I'd caution against confusion. We can have healthy debate over the best MEANS to an end, while largely sharing the principle that the poor should be helped.

You have brightened my day. I was running along on a post-holidays energy deficit, wondering if my work and IRD's work in general is really making any difference. Then I read your breathless estimation of our enormous effect and our tremendous influence over the press and government and EVEN denominational hierarchies, and I feel good again. Could we use your description of our influence when donors ask, "But are you ACCOMPLISHING anything?"

Lightheartedly,

Jim Berkley
Director of Presbyterian Action for Faith and Freedom
The Institute on Religion and Democracy