Political battles for control and direction of mainline denominations are especially heated at this time. Most of us in the church do not like politics that much, so we tend not to get involved and trust that good decisions will be made by our elected leaders. I think that is a good attitude to have.
In addition to being gentle as doves, it is important to be wise as serpents, said Jesus. Part of being wise is to know the players. One of the big players in the Presbyterian Church (USA), the United Methodist Church, and the Episcopal Church (USA) is an organization called The Institute on Relgion and Democracy or IRD. This organization has three prongs, one for each denomination, a staff, and a magazine. I encourage you to browse their webpage.
Their mission as stated on their masthead is "Reforming the Church's Social and Political Witness." Staff members send out press releases and are interviewed in the media in order to influence the direction of the church. IRD in the Media on their webpage is a good place to browse to see what they have been doing. There is nothing wrong with that. I am a dues paying member of both the Witherspoon Society and More Light Presbyterians that engage in similar activities.
One difference between the IRD and these other organizations is scale. The IRD is incredibly well-funded. Much of the funding comes from conservative political organizations. Media Transparency provides a list here. Of course for 25 bucks you can become a member and help them out. Consider that a free plug.
After perusing IRD's web page you might be interested in a few on-line articles and blogs that are critical of the IRD.
- Media Transparency--IRD/Good News: How the right wing targets United Methodist women
- Rev. Chuck Currie-- Update: The Institute on Religion and Democracy Funded By Far Right Political Groups
- Via Media Dallas--Graciousness--and the Current Impossibility of Reconciliation
- The Martin Marty Center--The Fighting Methodists
A book of interest is by Leon Howell: United Methodism at Risk: A Wake Up CallOne target of the IRD is the Presbyterian Publishing Corporation. I wrote about this yesterday Banning Books for Jesus. Griffin's book notwithstanding, the IRD is interested in seeking to pressure the publishing house so it only publishes books that meet its narrow ideological criteria, or failing that to disassociate the PPC from the denomination.
IRD staff member, Jim Berkley on his blog entry What is a responsible Presbyterian to do?
wrote that another book published by the PPC, Why Christianity Happened by James G. Crossley is an example of books "that embarrass Presbyterians and propound theology in contradiction to our Reformed convictions." That may be his private opinion and nothing further may come of it. His reformed convictions are not my reformed convictions, nor would I say the reformed convictions of the Presbyterian Church (USA). Further, to what extent is the PPC limited to publishing books that only resonate with the religious convictions of a select few?
James Crossley on his blog Earliest Christian History provides a helpful response to why the PPC published his book. He writes:
I'll fairly predictably leave Griffin's book to one side and mention my own and defend a religious publisher for publishing something like this. The reason why is that this is an academic discipline and publishers like WHJ engage with an academic audeince. Therefore, I don't see why they should also publish material that would run contrary to the beliefs of a certain type of religious person. Think of the opposite: secular publishers publish religious and faith based books and quite right too. I know they are supposed to be more open in one sense but if a (say) reformed publisher did not do this then they are effectively damned in the academic world by closing down one side of the debate, not only in academic terms but for their own apparent audience. Do religious folk really need to be sheltered from non-religious views? Are they really that fragile? Unlikely. I interact with such people all the time and they are only too happy to tell me where I go wrong and good for them. And clearly given the amount of books dealing with non-religious or liberal people at least some presumably don't want to avoid alternative views. I could understand more if it was a publisher trying to get a minority view heard but the evangelical or reformed or whatever have a solid base and need not worry.
Finally, yesterday Rev. Berkley responded to my blog and wrote that I was un-Christian towards him. I looked over my entry again, and I see that he was correct. I apologize for my sarcastic tone and for the particular phrasing I used that he enumerated. It was inappropriate. I have nothing against Rev. Berkley personally, in fact, I do not even know him. Rev. Berkely, if you are reading this, I hope you will accept my apology. You are my brother in Christ.
I do, however, have strong criticisms toward the organization for which he works and that organization's goals. I will in the future seek to focus my comments on the issues so as not to offend individuals.
John Shuck
John,
ReplyDeleteThank you. I AM reading and I DO accept the apology.
I realize how easy it is to dash off a snappy (or snippy) posting and hit "send," when it contains words one would NEVER speak to another in person. Keyboards lead us into temptation.
Thank you, too, for pointing people toward the direct source, the IRD website (www.ird-renew.org). What Presbyterian Action does--or what any other IRD committee does--is displayed for all to see. Agree with us or not, we're out there in the public to be read.
You must know something that I haven't heard yet: "The IRD is incredibly well-funded." That's great news! I thought we were scratching for every nickel, like any other non-profit that must beg for a living. Do you think I should ask for a raise?
I would hope that, in the spirit of not passing on gossip or participating in idle chatter, those who read some of the sites you suggest work to separate undocumented conjecture and mean-spirited accusation from verified fact. The nonsense and disinformation written about IRD and our so-called "minions" could overflow a circus clown car.
Thank you again for your apology.
Sincerely,
Jim Berkley
Bellevue, WA
Thanks, John. This is good info. Did you see this:
ReplyDeletehttp://cassandrapages.typepad.com/the_cassandra_pages/2006/12/virginia_akinol.html
Thanks for putting together this entry that documents what the IRD is about. Based on the funding sources that you have described, it appears that the IRD is largely a front organization for right wing political groups, and as such it represents a potential threat that progressive Christians should be aware of.
ReplyDeleteInteresting that you quoted Chuck Currie. He comes from the UCC, which is not one of the three mainline denominations that you mentioned that the IRD targets. The UCC is under attack by a different right wing organization, "UCC Truths" (he writes about it here, and he points out that it is a small group, not all of whom are actually members of the UCC--funny how that happens.
Right wingers, as we know from other contexts, play hardball. Live and let live is not their motto, they don't do "nice", and they are not about to go quietly and let mainline denominations move in a progressive direction as the result of the natural interplay of ideas--at least not without a concerted effort at funding front groups designed to stop that process.
All in all, it is par for the course.
Thank you, Jim. Peace to you.
ReplyDeleteThanks Seeker for the link.
And thanks to Brett for the link. That was very good. I shortened the Cassandra link to a smaller one so we can all see it.
I still haven't figured out how to paste a link when I make a comment! I feel too old for this!
http://tinyurl.com/y8kg9u
Mystical Seeker,
ReplyDeleteI believe your comments would qualify for Olympics-level conclusion jumping.
Immediately, and without any reason other than someone rashly claiming--without cause and against the plain evidence to the contrary--that "the IRD is largely a front organization for right wing political groups," you're ready to run with that gossip.
Certainly some conservative people and organizations provide SOME of the income for IRD. That's hardly earth-shattering, since the IRD is quite conservative in its theological viewpoint.
Do you know the proportion of those donations, compared to donations from individuals and churches? Does it matter to you, or are you simply pleased to dig up what you rashly conclude to be "dirt" in very public recorde?
Donations from some conservative entities no more make IRD a "front organization for right-wing political groups" than do donations from other entities make John Shuck's Witherspoon Society or More Light Presbyterians "front organizations" for Fidel Castro. Those organizations and the IRD all have strong viewpoints that others feel encouraged to support. It's pretty simple, really.
Have a little decency and sense of proportion! Check out your "facts" before you gleefully tar your fellow Christians.
I believe I wrote above: "I would hope that, in the spirit of not passing on gossip or participating in idle chatter, those who read some of the sites you suggest work to separate undocumented conjecture and mean-spirited accusation from verified fact. The nonsense and disinformation written about IRD and our so-called 'minions' could overflow a circus clown car." Then you immediately charge ahead, doing exactly what I cautioned against.
By all means, exercise some care, Mystical Seeker! Please.
Sincerely,
Jim Berkley
Okey Dokey,
ReplyDeleteI think I figured out what I want to do. Here is Brett's link to Cassandra
Jim,
ReplyDeleteWhere would we get accurate information about the IRD's funding?
John
Mystical Seeker writes "Right wingers, as we know from other contexts, play hardball. Live and let live is not their motto, they don't do "nice"". Hmmm, I'm definitely what you would describe as a "right-winger" but I assure you I do not "play hardball." Let's see, what do I actually do? I raise my kids. I work. I read, quilt and make jewelry as hobbies. My family attends church on Sunday mornings. I volunteer in the church nursery. During the week I am a small group leader for a bunch of teenagers at church. I also follow the actions of the GA and my local Presbytery. I read Presbyweb, Layman Online, Presbyterian Oulook, and a variety of Presbyterian bloggers both conservative and liberal. I am greatly distressed by what is happening in the PCUSA, but I would hardly describe that as "playing hardball". I'm sorry you don't think I do "nice".
ReplyDeletePlease lighten up on the rhetoric and try to see your fellow bloggers as real people, brothers and sisters in Christ, rather than as stereotypes.
John,
ReplyDeleteWhere would we get accurate information about the funding for More Light Presbyterians and the Witherspoon Society?
Hi Person,
ReplyDeleteI guess you could ask them. I am not a staff person there so I don't know. I thought I would ask Jim, as he is on staff for IRD.
I think that Seeker is echoing the criticisms levelled at the IRD from a multitude of sources Why is it that politically conservative foundations are giving large sums of money to IRD? What do they get for it?
ReplyDeleteIn the spirit of checking the facts, since Jim is with us, perhaps you can clear the air about some of these things.
If you wish, no expectation of course, perhaps you can answer some questions about IRD and Presbyterian Action.
Maybe others have questions as well.
I'll start with the concern that got this whole ball rolling. Again, Jim, I am not putting you on the spot or anything, but giving you an opportunity to set the record straight so that I don't pass on false information.
My question has three parts regarding the Presbyterian Publishing Corporation.
1) What are the goals of IRD/Presbyterian Action regarding the Presbyterian Publishing Corporation? What specifically does IRD/PA want done?
2) What are the means to achieving those goals? Specifically, what is being done to achieve those goals?
3) What success has IRD/PA had in achieving those goals?
Again, this is simply an opportunity for us to get our facts straight.
John
I think that Seeker is echoing the criticisms leveled at the IRD from a multitude of sources. Why is it that politically conservative foundations are giving large sums of money to IRD? What do they get for it?
ReplyDeleteThanks, John. I admit freely that I am hardly an expert on IRD, and there is much that I don't know about it. But there does seem to be lots of information about it out there on the internet. Chuck Currie's blog gives lots of references to other sources, and also some Googling can provide some interesting information.
For example, I don't know what proportion of donations currently come from right wing groups versus from individuals, but according to a Christian Century article from 1995, "After the IRD was started in 1980, foundations - overwhelmingly three of the four sisters (Bradley was not then a player) - provided 89 percent of the organization's financial resources for the first 25 months. In 1993, foundations were supplying 79 percent of IRD funding." [Note: the "sisters" are the name applied to four prominent right wing foundations].
Donations from some conservative entities no more make IRD a "front organization for right-wing political groups" than do donations from other entities make John Shuck's Witherspoon Society or More Light Presbyterians "front organizations" for Fidel Castro. Those organizations and the IRD all have strong viewpoints that others feel encouraged to support. It's pretty simple, really.
Is Fidel Castro giving money to the Witherspoon Society or More Light Presbyterians? If not, then I am not sure I understand the analogy. It appears, on the other hand, that right wing groups have donated millions of dollars to the IRD. However, as John pointed out, "In the spirit of checking the facts, since Jim is with us, perhaps you can clear the air about some of these things." So perhaps Jim can provide information about current levels of funding.
According to the information provided on Chuck Currie's web site, as well as some of the sources that he cites, the IRD was founded in 1981 by three neocon political activists, including Michael Novak of the far right American Enterprise Institute. So its ties to right wing political organizations goes back to its very founding (this is taken from http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1496).
Also, as mentioned, it appears that they have received millions of dollars in donations from right wing groups. This same web site reports that "Between 1985 and 2002, IRD has received $3,879,000 from the following: The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Sarah Scaife Foundation, John M. Olin Foundation, Castle Rock Foundation, The Carthage Foundation, and JM Foundation. (11) IRD also receives generous support from Howard and Roberta Ahmanson’s Fieldstead & Co."
The site also reports that the IRD has interlocking directorates with many right wing political groups:
"Through its directors and officers it is linked to several like-minded institutions of the right’s complex of institutes, media, think tanks, and foundations. The IRD has had directorates interlocking with, among others, the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), Institute on Religion and Public Life (IRPL), Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC), and American Enterprise Institute (AEI), as well as links to the conservative publications First Things, Christianity Today, and The Weekly Standard.
Currie cites Andrew Weaver, who reports from an article on the University of Chicago web site:
For example, the Scaife Family Foundation and the Sarah Scaife Foundation (promoters and benefactors of the "Ken Starr Courts") made disbursements to the IRD totaling $1.6 million between 1985 and 2001 according to information found at www.mediatransparency.org. According to the Scaife websites, the IRD received $225,000 from the Sarah Scaife Foundation in 2002.
The Lynde and Harry Bradley foundation, a family foundation with ties to the John Birch Society, gave $1.3 million between 1985 and 2001 to IRD efforts.
All of that amounts to a very large sum of money that is being funneled to the IRD.
John,
ReplyDeleteTo find public information about IRD's IRS Form 990, go to www.guidestar.com.
Why do politically conservative foundations give to IRD? Why do YOU donate to your church or Witherspoon Society or MLP? It's not rocket science: Donations derive from someone agreeing with the purposes and work of an organization. People think that what the group is doing is valuable, so they want to help.
Of course, your insinuation is that there's quid pro quo going on. The donor says, "I've scratched your back. Now you must scratch mine." That's a cold and cynical expectation.
Tell me, John, would you or your session erect a golden monument on the church lawn to Mrs. Wilson's dearly departed dog simply because she gives $10k a year to your church and wants you to memorialize her hound? I think you'd be more principled than that.
I wouldn't guess that donors call the shots in your congregation. You can be assured of the same thing about IRD. The order is this: 1) We say and do things. 2) Individual donors, churches, and some foundations like what we have chosen to say and do. 3) They donate.
The order is definitely NOT this: 1) We need money. 2) We cast about for foundation donors. 3) They say they'll give--IF we agree to scratch their back. 4) We do what they dictate.
The way IRD operates is all so simple, so EXPECTED of a group with integrity. But I have to remember that a priori, you apparently have decided that we don't have integrity at IRD, that we are by definition evil, so then you are highly inclined to think the worst of us in any given situation. People seem eager to believe made-up speculations about IRD, rather than calmly, reasonably find the truth. (I appreciate that you are doing the latter here.)
Change your framing, if you will. Think of IRD as a CHRISTIAN group that MINISTERS in ways that a hefty plurality of several denomination's members greatly appreciate. Obviously what IRD advocates is different than what you advocate. We come from different mindsets, different theologies. But yours is not particularly righteous, and IRD's is not particularly odious--or vice versa, necessarily. We BOTH can be understood as legitimate, sincere, aboveboard, and decent. It doesn't have to be "I am righteous, and they're all snakes."
Is it at all possible for you and your readers to reframe your reference?
Now, about PPC:
1) Presbyterian Action does not have goals about PPC. I'm gathering information (with great difficulty, due to stonewalling). Goals may come later. They may not. Generally, Presbyterian Action ALWAYS want decisions made that glorify God, further the Kingdom of God, bring people to faith, aid the afflicted, reflect the theology and sensibilities of Presbyterians in general, and so on.
2) With no goals yet, we have no means yet. But typically means include appealing to reason, making a solid case for why something is the right and fair thing to do, getting word out so that people generally understand what is going on, working with commissioners or presbyters who would like to take some kind of action and helping them do it decently and in order and with an understanding of how things work, and so on.
3) No goals yet, so no way of determining success yet. Stay tuned.
Okay, so now I've done some work for you. Would you be decent enough to help squelch the absurd "they're outside political agitators out to destroy the church with their operatives" nonsense? It is such a tired, false, and actually sinful string of gossip, inaccurate and unkind on every count.
Yes, IRD is your ideological opposite on many issues. So be it. But, no, we are not villains and knaves.
Would you be decent enough to give that idea a try and to cut the nonsense when others mindlessly slander us? I'd greatly appreciate such liberality.
Jim Berkley
Jim, perhaps you might have the decency to be less condescending in your posts? You have a tendency to ascribe motivations and put words in people’s mouths, an effective if disingenuous writing method. As I said before, you could stand to apologize to Rev. Shuck for some of your inflammatory words over the last several days. Rev. Shuck apologized to you for an overly sarcastic tone in his initial post but you have overall behaved far worse. You have a bit of timber in your eye sir.
ReplyDeleteJim,
ReplyDeleteThank you for the response. I appreciate that you are continuing the conversation. Thank you also for the link to www.guidestar.com
It didn't help me too much, I am afraid. You have to register and affirm that you will not publish any information you find.
Then you have to get a premium account which costs $100 a month.
Any easier way to get that information?
Again, thank you for answering my questions; there is no expectation for you to do so. I am giving you the opportunity to state the facts.
I would like to follow up on the answers you gave to me regarding the PPC.
1) You said that IRD/PA has no goals. Perhaps goals is the wrong word. Maybe desires is better. You said PA always wants decisions that glorify God and so forth. I agree. Unfortunately, I used words in my original post (ban and censor) that were unnecessarily pejorative. I apologize for that. Is there a better word? Would it be fair to say that Griffin's book and Crossley's book (and perhaps others?), in the view of the IRD/PA, do not meet the criteria of glorifying God and so forth? If they do not meet that criteria, in the view of the IRD/PA, is it correct that the IRD/PA would wish that the PPC not publish them, or if already published, that the PPC no longer sell or promote them?
Is that accurate? Please rephrase that as necessary.
2) If that is reasonably accurate, then how would the IRD/PA and its staff go about encouraging the PPC to implement those desires? Does the IRD/PA staff publish a guideline of criteria? Does it contact PPC board members? Does it publish book reviews or news releases? Does it talk to denominational staff? Does it help church sessions or presbyteries write overtures to the General Assembly? Does it attempt to encourage folks who agree with the IRD/PA to get on the board of PPC and educate people about that process?
Those are just things off the top of my head. Maybe the staff of IRD/PA does none of these things, maybe some, maybe all, maybe others.
Again, this is an opportunity for you to say what exactly is done. It would help in squelching idle chatter.
3) Finally, Mr. Godshall of the PPC board has distanced himself from the Griffin book. Do you feel that the IRD/PA provided information and encouragement for him to reevaluate his decision?
One more time, I don't ask these questions to put you on the spot, but to give you a chance to clear the air so that I can help stop the "sinful string of gossip."
Sincerely,
John Shuck
John,
ReplyDeleteI'm going to have to start charging you billable hours! :-)
I went on Guidestar before I sent you the link, to be sure it works. You can get Form 990s without paying anything. You have to agree to their agreement, but I believe the kind of "publishing" you would do of a fact or figure here or there does not violate their agreement. As I read it, it was basically to keep someone from replicating the Guidestar site on another site--stealing their thunder; taking their business.
Concerning your questions:
1) You wrote, "You said that IRD/PA has no goals." That's not exactly correct. We have general objectives on a number of things. But we have no SPECIFIC goals about the PPC in particular--YET. In other words, I ran across something that looks like another cockeyed decision by PPC, and I'm investigating it. I got a copy of the new book. I may review it, if there is something worthwhile to say. I may not if it proves mundane or harmless. From how it has been described, it sounds like a terribly poor choice--a book debunking God's hand in the miraculous rise of the Christian church. I'll see if that is true or not. Fair enough?
You asked, "Would it be fair to say that Griffin's book and Crossley's book (and perhaps others?), in the view of the IRD/PA, do not meet the criteria of glorifying God and so forth? If they do not meet that criteria, in the view of the IRD/PA, is it correct that the IRD/PA would wish that the PPC not publish them, or if already published, that the PPC no longer sell or promote them?" Yes, that is correct (except that I'll reserve such judgment for the Crossley book until I know it better).
2) You ask, "How would the IRD/PA and its staff go about encouraging the PPC to implement those desires?" Let me begin by saying that the PA "staff" is me. Sometimes IRD VP Alan Wisdom lends some time, but day in and day out, our entire juggernaut is basically this one guy. Pretty impressive and incredibly well-funded, huh? :-)
Does the IRD/PA staff publish a guideline of criteria? No.
Does it contact PPC board members? I haven't yet, but could envision doing it if it seemed wise.
Does it publish book reviews or news releases? Sometimes. Alan Wisdom reviewed Griffin's book at the request of "Presbyterians Today," for instance. I commend it: http://www.pcusa.org/today/media/feature_review.htm
We also had a press release: http://www.ird-renew.org/site/apps/s/content.asp?c=fvKVLfMVIsG&b=494491&ct=3248151
Does it talk to denominational staff? Sometimes. We try to maintain touch with leaders.
Does it help church sessions or presbyteries write overtures to the General Assembly? Yes, usually when help is asked for. People want to accomplish something, and we may suggest edits or ways to word it in an appropriate way.
Does it attempt to encourage folks who agree with the IRD/PA to get on the board of PPC and educate people about that process? That would be a wise course and legitimate activity, but we haven't gone there in this case.
Those who are effective in informing a debate and working with interested parties do these kinds of things. You know the drill. It's the kind of thing Covenant Network or More Light or Presbyterians For Renewal or interested and committed independents do if they hope to accomplish something worthwhile, rather than just groan.
3) You write, "Finally, Mr. Godshall of the PPC board has distanced himself from the Griffin book." That is correct, and not only was it he personally who did so, but it was by an action of the PPC Board of Directors. That's a nearly unprecedented thing to do, to publically call into question the editorial judgment of your publisher and editors. You have to think the board was not very happy with the paid staff.
You ask, "Do you feel that the IRD/PA provided information and encouragement for him to reevaluate his decision?" We would not WANT him to reevaluate his decision to repudiate the Griffin book. We believe Godshall and the board exercised far better editorial judgment than the staff had done.
I do not know Godshall and did not contact him prior to this board decision.
As I reread your question, you may be thinking that Godshall at first liked the book and then was pressured to "reevaluate his decision." I don't know the inner workings, but my guess would be that that was not the case. Typically, a board concerns itself with policy, and the staff makes the editorial decisions. I wouldn't think that Godshall had MADE a decision previously about the Griffin book, because that's the staff's job and he wouldn't want to interfere with editorial work.
However, after Godshall had received his umpteenth "Are you nuts?!!" phone call and e-mail--from all sorts of people across the Presbyterian spectrum--when news of the book broke, I would guess that he and the other board members felt COMPELLED to take a look at this travesty and then took the extradordinary step of somewhat shaming their editorial staff. The board didn't order the book pulled, probably to maintain the mystical wall between management and editorial, but they sure made their publisher and editors look bad.
No, I think once Godshall really looked at the book, he was as embarrassed by it as the rest of us were. You will notice the words he chose to describe it--trying hard to be diplomatic, but the bottom line was that the book was irresponsible and not up to the house's usual standards.
But this is speculation. One could ask Godshall.
I wonder why these questions are really necessary. The things I do for Presbyterian Action are rather mundane and quite expected. No judo, dirty tricks, disguises, or ejector seats required. I hear of something that appears off-kilter, I look into it, if it does appear to be not right, I write about it and see if there is some decent and orderly way to fix it. I think that is what responsible presbyters are expected to do in a democratic and not autocratic church.
What if the PPC decided to publish a blatantly racist tome by some KKK leader? Wouldn't you do pretty much what I did about this book (and wouldn't I be at your side, helping you?)?
This is all so pedestrian, so expected, so "Of course he does that; I would, too, if I felt as he does."
If Bobby or Mystical read some annoyance in my tone, it's because I'm sick to death of breathless and outlandish claims about highly trained and lethal outside agents infiltrating the church with bundles of political money for the sole purpose of destroying the church and dividing it up for secular political gain, to the glee of some cabal of lip-smacking neo-con string pullers with entirely sinister purposes. That's a bunch of hooey, yet it gets flung like manure by folks like Dorhauer and Currie, and the Bobs--Edgar and Thomas. (And if you want to know how I REALLY feel...)
Let's end this little interchange with this. I have other fish to fry. Thanks for the civility and savvy you displayed.
Jim Berkley
OK Jim, I will let you go. Thank you for answering all of those questions. Also for the link to Guide Star
ReplyDeleteYou can get the 990 IRS forms for all the nonprofits. A person with a certain type of retentiveness could spend hours there.
Receipts from contributions for 2004 (the latest year available) for IRD was $1,089,012 if I read that right.
While I understand that you need a raise, I would venture that a million bucks a year is pretty good change for the purpose of monitoring and influencing three national denominations.
In contrast, the Witherspoon Society's contributions for that same year were $29,379. Fidel Castro has been a little tight lately. : )
Just one other thing about our beloved publishing house. I like the way it is run and I like the fact that it publishes controversial books that I do not agree with and that it publishes scholarship that challenges my view, and may be considered by some to be heretical. The church has always learned from its heretics. It is good for us to be exposed to ideas that challenge.
Finally, thank you for your comments on this blog. I think we finally cooled down and saw each other as persons--and brothers in Christ. You have personalized the IRD. That recognition that we are dealing with real people is a rare and special event.
I will seek in the future to remember that in my writing and in my criticism.
I trust that you will remember in your writing that the staff at Louisville and those who make decisions on the various boards (including PPC) are good people, too--God's people.
All of us are trying to do the work of the kingdom.
God Bless,
John Shuck
John,
ReplyDeleteA final encore...
Thanks for the opportunity to FINALLY chat as if over that mythical cup of coffee. I appreciate, the way we could simply "talk" at the end, rather than shout past each other. You brought that change, and I thank you.
Your comment, "I would venture that a million bucks a year is pretty good change for the purpose of monitoring and influencing three national denominations." Yes and not quite. It does much more. We at IRD have a strong emphasis on human rights, especially for terrorized and brutalized Christians under oppressive regimes. We follow the work of both the NCC and the WCC and publicize their foibles and news. We offer counsel to and minister beside persons from several other mainline denominations, as well. We do original research and publish it. So the funds get spread rather widely, actually, not just to three denominations.
Finally, I DO try to remember always that I am dealing with real folks, Christian brothers and sisters, who work on the staff and serve on the entities of the PCUSA. I have run into some real gems--and, sadly, some scoundrels--just like in any congregation or other enterprise. Like you, I want to give decent people the benefit of the doubt.
Writing from Pacific Time, it's still Saturday night here. Have a blessed Lord's Day.
Jim Berkley
I don't know if anyone is still following this thread or not, but I found it ironic that the Presbyterian Layman www.layman.org published this article,
ReplyDelete"NCC uses 'churchly veneer' for
political advocacy funded by
non-church sources, new report says."
The Layman article refers to an IRD press release: "Strange Yokefellows: The National Council of Churches and Its Growing Non-Church Constituency."
The Layman goes on to say,
"...the detailed report – – analyzed the financial records of the National Council of Churches for fiscal years 2003-2004 and 2004-2005, determining that the council "is more dependent financially upon the Ford Foundation than upon 32 of its 35 member denominations."
And who again is the IRD dependent upon financially?
Chuck Currie has posted another entry on his blog about the IRD, and he has a bit of information that, up to this point, had not been disclosed in this comment string, namely the percentage of funding that comes from right wing foundations. The percentage, it seems is 40%.
ReplyDelete