We recently took note of a report in the New York Times, about the influence of the Institute on Religion & Democracy within the Presbyterian Church. Deborah Milam Berkley, of Bellevue, WA, sent a comment pointing out what she sees as "inaccuracies" in the Times' report. Her husband, Jim Berkley, is Issues Director of Presbyterians for Renewal.   [6-1-04]

Hi, Doug--

I've noticed that you've been highlighting the recent New York Times article about the Institute on Religion & Democracy on the Witherspoon Society website.

I thought you might want to know that there are several inaccuracies in that article, which take away any credibility from their false implication that the IRD is out to take over the PCUSA.

One of them is very easy for you to verify. The article states that "When the Episcopal Church elected an openly gay bishop last summer, the institute organized and housed a conservative secessionist group called the American Anglican Council, which still occupies an office down the hall." In fact, the American Anglican Council has existed since 1995 or 1996. [Actually, they have just posted a correction on this, but the inaccurate version was what the majority of the readers saw.]

Here are some other inaccuracies, which you can check out with the various people involved, if you want to:

1) The article states that "The institute has brought together previously disconnected conservative groups within each denomination...." At least in the PCUSA, the IRD has never brought the renewal (conservative) groups together. Their sole Presbyterian staff member has participated in gatherings of renewal leaders, and in other such events, but he did not bring them into existence, nor does he convene or lead them.

2) The article states, "At the Presbyterian Church's assembly last year, the institute helped block a policy statement that said whether parents were single or gay made no difference to the moral status of a family, and in the process it won the appointment of one of its staff members to a committee to rewrite the policy for this year's meeting." The institute did not "help block" the "statement" any more than any other renewal group did; they had one person there as an observer. It is true that that one staff member, who was at GA in a capacity similar to members of the Witherspoon Society, was placed on the committee to rewrite this paper, but his placement on that committee was not "won" by the IRD. (The IRD has no means or standing to "win" anything at GA, since they are neither commissioners nor PCUSA staff.) Instead, what happened was that some of the members of the GA committee who were unhappy with the original paper requested his addition to the rewrite team, because of his expertise in this area, in order to create a tiny measure of balance on a skewed committee. The Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy did place him on the rewrite team, but he never even had voting privileges on the committee itself. Therefore the sentence on your website, "An earlier draft was substantially rewritten in response to criticisms at last year's General Assembly, orchestrated by the conservative Institute on Religion and Democracy", is also inaccurate. It was not "orchestrated" by the IRD.

[A comment from your WebWeaver: Alan Wisdom, who has been highly visible for two decades as the Presbyterian staff member of the Institute on Religion and Democracy, provided significant help to the six committee members who introduced and got through a motion which essentially rejected the original draft report. In fact the Rev. Marjorie Working, who moved the substitute, acknowledged that six members had developed their substitute motion by e-mail over the month preceding the Assembly, and that they had been "helped" in this process by Alan Wisdom. She acknowledged this fact only after the committee had taken its action, and under questioning at a press conference.]

3) The article states, "As Presbyterians prepare to gather for their General Assembly in Richmond, Va., next month, a band of determined conservatives is advancing a plan to split the church along liberal and orthodox lines." Then the story goes on to focus on the IRD. This implies that the IRD is proposing and pushing a plan for division of the PCUSA. While it is true that there are a few Presbyterians pushing "gracious separation," the IRD is not among them. The IRD is in no way associated with the "gracious separation" group. This is actually acknowledged at the end of the article, where it states that "The group has often called on conservatives to change the liberal denominations from within, especially in the relatively more conservative Methodist and Presbyterian churches."

4) Finally, the article states that "More liberal Protestants argue that the institute's financial backers are interfering with the theological disputes mainly for broader, secular political reasons." I don't know about the financial backers, but this is certainly not true of the IRD itself. And it is strange to call it "interference" when, without official standing, vote, power, or numbers, a lone IRD representative provides such an excellent analysis and articulation of the matter that both the General Assembly commissioners and then the ACSWP members see the wisdom of that counsel. Since their staff member is a Presbyterian, he can hardly be said to be interfering any more than any other Presbyterian.

[For details on the funding of IRD, see the book A Moment to Decide.]

It is disappointing to see the New York Times print an article that is so poorly researched. It feels as if they were fed a line from someone that accorded with what they wanted to believe, and so they didn't bother to check the facts, even those that would have been simple to check, such as when the American Anglican Council was founded.

I hope you will indicate on the website that the article is questionable in what it asserts. Feel free to publish this letter if you want.

Thanks--

In Christ,

Debbie Berkley

Bellevue, WA