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.