My husband, Jim Berkley, heads up Presbyterian Action, a division of the Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD). Jim's goal in his work is to bring the PC(USA) back to Biblical faithfulness as he understands it, and to influence the social witness of the PC(USA) so that it is not merely a reflection of certain secular political ideologies, but instead represents the membership of the entire PC(USA) and reflects the whole biblical witness.
I have probably stated the above somewhat poorly, so please do not take it as definitive.
Unfortunately, the IRD has become the bête noire of many progressives (progressives are those with a theologically liberal point of view). For some reason, these particular progressives (not just Presbyterians, but from many denominations) have decided that the IRD is not what it says it is. Instead, they claim that it is only masquerading as a theological organization, and is instead a rightwing secular political organization, deeply funded by rightwing politics, and led by Catholics, that aims at destroying mainline denominations. In their view, my husband and his coworkers do not care at all about faith.
Amazingly, the people who propound this theory of a supposed IRD conspiracy do not have any facts to support it. (The closest they get to facts is that there are Catholics on the board of IRD. The board meets once or twice a year. By the way, the objection of these progressives to Catholics is quite unecumenical of them.) Nevertheless, these anti-IRD progressives have been able to convince all sorts of well-known people, such as Bill Moyers, or John Thomas (the head of the United Church of Christ), that their theory is true.
Now, I do not take offense at people differing from me theologically. Of course I would love it if everyone agreed with me! But realistically I know that there won't be complete theological agreement among Christians this side of heaven. So I'm not upset that many progressives deplore the goals that the IRD works for. However, it does upset me for some people to state as fact things that they do not know to be true. For example, they state publicly that my husband, or others of his colleagues, spend their time figuring out how to destroy churches, or that they get secret orders from Bush's White House. But when I have communicated with many of the progressives who promote these ideas, to try to persuade them to look at facts instead of conspiracy theories, they have ridiculed me (for example, John Dorhauer of Talk2Action tells me that he responds with any random thing that he thinks will make me angry) and refused to listen seriously to anything I might have to say.
That's why I was so happy that, yesterday, I had a really great e-mail conversation with a progressive acquaintance about this topic. He had been commenting on the blog Shuck and Jive, which is currently hyping the anti-IRD dogma. He had mentioned my husband, and I had told him how we had understood what he said. He hadn't meant what we thought, and we both discussed how written communication can sometimes go awry. He ended up, on his own initiative, writing a blog posting in which he said he would no longer discuss IRD, and apologized for any personal offense he might have caused.
This was a truly gracious and generous Christian reaction to what is going on, and I wish that all progressives would be as reasonable as he is about the IRD situation. (I am also sure that there are areas in which evangelicals need to take a closer look at their public reactions to situations.) I am looking forward to my husband's seeing it when he returns from a mountain conference where he is presently.
Thanks to my progressive friend and brother in Christ!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
Well said Debbie! I'm glad you found a sane person from Shuck's blog.
I guess there are some rational people left in the Left. ;)
Debbie I am so glad that someone has responded to you in such a manner. It has to be so painful to keep plowing through the same unending lies.
Debbie,
What do you mean when you use the term “supposed IRD conspiracy”? Is it meant with the same contempt Toby expresses? Either let the IRD continue to attack whole segments of the Church, or be labeled a cuckoo?
Look at what you said. You started out by saying that your husband and the IRD want the social witness of the PCUSA to represent all the members of the PCUSA and defend the whole biblical witness not just certain secular political ideologies. But then you say the Progressives are attacking it. Obviously then they must not think the IRD represents them. If that is who they are. If the IRD’s goals were as you say, then it must be failing miserably. Furthermore, the implication is that conservatives would not attack the IRD because the IRD is on their side, correct? The IRD is >>not<< trying to get the social witness of PCUSA to represent all of its members. It very emphatically is trying to take it back from what it perceives as the (cuckoo) liberals and get it to represent the conservatives instead, not in addition to.
Your first claim isn’t poorly stated, it is a lie.
But you were close to the truth when you said it. (A good lie always is.) The distinction between progressives and conservatives is a secular ideological distinction, not a theological one. It is not Biblical, it is not Orthodox, it isn’t even Reformed. It isn’t based on the teachings of Jesus. The Holy Spirit does not endorse it. To the contrary, Paul himself wrote whole chapters of Scripture railing against these kinds of divisions in the Body of Christ. The >>distinction<< is a secular political distinction that can only be applied to the Church from the outside for the purpose of dividing it against itself. Categorizing and dividing the Body of Christ along these secular political lines is then, according to the Scriptures, anti-Christ.
But you make it, and implicitly endorse it.
You even congratulate your friend from the other side for reaching across the presumed divide (reminds me of that WWI story of enemy soldiers in the trenches reaching across barbed wire to celebrate Christmas – only to resume killing each other the next day).
So whom does the IRD represent? Conservatives? Progressives? It assumes a divided Church and chooses a side.
As you say, your husband makes a living off of this division. Does he seek to minimize it, or does he throw gas on the fire? He may be a nice guy in person, but his work is not at the service of the Holy Spirit. Now that alone is not a crime (at least I hope not). My job is not particularly at the service of the Holy Spirit either, if truth be told. But I think I would pause at taking silver for attacking whole elements of the Church on the basis of opposing secular political values.
It shouldn’t surprise you if reasonable disciples of Jesus – and even some crazy ones – should find that revolting.
Jodie, I'm sorry that you want to attack rather than have a conversation. You accuse me of lying without knowing me. In fact, I do not lie; it is something that I abhor.
You disagree with IRD; fine. As I said in my post, it is one thing to disagree with IRD and to work for different goals, and I have no problem with that. But it is another thing to assume evil motives for IRD staff and their spouses, and that is what I object to.
I don't think Toby meant anyone was a cuckoo. I think he meant sane/rational in the sense that it is more rational to address ideas rather than motives, when you don't know motives, since you don't know the people propounding the ideas.
I never said that IRD represents progressives. But progressive ideology has a lockhold on the social witness of the PCUSA. I don't mean that this social witness needs to be changed to the IRD's views. I (and the IRD) mean that it should be changed so that it does not represent any narrow view, progressive or conservative. If you look at the IRD's writings, you will see that this is what they say. They recommend that the church not take a stand on issues such as taxes, etc., since this is not the area of expertise of a church and is an area in which Presbyterians will disagree.
Please be less acrimonious and more gracious to your fellow Christians, even when you disagree with them, or perhaps especially when you disagree with them. We are not evil simply because we don't have the same opinions that you have.
Oh, and yes, there is a progressive/conservative distinction that is not secular political. This distinction also exists in theology, and although it is frequently correlated with the secular political distinction, it is not always so. For example, I am conservative theologically, but I am a Democrat. For example, many theological conservatives believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and many theological progressives do not. If you can only see things in terms of secular politics, that is your problem, but it's not the problem in the church.
Debbie,
Thank you for the gracious words over at my "blog", I appreciate them. I have been following the IRD controversy over at Shucks, from a distance. I am pleased that Doug chose to declare a moratoriam, and that you have responded so gracefully. I have had some interesting conversations with him over the last year or so, and have appreciated getting to "know" him a little. Keep up the good work.
"Please be less acrimonious and more gracious to your fellow Christians, even when you disagree with them, or perhaps especially when you disagree with them."
Excellent advice, Debbie.
I think you should cut this one out and paste it on your husband's mirror so that he reads it every morning.
Jodie,
Great advice coming from someone who is as nonacrimonius and gracious as anyone I have ever "met". Except when your not, of course.
Jodie, I noticed that you didn't respond to anything substantive in what I said, but only continued with ad hominem comments. I think you need to listen to your own advice.
Thanks for the kind comments, Craig. Although there is very little that Doug and I agree on, I know that Doug is a good guy. And that is where I differ from many of the progressives I have encountered; I can imagine people whose theology differs from mine still being good people.
Debbie,
Although my areas of agree ment with DOug are limited as well,I,m convinced that if Doug and I could sit down over a beverage or something that we might be able to get along. Too bad it's so hard in blog world. I really liked his Easter post about taking a break and allowing God to work in the PCUSA situation. It sounds pretty reasonable, but there are too many folks who have too much invested in this to step back and wait. It's really too bad, eventually God is going to bless the part of this discussion that is most in sync with Him.
Debbie,
I don’t know what else you wanted me to say. You acknowledged that you promote a divided Body, you agree the IRD promotes a divided Body, and you endorse making a living by continuing to divide the Body of Christ. My only possible response to your affirmation would have been to say QED. But why rub it in?
As far as the ad hominem claim, I remind you that the IRD is almost exclusively ad hominem, and your own original post was ad hominem. When you label someone either a liberal or a conservative on the basis of something they believe or disbelieve, you place them in a bucket of all the other things you give that same label. Then you give yourself the luxury of dismissing them not on the merit of their argument, but rather on the basis of the bucket you put them in. That is the definition of ad hominem.
In the example you presented you equated being liberal with not believing in the resurrection. With that ad hominem affirmation you dismiss the belief, and anyone who believes in it, by placing them in the same category of all the other people you dismiss for holding views that you hold as liberal. Your original post was a case of making the rule by claiming an exception (“look here, I found a nice liberal”).
The end has been corrupted by the means. You divided the Body of Christ into “us vs. them” in order to conquer. Ad hominem et contra Corpus Christum.
Jodie,
I have to ask, did you even read the initial post?
Jodie, it's clear that you don't know what "ad hominem" means. Ad hominem means attacking the person rather than their ideas. Categorizing a person's beliefs as progressive or conservative is not an attack, unless you feel that "progressive" is a bad word; I don't.
However, I was thinking yesterday (while I had no Internet access) that it was not ad hominem for you to say that you think that my husband's writings are acrimonious and ungracious, so I take back and apologize for that particular comment that I made. I disagree with you, but that is not an ad hominem statement that you made.
As for the rest of your comments, I have never promoted a divided body. Nor does IRD. It therefore seems to me that you are unable to read with comprehension, because, if you have read what I or IRD has written, you have clearly not understood it.
Among the substantive ideas I would have liked you to respond to: disagreeing without attacking the motives of those you disagree with, and without making assumptions about conspiracies when you have no facts to uphold those assumptions; and the fact that in their writings, IRD says that the PCUSA should not promote any secular political agenda, including a conservative one (you had claimed they would promote a conservative one).
Instead of responding to those ideas, you just made a mean-spirited remark about my husband's writing style.
Based on your track record here and elsewhere, I don't expect you to respond to this comment in a helpful way, either, but you could surprise me.
Debbie
Sigh….
Debbie,
You don’t consider your last post ad hominem?
But if you adopt the doctrine that the Body of Christ is divided into Progressive and Conservative, you have already betrayed Him. And if you say that so and so is wrong because they are liberal or because they are conservative, or even if you categorize someone as liberal or conservative based on claims they make, that is text-book ad hominem logic. The very premise of your husband’s last post (doesn’t faith matter) was ad hominem and encouraged ad hominem thinking. Maybe you are the one who should brush up on informal logic.
“Among the substantive ideas I would have liked you to respond to: disagreeing without attacking the motives of those you disagree with,”
No, I am not attacking the motives. I am objecting to the methods and judging by the results. The methods have a way of corrupting the motives and objectives.
“and without making assumptions about conspiracies when you have no facts to uphold those assumptions;”
I have not made any conspiracy assumptions. You are the one that brought up the idea, in an ad hominem manner, and I just asked you if you used it with contempt – which you never answered.
“and the fact that in their writings, IRD says that the PCUSA should not promote any secular political agenda, including a conservative one (you had claimed they would promote a conservative one).”
Just as one small example, according to the Powell doctrine (look it up), which itself is based on the assumption of a left wing conspiracy, part of the secular political agenda of the right is to replace the pulpits of the mainline churches with pulpits that are friendly to politically conservative right wing ideology. As such, they have channeled millions of dollars of big business money into the Evangelical pulpits, schools and seminaries, and to support conservative Evangelical publications that tow the secular conservative line – the IRD being one of them. The National Association of Evangelicals was all too proud to take credit for having delivered their block of votes to George W Bush – and later did nothing to reign him in even as he endorsed torture and renounced Habeas Corpus and the Geneva Convention, and spoke openly of preemptive nuclear war.
The example you mentioned, however – taking a stand on taxes – is entirely appropriate in a Democracy such as America’s. And I assume that if an American president were hosting sexual orgies at the White House and presiding over the torture and killing of women and children for guest entertainment you would promote the Church taking a stand on that as well – regardless of what the Scriptures may or may not say about the relationship between the Church and secular governments, Scriptures that were written at a time when that is exactly what the Emperor was doing. The secular conservatives want the Church to stay out of their government business and be silent, because political morality is an embarrassment to them. So they they are willing to pay for any theology that says that.
In Church, silence can mean trusting God, but in a democracy, silence means consent.
Uh, Jodie, let me get this straight:
1) You think Debbie is wrong.
2) Thus you have divided people into two groups: a) those who are right like you, and b) those who are wrong like Debbie.
3) But, to complicate matters, you think the act of providing some framework or taxonomy--even classifications of the sort by which the person classifies him- or herself--is apparently something really evil: "dividing the body."
4) Doesn't that hoist you on your own petard?
Just wondering.
Jim Berkley
(the lesser in intelligence and graciousness of the Doctors Berkley)
Jodie, no, my last post was not ad hominem. Either you are not reading with comprehension, or else you are reading with comprehension, and deliberately choosing to respond as if you have not understood what I write. I don't know which it is, but your responses do not evidence understanding of what I have written. My stating all of this is not an attack on you; it is just an observation of what has occurred in our interaction in these comments.
You have indeed, by the way, been criticizing IRD's motives. When you describe IRD as "attacking whole segments of the church", for instance, that implies motives of wishing to attack, which are not any kind of motives that IRD has.
I would like to respond to a few of the things that you said (but not all of them; there's not enough time).
"But if you adopt the doctrine that the Body of Christ is divided into Progressive and Conservative, you have already betrayed Him." First off, I don't consider the PC(USA) to be the Body of Christ. All Christians in the world make up the Body of Christ. Secondly, do you not realize that Presbyterians, and other Christians, do not always agree theologically? If you don't think that there are Progressives and Evangelicals in the PC(USA), or in other parts of the Body of Christ for that matter, then you are not aware of what is really going on. Naming the various groupings is just describing reality. And there are more than two groups, and shades of gray in each one, but most people find it convenient to use the two main terms. Thirdly, "progressive" is not a name that theological conservatives have given to their theological opponents. It is a name that progressives have selected for themselves. I personally rather resent the fact that they have coopted this word, since it implies that we evangelicals are regressive or at least at a standstill, but it is the label that they wish to use for themselves, and so I do them the favor of using it instead of some other term that they might not like as well.
If groups like IRD were to stop working for theologically conservative goals, it would not mean that there would suddenly be theological unanimity in the church; it would just mean that progressive doctrine would continue to reign and all the Presbyterians in the pew who are evangelical would continue to be unrepresented and unhappy about it. And, according to the scientific polls done by the Presbyterian panel, there are more evangelicals in the pew than there are progressives. Such a situation does not seem fair to evangelicals.
"And if you say that so and so is wrong because they are liberal or because they are conservative, or even if you categorize someone as liberal or conservative based on claims they make, that is text-book ad hominem logic."
OK, here, first, I've never said that anyone was wrong because they were liberal or because they were conservative, and I never will. As for the rest of that sentence, it is emphatically NOT textbook ad hominem logic to categorize someone's beliefs as liberal or conservative based on claims that they make. That's what those words are about. And when you call someone a progressive or an evangelical, you are talking about their beliefs. Moreover, when we are talking in the context of a church (the PC(USA)), then we are talking about beliefs, and so words such as progressive or orthodox, etc., are entirely appropriate in this context.
Again, let me repeat, "ad hominem" means attacking the person rather than that person's ideas. Let me give you an example. Suppose I disagreed with a person named Pat. If I were to say, "Pat's ideas are not well-connected logically, and Pat never gives any evidence to support arguments," that would not be ad hominem; it would be criticizing Pat's ideas. Also if I were to say "Pat is progressive" or "Pat is orthodox", that would also not be ad hominem. But if I were to say "Pat is a liar who only engages in these debates in order to get a good job", then that would be ad hominem, because I would have attacked Pat or Pat's motives, rather than discussing Pat's beliefs or ideas.
"And I assume that if an American president were hosting sexual orgies at the White House and presiding over the torture and killing of women and children for guest entertainment you would promote the Church taking a stand on that as well"
Huh? What are you trying to say here?
"part of the secular political agenda of the right is to replace the pulpits of the mainline churches with pulpits that are friendly to politically conservative right wing ideology. As such, they have channeled millions of dollars of big business money into the Evangelical pulpits, schools and seminaries, and to support conservative Evangelical publications that tow the secular conservative line – the IRD being one of them."
Cite the evidence. Show proof that IRD has received such money. Don't just spout the popular line about IRD getting money from the political right unless you can back it up with facts.
"The example you mentioned, however – taking a stand on taxes – is entirely appropriate in a Democracy such as America’s."
Taxes are a complex issue. Are you absolutely certain that there is only exactly one correct moral way to enact tax legislation? If not, then the church should not take one particular secular political stand on it.
Jodie, the main thing I get out of your comments is that you are determined to find me a bad, or prejudiced, person, or someone who is out to get people I don't agree with. But you don't even know me! That is absolutely not what I'm like, yet you are treating everything I say by viewing it through a lens of that sort. It's really a shame, and such a barrier to reconciliation in the body of Christ, and in our branch of it, when preconceived ideas are held on to so firmly.
Please try to read what I've written through a neutral lens.
Debbie
Oh, Jodie, I forgot--you wanted an answer to whether or not I used the phrase "supposed IRD conspiracy" with contempt. No, I did not. I don't write anything with contempt. In this case I phrased it that way because I wanted to refer to the concept of an IRD conspiracy that quite a few progressives believe in, but I used the word "supposed" because the conpsiracy does not, in fact, exist.
I'm not sure why you zeroed in on this phrase, but there's my answer.
Debbie,
You are right, I don’t even know you.
So why do you get out of my comments that I am determined to find you bad or prejudiced or out to get people? The topic isn’t even about you. The topic is the IRD. And you don’t even write for the IRD. You insist that I am imputing motives to you, all the while you keep looking for mine. I told you what they are.
The reason I asked about your conspiracy comment is because accusing people of believing in conspiracy theories has become a contemptuous put down in the blog-sphere, and I wasn’t sure you knew that. It scoffs at the possibility of a group or people organizing around a common (nefarious) goal without addressing the question. It associates the person making the suggestion with people who think, say, that the government has conspired to hide the presence of little green men at Roswell, or faked the moon landing. It’s used to offend and insult.
The real question I have put on the table is whether you know the IRD. Do you? Are you really so sure the IRD is not a wolf in sheep’s clothing and not concealing a negative and harmful effect on the Church behind a pious mask?
A lot of good people seem to think they are. Is it possible that where there is smoke there is fire?
I am glad you brought up the topic of a lens. There is no such thing as a neutral lens, of course. I can see through yours just fine, and I have. But seriously, it leads to behaviors inconsistent with the core values of the Gospel. One of the fundamental tenants of the Gospel is that in Christ we are One. That in Christ there are no Greeks or Jews or males or females, no free and slaves, no masters and servants, and certainly no liberals and conservatives. That is the lens I choose to put on. It comes straight from the Scriptures. And in so doing, I see things quite differently than you. So foreign to you that you are making no sense of what I am saying. You try to interpret them, but you lack the key.
So I will leave you with this thought. Put on a lens that truly sees the Body of Christ as one, and rejects the distinctions between left a right, and liberal and conservative. It is most definitely not a neutral lens.
But then neither is the Gospel.
When you really see it, then tell me what else you see.
Jodie, I happened to be online when your comment arrived in my inbox.
I think we're going to have to cut this off because it's going nowhere.
If you're not determined to find me ill-willed in some way, then I'm puzzled as to how you are reading so much ill will into what I write.
But here's the last main point I want to make:
You seem to be confusing recognizing differences in theological belief with not accepting people as brothers and sisters in Christ. Are you assuming that when I speak of people as progressives, that I want to exclude them from the church? Because that's certainly not the case. Did you not notice that at the end of my original post, I said "Thanks to my progressive friend and brother in Christ!" I think that that would show you that, although I acknowledge that he and I have differences in our theological beliefs, yet we are both members of the Body of Christ, and I have no wish to exclude him, nor does he wish to exclude me.
Is that what you're getting at? Do you think that by recognizing the categories "progressive" or "orthodox" or "evangelical" that I am somehow saying that only one of those groups can be part of the Body of Christ? Because that's certainly not the case. And I'd like to remind you that the Apostle Paul said that the body cannot all be an eye, or all an ear, etc.
Yes, in Christ we are one, because we have all been saved from the consequences of our sin by him. But that does not magically make us all agree in theology, and we can't pretend that we do by avoiding using the terms "progressive" or "orthodox" or "liberal" or "conservative."
I might also mention that the progressive friend I originally wrote about thanked me for the blog posting. He certainly did not take offense at it the way you have.
As for what you have asked about IRD, yes, I do know it. My husband, of course, knows it better, but I know my husband. We have been married 33 years. One reason I married him was because of his deep love for Christ. Another reason was his absolute integrity. He would not work for any organization that was doing wrong things. It is painful to see people claiming untrue things about him and publicly asserting that he does things that he does not do. I don't know where all this anti-IRD stuff started, but it is certainly not true. Perhaps the reason you're hearing people being accused of believing in a conspiracy theory is because they are believing in a conspiracy theory, at least, if it's about IRD.
You say you can see through my lens just fine. Based on everything you have said so far, I doubt it. You say things like "That is the lens I choose to put on. It comes straight from the Scriptures. And in so doing, I see things quite differently than you. So foreign to you that you are making no sense of what I am saying. You try to interpret them, but you lack the key." Your assumption is that I am quite lacking in true Christian spirituality. Again, as I have said, you neither know nor understand me. You have been reading everything I say through pre-conceived notions of what I am like and what I might think, and you are wrong.
This is the last comment in this thread. I am going to close it off now.
I know Debbie very well and I know that she is a person that is NOT judgemental, ill-willed or hotheaded. She's a calm, kind, thoughtful, and gracious person.
Jodie, would you be so careless and combative in person? Don't let the veil of the internet allow you to treat people in an unkind and unchristianlike way.
Sorry, I didn't mean to start this up. Somehow the last comment by Debbie wasn't initially visible to me. I will now allow Debbie's wish to close this off come true.
>>Debbie, feel free to erase my post(s).<<
Dear Anonymous,
I am sure you are quite right about Debbie. But she defends the IRD and that undermines it all.
As an example, see the IRD’s March 31 article about religious activists taking a position against our government’s use of torture. It follows a standard formula. First it quotes their position. Then it says they provided no evidence, as if therefore the evidence does not exist. Then it casually discredits them in the eyes of conservative readers by associating them with ultra liberals, and in the eyes of everybody by associating them with 911 conspiracy theorists.
The (not so) subliminal message the IRD is promoting is that good conservative Christians should let their government torture whomever it pleases, and if that is not to their liking, then dismiss it as the confabulation of a bunch of discredited liberal nut jobs anyway.
Compare that to the ABC news article at
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw
/LawPolitics/Story?id=4635175
Why should conservative Evangelicals be the last to figure out the difference between right and wrong?
Great post!!!!!!!!! Keep it up!
Post a Comment