Daily Campus

Space may have prohibited the inclusion of the endlist of websites (referenced in the body of the article). The first two sites are video clips of David Kuo commenting on President Bush's faith-based initiative; the third gives the title and website where information on the IRD documentary can be found; the last two give further insights into the IRD. The documentary news article also mentions several scholarly books about the IRD. The point of so much information about the IRD is that President Bush turns to its founders and leaders to gain theological advice, and there's no reason to assume this close consultatory relationship will end once he leave office; the President very may give the IRD an official or semi-official voice in his institute. In the least, the IRD will position its own scholars as fellows in the Bush institute, and generally insert itself into the ongoing work of the institute in efforts to shape its ethos, direction, and emphases. Therefore, it's incumbent on SMU faculty to comprehend the scholarly consensus about the IRD's nature and intent. The problem is not that the IRD is conservative; the problem lies in its accumulated, documented, demonstrable history of misleading tactics, and its assaults on United Methodist institutions, agencies, and leaders (which eventually could include us).

FOR FURTHER REFERENCE:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/14/60minutes/main2089778.shtml

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/42939

Cynthia Astle, "Clergyman's Documentary Exposes the IRD", United Methodist NeXus (ed. Cynthia Astle), March 21, 2007. www.umnexus.org/context.php

http://marty-center.uchicago.edu/sightings/archive_2003/0710.shtml

http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/3/3/18370/16528

Dr. Johnson is overstating her case. There is no general scholarly consensus about IRD having devious, underhanded tactics. What you have is a small handful of conspiracy theorists who have concocted a clueless theory that IRD is entirely evil and deceptively sinister, a far right-wing POLITICAL attempt to smash the witness of mainline churches. This is as laughable as it is false.

If one applauds operating with all the nuanced scholarship of Joseph McCarthy as he discovered Communism behind every footstool. and if one happens to be be both fact- and logic-impaired, one will greatly appreciate the "scholarship" found in the writings on Talk to Action (www.talk2action.org) by Andrew Weaver, Frederick Clarkson, and John Dorhauer.

And if one wants to see how a totalitarian state works, one that brooks no dissent, no questioning of the authorities, take a look at how the site squashes even the mildest inquiry: http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/12/12/85936/716/Front_Page/And_Still_More_Deception (see the comments of "Pastor Deb" and the responses). The work on this site is not academic or verifiable.

What Talk2Action does is make wild speculative claims about IRD's motivation and "true" purpose, but it provides no data to back up its claims. It uses circular arguments along these lines: (1) IRD is evil; (2) its web site says it is trying to renew the church; but (3) since IRD is evil, the web site must be lying. See this site for challenges of Talk2Action to produce one shred of evidence: http://www.ucctruths.com/John_Dorhauer.htm. John Dorhauer refuses. He has no evidence, because his theory is false.

Talk2Action seemingly cannot present accurate information about IRD's relationship with other groups. Dr. Johnson, by the way, made the same kind of mistake by pointing people to a United Methodist Confessing Church web site in her article and saying it gives a taste of what IRD does. That's like sending someone to Oral Roberts University's web site for a taste of SMU. IRD doesn't own, operate, direct, or massively fund other renewal groups, but to read Talk2Action, one would think that every other theologically conservative group is but a "minion" of IRD's assumed web of conspiracy.

A great many words can be written about anything--and they can be wrong in their entirety. Words do not equal scholarship. A true scholar, who researches not only what one band of detractors is saying but the original sources, will find a different truth about the IRD. Simply go to the web site: www.ird-renew.org. There you will find what IRD is about. One may agree or disagree with IRD's analyses and opinions, but one doesn't need to villainize the organization or sing "IRD is coming to town" to a supposed-to-be-horrified SMU campus.

James D. Berkley, D.Min.
Director of Presbyterian Action, a committee of IRD
Bellevue, WA