The Oct. 10 issue of WORLD, the Christian-based newsmagazine, offers a profile of one of the United Methodist Church’s most influential and controversial figures, Mark Tooley of the Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD).
Mark Tooley
For years, Tooley has been a thorn in the side of UM leaders who have sought to move the church away from orthodox positions on theology and mission. His major weapon: the written word.
As head of UMAction, an IRD sub-group, Tooley began reporting on various United Methodist and ecumenical gatherings in the mid-1990s. His written reports about non-orthodox pronouncements uttered at these conferences and meetings made Tooley a lightning rod for criticism.
In 2008, he recounted his many run-ins with “progressive” leaders in Taking Back the United Methodist Church (Bristol House).
Earlier this year, Mark Tooley was named president of IRD, which describes itself as “an ecumenical alliance of U.S. Christians working to reform their churches’ social witness, in accord with biblical and historic Christian teachings, thereby contributing to the renewal of democratic society at home and abroad.”
The group was founded in 1981 by United Methodists Ed Robb and David Jessup. Current United Methodist board members include retired pastor Ira Gallaway, Helen Rhea Stumbo of the Bristol House publishing firm, and theologian Thomas C. Oden, author of Turning Around the Mainline: How Renewal Movements Are Changing the Church.
∞
From the WORLD profile of Mark Tooley, authored by Marvin Olasky, the magazine’s editor-in-chief.
Tooley, 44, grew up in what for decades was the Main Street of American Protestantism, a United Methodist church (UM). He went to Georgetown University, known in the 1980s and now as a prep school for the State Department, but that career seemed tame compared to what the CIA had to offer. For eight years he worked as an analyst of data first from Pacific islands such as Fiji (but he didn’t get to go there) and then from Mozambique and Zimbabwe.
But the steady movement to the left of some U.S. clergy kept bugging him, so he left the CIA and in 1994 became head of UMAction with the goal of fighting the church hierarchy’s support of Marxist guerrillas in Central America, violent revolutionaries in southern Africa, and abortionists in the United States….
Now his office at IRD displays prints, paintings, and drawings of George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, and Winston Churchill: He sees them as exemplars of the moral character and tenacity that are needed in his battle to reclaim a Methodist denomination with 8 million members in the United States (most of them are not in church on a typical Sunday) and 3 million abroad (most of them are). Tooley’s office also sports a bust and painting of John Wesley and a print of Francis Asbury, the circuit-riding founder of American Methodism….
He hopes to keep Methodists and Presbyterians from following the Episcopal and Evangelical Lutheran denominations into support of ordination for actively homosexual clergy, but the IRD is not a one-note player: It wants churches to “uphold theological orthodoxy, espouse a responsible political witness, and plead for persecuted religious believers around the world.”
∞
In 2007, several of Tooley’s critics appeared in a DVD release titled, Renewal or Ruin: The Institute on Religion and Democracy’s Attack on the United Methodist Church.
Retired UM Bishop Kenneth Carder accused the IRD of engaging in the practice of intimidation. “Many are afraid to speak out because they don’t want their name to appear in one of the [IRD] articles or websites,” he said. “[N]ot permitting people to express their views…and to take positions on…controversial issues — that is un-American and that is radical, and it’s…also un-Christian.” (It could be argued, of course, that IRD doesn’t suppress views with which it does not agree; rather, through its reporting, IRD gives such views a wider audience.)
A darkly themed trailer for Renewal or Ruin? is here.
The IRD also was heavily criticized in a 2003 book, United Methodism at Risk: A Wake-up Call, published by an ad-hoc group called the Information Project for United Methodists. The group was headed by retired UM Bishop C. Dale White and attorney Beth Capen, now a member of the United Methodist Judicial Council.
United Methodism at Risk was written by the late Leon Howell, a member of the United Church of Christ and the final editor of the now-defunct Christianity and Crisis magazine, which ceased publication in 1993. The book was funded by Hennepin Avenue United Methodist Church in Minneapolis.
Related articles and information |
|
| • | Review of Taking Back the United Methodist Church | Ray Nothstine, Acton Institute Power Blog (April 10, 2008) |
| • | United Methodist renaissance? A review of Taking Back the United Methodist Church | Matthew May, Good News (September/October 2008) |
| • | Faith and Freedom: The Institute on Religion and Democracy | Chapter 5 of Public Pulpits: Methodists and Mainline Churches in the Moral Argument of Public Life by Steven M. Tipton (University of Chicago Press, 2008 — via Google Books) |
| • | Methodist philosopher Billy Abraham examines United Methodism’s decline | Mark Tooley, UMAction (Jan. 8, 2009) |
| • | African Power: How 192 delegates saved Methodists from madness & other stories from the General Conference | Mark Tooley, Touchstone (November 2008) |
| Use the audio player below to listen to a radio interview with Mark Tooley about the above-listed article | Issues, Etc. radio program (Nov. 4, 2008)
|
|
| • | ‘Renewal or Ruin?’ DVD Attacks IRD | Mark Tooley and John Lomperis, IRD (March 7, 2008) |
| • | Jim Winkler of the General Board of Church and Society demands Bush impeachment | Mark Tooley, The American Spectator (May 30, 2006) |
| • | Who profits from the Methodist Building? | Mark Tooley, Good News (March/April 2004) |
| • | The risk of renewal groups (A critique of United Methodism @ Risk: A Wake-Up Call) | James V. Heidinger, Good News (July/August 2003) |
| • | Decision to close meeting draws fire for Women’s Division; decision follows request from Mark Tooley to attend as press | United Methodist News Service (Nov. 1, 2000) |
| • | The demise of the world’s greatest mission agency | Mark Tooley, Touchstone magazine (November/December 1998) |
| • | General Board of Church and Society responds to allegations by IRD | United Methodist News Service (Oct. 5, 1998) |
| • | Liberal Methodism of Clintons may explain political positions (a column based on research by Mark Tooley) | Cal Thomas (April 22, 1995) |
Thanks for the good publicity! You can view the entire Renewal or Ruin? film online at http://www.fliqz.com/aspx/permalink.aspx?vid=8d6fb8ecb58f494daaa3be25eb220c15 .
View it and make a judgment for yourself, as thousands of loyal and faithful United Methodists have.
Blessings,
Steve
Editor’s note: Steven D. Martin is the producer of Renewal or Ruin? His Tennessee-based company, Vital Visions, “fund[s] productions for television and theatrical release that explore dynamics of faith and culture.”
I watched the film. I was struck by how vague the accusations were. Lots of innuendo, suspicion, guilt-by-association, speculation, even paranoia. But nowhere in the film did they once highlight anything specific said by Tooley or the IRD reporters that was false or defamatory.
I was struck by this statement by the self-appointed “researcher” into the IRD: “Everybody of conscience has been attacked by these people.” Meaning, I suppose, that the GBCS and revisionist bishops are the only “people of conscience” in the church.
That excludes those of us who don’t like what the GBCS does when it goes against official doctrine or advocates un-Christian policies and causes. Also excluded would be those of us who hold traditional, Wesleyan beliefs. Since the IRD hasn’t attacked us, that must mean we are not people of conscience, since “everybody of conscience” has been attacked.
Mark Tooley functions as the UM Church’s Isaiah. His tireless witness for historic Christian faith is a treasure within United Methodism.
With all due respect to Steven Martin, he’d better hope as few intelligent Methodists as possible view his film.
If he could gather this much fodder to slam the Institute On Religion and Democracy (theird.org), then he’d really have his hands full with the General Board of Church and Society! That is, if he were to “investigate” them with the same kind of zeal!
Editor’s note: The following comment has been edited. The full comment contained several unsubstantiated allegations about Mr. Tooley. The writer, Jaydee Hanson, previously served as the Assistant General Secretary for Public Witness and Advocacy at the United Methodist General Board of Church and Society.
I used to have much contact with Mark Tooley when I was on the staff of the General Board of Church and Society. I repeatedly asked him to invite me to the board meetings of the IRD to discuss with the board some areas that I thought GBCS and IRD could agree…. The GBCS has open meetings, Mark Tooley’s IRD has secret (at least to me) closed meetings. Which is the more democratic?….
In my current work, I work regularly with very conservative groups that my organization disagrees with on some issues…. And all of them will work with other groups (even liberal groups) when they share a common goal…. Christ and St Paul urge us to pray for our enemies and treat them as we would wish to be treated. Because of my Love of Jesus, I try my best to always keep Mark Tooley in my prayers. It’s not easy, but being a Christian is not supposed to be easy.
There are some important distinctions between the Institute On Religion and Democracy (IRD) and the General Board of Church and Society (GBCS). The IRD is an independent organization that has as its purpose the renewal of mainline denominations, i.e., back toward traditional Christian faith and away from the secularism that has become so pervasive in the culture and mainline churches.
There’s a political component to that with which people are free to disagree , but the IRD does not purport to represent any specific denomination or church, and those who support IRD financially do so voluntarily with full knowledge of the activities and positions of the organization. The decline in membership of mainline denominations was in full swing before the IRD was ever even conceived. Indeed, it was formed partly as a response to declining membership.
The GBCS, in contrast, supposedly represents the United Methodist Church as its “social witnessing” political arm. Many United Methodists have no idea what the GBCS does, and, consequently, where their money goes. Unfortunately, the leadership of the GBCS has increasingly — and cavalierly — taken advantage of that fact by using good-faith contributions made through local congregations to promote what often appear to be personal political agendas over historical spiritual ones. I believe that conclusion can be supported purely on objective grounds, apart from any personal or ideological biases.
As I understand, there are additional important distinctions between the General Board of Church and Society (GBCS) and the Institute against Religion and Democracy (IRD) — one of which is the matter of democracy. The direction and governance of the GBCS, as well as the issues they work on, are determined by an official democratic process representing the entire membership of The United Methodist Church (whereby delegates are elected to General Conference and those delegates vote on resolutions, and the resolutions approved are consolidated into the Book of Discipline and Book of Resolutions).
The same is not true of the IRD. It is perplexing to me why the IRD supports democratic process in the church only when the results of that process swing in their favor? Irrespective of their name, is the IRD really in support of true democracy, regardless of the outcome?
Furthermore, the GBCS’ direction is determined by those in full communion with The United Methodist Church. The same cannot be said of the IRD, which has (based on the research of the late Rev. Dr. Andrew Weaver) a significant portion of the board of directors comprised of prominent Catholics — whose purpose is to reform mainline Protestant denominations? Seems to me like the persecution of Protestants during the Reformation hasn’t ended yet!
In addition, the stances taken by the GBCS and Jim Winkler are consistently supported by specific Biblical references. In contrast, the IRD is focused on reverting back to Christian historical or traditional stances and beliefs (sometimes referred to as “Christian orthodoxy”). My observation is that the IRD’s articles rarely if ever make reference to specific Biblical passages. Which is the higher authority: the Bible or traditions of man? Isn’t the Bible the ultimate source of “Christian orthodoxy?”
Finally, financial information of the GBCS is widely available on its own website, from the General Council on Finance and Administration and publicly published for the General Conference. The same is not true of the IRD. While many are not aware of who the GBCS is and what the GBCS does (or how they spend their money), it is not because the information is not available.
Editor’s note: The commenter states that the “purpose” of the Institute on Religion and Democracy is “reform[ing] mainline Protestant denominations.”
The actual mission statement of IRD, as posted on the group’s web site, notes that the IRD is “an ecumenical alliance of U.S. Christians working to reform their churches’ social witness, in accord with biblical and historic Christian teachings, to contribute to the renewal of democratic society at home and abroad.”
The IRD site notes that the organization “reflect[s] genuine biblical ecumenism, that is, unity across denominational boundaries based on a shared belief in the truth of Christian orthodoxy. This includes mainline and other evangelical Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox Christians working together in common cause.”
I think the IRD abides by its bylaws at least as well as the GBCS adheres to its bylaws. The ostensible democratic processes in the GBCS appear to be more in form than function, however.
Mr. Winkler is at variance with both Scripture and the Discipline when he endorses gay marriage and supports aggressively pro-abortion organizations such as the Religious Coalition For Reproductive Choice. I see no Scriptural citations by the GBCS that justify such activities (because there aren’t any).
The stealth methods used by the GBCS to forward its agendas at General Conference are certainly not in keeping with a truly democratic, transparent agenda. I cite as just one example the vote at General Conference that was called after voters unsympathetic to the GBCS agenda had left the conference. And how the GBCS gets many things get on the consent agenda is another story.
I recently asked my Sunday School class of some 14 or 15 people (either members or regular UM church attenders) if they knew what the GBCS was. ONLY ONE HAD EVEN HEARD OF IT! I said little more, resisting the urge to criticize the GBCS, but I did point them to the GBCS website. I have to conclude that the GBCS gets it biggest assist not from democratic processes but from the ignorance and apathy of rank and file United Methodists.
The direction of the GBCS is determined mainly by the political inclinations of its leadership. The mental manipulation required to justify that direction using Scriptural references borders on the ridiculous.
Mark, I hear your concerns about “ignorance and apathy of rank and file United Methodists” — some of whom you point out are in your Sunday School class and members/regular-attenders of the very church in which you are a member. Why the disparaging language toward persons with whom you are in full communion? Aren’t all who believe in Jesus the very children of God? (Galatians 3:26) If they are the very children of God, created in his own image, do they not deserve respect?
I also hear your criticism of how decisions are made at General Conference, the highest decision-making body in the denomination in which you are a member (and the only body that can speak on behalf of the denomination). As I understand, the General Conference (against your wishes) explicitly decided to support the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC). Understandably, I can see how you would feel betrayed by the General Conference, resulting in feelings of mistrust.
Nevertheless, the General Conference is in a position of leadership and authority over the denomination. Hebrews 13:17 commands us to “Obey your leaders and submit to their authority.” God’s command is clear (whether or not we agree is of no consequence). This is scriptural citation to support RCRC. Submitting to the authority of church leaders is also an orthodox/historic/traditional Christian tenet. Your previous post indicates that IRD does not support the orthodox Christian tenant of submitting to the authority of leaders, case and point when it comes to support of RCRC.
Another mandate by the General Conference to the GBCS is to “speak its convictions.” While you may not agree with Mr. Winkler on his political positions nor his interpretations of Scripture, I believe you would agree he has spoken his convictions. He has submitted to the authorities regarding this mandate and the one to support RCRC. He has complied with both scripture (Hebrews 13:17) and the Discipline (which calls for GBCS to implement the General Conference resolutions) when he supports RCRC. So why the slanderous remarks toward Mr. Winkler when he is upholding an orthodox Christian tenet?
Obviously, the ecumenical views of the IRD are not the collective, democratic views of the United Methodist Church. Of the resolutions that were initiated by IRD staff, only a small percentage were approved by General Conference. This leads me to question how in tune the IRD really is to the United Methodist Church? Can reform of the social witness of the United Methodist Church really occur through disparaging remarks toward those in full communion, mistrust of authority and slanderous remarks?
Editor’s note: The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice was founded in 1973 to “to safeguard the newly won constitutional right to abortion.” Since then, according to the group’s web site, RCRC has “grown and expanded to meet new challenges and threats to reproductive freedom.” RCRC supports taxpayer-funded abortion.
The United Methodist Book of Discipline says the UMC “cannot affirm abortion as an acceptable means of birth control, and we unconditionally reject it as a means of gender selection.”
A 2005 study found that 74 percent of women having abortions chose to abort their pregnancies because having a child “would dramatically change my life.” This suggests, at a minimum, that nearly three-fourths of abortions are for reasons of birth control. A 2002 study found that 54 percent of women having abortions had used contraception during the month they became pregnant, suggesting that abortion is widely seen as a birth control “back-up plan.”
At the 2008 General Conference, the debate and vote on whether to remain affiliated with the Reproductive Coalition on Reproductive Choice was held on the final day of the conference. The vote to stay affiliated with RCRC passed by a vote of 52 percent to 48 percent, with 802 of 988 delegates voting.
For a transcript of the 2008 General Conference debate on participation in RCRC, see the PDF file here, starting on page 2698.
Brian, are you suggesting that I think apathy or ignorance disqualifies one as a child of God?? That is certainly not what I said and is a gross misreading of my comments. I don’t understand why you characterize statements of fact as in some way slanderous. I didn’t slander anybody, I’m simply offering a difference of opinion. Are you trying to quell free speech?
The Scriptural authority of leaders has limits, based on other Scripture. Do you think Dietrich Bonhoffer should have submitted to the “authority” of Adolf Hitler?
There’s a lot of subjectivity in how the GBCS chooses to interpret and implement General Conference Resolutions, particularly resolutions that the GBCS, by whatever questionable methods, has had some hand in sponsoring and bringing to a vote. That’s where the politics comes in.
I believe the GBCS-encouraged support for the radical Religious Coalition For Reproductive Choice would dry up if rank-and-file United Methodists were fully aware of what GBCS does. Even some denominations considered more liberal than United Methodism have distanced themselves from it.
There’s an old saying (I believe it is attributed to the late Sen. Daniel P. Moynihan) that goes something like this: “You have the right to your own opinions, but not to your own facts.” I think we need to pay heed to that admonition.
Editor’s note: Comments on this post are now closed.