The Living Church has people from the IRD writing for them? Guess I won't be taking out that on-line subscription after all. If I have to read anti-Episcopal propaganda, I'd just as soon that it be on *their* dime.

Your last link leads to google search, "Ralph Webb, IRD" not directly to IRD. Was this your intention?

[Yes. He no longer works for IRD so the biography he refers to is no longer there. The google link leads to a variety of links about Webb and IRD.]

In my work as The Living Church's editor at large, I have found Ralph Webb a consistent source of evenhanded, accurate reporting rather than of propaganda.

If ferreting out all IRD associations is important here, I'll save you the trouble: I too have written freelance articles for IRD during this decade, although not for several years now.

One such article was about a national gathering of deacons, where I heard creative addresses by Bishop Neil Alexander and Gray Temple Jr., two men I admire deeply. The article made no suggestion of scandal.

IRD published my reporting with minimal editing.

The Institute for Religion and Democracy has as a goal the disruption and harm of mainline denominations whose social policies they consider too liberal. Its connections to right wing financiers has been documented over and over. Its plan of attacking liberals has run parallel courses in TEC, Lutheran, Methodist and Presbyterian Churches. It was originally formed to combat international communism, but since the fall of the Soviet Empire has turned its attention to social activist churches.

It is entirely within their "rights" to organize and do this and within ours to identify and resist their agenda. But it behooves us all to consider an organization's overall intent when contributing or participating in its work.

I'd submit that the IRD is using the issues around homosexuality as a useful wedge to injure mainline liberal churches because of their positions on race, women, immigration, the use of government to oversee capitalism, as well as their support of the glbt community.

That the IRD is now contributing in any form to The Living Church is just one more indication of the direction the new management is taking it.

I'm not sure where the misunderstanding occurred, but at no point did I say that Executive Council or the Standing Commission on Ecumenical and Interreligious Relations (SCEIR) had recommended or was considering any change in the budget allocation for the Anglican Communion Office. That's just not true.

I'd be happy to email The Lead a copy of my report as Executive Council's liaison to the SCEIR, which includes a full statement directly from the commission's officers regarding the commission's recommendations.

I don't think that Ralph Webb was in any way deliberate or deceitful -- there was a lot of talk and tons of acronyms in two languages flying about in that meeting room, and sometimes a crucial word (such as "not") isn't heard when the person next to you coughs or something.

I believe that The Living Church will post an article on what the SCEIR did actually say, as after the article with the misunderstanding was posted, I talked with Ralph and sent him the text of my report and of the SCEIR's open letter. I hope that will clarify where we are: despite much speculation to the contrary, no TEC body has made or entertained any proposal to reduce giving to the Anglican Communion Office. And if someone is planning to make such a proposal on a TEC body, I haven't heard about it.

I know that will disappoint some people, but that's the state of the matter.

Oh, I should add that it is true that the SCEIR strongly urged Executive Council to fund travel for TEC experts who have been participating in ecumenical dialogues authorized by General Convention so that they can continue in dialogue with those churches -- with the ACO whenever possible, but in other ways when necessary.

When Jesus prayed of his followers "that they all be one," there wasn't any additional clause to the effect of, "unless the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Secretary General of the Anglican Communion would prefer that they sit out."

What the Secretary General said today makes the heart sad -- especially when he said that "diversity of opinion and diversity in general" is a "problem" rather than a blessing. That's a very poor starting point for ecumenical and interreligious dialogue, to say the least. But sad as it is that he said that -- especially if he meant it, as I assume he did -- life goes on, God's mission goes on, and I don't think TEC will let such comments or a letter from any office derail the exciting work of engaging that mission.

After discussions with both Ralph Webb and Sarah Dylan Breuer, The Living Church has corrected and revised this story, which remains available at the original link.
Douglas LeBlanc
Editor at Large, The Living Church