Institute on Religion and Democracy

The Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD) is a Washington-based American Christian policy organization and think tank founded in 1981 by United Methodist evangelist Edmund Robb and AFL–CIO official David Jessup. It was established during the Cold War amid concern among its founders and allies that some mainline Protestant institutions were becoming sympathetic to Marxist movements and governments. The organization initially concentrated on identifying communist or Marxist influences within American Protestant life, criticizing church relationships with communist regimes, and defending religious liberty. During the 1980s, IRD became involved in debates over the policies of the National Council of Churches and the positions taken by American denominations on Nicaragua, Vietnam, the Soviet Union, and other international issues. In 1985 it co-sponsored a conference with representatives associated with the Reagan administration at which speakers criticized the National Council of Churches’ efforts to cultivate contacts with Soviet church leaders. These activities helped establish IRD as a conservative counterweight to progressive ecumenical organizations and denominational agencies. From the early 1990s onward, the organization broadened and partly redirected its work. It increasingly focused on theological and political disputes inside mainline Protestant denominations, particularly the United Methodist Church, the Episcopal Church, and the Presbyterian Church (USA). Its advocacy has emphasized what it describes as historic or biblical Christian teaching on sexual ethics, including opposition to same-sex marriage, and opposition to denominational support for abortion rights. IRD has also promoted international religious freedom, with particular attention at various times to southern Sudan, and has argued for the continuing relevance of Christian just-war theory in debates about military action and foreign policy after the September 11 attacks. The institute’s more recent public positions have included support for Israel and criticism of church leaders or agencies that, in its view, accept overly severe assessments of human-caused climate change without sufficient qualification. Across these issues, IRD presents itself as an organization seeking to reaffirm historic Christian teaching, strengthen the church’s role in public life, protect religious freedom, and renew democratic institutions in the United States and abroad. IRD operates primarily through research, commentary, conferences, advocacy, denominational engagement, and public communications rather than through consumer products. Its Juicy Ecumenism publication and related online output provide commentary on religious, political, and denominational affairs. The organization has been associated with a range of prominent conservative Christian and public-policy figures, including early board members Michael Novak, Richard John Neuhaus, and Carl F. H. Henry, as well as board figures such as Fred Barnes, Thomas C. Oden, Robert P. George, and George Weigel. The organization is controversial. Progressive clergy and scholars have accused it of attempting to weaken or redirect mainline Protestant denominations, assisting conservative factions in internal church disputes, and encouraging congregational departures or denominational realignment. John Dorhauer and Sheldon Culver’s book Steeplejacking characterized some of these activities as efforts by small conservative groups to take control of congregations, a description IRD rejects as relying too heavily on circumstantial evidence and misrepresenting its purpose. Critics have also linked the institute to broader conservative positions on military spending, foreign intervention, environmental policy, and social welfare. IRD describes its work instead as religious renewal, institutional accountability, and defense of traditional Christian teachings. It is funded through contributions from foundations and individuals; publicly cited historical donors have included the Scaife Foundations, the Bradley Foundation, the Olin Foundation, and Fieldstead & Company.

The Institute on Religion and Democracy was founded in the United States in 1981 by United Methodist evangelist Edmund Robb and AFL–CIO official David Jessup. Its creation reflected a period of intense conflict over the political commitments of American Protestant institutions. The founders and their allies believed that parts of the mainline Protestant establishment had become too receptive to Marxist ideas, revolutionary movements, and communist governments. IRD therefore began as a conservative Christian initiative intended to scrutinize denominational policies, publicize perceived threats to religious liberty, and challenge relationships between American churches and communist regimes. The organization’s early work centered on Cold War issues. During the 1980s it criticized Protestant support or engagement involving the Sandinista government in Nicaragua, Vietnam, and the Soviet Union. In 1985, IRD co-sponsored a conference with participants associated with the Reagan administration that criticized the National Council of Churches’ efforts to develop contacts with Soviet church leaders. These activities positioned the institute within a broader conservative religious network that opposed the progressive ecumenical consensus on foreign policy and sought a more explicitly anti-communist public witness from American churches. IRD’s early governing circle included influential Christian intellectuals and editors. Michael Novak, Richard John Neuhaus, and Christianity Today founding editor Carl F. H. Henry joined its board at an early stage. Over time, the board and affiliated network also included figures such as Fred Barnes, United Methodist theologian Thomas C. Oden, Princeton ethicist Robert P. George, theologian Michael Novak, and former papal biographer George Weigel. The organization consequently became connected to conservative Protestant, Catholic, and public-policy circles, even though its main institutional target remained the progressive wing of American mainline Protestantism. The institute’s agenda changed significantly after the end of the Cold War. From the early 1990s, it increasingly concentrated on internal theological and political conflicts within the United Methodist Church, the Episcopal Church, and the Presbyterian Church (USA), among other denominations. IRD advocated adherence to traditional Christian teachings on sexual morality and opposed same-sex marriage. It also challenged church agencies that supported abortion rights. Its work combined research and public commentary with support for conservative clergy and lay movements seeking to influence denominational policy. Religious liberty remained a central concern. IRD’s international work gave particular attention to southern Sudan, while its domestic advocacy argued that churches should play a stronger role in public life. After the September 11, 2001 attacks, the institute highlighted Christian just-war traditions in discussions of military intervention and national security. In later debates it criticized church officials whom it believed accepted highly pessimistic accounts of human-caused climate change without adequate scrutiny. The institute has also advocated support for Israel and challenged positions within mainline Protestant bodies that it regards as hostile to Israel. The organization’s principal activities are those of a policy and advocacy institute rather than a commercial brand. It publishes commentary and analysis, organizes or participates in conferences, supports religious-liberty initiatives, and campaigns within or around denominational institutions. Its Juicy Ecumenism platform has served as a prominent channel for commentary on church governance, theology, public policy, and disputes among American Christians. IRD has faced sustained criticism from progressive clergy, denominational leaders, and authors. Critics have portrayed it as an outside conservative political operation seeking to weaken progressive Christian institutions and redirect their public positions. In Steeplejacking: How the Christian Right is Hijacking Mainstream Religion, John Dorhauer and Sheldon Culver argued that conservative groups associated with this broader movement sometimes attempt to capture congregations and move them out of mainline denominations. IRD rejects the description, arguing that such accounts mischaracterize its activities and rely substantially on inference and circumstantial evidence. The organization’s own stated objectives are to reaffirm biblical and historical Christian teaching, strengthen the church’s public role, protect religious freedom, and renew democracy. IRD is supported by contributions from individuals and foundations. Historical reference material identifies the Scaife Foundations, the Bradley Foundation, the Olin Foundation, and Fieldstead & Company among donors associated with the organization. It remains an active American conservative Christian advocacy and research organization, although the available reference material does not establish a complete current leadership roster, detailed financial profile, or comprehensive list of present programs.

• 2009

  Mark Tooley becomes president

  [1]Institute on Religion and Democracyen.wikipedia.org

  Mark Tooley became president of IRD.

• 2001

  Greater emphasis on just-war theory

  [1]Institute on Religion and Democracyen.wikipedia.org

  After the September 11 attacks, IRD placed greater emphasis on Christian just-war teaching and the moral evaluation of military action.

• 1990

  Shift toward social and denominational issues

  [1]Institute on Religion and Democracyen.wikipedia.org

  The organization increasingly focused on sexual ethics, same-sex marriage, abortion, and internal disputes in major mainline Protestant denominations.

• 1985

  Cold War church-policy conference

  [1]Institute on Religion and Democracyen.wikipedia.org

  IRD co-sponsored a conference with Reagan-administration-associated participants that criticized the National Council of Churches’ engagement with Soviet church leaders.

• 1981

  Institute founded

  [1]Institute on Religion and Democracyen.wikipedia.org

  Edmund Robb and David Jessup founded IRD to challenge perceived Marxist and communist influence in mainline Protestant institutions and to advocate religious liberty.

A conservative Christian counterweight to progressive mainline Protestant institutions, combining theological advocacy, denominational accountability, religious-liberty work, and public-policy commentary.

• Online commentary and journalism

  Juicy Ecumenism

  IRD’s online commentary platform covering American denominational politics, Christian theology, religious liberty, international affairs, and disputes over social policy. It functions as a public communications channel for the institute’s conservative Christian perspectives rather than as a separately identified consumer product.

• Advocacy and policy research

  Religious liberty program

  A programmatic area focused on threats to religious freedom in the United States and abroad. Historical reference material identifies southern Sudan as a particular area of attention, while the broader work connects religious-liberty advocacy with the role of churches in public life.

• Research and advocacy

  Mainline Protestant denominational analysis

  Research, commentary, and advocacy directed especially toward the United Methodist Church, Episcopal Church, and Presbyterian Church (USA). Topics have included sexual ethics, same-sex marriage, abortion, denominational governance, theological identity, and relations between church agencies and public-policy movements.

• Accusations of steeplejacking

  Critics have accused IRD of helping conservative Christians organize within mainline congregations, capture institutional leadership, and in some cases encourage departures into more conservative denominations. The allegation was discussed in Steeplejacking by John Dorhauer and Sheldon Culver. IRD rejects the characterization and disputes the evidentiary basis offered by its critics.

  Source

• Criticism of political alignment and funding

  Progressive critics have characterized IRD as a political operation aligned with conservative causes, citing its positions on military spending, foreign intervention, environmental protection, welfare policy, and social issues. Reference material also identifies several conservative foundations and Fieldstead & Company among historical donors.

  Source

Read more

• 2001Christian just-war advocacy

  United States

  After the September 11 attacks, IRD emphasized Christian just-war principles in public discussions of national security and military intervention.

  Outcome. The initiative broadened the organization’s public-policy work beyond denominational disputes and social issues.

  Source
• 1990Traditional sexual ethics advocacy

  United States

  IRD began placing greater emphasis on persuading mainline Protestant bodies to retain traditional Christian teachings on sexual morality and to oppose same-sex marriage.

  Outcome. The issue became one of the institute’s defining areas of denominational engagement and a major source of conflict with progressive church leaders.

  Source
• 1990Abortion-policy opposition

  United States

  The institute challenged mainline Protestant church agencies that supported abortion rights.

  Outcome. Abortion policy became part of IRD’s broader effort to move denominational public-policy positions toward social conservatism.

  Source
• 1985Soviet church-relations challenge

  United States · Soviet Union

  Through a co-sponsored conference, IRD and allied speakers criticized the National Council of Churches’ efforts to build contacts with Soviet church leaders.

  Outcome. The event amplified IRD’s opposition to the foreign-policy and ecumenical positions of the National Council of Churches.

  Source
• 1980Anti-communist church accountability campaign

  United States

  IRD’s founding-era advocacy sought to expose what it viewed as Marxist tendencies within mainline Protestant organizations and to challenge church support or engagement involving communist and revolutionary regimes.

  Outcome. The campaign established IRD as a conservative critic of progressive ecumenical organizations during the Cold War.

  Source

• 2001

  Increase emphasis on just-war ethicsStrategy

  Background

  The September 11 attacks prompted renewed public debate over military force, intervention, and the moral responsibilities of religious institutions.

  Action taken

  IRD gave greater prominence to Christian just-war teaching in its public-policy analysis.

  Aftermath

  The organization continued to present itself as a participant in debates over religion, national security, and foreign policy.

  Source

• 1990

  Redirect emphasis from communism toward denominational social policyStrategy

  Background

  After the Cold War-era founding focus on Marxism and communist regimes, IRD increasingly concentrated on theological and political conflicts within American mainline Protestant denominations.

  Action taken

  The organization expanded advocacy concerning sexual ethics, same-sex marriage, abortion, and denominational governance.

  Aftermath

  These issues became central to IRD’s identity and generated sustained opposition from progressive clergy and church organizations.

  Source

1. 1Institute on Religion and Democracyen.wikipedia.org
2. 2Institute on Religion and Democracy official websitetheird.org