Many will recall the first lessons from grade-school about the scientific methodology: you collect data and evidence, you develop an hypothesis, and you conduct tests, experiments, and trials to determine the veracity of your hypothesis. Each successive test or experiment provides you with a whole new field of data that either continues to support the hypothesis which you believe best explains the phenomenon you are studying, or it disproves the hypothesis. Not you, but the audience to whom you present your data, will try to replicate the data and eventually the hypotehsis - by both consensus, and trial and error - reaches the lofty status of theory.

Important in this process is the essential notion that those testing the results remain completely neutral. Bias in either the execution of the test, the recording of the data, or the interpretation of the results taints the process and compromises the results.

What I have been doing for years is collecting data. Some of it is anecdotal, and it is the result of the access my position with the Conference affords me into the inner life and operations of hundreds of local congregations. Some of it is statistical, actually tracking the effects of trained activists on membership and financial contributions. Some of it is deductive - observational analysis collected from hundreds of visits during which consistent patterns emerge.  Some of it is product - the collecting of materials used and circulated in churches where disruptions occur.

After years of collecting data - an hypothesis was postulated, long before we knew of the existence of the IRD, and of its association with our own renewal groups; long before we knew of the existence of renewal groups outside of our denomination; and long before we knew of the intimate relationships that had been formed by our renewal groups with other renewal groups THROUGH the IRD. The hypothesis was, in its infancy, close to something like this: someone outside of these churches is feeding them information and coaching them around tactics of disruption and abuse.

That is an hypothesis. It was born of deductive reasoning, research, and hands on experience. Everything we have done since then has been dedicated to the effort of testing the veracity of it. We continue to collect evidence. We have read the works of others who have shared their own writings about this. We have continued to study very closely the work, the writings, and the reactions of the IRD and their allied partners in the renewal movement. We publish very openly and very publicly our results.

That  disinterested and affected parties confirm our results and affirms our hypothesis is a reality that is getting us very close in many objective circles - not just within the church - to the standard of a recognized theory. That those about whom we write, and whom we identify as co-conspirators, discredit our work is not to be considered as evidence of anything other than support of the hypothesis. In fact, when the IRD, the BWF, and UCCTruths all choose the same response, it only confirms, it only offers more credible evidence, to support the hypothesis we are postulating. This week, all three of those sites have an article posted arguing that I say I have no proof.

So, now that we understand the method of developing an hypothesis toward a theory, let me continue with the IRD document  REFORMING AMERICA?S CHURCHES PROJECT: 2001-2004 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.

"We will annually prepare resolutions for local and regional church conventions."

Now remember that last week, in the paragraph preceding this statement, we found this:

"The association allows us to synchronize strategies across denominational lines."

I am going to stop here this week, and refer to nothing more than this. We have pages to go in this document, and it will take time to point out all of what is written there, and name as we do so the phenomena we encounter in local churches that come as a result of what is written.

"We will annually prepare resolutions for local and regional church conventions."

Do you understand what this reveals? The IRD, a group funded by the likes of Joseph Coors, Richard Mellon-Scaife, Olin Brown, Howard Ahmanson and others is synchronizing strategies across denominational lines, and a large piece of that synchronizing is their preparing resolutions to be presented in our local and regional church conventions.

Remember, our hypothesis about interference from outside agitators preceded by years our awareness of the IRD. It preceded by even more time our awareness of the IRD's alliance with not only our, but all renewal groups. And it preceded by even more time our awareness of this document.

How was it that following 2001, local churches in the Methodist Church, the Episcopal Church, the Presbyterian Church, the United Church of Christ et. al. ALL had local churches and regional conventions considering resolutions on human sexuality and marriage equality? Perhaps it was coincidence. But here's another thought: perhaps it was an organization with trained activists (their language - wait for another article on this one, or find it yourself in the document I have cited) who have allied themselves with an organization designed to synchronize strategies across denominational lines and that will annually prepare for them resolutions for local and regional church conventions.

I can hear our detractors now: we need more proof. After all, it doesn't say in the document that we will prepare annual resolutions on marriage equality. Well, yes it does. Let me help here (and this will be the subject of a future article):

The IRD identifies issues around which is organizes.

IRD will place a strong priority on defending marriage and family and opposing the legitimization of sexual expression outside of heterosexual marriage.

IRD will continue to expose the pro-homosexual bias of mainline church agencies that want to disregard the official teachings of their churches.

Beginning in 2001, we will emphasize training conservatives and moderates for the debates on marriage and human sexuality. We intend to conduct invitation-only training seminars and consultations for church leader, covering biblical, theological, scientific, psychological and sociological aspects of human sexuality. Participants will develop pro-marriage arguments for discussions in churches in the civil society, including effective media strategies. Our trainees will promote our legislation at their local and regional church conventions in preparation for the larger battles at national church conventions in 2001-2004.

This started out as an hypothesis. It is much more than that by now. There is no disputing that the IRD has aligned and allied itself with our renewal groups. Evidence is mounting that proves that the relationship manifests itself in by-product experienced first-hand in our congregations - many of which saw on the floor of their annual meetings, local and regional, resolutions addressing marriage equality prepared for them by these agencies who have synchronized their strategies across denominational lines.

And while we are at it, ask yourself the question why? Why is this agency funded by those whom I have already named, and populated by the likes of seven Roman Catholics (nothing wrong with Roman Catholocism, but how many of their boards have 33% membership from Protestant organizations who are telling them what their theology is and writing resolutions for them), the wife of failed Supreme Court nominee Judge  Robert Bork, pop culture critic and wag Micheal Medved - why are they writing OUR resolutions for us? What theological training do any of them have that qualifies them to write resolutions for UCC, Episcopal, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Methodist, and other denominations? What polity did they create that affords them that kind of accessibility in our regional and congregational governing boards and conventions?

Of course, I have no proof. Damn.