May 02 2008
Hillary’s former pastor defends Obama’s former pastor
The pastor of the Methodist church that Bill and Hillary Clinton attended during his presidency is now defending Obama’s retiring pastor Jeremiah Wright. This intervention will perhaps serve to remind that the Clinton’s own church was once a source of national controversy.
“The Reverend Jeremiah Wright is an outstanding church leader whom I have heard speak a number of times,” proclaimed the Rev. Dean Snyder in a statement he posted on the website of his Foundry United Methodist Church in Washington, D.C. “He has served for decades as a profound voice for justice and inclusion in our society. He has been a vocal critic of the racism, sexism and homophobia which still tarnish the American dream.”
The Clintons attended Foundry faithfully during all 8 years of their time in Washington. The gothic sanctuary sits less than a mile north of the White House and is one of the capital city’s most famously liberal congregations. Snyder is the successor to Dr. J. Philip Wogaman, who pastured during the Clinton years and who vigorously defended Bill Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky scandal, while also serving as one of Clinton’s three spiritual counselors post-Monica.
Neither of the Clintons ever formally joined Foundry Church, retaining memberships in their respective Methodist and Baptist churches in Little Rock, Arkansas. It is not clear whether Hillary has attended Foundry at all since her 2004 election to the U.S. Senate. But the Rev. Snyder’s public defense of the Rev. Wright was deemed sufficiently significant to get him on NBC News and MSNBC.
“To evaluate his dynamic ministry on the basis of two or three sound bites does a grave injustice to Dr. Wright, the members of his congregation, and the African-American church which has been the spiritual refuge of a people that has suffered from discrimination, disadvantage, and violence,” Snyder insisted about Obama’s outgoing pastor. Snyder hailed Wright as “an agent of racial reconciliation while proclaiming perceptions and truths uncomfortable for some white people to hear.”
According to Snyder, “Those of us who are white Americans would do well to listen carefully to Dr. Wright rather than to use a few of his quotes to polarize. This is a critical time in America’s history as we seek to repent of our racism. No matter which candidates prevail, let us use this time to listen again to one another and not to distort one another’s truth.”
Both Snyder and his predecessor at Foundry Church, Dr. Wogaman are both strongly on the left theologically and politically. But neither has been as flamboyant or openly incendiary as Wright. Perhaps they share many of Wright perspectives, but the more subdued atmosphere of white, liberal Mainline churches is not as conducive to Wright’s style of volcanic rhetoric.
Yet Wogaman, during his tenure as the Clintons’ pastor, was copiously on record with his own provocative views. A long-time seminary professor and former Democratic Party activist in California during the 1960’s, Wogaman was vice president of and frequent spokesman for the Interfaith Alliance, the self-anointed Religious Left counterweight to the Christian Coalition. But he liked to boast that at Foundry, at least early in the Clintons’ first term, that he equitably pastored both the Clintons and Republican leaders Bob and Elizabeth Dole, who had been attending Foundry for years under the ministry of Wogaman’s predecessor, the Rev. Ed Bauman. But Wogaman’s brand of liberal politics and theology became too much for the Doles, who were preparing for Bob Doles 1996 presidential run.
Elizabeth Dole was present at Foundry in early 1995 when Wogaman from the pulpit asked his congregation to pick up church materials opposing the Republican Party’s “Contract with America” in the social hall after the service. The church bulletin urged the congregation “to take a close look at the Contract … some [of whose] provisions have potentially devastating effects on the weakest elements of our society.” Neither of the Doles ever returned to Foundry.
Several months later Cal Thomas, in his syndicated column, described Wogaman’s left-leaning politics as giving “moral nurture” to President Clinton’s policies. Citing some research I had done as his source, Thomas outlined the Methodist minister’s long infatuation with left-leaning economic and social causes, and asked why Bob and Elizabeth Dole still affiliated with Foundry Church. The following Sunday, with Hillary Clinton in the congregation, Wogaman charged that Cal Thomas and myself were not simply targeting him, but also the President. “I think much of this was a political attack aimed at getting at President Clinton through the practice of his religion,” he said, and then went on to blame the negative coverage on “the climate of the times in which we live.” In a subsequent newspaper op-ed, Wogaman linked negative articles about his ministry to the Oklahoma City bombing. “People in the media don’t plant bombs,” he wrote. “But if they plant hatred and division, doesn’t that affect the behavior of unstable hearers or readers?”
Read more here.
[From me]
I’m sure Hillary is loving this. I have one question. Why is it OK for liberal churches to talk politics like the Foundry did but not conservative evangelical churches? Personally, I don’t like politics in any church but doesn’t this seem rather hypocritical? I don’t remember Jesus getting involved in politics.
What do you think?
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
Isn’t it curious how 2 people can read the same article and come away with opposite views of what the article means? While you (Kevin) read that somehow the article puts the involvement of Foundry in politics in a positive light, I see read that Foundry’s involvement in politics is out of place. For one thing, if you consider Rev. Wright’s comments egregious and shocking as most people seem to, then you might also consider Rev. Snyder’s defense of Rev. Wright’s comments as unexpected and shocking. The rest of the article recounts some of the history of Wogaman’s inappropriate involvement with the Clintons and the Doles. The article says: “But Wogaman’s brand of liberal politics and theology became too much for the Doles, who were preparing for Bob Doles 1996 presidential run.” The article goes on to describe a falling out of the Doles with Foundry: “Neither of the Doles ever returned to Foundry.”
So questioning why it is “OK for liberal churches to talk politics” could simply arise from somehow interpreting this article as an acceptance of liberal churches in politics. In that case, I would suggest that it is not OK.
The question could also be an attempt to exonerate the Evangelical churches for their quite active involvement in politics by pointing to others that are guilty of the same behavior. In that case, I would suggest that is not appropriate for Evangelical churches to engage in “politics from the pulpit,” irrespective of what other churches do.
“Those of us who are white Americans would do well to listen carefully to Dr. Wright rather than to use a few of his quotes to polarize.”
That is amusing. That’s the whole problem of Wright and Obama: We did listen carefully. The more you hear, the more you realize the quotes weren’t out of context.
And I have no use for pastors who throw the homophobia charge around. Homophobia is a foolish pejorative designed to put anyone who dares question the Gay-Lesbian-Bisexual-Transgender lobby on the defensive. It is a transparently childish put-down, but it actually works to silence many people.
Ironically, the real homophobes are those who fear the GLBT lobby so much that they cater to all the movement’s demands. They are the ones with the irrational, paralyzing fear of doing or saying something politically incorrect. You see it in political, educational, media and church leaders who will do and say almost anything to appease, including teaching kindergartens about how normal gays and transgenders are. It is really quite pathetic.
Neil’s last blog post..Sickening
A3,
I never said the article implied that the Foundry’s political involvement is positive. I just want to know why it is OK for their pastor to rip the contract with America yet a conservative church does the opposite and they could lose their tax status.
Personally, I don’t like politics in “ANY” church period. I think I have bee pretty consistent with that stance.
Kevin Bussey’s last blog post..2-Person Field Trip?
Kevin,
Agreed.
Hillary was elected in 2000 to the U.S. Senate and re-elected in 2006. She did not run in 2004 as the article states. I went to Foundry for a brief time in 2004 – Hillary left Foundry and did not return once they moved out of the White House.
Who said it wasn’t okay to talk politics? Who has ever said it is not permissible to mix religion and politics from the pulpit? That’s not what the IRS guidelines say. That’s not what religious liberty watchdogs say. The difference here is between “being political” and “being partisan.” The former is permissible and the latter is not.
Conservatives and liberals alike should seek to “be prophetic” when it comes to today’s pressing social concerns and policies. They should “be prophetic” without “being partisan.” That’s not too difficult of a task.
Big Daddy Weave’s last blog post..Getting Hitched!
BDW,
I respect your view but disagree. I don’t think the church is any place to talk about politics. The church is a place to worship God.
Kevin Bussey’s last blog post..‘Expelled’ Correct on Darwin, Hitler Link, Says Christian Group
Kevin,
Do you believe that the church, specifically behind the pulpit, is the place to talk about racism, homosexuality, poverty and the sanctity of all human life? In the Southern Baptist and CBF churches that I grew up in – our pastor, youth minister and Sunday School teachers addressed all of those subjects and more. If you apply your Christianity to all aspects of your life, you’ll inevitably be political.
White pastors who felt that politics had no place in the church stood silent as members of their church who belonged to the KKK lynched African-Americans for decades. Same goes for slavery and the anti-semitism during WWII era. White pastors hid behind their “no politics in church” stance. Fortunately, not all white pastors were silent. And those white pastors who were political but not partisan led the way in the Southern Baptist Convention and helped most Southern Baptists and many Southern Baptist churches to change their mind and embrace a biblical view of racial equality (segregation vs. integration, etc.)
I think there are many Christians that are doing partisan politics inside the church doors. That’s unacceptable. And I think there are many theologically moderate/progressive congregations (especially African-American groups) that also become partisan or get too close to that political-partisan line.
Big Daddy Weave’s last blog post..Getting Hitched!
Mark Tooley has written a fascinating book called Taking Back the United Methodist Church. I recently read it and couldn’t put it down. I recommend all Christians, of whatever denomination, read it to understand the legacy of classic nineteenth century liberalism. It reads like an alternative history of what would have happened in the SBC if it had not been for the Conservative Resurgence.
I plan on reviewing the book on my blog sometime tomorrow.
Kevin S (not B)’s last blog post..Epicenter: The Middle East
BDW,
I don’t consider prejudice and abuse to be political. That is a spiritual problem and needs to be dealt with. But I don’t think taxes should be talked about.
Kevin Bussey’s last blog post..‘Expelled’ Correct on Darwin, Hitler Link, Says Christian Group
BDW,
Let me turn the question around: what if a preacher believes that one of the political parties reflects his religious convictions more than the other, would partisan politics from the pulpit be acceptable in that case?
If we worship a Jesus who is LORD, we must be involved in political issues–but not necessarily in partisan politics. (If your church wants to endorse candidates or parties, it should renounce its tax exempt status. I am not sure churches should be tax exempt, anyway.)
Jesus proclaimed the Kingdom of God–that’s politics, since the Kingdom of God was a rival kingdom to the Roman Empire–and is a rival to all other empires, nation-states, etc. There is a very real sense in which no good Christian can be a good American (or German or Briton or Ghanan, Japanese, Canadian, etc.). We cannot swear loyalty to any nation-state, since our baptism is ALREADY the unconditional loyalty to the Kingdom of God.
Worldly governments are part of what the Apostle Paul calls “the Powers and Authorities.” They were created by God, but are fallen, rebellious, sinful–all of them, no exceptions for Israel or the U.S., etc. They can be redeemed. As Wink says, Christians are to engage the Powers, not try to replace them with theocratic “Christian” governments. We can work to make our governments better and be happy when they are: But our loyalty and identification with them must always be subordinate to our loyalty to Christ. If my government tells me to torture, I must refuse. If it tells me to kill, I must refuse. If it tells me to hate Muslims or terrorists or whatever, I must refuse.
A Christian in the United States should have more in common with a Christian in Iran than either does to non-Christians in their respective communities. If not, they are idolators.
Michael Westmoreland-White’s last blog post..McCain’s Radical Preacher-Friend