Hillary’s “Family” Church?
March 26, 2008, 8:41 am
Posted by David Gibson
Over at SpiritualPolitics, Mark Silk has a follow-up on the mystery of Mrs. Clinton’s religious affiliation (Bill is a Southern Baptist–now there’s some baggage). It seems Hillary has been associated with something called “The Family,” which is not the Family of cult infamy. Alternately, it is “The Fellowship,” which sounds positively Grisham-esque. The main source is a Mother Jones piece, it seems. Be good to hear more from the candidate herself. Read more at “Hillary’s Church.”
http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101050207/photoessay/4.html
This links to a brief profile of Coe, #4 on Time’s list of the 25 most influential evangelicals in some year or other. (I did not succeed in finding a date, though I did not try too hard. 5/2/07 is my guess)
Pardon me for saying so but this search for a “Rev Wright” parallel for the other candidates is just becoming plain silly. Now the guys who bring us the National Prayer Breakfast are part of a secret evangelical, right-wing cabal. Believe me, I am no Hillary Clinton fan, but come on.
Sean, for me this isn’t a search for a parallel Rev. Wright, as I don’t think any such thing exists, especially given Hillary’s fairly staid mainline upbringing. I do think it’s legit to inquire about a candidate’s religious loyalties if they’re going to raise the issue as a political point. And it’s not so much a question of “gotcha,” but of truly informing ourselvs about the religious basis of a candidate’s worldview, and how–or whether–they have to reconcile the demands of a church or religion with those of their candidacy. To me, the fact that neither Presidetn Bush nor the Clintons have particular ties to a church or denomination–the way Obama does, or a Catholic candidate does–puts them at a distinct advantage politically, if nor (IMHO) spiritually.
David, not that I think this discussion deserves much more development, but I think Hillary Clinton has always been a Methodist, and has belonged to Methodist churches, much as we Catholics belong to parishes, throughout her life. A quick internet search suggests she is currently a member of the United Methodist Church of Pleasantville, NY.
William, that may indeed be the case. I do think if she continues to exploit the Wright issue then questions about her religious affiliations will be fair game. As a Catholic, I am also interested–perhaps more than others–in the challenges of being part of a church, of being responsible to a tradition, of having to acount for some loopy leadership, and having to justify my choices in a society that prefers “believing to belonging.” That is why I think Obama’s treatment of his own church experiences and difficulties resonates with me, and why the “spiritual but not religious” approach of other candidates, and President Bush himself, seem like a shortcut around these inherent tensions.
David, I am just suggesting that it is not clear that Hillary Clinton belongs in the “spiritual but not religious” category of political candidates. Incidentally, her religious affiliation was considered fair game during the California primary (where there were 4 popular measures expanding Indian gaming on the ballot), and especially during the campaign leading up to the Nevada caucuses. Clinton and Barack Obama each tried to offer reassurance that they supported legalized gambling. Barack’s problem was some past ambivalence with respect to gambling’s mixture of benefit and harm. Hillary’s problem, raised by prominent critics including Methodist clergy, was that her support of state-permitted gambling contravened the Social Principles of the United Methodist Church. Of course, she found herself in a position similar to that of many a Catholic Democratic candidate who has supported legalized abortion, in spite of the Catholic Church’s strong stand against it.
The disadvantage for Hillary is that she has a record in contrast to Barack who has a minuscule one. In that minuscule record there is that substantial event where, running for the first time, he knocked everyone else off the ballot for sundry violations. How many candidates have run the first time with no opposition? Is that a record to run on? Or is it just one for the record books? Then, of course, he did vote against a ceiling on credit card interest so that many poor and middle class persons are paying close to 40% or better on their loans or credit cards. Is that something to run on from, again, a paltry record?
Then again he will bring us together. He will show us how to demolish the opposition and strangle the poor and middle class. Too bad Rev Wright has to spoil such a great record.
Other than that I am pleased to agree with Sean.
I agree with Sean on this one. Perhaps soon we will be comparing Clinton and Obama’s driving records. Also, I don’t quite understand the obsession with Bush or Clinton’s denominational affiliation. Many religious people have eschewed specific denominations. Dwight Moody and Abraham Lincoln come to mind.
Bill, you’re pleased to agree with anyone who props up your pick. You’re now acting as a troll on this blog–taking every chance you can to attack Obama, mostly distorting his record, which you appear selectively ignorant of. Rarely offering anything resembling argument. You repeat yourself, wasting our time. As far as I can tell, you’re being rather disingenuous. Obama has a record–and you are smart enough to know that a record is different from a campaign. (You realize that Hillary has never encountered real electoral competition, right?) And let’s not forget that Obama’s presidential campaign has and continues to encounter stiff resistance–on this site, mainly from you. (Not that you will allow that to impinge on your sealed view of the Democratic race.) You have a blog, Biaggio. Use it.
Grant,
What you gratuitously assert, I gratuitously deny.
I liked James Kushiner’s take on this story:
The Kushiner comments are downright weird. But it is worth clicking thru to the Joshua Green blog item at The Atlantic (which follows on dotCommonweal following on SpiritualPolitics) and his original stories.
http://thecurrent.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/clinton-fellowship.php
Um, he was being satirical.
That’s what was so weird. It didn’t make sense as satire or seriousness. But humor is tough to do.
Well, if one has to explain it, the humor tends to get lost. In any event, I thought the obvious point was that someone could just as easily write conspiracy-mongering articles about Catholic politicians who enter into suspicious little booths and mutter unknown words to a priest.
I would certaily chalk it up to my obtuseness, Stuart. If that is even a word.
I need coffee.
PS: I just heard Bob Casey endorsed Obama today. No idea what that’ll mean in the real world.