TNR BLOGS

July 03, 2009 | 5:02 PM
July 03, 2009 | 4:51 PM
July 03, 2009 | 4:35 PM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM
June 29, 2009 | 9:09 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
26.03.2008
Hillary's Spooky Religious Affiliations

The Atlantic's Josh Green has a useful primer on "The Fellowship," the shadowy Christian-political organization Hillary's been affiliated with over the years. Josh explains:

The group was formed in the 1930s to minister to political and business leaders throughout the world, modeling itself as a kind of Christian Trilateral Commission. Several members of Congress are affiliated with the group, mostly Republicans, but some Democrats, too. To the extent The Fellowship is known beyond its members it is probably for founding the annual National Prayer Breakfast in Washington.

Like Jeremiah Wright's Trinity Baptist Church, The Fellowship is run by its own mysterious and controversial figure, Douglas Coe, although temperamentally Coe is Wright's opposite. He eschews the spotlight and has never made a controversial public utterance that I'm aware of -- mainly because he rarely speaks publicly at all. (You won't find him on YouTube.) But like Wright, Coe has ministered to a Democratic frontrunner. He personally leads a private Senate prayer group that Clinton has been a part of.

In my piece, I chose to focus on the Senate prayer group, but others have written extensively about the strangeness and secrecy of The Fellowship. As this Los Angeles Times story and this exquisitely reported Harper's piece make clear, there is something deeply strange about the group. They certainly do not like press coverage, so in that regard Clinton's attraction might make sense. Reporters hoping to look into the group might want to think again. A few years ago, The Fellowship’s archives, which are held at Wheaton College, the evangelical school in Illinos, were reclassified as “restricted” and placed under lock and key.

The author of that Harper's piece is the fearless and fantastically talented Jeff Sharlet, who just came out with a book about The Fellowship (aka "The Family," which also happens to be his title). I can't recommend the piece or the book strongly enough.

Update: For what it's worth, I see that Jeff has actually weighed in on this topic with The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum. Here's how Kevin summarized Jeff's thoughts:

Although [Jeff] says that Hillary Clinton's connection with the Fellowship (aka the "Family") is fairly shallow, he also thinks it's quite wrong to characterize it as merely "a collection of Bible study groups." Hillary's association with the Fellowship is no scandal, he says, but it is fair to question her about whether she accepts Doug Coe's particular brand of elite-centered, post-millennial theology. 

--Noam Scheiber

Posted: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 5:43 PM with 21 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

teplukhin2you said:

oo, aa, yikes, scaaaaaary i'd turn back if i were you

Enough already with the politico-preachers, of all stripes. Enough religiosity in our politics. Time to put it in the closet and leave it their. I don't care about our politicians' souls any more than I care about my doctor's soul, or the souls of the Chairman of the JCS or the president of Harvard or the CEO of General Electric.

March 26, 2008 5:57 PM

JEFF FREY said:

What teplukhin said.

I don't hold Wright's opinions (or negative soundbites) against Obama, and I'm not going to hold "The Fellowship"s silence against Hillary either.

March 26, 2008 7:09 PM

stuartbrown said:

I can't believe the author of this piece made such a bonehead error. Obama's congregation is Trinity United Church of Christ, not Trinity Baptist Church. Of course, it hasn't been in the news lately.....

March 26, 2008 7:13 PM

blackton said:

I read the Harpers article, this family is not scary as much as unbelievably lame, the type of guys who shout "praise Jesus" when they make a foul shot. Don't get me started with there childish game of bump either. I can honestly say I read more wisdom from a fortune cookie than all the utterances of these facile men-boys.

March 26, 2008 7:24 PM

hewstino said:

Ick.  Enough about the weird stuff people believe in.  This election should  be about who can best address the war and the economy.  "The Family" and anything Pastor Wright craps into the world in his sermons are  eighth-tier issues.  Continuous chatter about them does no service to the national discourse.

March 26, 2008 7:36 PM

dubyadoubte said:

Oooh - Trilaterial Commission.  Mysterious and contrroversial.  Reclassified as "restricted" and placed under lock and key.  Leads a Senate Prayer group.  Scary indeed.  

March 26, 2008 8:12 PM

ironyroad said:

The Family, eh?  At least it makes a change from the Skull & Bones stuff

March 26, 2008 8:15 PM

tnmats said:

When I saw the name "The Family", I thought they were taking about the "Di Familia".  Rats.  And here I thought the story was getting juicy.

Say, Obama hasn't found a horse's head in his bed has he?  Now if McBush did, well, that's not so bad.  All's fair in politics, right?

March 26, 2008 8:53 PM

rempelschul said:

Sorry Noam.  Anybody who thinks that placing archives in the restricted area of the Wheaton College Library (not more than a stones throw from the Billy Graham Center) confers some forbidden mysterious meaning to the pathetic ruminations of this group of cub scouts is seriously out of touch with reality.  

I'm with Teplukin on this one.  Just stop with the lame religious stuff already.  Hillary is scary for a whole lot of legit reasons; this isn't one of them.

March 26, 2008 10:02 PM

AlanSP said:

I agree with tep on this.  As long as it doesn't involve human sacrifice or anything, I just don't see how any of this stuff matters.

March 26, 2008 11:05 PM

Annabella2 said:

Do we have to know her religious beliefs?  Do we need to know anything beyond the delusional Bosnia episode (take a look at the tone and the look on her face as she talks about it) compared to the reality.  And then shrugging it off as "So I misspoke..."  "Occasionally I am human like everyone else."  "So for the first time in 12 years I made a mistake..."

Yipes... and the frozen smile.  The woman has been so hollowed out by narcissism that there is no reality left.  We don;t need goofy phony religiosity to prove she has delusions of grandeur and would be Bush III.

March 26, 2008 11:34 PM

lymon1 said:

If you ever are in Wheaton, do check out the Billy Graham museum at Wheaton College -- there's this great room with a glass floor which covers a painting of a blue sky with clouds and you feel like you're flying (walking in heaven?)

March 27, 2008 6:45 AM

Rhubarbs said:

Surely there is some room between condemning a candidate out of hand because of the quirks of his religious life (Hillaristas on Obama over Wright) or saying that such things don't matter at all (Hillaristas on Hillary over The Fellowship). These things do matter, but not much, and not in any decisive way. They add a little bit of data to our overall understandings of who these people are.

On the one hand, it's good for Hillary that she's able to forge personal relationships across party lines in Washington. That's an increasingly rare, and therefore increasingly valuable, attribute.

On the other hand, theologically I find it a bit troubling that Hillary falls in with this sort of affirmation-Christianity pablum. It's Dubya-style theology lite. Soul deadening stuff. Real faith is hard. Real skepticism is hard. This style of megachurch faith is easy. Lazy, even. Doesn't disqualify Hillary from the presidency or make her a bad person, but it adds a little bit of perfectly useful information to our overall picture of her.

(I think it also adds disturbing insight to Hillary's ideological and tactical shift to the right. She pals around with the rightwingiest of the right at these prayer meetings, she votes with President Bush on numerous important bills, and now she embraces the rightwing attack machine. At some point, hanging out with other ducks, acting like a duck, and quacking like a duck makes you a duck. But that's just me; obviously her supporters think that her palling around and praying with wacko conservatives, agreeing with President Bush, and embracing Rush and Scaife et al is a virtue. Either way, a small but useful bit of information.)

March 27, 2008 9:50 AM

stgla said:

This is getting really fun.  New staple of American politics: Every candidate must have priest/pastor/rabbi disclosure forms completed in full before the first primary.  No more Santeria revelations or Rastafarian eruptions.  You have to attend a mainline Christian church with a mousey non-molesting clergyman who espouses his love of America every week.  Americans want a leader from Reverend Lovejoy's flock.  I hear Ned Flanders is available.

March 27, 2008 11:29 AM

icarusr said:

For my part, I'm spooked out by anyone who thinks that an itinerant Jew preaching, disturbing markets and coming up with such public health and safety doozies (two thousand years ago, in the age of cholrea, the plague and leprosy) as "let the dead bury themselves" is the Son of God and the Saviour of All Mankind (including yours truly who needs no saving, thank you very much), the Second Twig on the Holy Trinity, the Messiah and the King of the Universe.  The same goes, by the way, for the chap who went up a mountain and talked with a burning bush, or the other one who went up another mountain and in an epileptic fit saw the Archangel Gabriel.  If you "believe" - truly believe - in any of the above, you should be excluded from public office for too much gullibility.  Why, one might as well elect a devoté of Dan Brown ...

When I saw the book, I thought it was yet another gloss on the movie, "The Everlasting Secret Family", about a gay cabal that's been running the World since the times of the Knights Templar.  About as credible, I suspect ...

March 27, 2008 12:22 PM

tomeg said:

icarusr,

Thanks for sharing. Which is worse, believing what you cite, or "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights..."? Similarly irrational, yet we choose to believe the latter based on no credible evidence, and not the former?

March 27, 2008 1:40 PM

icarusr said:

The opening words of the US Declaration of Independence are admirable, but they are not divinely ordained.  And if anyone suggested they are - that the Judeo-Christian God appeared to Jefferson and Franklin and inspired them to pen these might words - then I would question their sanity and exclude from public office as well.  In any event, even as they proclaimed the equality of all men, they counted the slaves as three-fifths of whites and excluded women from the equation.  Surely, we do not "believe" in precisely what the drafter wrote and meant?  What we accept is that to govern ourselves, a modified version of that glorious statement is a good guiding principle.  And then we proceed to qualify further according to context (for example, just because all men are created equal does not mean all men have a right to practice medicine or to be judges or to run for public office).  That is all.  

Now if you said that we should similarly accept the Sermon on the Mount or Romans or Leviticus as "guiding principles", because they make sense or because they are tried and true, then by all means, I say let sit down, and add to the list Edward the Confessor's laws and Solon's precepts and see what we come up with.  It's when the discussion gets to religion and religious affiliation and personal affiliations because of church affiliations and so on that I begin to wonder: at the heart of religion is myth, and if religious belief is going to be the litmus test, then I think we should set the bar somewhere else.  That is, not whether Clinton or Obama keeps good company, but whether and to what extent they truly "believe" in myths that have no place in a modern polity.

March 27, 2008 3:06 PM

sportdoc62 said:

Now that we've spent a couple of weeks plumming the depths of Mr. Obama's church, and deciding whether what black folks say and do in churches otherwise ignored by whites is okay, we put the breaks on delving into Hilary's church?  Um, no.  I want the same athropologist-style ventures by journalists into the alimentary canals of elitist DC churches as well.  Let's see whether what is said in these secretive institutions makes people uncomfortable or "scared" or feeling "icky."  

By now I am sure we all know that Pastor Wright was evidently acceptable enough to the second Clinton adminstration to be invited to a prayer breakfast....

March 27, 2008 3:07 PM

tomeg said:

Not "divinely ordained" as in commanded or predestined, but divinely instituted, laid down, established. First principles, adopted from the ideal, not as you say literal beliefs, but common aspirations and hopes. (I hope I'm in the ballpark on this.) One doesn't have to be "a believer" in a literal god-person(s) to sign on to such lofty ideas.

But there is nothing in the ideals "ordained" by G-d, set forth and witnessed to in the scriptures of the three Abrahamic faiths, that necessarily opposes the ideas expressed in the Declaration. It comes from one's interpretation of the scriptures. Human will and human experience are two different things.

I agree if somebody practices a particular religion or belief system - what a believer believes s(he) is commanded to do or entitled to have - by disregarding people who hold different beliefs, or none, I'd say that would be in conflict with civic laws and (Constitutional) practices and agreements, and would not be consistent with the ideals free people choose to practice in common with one another.

So as tep much more concisely puts it, we should be looking for and evaluating actual words and actions, not a candidate's chosen beliefs.

March 27, 2008 4:55 PM

teplukhin2you said:

I'm spooked out by people who eat their spiritual leader's body and drink his blood in weekly rituals

March 27, 2008 5:01 PM

icarusr said:

Tep: to think how many good Christians went to the Stake for feeling queasy about ritual cannibalism ....

Tomeg: "Not 'divinely ordained' as in commanded or predestined, but divinely instituted, laid down, established."  I am not sure what is the difference between divinely "commanded" and divinely "established".  Neither the words nor the ideals of the Declaration of Indepdenden are divine; to think so denigrates the human genius of the framers and elevates a man-made object to God-hood, surely no different from the Golden Calf of Lore.

I think we agree that one does not have to be inspired by God to believe in human equality; if anything, ever since I left God in His House and Religion to my mother, I am far more of a "believer" in human equality and the essential dignity of "Man" than I used to be.  I suppose this is what humanism is supposed to be all about.

Returning to our sheep, as the French would say: the issue was Obama's consorting with Wright; and Hillary's consorting with The Family.  The simple point I made was this: if we are really going to delve into the consortings of one sort or another, and if we are really going to ask about people's faiths and beliefs, let's go to the root of the matter.  I for one am, like Tep, am spooked by those "believing in" and practising ritual cannibalism - and remember, a good Catholic does not consider the wine and the wafer to be symbollically the blood and body of Christ, but actually so.  I am also spooked by anyone who thinks as a matter of historical record that Moses scaled the Sinai to speak with Yahweh or that Jonas spent three days in the belly of a big fish.  And so on.  Personal "beliefs", these, but to me, it amounts to "believing" in a flat earth.  As private citizens we are entitled to have crazy beliefs; in a public official responsible for War and Peave and Law and Order and Health and Safety, I expect more.

March 27, 2008 5:22 PM