Hillary at Saddleback
Hillary Clinton took to the pulpit again yesterday, this time at Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church in SoCal. The Democratic presidential hopeful spoke at Warren’s Global Summit on AIDS and the Church, the same conference her top rival Barack Obama appeared at last year. During her speech, which outlined her plans to combat the AIDS epidemic worldwide, Clinton quoted what she said was her favorite verse: “For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also” (James 2:26). In using the verse to comment on the necessity of faith in charity efforts, Clinton said, “I have concluded that works without faith cannot be sustained.”
Clinton’s audience included pastors, nongovernmental groups, and Saddleback members, including an obviously impressed Christie Mayles, who said, “I wish I could have met her afterward. She is my new hero.”
Tim Wildmon of the American Family Association wasn’t as pleased with her appearance at the megachurch: “What Saddleback is doing is helping raise her profile as a legitimate presidential candidate in the eyes of evangelical Christians, and I think that is a huge error.”
Five other presidential candidates — Obama and John Edwards from the Democratic side, and Mike Huckabee, John McCain and Mitt Romney from the GOP– sent short videotaped messages that were shown following Clinton’s remarks on the church’s video screens. “We invited all of them to come, but she was the one who showed up,” Warren said.















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top31 Comments to “Hillary at Saddleback”
My mother worked for Family and Children Services for many years. She finally concluded that without faith in God, that one eventually became cynical and jaded in such a place. Most of her co-workers had “seen it all” and were ground down until they became part of the uncaring impersonal machine…
Report comment to moderator
Mrs. Clinton makes a great point. It’s interesting to hear a Democrat say it.
What I want to know is how this church gets away with hosting campaign speeches.
Report comment to moderator
Gag!
Report comment to moderator
I support a church’s right to freely invite whomever they desire to speak to them. I don’t think the government (or the ACLU, but I repeat myself) should be able to effectively ban speakers from churches.
Freedom of expression and association and the First Amendment should apply to churches too (as was intended in the first place) and they should not be threatened with various punishments for entering public discourse freely.
Report comment to moderator
Hmmm. A candidate for president proposes her own political agenda from the pulpit, which includes a $50-billion government program and nobody blinks. If a Republican tried that the media would be outraged, the ACLU would protest and the IRS would remove the church’s 501c tax exemption.
I am against all that and believe any candidate or pastor should be able to say what they want under the guarantees of the 1st Amendment. However, these bogus unconstitutional laws are applied unfairly to conservative churches.
We will hear Mike Huckabee preaching from the pulpit at a local church on Sunday, however I can guarantee he won’t mention politics, else the IRS would shut the place down.
Report comment to moderator
What is it Hilary has faith in?
I only see “faith” in the State, and an agenda of ever increasing State power and influence – at the expense of and in place of faith in God.
She sounds like she is triangulating again.
Report comment to moderator
To make myself clear I also think that churches should have the right to have any guest speakers they want. I’m just wondering how certain churches get away with hosting certain speakers, while others do not.
Report comment to moderator
According to Rick Warren, three Democrats and three Republicans were invited to the summit, so I guess there is no reason to cry foul.
Report comment to moderator
Regarding the freedom of expression for churches points made above, I also support the right of an ex-president to criticize a sitting president in a time of war. But I also don’t think they should do it, as a rule, and it is quite classless and tacky when they do.
Report comment to moderator
Bob Buckles: gag
What is it about her statement that makes you gag??
Is it theologically unsound?
Do you think that some previous act of hers demonstrates that she is not sincere in this profession of belief??
Or do you simply hate her political positions with such a passion that you are rendered speechless?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Incidentally this appears to have been a conference on AIDS, as opposed to a worship service.
Should churches be prohibited from holding such non-sectarian meetings? And if not, should politicians or people of other faiths be allowed to participate?
And Xion, assuming your Christian faith calls for us to help the helpless, and there is a desperate need, unmet by Christian charity, is it your position that that is just too bad–government can’t get involved?
Report comment to moderator
And Xion, assuming your Christian faith calls for us to help the helpless, and there is a desperate need, unmet by Christian charity, is it your position that that is just too bad–government can’t get involved?
Of course not. I am proud to be part of a generous country. But I also want that money spent wisely. Liberals are experts at putting forth policy that accomplishes precisely the opposite of what is intended.
We fight racism by writing it into law (affirmative action). We fight AIDS but ignore the one sure cure (abstinence). We help the weakest in society by killing them (abortion). We promote freedom of religion by outlawing it public places. We promote freedom of speech by censoring political speech prior to elections or from the pulpit (unless you’re a Democrat — then preach Big Brother until you’re blue in the face and no one cares).
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia – “assuming your Christian faith calls for us to help the helpless, and there is a desperate need, unmet by Christian charity, is it your position that that is just too bad–government can’t get involved?”
I don’t have a problem with government getting involved in things. I have a problem with government getting involved in things so as to make the problems exponentially worse and waste huge sums of money in the process.
Report comment to moderator
krm: I’m not sure that your #12 is consistent with your #6, I only see “faith” in the State, and an agenda of ever increasing State power and influence – at the expense of and in place of faith in God, but leaving that aside, what is it specifically about the details of Hilary’s plan that you think is wasting huge sums of money and making things worse?
Xion: So in addition to treating those who are already afflicted you would spend yet MORE money on advising or enforcing abstinence??
Report comment to moderator
I think Purpose Drivel and the Hildebeast make a great pair.
Report comment to moderator
#10 ARCADIA
” “For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also” (James 2:26). In using the verse to comment on the necessity of faith in charity efforts, Clinton said, “I have concluded that works without faith cannot be sustained.” ”
Can faith be included in a government “work?” Has Hillary ever shown any backing for this position? Olasky wrote a book, “The Tragedy of American Compassion”, suggesting that charity should be done by the church, not by government. He did a much better job explaining what and why charity should not be done by government.
Hence, Hillary invoking works and faith, Gag!
“Do you think that some previous act of hers demonstrates that she is not sincere in this profession of belief??”
I will not judge her profession of faith. That is for God to judge.
“…an obviously impressed Christie Mayles, who said, “I wish I could have met her afterward. She is my new hero.” ”
Gag!
“Or do you simply hate her political positions with such a passion that you are rendered speechless?”
No, I am not speechless. I just had a reaction to the thought of Hillary in Saddleback church. I am not in her corner. I don’t like her politics. I don’t know her to like or dislike her.
I don’t think Hillary has done anything in her life to suggest that she is competent to run the US. The unspoken thing about Hillary is that if she gets elected we will get two for the price of one. Bill can’t run again and some people think things would be just like the good old days if we elect them.
And finally, yes, I am a Republican, a Baptist and a conservative, evangelical, born-again Christian. My theology is different from that espoused by Hillary’s branch of Christianity. My politics are opposed to hers. Gag!
Report comment to moderator
This is another one of those “glass is half-full/half-empty” kind of issues. I haven’t much use for politicians using churches. But I do think it’s a worthy effort that a church would try to do something about AIDS.
That said, based upon what I’ve read about Saddleback’s efforts in this area, I’d have to give them a grudging “thumbs up” for tackling the issue. I certainly think that as long as they continue to hold a negative view on gays, their impact will be stunted. Never-the-less, they can work with other people groups that are affected by the disease.
I know that other AIDS groups, hospices and hospitals in the area are still a little leery of working with Saddleback Church. Perhaps over time those fears will be disproven.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir,
I was under the impression that the majority of the work being done by Warren and Saddleback in the area of AIDS relief was in Africa, where the gay question isn’t a major factor in the epidemiology of the disease. (Although a reasoned balance of abstinence education and contraceptive distribution has shown to be the most effective deterant to the spread of AIDS, whether at home or abroad)
While I can certainly understand the reluctance to which you refer, certainly more money and man-hours directed toward relieving the suffering of those infected with AIDS should not be turned down, even if there’s an evangelistic undertone. If Christian faith compels someone to work at an AIDS hospice, isn’t it unfair to constrain them not to share their reasons for being there with the people they’re serving?
Report comment to moderator
If Hillary has her way, no one will have faith because the government will be doing all the works.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia – Hilary pushes a pretty standard liberal Democratic Great Society/War on Poverty platform.
It is the precise platform that has made urban poverty a virtually intractable problem and seems desgned to consign the marginal societal performers to generations of the same and worse. It is also a very expensive platform. Clear enough?
Report comment to moderator
Rob,
I guess it would depend on the policies of the hospice. If they allow it, then sure. As long as they respect the beliefs and feelings of the patient, I’ve got no problem with a person sharing their faith and how it’s helped them.
You’re correct about Saddleback Church working in Africa. They’re also working in the Los Angeles area with PWA’s.
Report comment to moderator
The Hillary-Haters are out in force today.
I see in the news that one of them claiming to have explosives strapped to his body took women and children hostage at her campaign office in New Hampshire. You’re in good company, GOPers.
Report comment to moderator
Yellowtail,
That’s a kinda low blow. As noted above, GOPers have impecable mental health, and the nutjob who “wanted to see the candidate” in NH was clearly lacking in that dept.
Sure, Hill does arouse some irrational hate, but then again, what political candidate doesn’t in some corner of the world?
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
Yep, at some Mega Churches, all you have to do is show up when asked and you become the next coming of Christ regardless of merit.
Report comment to moderator
Another very good reason not to go to church, Llama.
Report comment to moderator
KRM #6: I only see “faith” in the State, and an agenda of ever increasing State power and influence – at the expense of and in place of faith in God.
That’s quite an eyeful.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop – Quite an eyefull indeed; and not a pretty sight!
Report comment to moderator
KRM at #6: I only see “faith” in the State, and an agenda of ever increasing State power and influence – at the expense of and in place of faith in God.
How do you figure it’s “in place of?”
How do you know God isn’t planning to use the power of the US government to work his will?
Paul says to submit to all earthly authorities because they are chosen by God, so if Hillary does get elected, she’ll be God’s choice, no? And through her big-government policies, he can work to provide help to the suffering.
If not, why not?
Report comment to moderator
Steveg – Our “big government” programs don’t help the suffering. They increase the extent, duration and and breadth of suffering. The worst off poor are less able to leave poverty, the least educated are in worse position for learning, broken familes are more prevelant – all due to big government style programs to “help” them.
Big government programs make virtually every problem worse over time. If Hilary were pushing a Godly government, there might be some chance of it actually doing some good for the suffering, but she would undermine or oppose Godly values and thus yield counter-productive results.
Report comment to moderator
If you need a reason to NOT go to church, Ham/Lon, it might be best for you not go in the first place.
Best for you to wait for the Holy Spirit to convict you of your sins wherever you end up after a Saturday night.
Report comment to moderator
It seems that Mickey got carried away with the “pulpit” thing. The Senator speaks at a gathering in a church building, but that is hardly what we would understand about “using the pulpit” — something that in Protestant circles carries with it the indication of a worship service. I didn’t read about that at all.
She has a policy position, and she frames it in light of her religious conviction. By all lights, it looks consistent with her life (unlike a certain other NY figure and his new-found religiosity) — so what’s the deal? Yeah, we know you don’t like Hillary on principle, but doesn’t that principle start functioning more as a kind of blinders?
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!