I’ve already analyzed the incredible remarks of President Clinton’s
“personal minister,” the Rev. J. Philip Wogaman, in comparing Slick
Willie to King David. Now, as Paul Harvey would say, “the rest of the
story” about Wogaman.
Wogaman is the pastor of the Foundry Memorial Methodist Church, about
a mile from the White House. In November 1995, Wogaman’s church convened
“Sharing Our Rainbow of Light,” a daylong symposium organized by
Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, or PFLAG.
According to Mark Tooley, an attendee of that conference and an
active Methodist, Foundry is one of only 87 churches of 37,000 United
Methodist congregations that reject the denomination’s disapproval of
homosexual practices, which are unequivocally condemned in both the Old
and New Testaments.
The star of the homosexual conference was apostate Episcopal Bishop
John Spong, who took the opportunity to ridicule the concepts of the
virgin birth and the Resurrection, two central tenets of orthodox
Christianity. Spong also claimed the Apostle Paul was a “self-hating
homosexual,” according to Internet commentator Mark Howerter. Spong
compared the movement to claim special “rights” for homosexuals with the
championing of civil rights in general.
“Bishop’s Spong’s remarks this morning were so stimulating,” Wogaman
commented afterward. He noted that he, too, had problems with a
“literalistic” interpretation of the Bible. Translation: He doesn’t
believe what it actually says.
“Like the Washington Post,” says Wogaman, “the Scriptures contain
both truth and error. Relying on the Bible as the ultimate authority on
right and wrong, Wogaman said, is a “crutch.”
The church was decorated for the affair with homosexual rainbow flags
and banners. A display behind the altar depicted the rainbow surrounded
by skulls, supposedly symbolizing “truth, justice, reconciliation and
peace.” One cleric prayed to ancestors, lights, angels, saints and
spirits of Buddha, Muhammad and, for good measure, Jesus.
Other participants spoke of Jesus as a “drag queen.” Homosexual
marriages were praised. The Ten Commandments were declared immoral.
Understandably, Foundry is the recipient of high praise from the
Washington homosexual newspaper, the Blade. About the United Methodist
prohibition against ordaining homosexual clergy, Wogaman told the Blade:
“I deeply regret that some fine people have not been able to serve
because of that rule.”
Are you beginning to get the picture? Does this put Rev. Wogaman’s
eager and unsolicited forgiveness of the president in a new perspective?
Now you can begin to understand his cynical statement: “King David did
something that was much worse than anything President Clinton is alleged
to have done. And King David, if I read my Bible correctly, was not
But it gets worse. Wogaman is a supporter of abortion on demand. He
commended the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision for its “humane
spirit and practical wisdom.” He rails against prayer in schools, calls
for higher taxation and more redistribution of wealth by government.
Though he haughtily refers to himself as a “Christian ethicist,”
Wogaman is little more than a political crusader masquerading in
clerical garb. He cites the Bible as a standard when it suits him,
dismisses it when it flatly contradicts his worldly passions.
No wonder Bill and Hillary Clinton feel so at home at Foundry.
They’re not likely to find any moral condemnation or be faced with any
spiritual accountability in this church. If homosexual behavior is a
civil right, could adultery be any less? And if the Ten Commandments and
the Bible are not legitimate yardsticks by which to measure our actions,
then I guess Bill Clinton and the U.S. government do represent the
It’s a good thing King David didn’t have a “personal minister” like
the Rev. Wogaman, who would excuse and rationalize his sin. Instead, he
had the prophet Nathan, who faced down the king and accused him of his
crimes. The result? David instantly confessed. He came to grips with the
reality and gravity of his evil misdeeds for the first time. Sadly, Bill
Clinton doesn’t have a Nathan around. If he did, he probably would have
thrown him in the dungeon by now — or, at the very least, audited his