Foundry Church Crossed a Line!
-
by Mark Tooley…My friend Dean Snyder claims my Institute on Religion and Democracy has “crossed a line.” I believe his Foundry United Methodist Church has crossed many a line in violating traditional Christian and United Methodist beliefs over the years. This Fall, Foundry will vote whether to cross one more line and celebrate same-sex unions, in defiance of United Methodism’s prohibition.
Bishop Hope Morgan Ward
Specifically Dean is upset that a nearly 700 word e-mail I sent to supporters included about 40 words regarding Mississippi Bishop Hope Morgan Ward’s scheduled speech at Foundry United Methodist Church on July 25. Many more words were devoted to a speech that openly homosexual Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson had just given on July 18.
Foundry is currently conducting a “Summer of Discernment” in preparation for its September vote on same-sex unions. Of course, Bishop Robinson, whose election has divided the U.S. Episcopal Church and the global Anglican Communion, encouraged Foundry to move forward.
“Gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people are coming into the temple and they are bringing their beloved partners and they’re saying it’s God that has done this,” Bishop Robinson told Foundry. “During this period of discernment, are you going to be an admirer only of Jesus, or will you be a disciple?” He concluded: “You get to choose. Amen.”
Foundry UMC
As Dean noted, I also mentioned having attended at Foundry, over 10 years ago during the pastorate of Dean’s predecessor, a speech by another controversial Episcopal Bishop, John Shelby Spong, who periodically wrote books denying Christ’s miracles and unique divinity, including his virgin birth and bodily resurrection, and speculating whether the Virgin Mary was a prostitute. In my e-mail, I wrote that despite all the talk from Bishop Spong and Bishop Robinson about inclusivity, both presided over massive membership losses in their diocese. Across 20 years, Spong’s New Jersey Diocese lost 40 percent. Since his 2003 election, Robinson’s New Hampshire Diocese has lost about 7 percent. Why would Foundry Church look to either for counsel?
J. Philip Wogaman
IRD has a somewhat long history with Foundry Church. In 1995, I wrote about then Foundry minister J. Philip Wogaman, himself a long-time controversial ethicist who previously taught at Wesley Seminary. Dr. Wogaman had very liberal views on politics and theology and persuaded Foundry Church, by a narrow margin, to become a “Reconciling” i.e. pro-homosexuality congregation. My article was quoted extensively in Cal Thomas’ syndicated column across the country. Long-time Foundry attenders Bob and Elizabeth Dole, then preparing for the 1996 presidential campaign, very publicly quit Foundry.
Like the Doles, many Foundry members left as Dr. Wogaman took their church in an increasingly liberal/revisionist direction no longer upholding biblical authority and the centrality of Jesus Christ. Because IRD was a public critic of Dr. Wogaman, I heard from many of these departing church members. And even recently, I met with a now-retired couple who recalled their courtship as a young couple in the church, and the formation of their faith there, but who sadly departed when Foundry left biblical Christianity. When Dean succeeded the retiring Dr. Wogaman, I had hoped he would take Foundry in a more centrist direction.
Dean Snyder
I have known Dean almost 10 years, thanks to his reaching out, first when he directed communications for the Baltimore-Washington Conference. He has visited our IRD office and last year we met for lunch. His cordiality and interest in the differing beliefs of others are exceptional. But I am saddened that he has continued Foundry on a trajectory away from historic Christianity and United Methodism.
At first I was amused when he phoned me to recount, as he later described in his column, how he had asked Foundry’s congregation to stand and point their hands towards IRD’s office to pray for “grace upon grace” for us. It seemed more like disapproving finger pointing than sincere prayer. But I hope these prayers were sincere. And we at IRD pray, hopefully with earnest sincerity, that Dean and Foundry Church deeply rethink their own spiritual direction, and seriously consider a return to the apostolic faith centered upon Jesus Christ and His Word, the Bible. For any church to stray from His Word is to lead people astray and towards potential great harm, temporal and spiritual, possibly eternally.
As to IRD’s supposedly having “targeted” Bishop Ward, my relatively brief e-mail reference to her was because she was the prominent speaker next scheduled after Bishop Robinson. And she is still emerging from her own controversy after her own Mississippi Annual Conference last year hosted a female couple who recounted the supposed blessing of their lesbianism. Bishop Ward expressed regret that many churches were offended. But she never apologized or criticized the public affirmation of a behavior that United Methodism, like global and historic Christianity, cannot bless.
Many evangelical Mississippi United Methodists reasonably believe Bishop Ward personally disagrees with United Methodism’s official affirmation of sex only within heterosexual marriage, even though she will fulfill her public responsibility to uphold church law. Bishop Ward’s appearance at a famously liberal United Methodist congregation, now debating whether to defy the church ban on same-sex unions, and immediately following an equally famous homosexual Episcopal bishop, was noteworthy and newsworthy.
Many observers might reasonably assume that Foundry would not have invited Bishop Ward at this time, nor would Bishop Ward have accepted given Foundry’s history, if she seriously disagreed with its direction. In a Washington Post ad the day before her Foundry sermon, Foundry prominently advertised Bishop Ward’s appearance and Foundry’s “Reconciling” affiliation. What should readers think?
Whatever Bishop Ward’s personal beliefs, as a bishop she is called to uphold church law and to urge fellow United Methodists to do likewise. She might have admirably employed the opportunity while in Foundry’s pulpit to remind Dean and his congregation of their covenantal responsibility to uphold United Methodist teaching on marriage. Instead, she seems to have avoided the issue. Many in the congregation understandably could interpret her presence as support. And Dean’s organizing the congregation into a mass prayer with upraised hands aimed at IRD’s office, whatever the motivation, implied that Bishop Ward and Foundry were persecuted victims. IRD has not “targeted” anyone so much as reminded Foundry and others of their responsibility to our church. Ideally, bishops would do this. But in their absence, lay people and groups like IRD sometimes fill this role.
I hope and expect that my friendship with Dean will continue. But more importantly, I hope that he will remember his obligation, as a shepherd to God’s flock, and once again point exclusively towards the centrality of Jesus Christ as Savior, and to the full authority and transformative power of God’s Word. Yes, Dean, “grace and more grace,” centered upon the Bible, and transmitted by the Holy
Spirit.Mark Tooley is president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy in Washington, DC.
View 
Subscribe via 
Leave a Comment
July 31, 2010 pm31 6:38 pm
If Foundry is honest about discernment they would have invited people who do not share their view on this issue to preach.
July 31, 2010 pm31 7:49 pm
Shane, kudos for showing both sides.
Foundry had Spong there as well?! He is a super-pagan. Anyone who considers him to be a Christian is utterly clueless and should not be in any church leadership position.
The only reason to visit and preach at Foundry would be to tell them to repent and believe.
July 31, 2010 pm31 8:23 pm
Thanks for posting this, Shane. Mr. Tooley’s words are a comfort. I’m happy the UMC has such a bold and articulate voice for orthodox Christianity.
August 1, 2010 pm31 2:29 pm
The response of Tooley is excellent! Clearly and concisely addresses the issue. Very well written.
August 1, 2010 pm31 8:19 pm
Foundry and many leaders in the bureaucracy of the UMC seem determined to push against barriers erected by General Conferences with little regard to formal decisions made. The moves to move the official stance of the denomination continue unabated. The amount of time, money, and skilled manipulation of the structures waste inordinate amounts of money and institutional effort. Congregations weary of endless battles and people depart for parts of the Christian community where a more Biblical form of faith is practiced. Could it be that it’s time to redirect our efforts and do what Bill Hinson proposed some years ago. Our calling is to evangelize this world and spread Scriptural holiness not to battle for institutional control. If the system is beyond change let us shake dust off our feet and move on . The word “Ichabod” comes to mind.
August 2, 2010 pm31 12:08 am
It’s a very nicely written response, but I have a few questions for whomever wishes to respond. But first I want to say I feel for the retired couple who left Foundry. The same thing happened to me so I know it’s very painful. But churches, like people, grow and change.
It seems that Foundry is trying to decide whether to start blessing same-sex marriages, and Bishop Robinson encouraged them to do so. Mr. Tooley points out that both he and another Foundry speaker, former Bishop Spong, have lost members in their dioceses. Is membership retention a good measure of a religious leader’s spiritual worth? If so Jesus must have really messed up because in His earthly life He lost nearly every follower He had.
And I don’t understand Mr. Tooley’s problem with Bishop Ward, because she didn’t tell Foundry not to hold gay weddings.I thought Mr. Snyder said she came to talk about poverty and feeding the hungry. I’m a knitter. If I give a talk about making a sweater I don’t segue into how to tune up a car.
And while she’s a bishop she’s not their bishop. If she were to try to influence their decision, wouldn’t she be stepping a little on their own bishop’s toes? Also, given how much the Bible has to say about treatment of the poor versus how much it says about sexuality, it seems to me her speech was very Biblical.
I have just one more point to make but this one bothers me the most. Why is the IRD attacking Foundry in the first place? Every once in awhile my home church holds events featuring guest speakers. Without exception they take a literal and inerrantist approach to the Bible. This violates The Book of Discipline, which calls for the use of “tradition, experience and reason” when interpreting Scripture. But I don’t see any national organization getting excited about it. Nor should they. While it’s contrary to the Discipline, this view is very consistent with the views of most of the church members.
Of course, Foundry is a lot bigger, richer and more influential than my little church. But as in my church the members pay the bills and make their apportionments on time. So shouldn’t they have the same right to grow as they feel led by the Spirit of God, without outside interference? Isn’t that what being a Christian in America is all about?
August 2, 2010 pm31 2:05 pm
I’m no fan of what Foundry is contemplating and I think Mark’s criticism of their over-all ministry is fair.
That said, sending out a fund-raising letter which essentially accuses a sitting Bishop of our denomination of preparing to give a pro-gay sermon was not a wise or noble thing to do. And as it turns out, it wasn’t the factual thing to do either.
If Evangelicalism is to prevail in United Methodism, we must be above reproach in how we treat those with whom we disagree. If we win by taking the low road, we will still surely lose. To paraphrase Our Lord, what does it profit a theological camp to gain a denomination but lose our soul in the process?
At the very least, we should never, ever condemn someone for a sermon they haven’t preached yet or for taking a stance they haven’t taken yet.
After reading both Mark and Dean’s posts on this blog, I can’t help but be disappointed by each of them- though for very different reasons.
August 5, 2010 pm31 2:16 pm
I agree with many of the comments that John Wilks makes, specifically with his points about the factual nature of this argument and my personal disappointment with the finger-pointing.
I feel a loss with Rev. Snyder’s post because it’s clear he feels so strongly about the issue that he is willing to bring it into a worship setting. I’ve not reached a point in my own discernment where I’m comfortable taking my own issue and stepping between people and their God in the holy time of worship.
However I equally mourn Mr. Tooley’s response, mainly for it’s lack of actual “response”. There isn’t a single paragraph that seeks to address the specific issue at hand, only one sentence even references it. Instead every single paragraph seems focused on word choices that seek to marginalize and exclude people that Mr. Tooley consider left of his center.
It’s a far step away from conversation when Rev. Snyder seems to be speaking almost solely out of pain and frustration and Mr. Tooley uses his chance to spew divisive talking points.
On a personal note: I had the privilege of knowing the Reverend Dr. Wogaman for over a year. It is my opinion that he is a loving, intelligent, thoughtful and God-serving Christian. The grace and care he exhibits are proof of the fruit that Christ has grown in him. I take exception and offense to Mr. Tooley’s characterization of him.
August 5, 2010 pm31 8:10 pm
“At the very least, we should never, ever condemn someone for a sermon they haven’t preached yet or for taking a stance they haven’t taken yet.”
Are you kidding me? What was she waiting for? Her very silence gave consent. Her very presence gave consent. The very stones should have cried out!
August 6, 2010 pm31 8:43 am
Why is Foundry allowed to announce that this fall they will be voting as to whether they will break covenant with the UMC? How many other UM churches would be allowed to make the same claim in public without their DS banging on the door and threatening both the building’s trust clause and the pastor’s credentials. Where is the justice and connection that we hear about all the time? Apparently all UM churches are equal but some are more equal? George Orwell would be so proud of our UM leadership and their pathetic hypocrisy. After 20 years as a UM pastor I have one overwhelming frustration. What does our leadership produce consistantly? A great difficulty encouraging parishioners to be supportive of the connection and to remain in the UMC. Maybe we all need a season of discernment about how we feel about continuing in this ongoing arrangement?
August 6, 2010 pm31 9:11 am
Ben Hanne,
So Dr. Wogaman is loving, intelligent, thoughtful etc. The question is did he remain in the covenant that he swore to uphold by living in the rules of the Discipline? Or was he allowed to be a “prophet” because of the size and $ the Foundry church represents? Isn’t such an approach considered abuse and injustice because of the “institutional power” and influence that Foundry and Dr. Wogaman represent?
August 6, 2010 pm31 10:42 am
Marilyn,
Consent to what?
Bishop Ward didn’t speak on homosexuality and thus far Foundry hasn’t broken the Discipline yet. Exactly what was she to do? She isn’t their Bishop and she wasn’t brought in to discuss sexuality.
Don’t misunderstand me. I am a member of the Confessing Movement and as I have already said I am no fan of the direction Foundry is taking. In this thread and the previous thread, I am very clear on that.
And while I appreciate and affirm most of the content put forth by IRD including the very post Mark shared on this blog, I think they were dead wrong in crafting that fund-raising letter and they owe Bishop Ward an apology.
August 6, 2010 pm31 11:58 am
Greetings Dan,
Ultimately I’m vastly more concerned with the character of a person than what their ideological opposites say about them. So I’m afraid I disagree with your entire premise. What does it say about a person who bears the fruit of Christian love? To me it says that they know Jesus Christ as their Lord and savior. Is that not enough?
It’s been 15 years since Foundry voted to become reconciling, there has been plenty of time to raise charges and none have come. To me that says that he stayed in covenant. However it’s not just his actions that Mr. Tooley seeks to attack but his very character.
Look again at the word choices Mr. Tooley uses in the two paragraphs that discuss Dr. Wogaman (which again I’ll state my disappointment that only one sentence in the entire post even references the factual error that Rev. Snyder raised up for concern)
“controversial”
“very liberal” – which is clearly something very bad
“increasingly liberal/revisionist direction”
“no longer upholding biblical authority and the centrality of Jesus Christ.”
“Foundry left biblical Christianity.”
In addition he implies that Dr. Wogaman forced Foundry to become reconciling.
Those are the charges that Mr. Tooley heaps upon Dr. Wogaman. They are almost certainly only his opinions yet they are stated as facts and without proof, but he slips them into his narrative in such a way that we can almost accept them without consideration.
The point is for me, to characterize Dr. Wogaman as someone who is interested or capable of forcing a congregation as large as Foundry to vote to become reconciling (which is done as church-wide vote during a charge conference), or driving the entire church away from Christianity is at best a statement made out of ignorance or at worse an intentional effort to spread libel against him.
In charity I will consider either possible as well as the host of explanations that fall between. What it does for me is raise the question of intent. If Mr. Tooley isn’t interested in offering an apology or an explanation then why did he choose to write this post?
August 6, 2010 pm31 3:36 pm
Ben,
You said “In addition he (Mark) implies that Dr. Wogaman forced Foundry to become reconciling.”
In fact, no where does Mark imply that force was used. He only uses the term “persuaded.”
And let’s be honest: if a church wanders into error with their pastor’s approval and encouragement, then the pastor bears a large part of the responsibility.
Now you may not feel that Foundry is in error. In which case, you may even prefer to cheer Dr. Wogaman and what he accomplished in his time at Foundry.
None the less, the fact remains that during his time their, and with his full support and guidance, Foundry took stances that others in United Methodism regard as un-Methodist. Mark is fair to point that out- and to express his displeasure with the whole state of affairs.
You further state: “However it’s not just his actions that Mr. Tooley seeks to attack but his very character.”
And yet the very phrases you cite to back up this claim are not criticisms of Wogaman’s character but criticisms of his theology.
I share your frustration at the way Mark wrote of Bishop Ward in the fund-raising letter which started this whole thing, but your attack on Mark is no more grounded in truth than his on Bishop Ward. In fact, by using the term “libel” in reference toward Mark concerning his commentary on Dr. Wogaman, you yourself may have committed libel against him.
This is exactly the sort of sensationalistic, ad-hominem garbage which both sides of this debate like toss around and which prevent us from having an honest dialog.
August 6, 2010 pm31 5:19 pm
John Wilks, you wrote: Bishop Ward didn’t speak on homosexuality and thus far Foundry hasn’t broken the Discipline yet. Exactly what was she to do? She isn’t their Bishop and she wasn’t brought in to discuss sexuality.”
Bishop Ward IS a bishop and what she says or doesn’t say speaks volumes, especially when following Bishop Robinson. Maybe she should stay in her own bishopric where what she has to say or keep silent about can be moderated. It is up to those within her scope of influence to deal with her formally if they disagree with what she says or stands for there. However, she still carries the title whether she is “their” bishop or not. She certainly isn’t my bishop if that’s the way you consider it. We got rid of ours a few years ago even though the letters of investigation were not taken to court. She “retired”. There are ways to deal with this.
August 6, 2010 pm31 6:39 pm
The inclusion of the words “sensationalistic” and referring to either my opinions or the fact that I posted them as “garbage” in the same sentence in which you decry ad hominem attacks and the lack of honest dialog causes me great ironic joy.
I wish you the best. Good day.
August 6, 2010 pm31 8:33 pm
As a member of the UMC for over 50 years, I would like to say I agree with Dan. “George Orwell would be so proud of our UM leadership and their pathetic hypocrisy. Maybe we all need a season of discernment about how we feel about continuing in this ongoing arrangement?” Why is Foundry allowed to do as it pleases? I do not like what it stands for…or should I say what it has fallen for? Pitiful! Jesus would not condone this abomination of His Word or His House.
August 11, 2010 pm31 9:19 pm
Commenting on the religious veneer often given to apartheid in South Africa and segregation in the US South, 80s alt-rocker Steve Taylor said “Racism in the name of Christianity can never be tolerated.” This is true – all sin, not only racism, can never be tolerated in the name of Christianity. Dean Synder and Foundry mean well, but like Methodists who wanted to be in sync with their culture by owning slaves or supporting Jim Crow laws, they want to conform to current culture. The Bible is true, and transforming victory is available through the power of the Holy Spirit. Prayers for Rev. Synder and Foundry during their period of discernment.