The current flag bearer is usually not the person who has been at the lead of a movement – just another person in a long line of other voices that gathered strength over time.

Bob Hunter….. As far as I know there is no “institutional support” for Bahati or Inhofe. They each participate in a Parliamentary prayer group. To my knowledge, neither gets financial or other support from the Fellowship other than the support the members of their individual prayer group might provide, like prayer and friendship, and occasional visits or other communications from individuals involved in other groups.

Considering as Jeff Sharlet has said:

Sen. Inhofe, a frequent Fellowship visitor to Uganda connected to a budget for the development of Ugandan leadership, says he’s promoting “the political philosophy of Jesus, something put together by Doug [Coe, Family leader].” Now here’s David Bahati,: “We know Senator Inhofe. We respect him.” On Inhofe’s

comment: “I think he’s responding to politics as the management of society, according to Jesus, how he brings Jesus to the issues of society.” Inhofe has done so in the U.S. by coining the slogan “God, gays, and guns,” ….

And with your quandry as to Bahati sees the Fellowship as concerns his bill…

….if Jeff is accurately reporting David Bahati’s thoughts, this shows Bahati’s total misunderstanding of the Fellowship. The Fellowship is relationships, not political action. To say “the bill is the Fellowship” (by which he means just the Parliamentary group in Uganda, obviously) makes no sense in the context of how the Fellowship I know operates.

Then perhaps the “gun” is that lack of understanding David Bahati has concerning support of his views by Inhofe or Bahati’s lack of Christian principles as espoused by the Family and thus misconstruing either as tacit ‘institutional support’ by the Family.

…

But, and this is to Bob’s credit, I think, he doesn’t trust Bob. He thinks Bob is under the control of “the gays.”

What does all this amount to? No kind of conspiracy, that’s for sure. But institutional support? I’d argue yes. That doesn’t seem a controversial assertion.

More on the deeper issues Bob raises to come.

Jeff’s peice on NPR has awoken alot of people up to what is going on there. I think it is terrible.

Then perhaps the “gun” is that lack of understanding David Bahati has concerning support of his views by Inhofe or Bahati’s lack of understanding of the Christian principles as espoused by the Family and thus misconstruing either as tacit ‘institutional support’ by the Family.

…

is just another one….just another one out to make a living other than fighting for homos. I could have respected your submission on Blessed but it all a hoax, no truth. No truth at all.

“The question is, does the Fellowship, by giving its institutional support to men such as Inhofe and Bahati, effectively endorse and even enable those views?” ?

As far as I know there is no “institutional support” for Bahati or Inhofe. They each participate in a Parliamentary prayer group. To my knowledge, neither gets financial or other support from the Fellowship other than the support the members of their individual prayer group might provide, like prayer and friendship, and occasional visits or other communications from individuals involved in other groups. As far as I know, Bahati’s only connection to a group that does get financial support from the USA, Cornerstone, a wonderful teaching, sports and support ministry to very poor children, is that he once participated on a panel of three Members of Parliament from different political parties at a Cornerstone event. I am advised that Bahati has never even visited the Cornerstone schools or other places where Cornerstone helps poor kids, so Jeff has had more contact there than Bahati (but I don’t call that “institutional support” for Jeff).

As to the Fellowship endorsing the views of an individual, one of tens of thousands of individuals in small groups all over the world, this question shows a complete lack of understanding of the Fellowship. It should be clear that our work of trying to bring leaders together requires that we not “endorse ” a view of one leader over another, be it in politics or business or any other area of endeavor. For example, if we expressed support for strong action by Congress to reform health care or control global warming, for example, we might attract Democrats but lose Republicans. If we supported extending tax cuts for the wealthy, we might attract Republicans but would lose Democrats. It simply makes no sense for us to be in the business of political support for any issues, other than our prayer that by coming closer to Jesus and his teachings, leaders in the small groups might seek more help for the least among us and work for peace.

The American fellowship did, of course, strongly oppose Bahati’s anti-homosexual bill, the only time I know of where any Fellowship group took such action on a bill.

.

. 1. “Bob, isn’t the Fellowship what the Fellowship does? Do intentions trump actions?” ?

The Fellowship worldwide does no actions. Individual groups do undertake actions such as the Congressional Prayer groups hosting the National Prayer Breakfast. If that goes well (or poorly), it cannot be credited (or debited) to any other group. If the Uganda Parliamentary Fellowship supports the anti-homosexual bill (I don’t know how many of that group does, do you?) that cannot be attributed to any other of the thousands of Fellowship groups worldwide.

BTW, Jeff, as you know but readers might not, the Fellowship consists of thousands of small groups worldwide with tens of thousands of individuals participating in small group meetings. Only some of the groups are made up of political leaders. There are groups of business leaders, professional leaders (by profession such as judges, athletes or journalists) and so on. In Uganda, the Wednesday group is made up of business leaders, housewives and others and the Friday group includes business people. Our work with political leaders gets the most ink but it is not all we do by a long shot.

. 2. “How do you define love? For instance, I see some of the work you personally have done with Pros for Africa as a very concrete illustration of love. I think you’d call it that, and I would, too, and while some might quibble with the approach, I doubt many would refuse the label “love” to it. That said, I think we all risk using words like “love” “freedom” and “hate” in too broad a fashion, blanketing all sorts of initiatives, intentions, and outcomes under one or the other. So can you give me a concrete definition of love? And here’s the catch — can you give me one that doesn’t require that I be a follower of Jesus?” ?

I would select a definition that is not based on one’s feelings for another person (although that is often surely real “love,” romantic love) but rather a great interest in something or a satisfaction in working on something (based on one of the New Oxford Dictionary’s definitions). I have a great interest and deep satisfaction in helping the returned abducted children (abducted by the Lord’s Resistance Army) try to regain their dignity and learn how to care for themselves and, in the case of the young girl victims of rape, their babies. Thank you for understanding that that is love, Jeff. Another kind of love is brotherly love, the kind we often see developing in the small groups. None of the above requires Jesus since I know of brotherly love developing between people in secular pursuits, like sports. Of course, I could add Jesus into the definition since I believe he deeply illuminates how to love (agape, selfless love) but the above definitions do not require that addition.

. 3. “If so, forget this next Q, but if you feel Jesus is necessary to the definition of love, then what’s left for those of us who don’t follow Jesus? I know you, personally, are open-minded and thoughtful on this issue, but I wonder how you’d define the Fellowship’s approach in this respect.” ?

As you requested, I will forget this question since I gave an answer not requiring that you be a follower of Jesus, Jeff (but I’ll keep praying).

. 4. “How would you define politics?” ?

Here is the New Oxford American Dictionary definition:

politics |?päl??tiks|

plural noun [usu. treated as sing. ]

• the activities associated with the governance of a country or other area, esp. the debate or conflict among individuals or parties having or hoping to achieve power : the Communist Party was a major force in French politics | thereafter he dropped out of active politics.

• the activities of governments concerning the political relations between countries : in the conduct of global politics, economic status must be backed by military capacity.

• the academic study of government and the state : [as adj. ] a politics lecturer.

• activities within an organization that are aimed at improving someone’s status or position and are typically considered to be devious or divisive : yet another discussion of office politics and personalities.

• a particular set of political beliefs or principles : people do not buy this newspaper purely for its politics.

I would argue that only the last definition might apply to the Fellowship but our beliefs/principles are not political, I don’t think, but spiritual. This does imply some goals such as peace and helping the poor that have political ramifications, I understand and that that part of our efforts that involves working with politicians has potential political ramifications, but peace and poverty eradication are simply fruits of changed lives not because we ever have written or endorsed a piece of legislation to accomplish it.

. 5. How would you define political organization? ?

From the above definition I would say that it is a government (including parts of the government, such as Congress or the Executive), think tanks and universities and other places engaged in the study of politics and organizations setting forth sets of political beliefs or principles for governance.

. 6. What’s the difference between a “God-led leadership” and a leadership through “the lens of God”? ?

“Lens of God” was your phrase, Jeff; I don’t think I’ve ever heard it anywhere else. But I do think our role is something like that, simply praying to open those leaders in small groups (some of whom are in politics but many of whom are not) to the teachings of Jesus in such a way that it informs how they live with their spouses and children and their friends and in all of their life including their job. We pray that these friends learn to love others in their leadership small group across religious affiliation, across ethnicity and across other divides. If that group happens to be made up of politicians then we pray they learn to love each other even across the aisle, so that trust is built and respect even when the votes go in opposite directions. Then, hopefully peace is maintained or established and the poor are cared for in that nation, state or city. But, as I understand it in over 30 years of participation, the work of the Fellowship is not to get any specific political result but a spiritual one: to impact lives of those who study Jesus’ teachings together in the thousands of small groups around the nation and the world.

I have several problems with Jeff’s Fresh Air appearance, albeit it is very moderate in its attack on the American Fellowship compared with his last appearance. For instance this time he does admit the Uganda anti-homosexual bill is “entirely a Ugandan effort” with “no input from the United States” and that a lot of us in America “strongly oppose the bill,” so much so that Bahati realizes that “he had gotten into a sort of schism with the group.”

But Jeff still tries to link us to the bill saying that, while we did not “pull the trigger…there’s a sense in which they (the American Fellowship) built the gun.” Jeff said the gun is “government being decided by small groups of elite leaders like Bahati, getting together and trying to conform government to their idea of Biblical law. And this is what their American benefactors wanted them to do.” Jeff further explains in this passage from the Fresh Air program:

“And what he (Bahati) explained to me, he says, look, homosexuality, in itself, is very bad. He says it is terrible. But he says, ultimately – and this is something he felt that he learned from the Americans. He says ultimately, it’s a symbol for the wrong kind of government. A government that allows homosexuality is a government led by people. In other words, we pass laws and we say homosexuality is legal.

“He says we need to have God-led government. And United States may have strayed too far away from that but Uganda, that’s still possible. So eradicating homosexuality from Uganda is just really part of this larger vision for what both he and his American allies a God-led government, although they might differ on what that would look like.”

I would like to respond to this claim that the American part of the Fellowship built any such gun. I have never heard anyone in my over 30 years of Africa work (or anywhere else in the Fellowship for that matter) call for government to “conform” with Biblical law or call for “God-led” government or for, good grief, I can’t believe I have to say this, the killing of anyone. If David Bahati said to anyone that we ever said to him or to anyone that laws legalizing homosexuality proves government is flawed I can absolutely confirm that such a statement is not ours and that it is absurd and insulting. Jeff knows that we do not advocate killing anyone (indeed, I told Jeff how a Fellowship person who travels to Uganda frequently was instrumental in getting the government there to stop executing anyone – gay or straight – so that there has been no executions in Uganda since he intervened, well over a decade ago).

On the issue of “God-led” government, when Jeff Sharlet and I met in my home for a three hour recorded conversation I had transcribed, this discussion took place:

“Jeff Sharlet:

“By the way, I don’t get credit for this, but I’m always telling people, “No, the Fellowship’s not theocratic.” They’re not theocratic. They don’t want to take over the government. They want to see a transformation of government, but that’s a theocentric idea, the idea that you should look through —

“Bob Hunter:

“I think what we want is individual —

“Jeff Sharlet:

“– the lens of God.

“Bob Hunter:

“I think what we want is individuals who love their country and love each other in a way that actually helps the country somehow.”

Any “gun” we are trying to build is one that shoots love, not death. We believe that leaders who, as Jeff put it, view decisions though the lens of God, will not only not kill people but also will turn and help the least among them, the poor, and also work for peace.

On Fresh Air, Jeff also says:

“On the one hand, Bahati says: No, there’s no input from the United States; this is entirely Ugandan effort. On the other hand, he said we did it through our Fellowship group, our Family group in parliament. And I said, oh, so there’s a connection between this American-supported group and the bill. And he says, I don’t know what you mean about connection; there’s no connection – the bill is The Fellowship. This is what we do.”

Sadly Bahati may well have at least some support for his bill within the Uganda Parliamentary group since opposition to homosexuality is very strong in the country. But, if Jeff is accurately reporting David Bahati’s thoughts, this shows Bahati’s total misunderstanding of the Fellowship. The Fellowship is relationships, not political action. To say “the bill is the Fellowship” (by which he means just the Parliamentary group in Uganda, obviously) makes no sense in the context of how the Fellowship I know operates. The Fellowship worldwide avoids taking positions on political matters for an obvious reason: we try to bring all people into the group, different political parties, different tribes, different religions, different ethnicities and so forth. In America, for example, if we said, “the Fellowship is the health care reform bill,” we could not bring Republicans and Democrats together at all. Indeed, the only bill the American Fellowship has either supported or opposed that I know of is Bahati’s anti-homosexual bill itself, which we have strongly opposed because it is so opposite to what Jesus stands for.

There are literally thousands of Fellowship groups across the world, including groups in every state in America and in over 100 other countries. Each small group, whether in Parliament, business, inner cities, professions or whatever, acts in an autonomous way. There may be and often is some relational connection between one group and another and often this connection extends to American participants in the Fellowship here. But to link any evil actions (much less genocide) of one group to another or to every group worldwide is classic guilt-by-association and very unfair.