Also known as The Foundation, Inc., The Family is a secretive Christian organization that has brought civic leaders and especially politicians together for the better part of a century, although it went national and then international less than seventy years ago. It is most widely known through its sponsorship of the annual National Prayer Breakfast, attended by all U. S. presidents since 1953. It was founded by a Methodist preacher and expanded, from 1969 to 2017, by a Presbyterian named Douglas E. Coe.
There might be less wrong with the notion of The Foundation than the makers of this documentary seem to suggest. There is nothing wrong, per se, with promoting nonsectarian religious fellowship among politicians; nevertheless, there are disturbing aspects to the particular ideology and teachings of the organization as presented here and its influence on some politicians. Also its secretiveness and ambiguous status as a church/not a church raise questions.
This installment focuses on the fruits of the group's alleged teaching that people in positions of leadership are, ipso facto, in power because God wants them there, and that they are forgiven for any sins they might commit because God wants them to stay in power or he would not have put them there. The foundation uses, as its template for this particular interpretation of the doctrine of predestination, the Biblical story of King David and Bathsheba (related in 2 Samuel in the Bible as well as in the 1951 movie, "David and Bathsheba"). David sinned not only in committing adultery with Bathsheba, but he had her husband killed to cover up the affair; yet, while God demanded remorse, He did not remove David from office over his transgressions.
Two contemporary cases seem to show that "The Family" actually recommended the application of this "ethic" to at least two politicians who strayed in their marriages and then offered the King David defense for their decisions not to resign. (These men were both Republicans, but it seems facetious of the filmmakers to ignore, in this instance at least, the likelihood that many more philandering politicians of both parties have been similarly counseled by The Family.)
Much seems wrong with the group's interpretation. Obviously, it exaggerates the importance of these particular politicians remaining in office. Neither was a king, for one thing. (And even Great Britain's Edward VIII abdicated in 1936 after it was determined that he could not be king if he married a divorced woman according to the canonical law of the Church of England.) These politicians were a U. S. senator from Nevada and a governor of South Carolina. Neither's continuation in office was really vital, and the assertion that he should not resign, in the case of the governor, sounded particularly ludicrous-not to say exquisitely self-serving-when he mentioned King David.
The scrutiny drawn to The Foundation as a result of these instances of its dubious ethical coaching of politicians, raised other issues as well. The politicians received their counselling at a building in Washington, DC owned by the group, which claimed it as tax-exempt church property in legal documents. Some politicians once lived there, paying a fraction of the rent they could expect to pay on the open market, which constitutes an unlawful donation to these politicians by the organization. It also raises the question of whether The Foundation is a church or not. It seems to claim that it is when it is convenient and that it is not when that is inconvenient. The group says it is not promoting a particular religion to national or world leaders, but its doctrines turn out to be exceedingly particular and might well conflict with the doctrines favored by each leader's personal faith.
There might be less wrong with the notion of The Foundation than the makers of this documentary seem to suggest. There is nothing wrong, per se, with promoting nonsectarian religious fellowship among politicians; nevertheless, there are disturbing aspects to the particular ideology and teachings of the organization as presented here and its influence on some politicians. Also its secretiveness and ambiguous status as a church/not a church raise questions.
This installment focuses on the fruits of the group's alleged teaching that people in positions of leadership are, ipso facto, in power because God wants them there, and that they are forgiven for any sins they might commit because God wants them to stay in power or he would not have put them there. The foundation uses, as its template for this particular interpretation of the doctrine of predestination, the Biblical story of King David and Bathsheba (related in 2 Samuel in the Bible as well as in the 1951 movie, "David and Bathsheba"). David sinned not only in committing adultery with Bathsheba, but he had her husband killed to cover up the affair; yet, while God demanded remorse, He did not remove David from office over his transgressions.
Two contemporary cases seem to show that "The Family" actually recommended the application of this "ethic" to at least two politicians who strayed in their marriages and then offered the King David defense for their decisions not to resign. (These men were both Republicans, but it seems facetious of the filmmakers to ignore, in this instance at least, the likelihood that many more philandering politicians of both parties have been similarly counseled by The Family.)
Much seems wrong with the group's interpretation. Obviously, it exaggerates the importance of these particular politicians remaining in office. Neither was a king, for one thing. (And even Great Britain's Edward VIII abdicated in 1936 after it was determined that he could not be king if he married a divorced woman according to the canonical law of the Church of England.) These politicians were a U. S. senator from Nevada and a governor of South Carolina. Neither's continuation in office was really vital, and the assertion that he should not resign, in the case of the governor, sounded particularly ludicrous-not to say exquisitely self-serving-when he mentioned King David.
The scrutiny drawn to The Foundation as a result of these instances of its dubious ethical coaching of politicians, raised other issues as well. The politicians received their counselling at a building in Washington, DC owned by the group, which claimed it as tax-exempt church property in legal documents. Some politicians once lived there, paying a fraction of the rent they could expect to pay on the open market, which constitutes an unlawful donation to these politicians by the organization. It also raises the question of whether The Foundation is a church or not. It seems to claim that it is when it is convenient and that it is not when that is inconvenient. The group says it is not promoting a particular religion to national or world leaders, but its doctrines turn out to be exceedingly particular and might well conflict with the doctrines favored by each leader's personal faith.
