on this evening of the state of the union address
there is a great discussion going on at the methoblog on politicians speaking at general conference. specifically, president george bush speaking at gc '08. i think wes has the sensible argument to me, that we do not need active politicians speaking at such a gathering. however, people who speak to the politics we need to engage as Christian faith should be acceptable. it's a fine line i am sure. it sparked an old thought for me. what politicians are out there that are methodist. so i googled it and who would have guessed there is a wikipedia page on such a topic.
certainly george bush has been noted as a united methodist, and one that doesn't pay much attention to the bishops of his church. how bout, hillary clinton, dick cheaney, jon edwards, and dennis hastert (former speaker of the house), the angry zell miller.
al gore, sr. was a methodist, his son took some religious courses at vandy (could be methodist) but he is missionary baptist now. ed bryant was in office as a methodist from here in tennessee & john wilder is still around in this state.
some other current notables: jeff bingaman, larry craig, johnny isakson, dick lugar, pat roberts, debbie stabenow, craig thomas, bob taft (was governor), sue wilkins myrik.. i'm sure there are more
i wouldn't mind so much that an active politician speaks at a general or annual conference. i would be remiss if they used the platform for a campaigning stop, which i think happens too easily. if however, they were speaking to some changes that are in line with the social principles then i'd be okay with it. i am not sure how many of these folks would be so intune with the methodist beliefs that they could speak to them. certainly not president bush
