I think blogging etiquette prevents me from substantively editing the post, so I'll leave an update at the post and quote Dean's full comment to the Venice UMC-Sheehan Post Mortem 2 here.
About this partisan question: I am actually very cautious here. I was asked by the Washington Post about clergy endorsing candidates from their pulpits. The article is now archived by the Post and you have to pay to read it, but Maggie Gallagher quotes part of my remarks. I said that I cannot imagine endorsing a candidate myself, but I believe strongly in the freedom of the pulpit. If Scripture led a preacher to condemn a candidate --say someone preaching in Germany in the 1930s condemning Adolph Hitler when he was running for office -- we have to defend the freedom of the preacher to do that.
Then too I am thinking this way: once a candidate is elected, talking about him or her isn't partisan anymore. They are now everyone's president, everyone's Secretary of Defense, etc., whether you voted for this administration or not. Criticize away if your engagement with Scripture leads you to this word.
Why did no one call preaching about Clinton's sexual mistakes partisan? Aren't policies that result in people living or dying just as much a matter of morality?
Tim, where's the flaw in the way I am thinking here?