Candidates Responses to Question About the Bible
In my sermon this weekend I’ll be referring to a question that was asked in one of the Republican debates that captures the essence of of oversimplifying issues and seeing the world in black and white. I wanted to post the link here so anyone who wanted to see both the question and the responses of Giuliani, Romney and Huckabee could do so. Interestingly, Giuliani and Huckabee both offered nuanced answers that pointed to what I mean by gray – a recognition of complexity and an avoidance of overly simplistic, either/or, black and white answers where they don’t apply. Romney came out of the chute with a black and white answer but soon had to retreat a bit from it. What are your thoughts in response to this exchange?
19 Comment(s)
1 Trackback(s)
Sorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.
Clif Guy | Jan 5, 2008 | Reply
Considering that Huckabee is a Southern Baptist, that was surprisingly rich answer: complex, subtle, yet quotable. Giuliani’s answer was a more typical moderate/gray answer. I found it a solid answer but difficult to tell how sincere he was. Romney was trying to say something simple and shut up. He seemed quite uncomfortable with the question. When Romney was on Meet the Press, he talked quite a bit about religion. In that interview, he seemed relaxed, confident, and gracious toward his critics.
ggornowicz | Jan 5, 2008 | Reply
I was in your service this evening.Thank you! I’m watching the debate on TV right now.
wldavis | Jan 5, 2008 | Reply
Adam, Great sermon tonight. I look forward to the series. Keep up the good work.
dan_williams | Jan 6, 2008 | Reply
Adam, I enjoyed your sermon tonight and look forward to the rest of the series as well. I’m almost ashamed to admit that while I did know that Romney is Mormon, I hadn’t really paid all that much attention to Huckabee and didn’t realize he was a minister until he said so in the clip on this post. I guess that goes to show that I need to spend a lot more energy to examine the candidates and get to know the issues, each of the candidates views on them and how their faith would influence or guide their politics.
mhagerman | Jan 7, 2008 | Reply
I did not enjoy the sermon and I think the series will be flawed if we continue to think that bias, partisanship and ideology can be eliminated from the backdrop. If you’re a thinking, feeling human being in today’s society then you have an opinion, you have a bias. There’s nothing wrong with that unless we pridefully deceive ourselves into thinking we can discuss this objectively. Whether you intend to or not, your biases have a way of manifesting themselves.
Take a look at the sermon and tell me if there was anything in there that would make a liberal uncomfortable or that they would have disagreed with (as a conservative, there were a few times I was squirming). Of the parables and Bible verses Adam mentioned, did any of them favor a conservative point of view? Now maybe conservatives need to be challenged on a few of those issues and to adapt their positions with their faith — I can totally accept that but where’s the balance? Where’s the fairness? Where’s this “Extreme Center”?
Balance would be challenging liberals with passages that emphasize life and children as gifts from God and asking if this applied to abortion, embryonic stem-cells, euthanasia, etc. Or mentioning Paul’s words as regards homosexuality. Frankly, I think this would run contrary to the goals of the church and would turn people away but as it is, the church has adopted a double-standard. Apparently it is OK to challenge conservatives on immigration, healthcare and the environment but challenging liberals on abortion and homosexuality are just too taboo. See what I mean about bias?
My solution is to just admit what your biases are. I can’t fault Adam for not adopting a hardline morality position because that’s not the goal of the church — “To build a Christian community where non-religious and nominally religious people are becoming deeply committed Christians.” However I can fault Adam if we’re to believe this is a discussion that he will lead free from ideology or bias because objectivity is impossible for any human being.
Heck, Jesus wasn’t objective either.
Steph | Jan 8, 2008 | Reply
Well, I would have to agree with the previous blogger that I had some squirming moments and I really had to search my soul this week to understand why I was squirming and then had to laugh at myself and say that a little squirming did me a lot of good. I have not had a weekend yet that I did not agree completely with Adam’s wise (in my estimation) words and so for the first time I sat there thinking, WOW, what am I missing? Then I had to remember some other words that Adam taught me that I completely agree with. He encourages us to not check our brain at the door and to question what we hear and to listen to how God is speaking to us through those words. I don’t think that Adam was encouraging us to drop our political party (I think you, mhagerman, and I share that party), but he asks us to continue to question our ideology and biases, which is a healthy thing. I know my ideology and biases have changed a lot since I became a voter, and I think for the better. I do not believe it is the government’s responsibility to provide health care, but I do believe it is a responsible nation that will make sure there are ways for people who need health care to obtain health care at a reasonable cost. Anyway, if I had the opportunity to have a conversation with Pastor Hamilton, I believe we would have the same concerns and want to remedy the same situations, but we may go about them in a completely different fashion and that is the beauty of the differences in political parties. So embrace your squirming and know that there are others squirming right along with you and becoming closer to God in the process, and that is why we go to church after all. Blessings to you MHagerman for writing your words and helping me to understand that I wasn’t the only one squirming in my seat.
mlynn | Jan 8, 2008 | Reply
Although, I admit I was a bit shaken up at the comments of the previous speakers, after I read them over again I began to realize my own biases. They brought up a good point about the sermons and made me re-examine my own convictions concerning objectivity in the political debates. Although, I had always thought of myself as objective in my decision-making regarding party affiliation (in which I am not affiliated with any) I am beginning to realize my own sway towards a certain side. In regards to the sermon series, I commend those of you who are “squirming” – not because I think you need to learn to be objective, but the fact that you take on what was said and provide the needed feedback I think we all need to hear. By doing so, I think you have made me squirm as well, and recognizing that I too (to my own shock) am less objective than I had previously thought. Now, in response to whether Adam was favoring a certain point of view, I think there are a few ways to look at that: First of all, the topics on issues like homosexuality and abortion have been addressed before by Adam and so I do not believe he wants to present them as unimportant in our decisions (which is part of the reason why I think the book on that sermon series was being given away after the service). Second, we are at the beginning of this sermon series and I think that after it is complete we may have a better view on whether there is any bias going on. Thirdly, I agree with the fact that the aim is in line with our mission statement as a Church and that to directly address tough issues like abortion while talking politics will send some of our attendees running out the door without looking twice.
So, stay tuned. I think there is much more for all of us to learn in both this sermon series and the political debates that are going on.
mhagerman | Jan 8, 2008 | Reply
I have immense respect for Adam and the issues he tackles. I have never been more inspired to open up my Bible or get involved with a church than I have as a result of his sermons. I say this because I don’t want you to get the wrong idea that I’m going to abandon the series. I work a camera, lights or graphics every Sunday anyway so I couldn’t really stay home even if I wanted to. I also don’t feel he is trying to get me to change political parties or persuade people to adopt his view on the issues….at least not intentionally. Nevertheless, he’s doing 2 things that kind of irritate me and I don’t feel this is the first time.
1.) Claiming that this series will be done objectively and not favoring one side or the other. This is impossible. Adam is not a robot, none of us are robots — we are all thinking, feeling human beings that have opinions on issues and whether we like it or not, whether we intend to or not, those opinions will manifest themselves when we discuss the issues.
This series will be done through the prism of Adam’s worldview. By and large, I don’t have a problem with that so long as he’s upfront about his biases. For example, how irritated would you be if it later came out that Adam was one of the producers of the movie he recommended (The Great Debaters) and stood to make money off of it? Now the example isn’t a direct parallel but I hope you can see my point about disclosure of biases in a religious/political setting. Like I said before, since the church is very upfront about its mission statement, I can’t really fault Adam or anyone else if they say things I disagree with but are still in keeping with their goal. If this series is going to be said to be objective (which is impossible) then there are valid criticisms to be made if it’s discovered to be more left leaning……
2.) There is a double-standard (most likely stemming from Adam’s biases) in which groups Adam chooses to “challenge”. What political party do you think is being challenged with the following:
a.) Jesus spent his life healing the poor and the parable of a sick and poor Lazarus going to heaven while the rich man goes to hell.
b.) The parable of the sheep and the goats and how we need to look at the issue of welfare so as to provide for the poor.
c.) The parable of the talents and how we need to address the environmental crises as good stewards of the planet.
d.) The parable of the Good Samaritan as regards our treatment of illegal immigrants.
e.) Mat 20:26 – if any among you would be great, you must be the servant…and how does this play into our foreign policy and how we conduct ourselves internationally.
Do you see a lot of objectivity here? Do you see a preacher not favoring one side or the other? Do you see balance? Is this what passes for “Seeing Gray”? Sure, if Democrats are adopting gray as their party’s new color. Are we to believe that there is nothing in the Bible that challenges Democrats on their stances? I guess I don’t understand why it is OK to challenge Conservatives without fearing they’ll be running out the door but the same standard isn’t applied when challenging Liberals? I would love it if Adam could reconcile that double-standard for me.
Again, I’m not saying that Conservatives don’t need to be challenged….they do, I do. Nor am I saying that I really want abortion and homosexuality discussed. I just want honesty and disclosure. Let’s drop the charade that this is an even-handed discussion and that our preacher is in the “extreme center”.
Think about if Adam had prefaced his sermon with something like this: “Hey, I’m not up here trying to convince you to think like I do but I tend to lean left of center on a majority of the issues so take that into consideration as we’re going through this series. I’m a thinking, feeling human being that has opinions and I’m not going to insult you by claiming this will be an unbiased approach to the issues.” Do you think there’s any way I could have written this post after something like that? I’d be laughed off this blog if I had…or at least I would deserve to be. You guys are too nice to do something like that but you get my point.
Sorry this went on so long….if any of you think I’m being unfair here, please call me out on it. I watched Adam’s sermon again in order to get the points I listed and if I’ve left anything out that makes him appear more balanced, please bring it to everyone’s attention here. I’d enjoy the discussion.
kristen | Jan 8, 2008 | Reply
hey there guys.
some general comments first:
i very much enjoyed the sermon last weekend. i feel as though a lot of us swim in apathy when it comes to politics and the dances that our government does around us. i left church thinking that one of adam’s purposes was to ignite some folks to go home, start reading and learning about our candidates, so that we can vote with a conscience that says, “i feel good about my vote, because i have educated myself, and through my learning i feel as though this is the best person to govern my country”, as opposed to sticking our head in the sand, waving our flag, and checking the box next to the name of whatever party to which we are affiliated. i truly feel as though our country’s future should lay in the hands of US, the people. and it is our job to know what is going on and be involved so that we can help shape america. so i guess i just appreciated the civic duty that was done on adam’s part to get us motivated to vote and be apart of history.
the second message i took home was that the answers to complex issues, especially political ones, don’t always fit in a box. and it is our job as thinking (and feeling) individuals to wade through the bullet points from BOTH sides in order to conclude our stance on issues. it is very easy to jump on the bandwagon and adopt a certain view because you have been stamped as a christian, a liberal, middle-class, or a feminist, or whatever, and then even furthermore, then vote for a candidate that shares that one view with you on that one particular issue. and it is ok to be on the fence some of the time. i feel like i am on the fence on issues, but i don’t think that pushes me into the liberal category or even further makes me a democrat. right?
so i have a couple of questions. i want to make sure that i understand the above blogs. now i want to say first, i agree, that no matter how many times adam says that he is presenting information non-biasly, yes, that is nearly impossible. of course, it is biased in at least its own slight way. adam is white, adam is a male, and adam is a christian.
but the question is: was it felt that from the bible verses that adam chose, that his sermon had liberal or democratic biases sprinkled in? when i look back at the bible verses: helping the poor, serving the poverished, caring about the earth, helping an immigrant… aren’t these things that ANYONE should do, not just a republican or a democrat? i don’t know, assuming that those messages are referencing a political party is a pretty big leap there to make. please let me know if i am missing something here… i truly recognize that i may be.
i am never one to want to be put in a box (and again, i think this was part of adam’s message)… meaning, i can care about the environment and believe in global warming, but not have to be a democrat or be considered a “liberal”. or i can be pro-life and not have to be a republican. or ever further, feel as though i have to vote for a republican candidate because the bible says homosexuality is wrong. i guess that i just wish that we wouldn’t get so caught up in the buzz words and stereotypes for each party.
anyway, in conclusion, i didn’t leave churh guessing or even wanting to guess whether adam was a republican or a democrat (i don’t care) or if he was trying to sway us in one direction. however, i must recognize and want to state that perhaps i had my own goggles on and did not recognize the biases that are being described in the above blog entries.
again, i too, am on the fence a lot about important issues. i don’t like it always, and sometimes it is rather annoying. but i hope that as i grow, mature, learn more, and keep my eyes and ears open, that i will eventually sit on one side. until then, i will continue to see gray and remaining a sponge so that i can soak up information, stay dynamic, and sit outside the box that so many people find comfort in.
i love hearing everyone’s sides and perspectives. and i hope that my blog entry did not affend anyone, that is definitely not my purpose.
lonestar | Jan 8, 2008 | Reply
Mhagerman, in my opinion you’re right on the mark in your postings and not being unfair. As new members at COR and very cautious of this whole series with the political flavor being injected into the church, my wife and I listened intently Saturday night. We agree that perhaps Adam needs to clear the “gray” color of fog in the series, come out of the closet and make full disclosure of his bias rather than dancing around with the coy approach to it all.
We too, are conservatives and make no bones about it. We are VERY slowly beginning to see where COR stands as a church on social issues confronting the populace and are quite anxious to see how it deals with abortion, immigration, the war, and the decline of morality today. The absence of the church is noteworthy when it comes to addressing where morality is headed today – hopefully Adam will make a few comments about that in the weeks to come.
mike | Jan 8, 2008 | Reply
A good source to find out Adam’s viewpoints on tough issues is to check out his book “Christianity and the Controversial Issues of Our Time.” In this book, difficult issues such as abortion, homosexuality, etc. are looked at from both sides. Adam comes to a conclusion in that is stated on each issue. It is a great read and is a good backdrop to these sermons. Also, there has only been one sermons done as of yet. There are more to come…
Also, it is my understanding that churches have to be extrememly careful how political issues are discussed in services given to their congregations. They cannot make it apparent that they are leaning one way or the other or their classification as a church, tax codes, etc. can become an issue. I believe that is why the sermons may seem coy. I think there are many churches under investiagtion for leaning to far one way or seeming to endorse one side or the other. Which… could bring up a whole different politcal conversation on free speech…
adam | Jan 9, 2008 | Reply
Hello, friends – great to read the discussion in the comments so far. I generally will not comment on comments – largely because I don’t want to suppress the free expression of your responses to my sermons or posts. But I do want to jump in on this rich conversation. To mhagerman’s point, I did not intend to say that I was objective. There is no such thing as objectivity – on this I agree with several of you above. I aimed to indicate that I would not tell you who to vote for (which is the only prohibition regarding the IRS – churches cannot retain their tax exempt status if the church, or the pastor from the pulpit, endorses candidates – I would not endorse a candidate from the pulpit even if this were not the case). If you are a Republican – great – I simply encourage you to be a follower of Christ first, and then judge your politics in the light of what Jesus said and did. If you are Democrat, great, but judge your politics in the light of the teachings of Jesus. If you are Libertarian, great, but judge your politics in the light of what Jesus said and did.
As you noted, I am completely biased and that bias comes out in every sermon I preach. But my bias is not Democrat or Republican – I find I don’t quite fit either of those categories completely. My bias is in favor of taking the teachings of Jesus as seriously as possible and applying these to my politics. I am also biased by my life experiences which shape how I read scripture and interpret it. As Kristin noted, I am biased in several other ways as well – I am a white male, a United Methodist who tends to see things through a Wesleyan interpretive lens, I am middle class, I am a father and a husband, and there have to be a hundred other ways that who I am shapes my interpretation of scripture. This is true every time I preach, regardless of the scripture or topic and I’m assuming Resurrection folks know that this is true, just as it is of any preacher any where.
As to Gray – gray is a willingness to see the complexity, to not search for simple black and white answers to problems that are not simple, and it is a willingness to listen to and find truth presented by thoughtful people on both sides of an issue. It is not objective, but it is an attempt to listen with humility, to love those you disagree with, and to avoid extremes in most cases. I like the idea of the radical center which tries to bring together often opposing viewpoints. In particular this radical center or Gray is seen in holding together the call to personal salvation and social action. In the last century these two sides of the gospel were, unfortunately, often separated.
Regarding abortion, I will actually be touching on this topic in this weekend’s sermon and I have covered this in my book, Confronting the Controversies. I’ll also be sharing a bit of the history of the contemporary culture wars and why I think the approach of the last thirty years used by the religious right has not always served Christ’s kingdom well.
One last thought – in my sermon I suggested that the healing of the sick and the teachings of Jesus I mentioned (as well as Isaiah 58) point us to God’s heart and concerns. But I also noted that they don’t prescribe the specific political solution. One of the strengths of a two-party system is that each party seeks to develop better ideas and solutions than the other regarding the critical issues facing the country. Part of our task, as it relates to politics, is to lift up the issues, and to think carefully about who might offer the best solutions.
I would remind you of something I mention at every Coffee with the Pastors when people join the church: I’m one voice, and one person seeking to understand and apply the scriptures to daily life on behalf of Christ and for you. I am far from perfect at that, and I am biased. I don’t ask that you agree with me. In fact, I would be disappointed if you do always agree with me. I hope you squirm sometimes – I do as I’m preparing sermons. While I don’t ask that you always agree with me, I would ask that you at least consider the message to see if I may have actually rightly interpreted and applied the scriptures to our time. I’ve found that sometimes the places I squirm are places that I need to consider. I’ve had people vehemently disagree with this sermon or that, and sometimes years later come to me to say, “Adam, I finally get it! I think you had it right, even though at the time I was really upset by what you said.” Others have said, years later, “I still think you were wrong, but I love you nonetheless!”
Thanks for letting me jump into the discussion. I won’t offer any other responses to this post, but invite you to continue the discussion.
Euripides | Jan 9, 2008 | Reply
Apparently hagerman has not read Adam’s book, nor did he listen to his last controversial series of sermons. I have attended two series of such sermons presented by Adam and observed that his stance has changed slightly over time. He did an excellent job of presenting both sides of the homosexuality issue and people who think it is a sin and should not be allowed left the church. People who believe we should show love to all left the church also. One group angry because Adam did not denounce homosexuality and others becauce they deemed him to be too liberal in his approach. Hagerman, have you ever sat in a room with a mother and father, strong Christian believers, struggling with how to understand or deal with a homosexual child? Do you have a black and white answer for them? And, are you 100% sure that you are right?
Maybe hagerman is just feeling convicted by the passages Adam read. These are Jesus’ words. He entered a society that was completely ruled by the religious legalists and their rules and regulations on the one hand and the Roman government on the other hand. He advocated mercy and justice and lived his live as an example. You know the outcome of such a lifestyle. I wonder if you have such convictions or beliefs. If handed too much change at the store do you count it your lucky day or give it back to the hourly laborer behind the counter (it will come out of his pay later)?
One of your comments is quite odd: ‘Heck, even Jesus was not objective.’ I am not sure what you mean by that. Perhaps you could explain this unobjective son of God. The whole point of the series is to get us to think about things, to realize that very few things are black or white, but they are comprised of many facets, tones and shades of varying colors that affect the outcome. Perhaps you would like to quote some unobjective statements made by Jesus and defend your point.
I believe Christ taught that we as individuals should take a stand for our own faith and as individuals or as a commnunity we should show mercy, kindness and justice to all. If Christians did that as individuals or as a community of believers through their respective congregations and denominations, we would have little need for either party to be involved in such acts of kindness.
mhagerman | Jan 10, 2008 | Reply
First, I’d like to thank all of you (well almost all of you) for your comments and the open and mature way in which we’re discussing things. I think the danger with a blog like this, set with such a highly charged backdrop as Religion AND Politics, is that it will degenerate into a slugfest of personal attacks or “flame wars” as the hardcore blogger types call it. Obviously that serves no one and certainly works contrary to the goal that I think Adam had in starting this. It takes some time and effort to put together your thoughts on these issues and frame it in a way that’s respectful and I think we’re all blessed by doing so. Anyway, thanks for the feedback and if you do take offense to anything here, please feel free to email me directly – mhagerman@gmail.com
Kristen, to address your question: “was it felt that from the Bible verses that Adam chose, that his sermon had liberal or democratic biases sprinkled in?” Yes, that’s exactly how I felt. Your point — that helping the poor and caring for the Earth should be issues that both parties should share — is well taken. Still, how would you identify my bias if I chose only the following as passages/stories for a sermon:
-Does the Christmas story have anything to teach us about the issues? Mary, a young teenager, faced with a pregnancy that could very well have meant her death, chooses to have the child.
-Do Paul’s many letters on marriage and morality have anything to say about the kingdom of God? Consider 1 Corinthians 6:9-10: “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.”
-Does Jesus’ resurrection of Lazarus and the Widow’s Son or his many miraculous healings have anything to tell us about faith in God vs. say, euthanasia?
Certainly respecting life and honoring the moral codes set down by the Bible are issues both parties should share, right? But if I only present issues that Conservatives favor, don’t you see how that only gives a very narrow view of the picture? Not being a Liberal, I can’t really comment on how one would feel but I imagine that they’d feel much the same way I did during this last sermon if all they were presented with were Biblical stories that favored the Conservative ideology.
I’ll admit I’m very paranoid when it comes to such biases and my radar is turned up to 11 when trying to detect them. But certainly I can’t be the only one that finds such a one-sided approach rather curious. I’ve been coming to the church for about 5 years and have seen pretty much every one of Adam’s sermons during that time either in person or listened to them on the web. Some of them I’ve seen multiple times as a result of volunteering with the worship production team. I only say that because I’ve seen Adam mention more balanced passages and perspectives on the political issues of the day. I saw the series leading up to Christmas and the actual Christmas service 4 times. That said, I can’t think of a good reason not to mention Mary’s pregnancy in light of the abortion issue. It would have been a perfect tie-in relating back to the whole Christmas season. So you have to ask yourself, why was it excluded?
I also wanted to comment on this idea that we’re just being presented the issues without bias and that the solutions are where people are free to express things more based on their ideology. Again, this limits the scope of discussion to mainly left leaning issues. Jesus only dealt with the social aspects of politics and not so much with the economic and security sides of the spectrum. If you take away defense, security and economic stability from the table of discussion and then ask how we should treat illegal immigrants in light of Jesus’ teachings, you’ve just eliminated the Conservative’s viewpoint because Jesus didn’t teach on those topics. Also, there’s not much of a discussion to be had if the agenda includes issues with only one side’s solutions. For example, if these were the discussion topics then one side is being left out:
Defense – Should we bomb Iran or wage another ground war?
Economy – Should we give a 5% tax cut across the board or just eliminate specific taxes?
Gay Marriage – Should we write a definition into the Constitution or just allow each state to ban it as they see fit?
Death Penalty – Electric Chair or Gas Chamber?
See what I mean? Same thing applies if all Adam is going to mention is how best to help illegal immigrants, how we should deal with Global Warming, how we should provide healthcare for the poor, how we should provide welfare and how we should serve other countries internationally.
Lastly (I know, it’s already too long), I want to address Adam’s post. I was pretty nervous when I saw that he had responded but I think we’re all honored as a result. I’d like to tackle two things – the double standard and this issue of Seeing Gray. First though, it was wrong of me to attribute a standard of objectivity to you, Adam, that you really had never claimed. Watching the sermon again, I realized it was more a standard I was wanting you to adopt, or at least attempt, more than one you were actually claiming. Certainly, arguing based on assumptions instead of your actual words, is a fallacy I’m much more sensitive to as a result of…let’s say, recent posts.
I believe the double-standard still exists though and further evidence can be found in how you tell us you’ll be addressing abortion. There are any number of ways you can address the topic and a variety of them can be Biblically supported and yet you choose to illustrate where the religious right has failed to serve the kingdom of God. My goodness, certainly whatever religious liberals there are are doing much more harm to the kingdom with their stance. I’ve brought up about 5 examples in the last sermon of how this double-standard exists and how Conservatives are predominantly under-fire for needing to change. Along comes the topic of abortion and apparently I’m to expect more of the same? Now I realize that Adam hasn’t given this sermon yet and it could very well be balanced but I’m responding to the words on the page and those tell me that the religious right better brace for another attack.
I don’t see the virtue in Seeing Gray as it’s being defined here and I think we run into an even bigger danger as we apply Seeing Gray to right and wrong. There was a 3000 page, complex bill drafted by both parties pulling from the right and the left to address the complex problem of illegal immigration. It was rejected as being horribly wrong for the country just as much so as a simplistic one of “let ‘em all in” would be. Extremes are not necessarily to be feared and complexity isn’t necessarily a virtue. Slavery was a pretty complex problem and yet the extreme and simplistic solution of abolishing it was the right one. Lincoln didn’t take a little from the left and a little from the right and arrive at a happy medium. This becomes even more apparent when we discuss right and wrong.
Looking at Adam’s last sermon, there was one time where he made a pretty emphatic statement: “First off I wanna ask you if you’re registered to vote … and if you’re not, REGISTER TO VOTE”. Where’s the Gray in this statement? There’s a complex problem of getting more people to turn out at the polls and yet we have a real simple Black and White solution. REGISTER TO VOTE! It was a commandment handed down by Adam that doesn’t require you to See Gray…likewise regarding God’s Commandments. I don’t see a lot of Gray in the Ten Commandments unless we’re talking about the stone they were written on. Where’s the Gray in Thou Shalt not Steal? There is a real danger in Seeing Gray which leads to the moral relativism that we find plaguing much of our society. Seeing Gray leads us to our current policy on abortion. The complexity of “is an embryo a life?” has allowed the issue to become so muddled that we have a doctor in Kansas killing the baby only hours before it would be born.
In closing, I appreciate Adam’s humility when he says he’s “just one voice” but that’s like Michael Jordan saying he’s just one member of the team. Adam is the Senior Pastor of one of the fastest growing churches in the nation with 12000+ members, has authored 6 books, has a Masters of Divinity and a couple honorary doctorates. He has a “rock-star” status whether he likes it or not (I tend to think he dislikes it) and carries an amazing amount of influence and persuasion with every position he takes — explicitly or otherwise. In my opinion, it would be naïve to think that with such a double-standard as I’ve documented above, that he isn’t influencing and persuading people to move more towards the left.
cokey | Jan 10, 2008 | Reply
What was the question again? Oh yes, do the canidates believe it the Bible? Interesting the way the discussion turned to biases and interpretations, specifically regarding Adam. I doubt if Adam has many “grey” issues in his thinking, but, as stated earlier, he holds them back in order to challenge us to think for ourselves, which could be dangerous unless we hold to a standard. It would only make sense to seek to learn from those who make interpreting that “standard” their profession, and witholding information concerning that standard could be interpreted as squishy.I understand with the size of COR there will always be the risk of offending people, but to kill scripture in the streets for the sake of peace will lead to our demise. Certainly parallels and individual life applications run deep in the Bible, but on homosexuality, abortion, the death penalty, to name a few, I confess I see black and white. As to whether or not we are an offense to God, to me is black and white. What is grey to me is the question, ‘Do you believe in the Bible?’, as if my belief validated scripture. Maybe the question should be, ‘Do you think the Bible is true and why?’ As far as allegorys and ‘every word’ is concerned, if you can get past the first six words in Genisis, everything else is cake. Have we become so intellectual and sophisticated we have outgrown scripture? Or have we exausted the study of God so we put politics behind the pulpit. Just thinking…
Canopus | Jan 10, 2008 | Reply
I am that animal that is thought not to exist, a pro-life liberal. I thought I would post to help those who think all those on the left on most social issues were OK with the decline of morality. I think the culture is a complete cesspool and I am completely disgusted with much of it.
I am as disgusted with those who push the boundaries on purpose to push the culture and make life cheaper, etc., use people before you get used, etc., as I am with the things I disagree with on the political right.
I also think a child born without a brain because of unchecked pollution is just as dead as a child killed by abortion. I think a child deprived of IQ points by mercury in the fish is just as neglected as a child whose parents are out partying and letting it watch Saw III while they smoke crystal meth. It’s a little harder to make the connections when a corporation did the damage and neglect, but I believe the people running the corporations could curb pollution anytime they want and they are lying about how much it would cost. Greed is just as big and damaging a sin as partying and driving around Hollywood drunk with no pants on. Both are awful!
I hold my nose and vote despite the issues I disagree with and some of those issues I disagree with very much. Life and people’s beliefs do not break down along a two-party system, and those who favor the “social gospel” do not believe it’s OK to party it up! At least in my age group, by cracky.
Brandon | Jan 13, 2008 | Reply
Pastor Adam,
I live in Washington, DC and work for a Senator on Capitol Hill. Though I would be inaccurate to describe myself as an “expert,” I think your sermon was fantastic. (I stream them on my notebook, obviously).
I have a few friends who believe that Religion and Politics must be mutually exclusive. I was so happy to hear your words on this, given the probably political diversity of the COR congregation. It is important to remember that thousands of issues are brought to the forefront each session in Washington, and that we ALL need to be educated on those issues. While I am one of the (extremely) few people who are nuts about politics enough to want to work on the Hill, it’s important as Christians to remember where our interpretations/views/positions on these issues originate.
Since none of us are perfect, we need to realize that seeking the advice of GOD and living our lives for Him should have an effect on how we view the important issues. We should not separate our views as Christians from our views on important political issues, our faith has to be essential to our decision making in the political arena.
It is my view that adding the gray to the picture of the magnificent sunflower field illustrated this perfectly. If we make blind decisions in our politics, (e.g. “I am a conservative so I HAVE to take this stance on issue A) then we become the losers. If we let the gray (our faith) come into the political decision making process, the outcome is so much brighter.
I look forward to the remainder of the sermon series.
God Bless.
ttheobald | Jan 17, 2008 | Reply
“I guess I don’t understand why it is OK to challenge Conservatives without fearing they’ll be running out the door but the same standard isn’t applied when challenging Liberals?”
Uhhh, because conservatives are the ones who are pretending to stand for the values of Jesus. Hypocrisy is to be challenged.
Liberals make no such claim, but somehow manage to actually live the teachings better than conservatives.
It’s quite simple, really.
T
ttheobald | Jan 17, 2008 | Reply
Oh, and I forgot to add: I have not watched all the questions that were asked, so I don’t know if this one was:
What are the candidates’ standards on the use of torture against both convicted and suspected criminals and/or terrorists? Note that I put in both “convicted” and “suspected”, as we have yet to properly try the people incarcerated in our several ‘extra-national’ prisons.
I ask this specifically as the topic is germane to this upcoming election – my father fought in World War 2, after which we executed several Japanese soldiers for torturing our troops by “waterboarding” them, among other methods. Needless to say, I fear for the Constitution of our country – and thus, our country itself, and I feel there are several among the current candidates (including all but one of the GOP members) who represent an un-American, and decidedly un-Christian view.
Was such a question asked? Was it even necessary to ask it?
T