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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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…