Another Dangerous ‘Christian Pastor’ Running For Office Who Distorts Scripture
Just months after Texas legislator James Talarico emerged as one of the Democratic Party’s most recognizable “Christian” voices, Kansas pastor Adam Hamilton appears poised to follow the same path.
Like Talarico, Hamilton speaks comfortably about Jesus, frequently quotes Scripture, and presents himself as a thoughtful, compassionate Christian. Yet beneath that appealing image lies a far more significant concern. Both men promote a version of Christianity that steadily reshapes biblical teaching to fit modern progressive culture rather than calling culture back to biblical truth.
That should concern Christians regardless of their political affiliation.
Hamilton, the longtime pastor of Church of the Resurrection–the largest United Methodist congregation in America–is now the leading Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate in Kansas. His campaign is likely to emphasize unity, compassion, and faith in public life. Those are admirable goals. The problem is not that Hamilton is a pastor seeking public office. The problem is the theology he would bring with him.
For centuries, Christianity has taught that Scripture stands above every culture, every political movement, and every generation. Human opinions change. God’s Word does not.
Hamilton reverses that relationship.
Over the years, he has repeatedly questioned biblical inerrancy, argued that the Bible contains errors, and encouraged Christians to rethink long-held doctrines through the lens of contemporary culture. Rather than seeking to reconcile difficult passages or trust Scripture’s authority, Hamilton has suggested that some biblical writers were simply reflecting the limited understanding of their own times.
That approach may sound reasonable at first, but it carries enormous consequences.
Once Christians are taught that Scripture is no longer the final authority, nearly every difficult doctrine becomes negotiable. Instead of asking what the Bible teaches, believers begin asking what modern society finds acceptable.
Not surprisingly, Hamilton’s positions on many of today’s most controversial issues follow that pattern.
He has been one of the most influential Methodist leaders advocating for the affirmation of same-sex relationships and the redefinition of biblical marriage. Rather than defending two thousand years of historic Christian teaching, Hamilton has argued that the church should revisit its interpretation of passages dealing with sexuality in light of modern understandings.
His broader ministry reflects the same trajectory. Hamilton frequently emphasizes progressive political priorities–including expansive immigration policies, climate activism, racial justice initiatives, and broader social reform–as central expressions of Christian faith.
While faithful Christians may certainly disagree over public policy, many critics believe Hamilton consistently elevates contemporary political causes while softening or reinterpreting biblical teachings that conflict with today’s cultural consensus.
That mirrors the approach increasingly seen from James Talarico.
Talarico has become one of the Democratic Party’s most visible advocates of progressive Christianity, often using biblical language to defend left-leaning political positions while challenging traditional Christian interpretations on issues ranging from sexuality to public morality.
Their personalities may differ, but their method is remarkably similar.
Both speak warmly about Jesus.
Both quote Scripture often.
Both describe themselves as committed Christians.
Yet both ultimately ask believers to reinterpret long-settled biblical doctrines whenever those doctrines collide with today’s progressive values.
The pattern extends beyond sexuality.
Hamilton has questioned whether difficult Old Testament passages should still be understood as revealing God’s character, frequently encouraging readers to separate what he views as timeless spiritual principles from what he considers culturally conditioned teachings. While historical context certainly matters in biblical interpretation, critics argue Hamilton goes much further–placing modern moral sensibilities in judgment over Scripture itself.
That represents a dramatic shift from historic Christianity.
The church has always wrestled with difficult passages. Christians have debated interpretations for centuries. But the historic approach has been to seek a deeper understanding of God’s Word–not to lower confidence in God’s Word whenever it challenges prevailing cultural assumptions.
History also offers an important warning.
Many of the mainline Protestant denominations that embraced this progressive approach to Scripture over the past several decades have experienced dramatic membership declines, shrinking congregations, aging churches, and diminishing cultural influence. Rather than revitalizing Christianity by accommodating the culture, many have instead watched the distinctiveness of the Christian faith slowly disappear.Ironically, churches that continue to affirm biblical authority often remain the very ones experiencing growth both in America and around the world.
This is why Hamilton’s Senate campaign matters.
It is not simply about electing another Democrat or another pastor.
It reflects a growing movement within American Christianity that seeks to redefine the faith itself. Instead of allowing Scripture to shape culture, culture increasingly becomes the lens through which Scripture is interpreted.
Christians can certainly disagree over taxes, healthcare, immigration levels, or foreign policy. Those are legitimate political debates where faithful believers may reach different conclusions.
But questions about the authority of Scripture, the definition of marriage, the nature of sin, the uniqueness of Christ, and the moral standards God has established are not simply partisan issues. They are foundational questions of Christian doctrine.
Once those foundations become negotiable, everything else eventually follows.
Every generation faces teachers who promise to make Christianity more acceptable to the surrounding culture. History shows those movements rarely strengthen the church. More often, they gradually empty Christianity of the very truths that made it distinct in the first place.
James Talarico has become one of the Democratic Party’s national spokesmen for progressive Christianity. Adam Hamilton now appears positioned to become one of its most influential pastoral voices.
Christians should always welcome pastors into public life.
But they should also be discerning when those pastors spend years asking believers to reshape Christianity around the values of the culture instead of calling the culture back to the authority of God’s Word.
Trump’s Middle East Gamble-Arming Today’s Allies Could Create Tomorrow’s Enemies
History is filled with governments that armed a friendly regime only to watch those weapons one day fall into hostile hands.
America supplied the Shah of Iran with billions of dollars in advanced military equipment. A few years later, the Islamic Revolution transformed one of Washington’s closest allies into one of its most dangerous enemies.
The United States armed Afghanistan’s mujahideen to fight the Soviets. Some of those networks eventually evolved into movements that would later threaten America itself.
Iraq’s military, once backed by the West against Iran, eventually became an adversary. Libya’s weapons spread across North Africa after Gaddafi fell. Syria’s civil war demonstrated how quickly sophisticated military hardware can disappear into the hands of extremists.
The lesson is simple: governments change. Alliances shift. Weapons remain.
That is why two recent foreign policy positions by President Donald Trump deserve far more scrutiny than they are receiving.
The administration has pursued civilian nuclear cooperation with Saudi Arabia while also expressing support for eventually restoring Turkey’s access to the F-35 stealth fighter program should legal barriers be removed.
Each proposal can be defended on short-term geopolitical grounds.
Taken together, however, they represent an enormous long-term gamble with the security of Israel, the stability of the Middle East, and ultimately America’s own future.
Nuclear Technology Lasts Longer Than Alliances
Supporters of a civilian nuclear agreement with Saudi Arabia argue that the kingdom remains a valuable American partner. They point to cooperation against Iran, intelligence sharing, economic ties, and the possibility of expanding regional peace.
Those are legitimate strategic considerations.
The problem is that nuclear technology does not disappear when today’s rulers leave office.
Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman made his position unmistakably clear several years ago when he stated that if Iran obtained a nuclear weapon, Saudi Arabia would seek one as well.
That statement fundamentally changes the conversation.
Civilian nuclear programs are not inherently military programs, but uranium enrichment technology can shorten the pathway to developing nuclear weapons if political leaders choose that course.
That is precisely why American non-proliferation policy has historically demanded strict safeguards.
For decades, the United States insisted that friendly nations seeking civilian nuclear cooperation accept significant restrictions on domestic enrichment and extensive international oversight.
Weakening those standards today may encourage other regional powers to demand identical treatment tomorrow.
The Next Government May Not Look Like This One
The greatest danger is not necessarily the current Saudi leadership.
The greatest danger is whoever governs Saudi Arabia thirty years from now.
No president can guarantee the House of Saud will rule forever.
Political revolutions have transformed numerous Middle Eastern governments within a single generation.
Iran once appeared to be America’s most dependable regional ally.
Few predicted that Ayatollah Khomeini would overthrow the monarchy and create the Islamic Republic that has spent decades funding terrorist organizations while threatening Israel’s destruction.
Could something similar happen elsewhere?
No one knows.
But history teaches that stable-looking governments can collapse with astonishing speed.
Saudi Arabia remains home to competing ideological currents. Although its government has aggressively fought al-Qaeda and ISIS, extremist Islamist movements have repeatedly targeted the kingdom.
Should future instability ever place sensitive nuclear expertise, enrichment facilities, or nuclear materials into the hands of a radically different regime, the consequences would extend far beyond Saudi Arabia.
Technology cannot be uninvented.
Turkey Presents A Different But Equally Serious Risk
The administration’s openness toward eventually restoring F-35 sales to Turkey raises another strategic concern.
Congress currently prohibits transferring the aircraft because Turkey purchased Russia’s S-400 missile defense system and was removed from the F-35 program in 2019.
That legal barrier remains in place.
Nevertheless, President Trump has publicly praised Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan as an ally while dismissing Israeli objections to a possible future sale.
Israel’s concerns are understandable.
The F-35 is not simply another fighter aircraft. It is among the world’s most advanced stealth combat platforms.
Israel has long maintained its qualitative military edge as a cornerstone of American policy in the Middle East.
That advantage has helped deter larger coalitions of hostile neighbors from believing they could successfully wage war against the Jewish state.
Introducing comparable capabilities into the hands of a government whose relationship with Israel has deteriorated dramatically risks changing that balance.
Erdoğan has repeatedly condemned Israel in increasingly harsh language while maintaining close ties with Hamas and positioning Turkey as one of Israel’s most vocal regional critics.
Israeli leaders have warned that providing Ankara with F-35s would weaken deterrence and complicate Israel’s long-term security planning.
Those concerns deserve serious consideration.
The Balance Of Power Matters
Supporters of these policies argue that stronger partnerships keep countries aligned with Washington rather than Beijing or Moscow.
There is logic to that argument.
The United States understandably wants influential regional powers inside its strategic orbit.
But history repeatedly demonstrates that military technology often outlives diplomatic relationships.
America should ask not only who receives advanced capabilities today, but who might control them in twenty or thirty years.
That question becomes even more pressing in a region where governments have fallen, revolutions have erupted, military coups have occurred, and radical Islamist movements continue seeking greater influence.
Military planners are trained to prepare for worst-case scenarios–not merely best-case assumptions.
Foreign policy should operate the same way.
Peace Should Never Require Dangerous Concessions
Some supporters believe these initiatives could encourage broader Arab-Israeli normalization.
Peace is unquestionably worth pursuing.
But peace built upon strategic concessions that permanently increase proliferation risks or weaken Israel’s military advantage may ultimately prove far more costly.
Regional peace should stand on shared security interests, economic cooperation, and mutual recognition–not on incentives that future generations may come to regret.
President Trump has demonstrated a willingness to think differently than previous administrations, and that has produced significant foreign policy successes.
Yet even successful presidents can make strategic mistakes when immediate diplomatic gains overshadow long-term security realities.
The Middle East has repeatedly shown that today’s ally can become tomorrow’s adversary with astonishing speed.
Once nuclear capabilities spread, they cannot be recalled.
Once advanced weapons are transferred, they cannot simply be taken back.
History suggests that America should be extremely cautious before placing tomorrow’s security in the hands of political assumptions that may not survive the next generation.