Here are Reverend Hunter's own words on the issue:

"I wanted for us to do in the political realm, in the political advocacy realm, what we do in the church," Hunter said. " We pay attention to poor people, we pay attention to injustice, we pay attention to those who are sick, we pay attention to the environment, because it's God's gift of creation, and so on and so forth. So I wanted to expand the issue base … because Christ was not just about morality, Christ was about compassion."

It should also be noted that Pastor Rick Warren, author of "The Purpose Driven Life," offended conservative Christians by inviting Democratic Sen. Barack Obama to attend the second annual "Global Summit on AIDS."

David Kuo, former deputy of the White House office of faith-based initiatives, published a book criticizing Christian leaders as being too narrowly focused. "Christians have spent so much time evangelizing their politics that they've really corrupted the name of Jesus."

good article kupe.. nice to see you writing some again about stuff I can understand anyways.

If Jesus came back he would be ashamed of what Christians have done in his name.

I have to step in here a moment and differ. I think the perspective here is way apart from the reality of the situation.

First, The Christian Coalition isn't a church, or a group of churches, rather it is a political organization with political goals and a political ethos. Should we crying shame on the ACLU for not fighting against gun control? Should the anti-defamation league be spearheading the fight against the murderers defamed with accusations of "hate crimes" even though they show no overt racial bias?

Who exactly gets to decide the agenda of a political organization?

Second, Roberta Combs is the President of the Christian Coalition, and has been since 2000. Joel Hunter has never been head of the Christian Coalition. He was set to take over the office in 2007, and when he realized the agenda wasn't going to be supported by the members he decided not to take the job. Hunter stated openly that he was not asked to pass up the office.

Third, Mr. Hunter wasn't just talking about feeding the poor and visiting the sick. Mr. Hunter wanted to steer the Coalition toward things like rejecting the President's stance on global warming. He wanted to support candidates who diametrically opposed the Christian Coalition on many issues just because they agreed with him on his pet social issues.

I'm troubled by this article, Kupe, it isn't like you. Do you really pretend that Democrats would like Jesus if he came back? Imagine, if you will, someone standing at the DNC podium and saying:

[27] Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
[28] But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
[29] And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
[30] And if thy right hand offend thee, cut if off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
[31] It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
[32] But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

I wonder if they'd invite him back the next year? I'm betting they'd lose the porn industry lobbyists on that one.

Don't cherry-pick the feeding the hungry and visiting the sick stuff. It is often more telling where people cut off their Jesus quotes. To say that Jesus was focused on visiting the sick more than he was concerned with moral issues is a highly selective reading of the gospels, wouldn't you say?

In the end, no one has any reason to complain about the Christian Coalition seeking their political aims. Mr. Hunter thought he'd be a great reformer and the organization doesn't want to buy political power by selling out their core values. Shame on them for that?

While I dont necessarily agree with all the Christian Coalition advocates, I have to go with Bakerstreet on this.  As a political organization, they are trying to change the policies of Washington, not make a definitive statement on what it is to be a Christian. The 2 should not be at odds with each other, but then they do not have to be in complete lockstep either.  IN that, I dont think they are worried about Congress not feeding the poor, so that is not part of their agenda.

Reply:

1) Duly noted that the Christian Coalition is a political organization, see the quote from Ms. Combs included in the original post.

2) Correct, he was named as the next President, but left before assuming that office.

3) The Christian Coalition defines itself as follows: "Christian Coalition of America is a political organization, made up of pro-family Americans who care deeply about becoming active citizens for the purpose of guaranteeing that government acts in ways that strengthen, rather than threaten, families. As such, we work together with Christians of all denominations, as well as with other Americans who agree with our mission and with our ideals." That is taken from their web page.

I would offer that feeding the hungry and ministering to the sick strengthen families. These are core moral values, in my mind., and consistent with the teachings of Jesus. But they are not part of the agenda of the Christian Coalition.

In an article in the The Christian Post, Rev. Hunter is quoted as saying "To tell you the truth, I feel like there are literally millions of evangelical Christians that don't have a home right now.."

Reverend Hunter is not the only one that feels that way. You are familiar with David Kuo's book "Tempting Faith" I assume? David Kuo was a special assistant to President Bush for faith-based initiatives. On his webpage, Mr. Kuo states "Jesus' name is being destroyed in the name of partisan politics such that people now identify him more with issues like abortion and gay marriage and with wickedly partisan attacks than they do with the Good News. Politicians use Christian voters for their money and for their votes and do not much care about their agenda. Becoming captive to any political party is a mistake because no captive has a powerful voice."

You are aware that the Christian Colaition has been losing members for some time? I attribute this to a narrowness of agenda and, truly and without cynicism, to a meanness of spirit.

Prior to posting this, I reread Sermon on the Mount. I agree that Democrats would have a hard time accepting, for example, the sections on divorce. But I don't think that Jesus would get along well with conservative Republicans either. I do think that He would be more of a like mind with Rev. Hunter.

Here's a good question, Kupe. Am I a bad Christian for opposing welfare? Socialized health care? They're trying to feed the poor and help the sick, right? Are you really trying to say that Christians are obliged to buy into failed Democrat programs and outright lies in order to keep to the stigma of the Sermon on the Mount?

Go back and look at how Jesus dealt with the Pharisees. Imagine Jesus making some sort of back-room deal to lay off on the abortion issue in the hopes that career liars will forcefully exact more money to spend on failed programs that could have otherwise found its way into legitimate charities. Imagine, if you will, Jesus sitting in a waiting room alongside NoW and GLAAD lobbyists in the hopes of providing a more 'mainstream' image.

You're basically proposing our religion requires us to say "Okay, fine, we'll vote for people who we are diametrically opposed to our values because sticking to our guns hurts our image as Christians." We should vote based upon how we are perceived by the mainstream and not on what we believe to be the central issue here, the death of American morality? We should support programs that we know to be wrong, just because they have the SEMBLANCE of charity?

Jesus wasn't about the semblance of anything. Pharisees worried about how things looked and what people thought of them. Look deeper into what the Christian Coalition believes, Kupe. Do you think that maybe, just maybe, tolerance and "acceptance" of immorality and lack of human standards leads to the suffering of those with HIV and the poor?

Is there the slightest possibility that they believe a root cause of many of these social ills Hunter wanted to address was the discarding of the traditional values you seem to marginalize here? Do you think that maybe that is true to a point? Do you think Jesus would have dealt with the plight of the suffering simply as a socio-economic problem, or would He have addressed the moral bankruptcy that led the culture that perpetuates it?

I am not a Christian (as you well know) but some of the words that I have found inspirational are:

Matthew 7:1 "Do not judge, or you too will be judged."

John 8:7 "So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."

I believe that the world is saved by what we do, not what we oppose. I do not see the Christian Coalition doing anything to improve things, but maybe that is my ignorance. Again my perception, but I see Reverend Hunter not weakening the moral position, but affirming positive action. And I see that affirmation being rejected.

"Do you think Jesus would have dealt with the plight of the suffering simply as a socio-economic problem, or would He have addressed the moral bankruptcy that led the culture that perpetuates it?" I look to how Jesus dealt with the lepers, those afflicted with a disease that at His time was equated with moral lapses. He didn't condemn, He healed.

Did He heal them all, Kupe? Why is that do you think? Did He lack compassion for the rest?

I'm not saying you're ignorant, you know how much respect I have for you. I think you are seeing this in a vacuum, though. You first have to look at this from the perspective of a fiscal conservative. You know a couple of them, I think .

My point about social welfare wasn't facetious. Hunter, at least from my point of view, seemed to believe that Christian Coalition had only one option. He felt that since the Republicans weren't addressing these issues at the governmental level, you have to support people who do, no matter the fact that conservatives don't agree with their solutions.

What if you don't think the solutions for these problems ARE at the governmental level? What if you believe that the social services the Dems continually champion are failed? What if you think the moral stance of the Democrat party CONTRIBUTES to these problems?

Should you support them simply because they have the SEMBLANCE of fixing the problem? What would you think of the morality of people who supported policies that they felt were harming the nation, just to make their tent bigger? If you believed that the Democrat party platform was the root of our current social ills, wouldn't it be more shameful to support them?

Baker, I do see your point. But my counter-point remains. The Christian Coalition has defined itself ONLY in terms of opposition: opposing Gay marriage and abortion. Delete the term "Christian" from their title and that is fine. But that is not the sum of Christian morality, as I understand it. Instead they represent (I would say misrepresent) themselves as a Christian group, but contradict their own mission statement. I quoted that in reply #5. They refuse to take an active role to "strengthen, rather than threaten, families." When you fail to even attempt to live up to what you say that you are going to do...well, that is hypocrisy.

As a political group, their agenda is failing as well. "The once-mighty Christian Coalition, founded 17 years ago by the Rev. Pat Robertson as the political fundraising and lobbying engine of the Christian right, is more than $2 million in debt, beset by creditors' lawsuits and struggling to hold on to some of its state chapters." Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/09/AR2006040901063.html

Further: "In March, one of its most effective chapters, the Christian Coalition of Iowa, cut ties with the national organization and reincorporated itself as the Iowa Christian Alliance, saying it "found it impossible to continue to carry a name that in any way associated us with this national organization."

"The credibility is just not there like it once was," said Stephen L. Scheffler, president of the Iowa affiliate since 2000. "The budget has shrunk from $26 million to $1 million. There's a trail of debt. . . . We believe, our board believes, any Christian organization has an obligation to pay its debts in a timely fashion."

I am not criticizing them for failing to follow my morality, but their own.

Interesting thread. What comes out of it is that people look at the same christian teachings and - quite rightly - are able to draw diametrically opposite political conclusions from them.

For this reason I largely agree with Bakerstreet on this one. When he asks the question:

Am I a bad Christian for opposing welfare? Socialized health care?

the answer is no. He just happens to have a different political vision of how the poor can best be helped.

There is a legitimate point of view (which I happen not to accept) that, while the "poor are with us always", gay marriage and abortion are the great evils du jour that need to be 'fought' in the here and now. The Christian Coalition exists to promote this agenda, and is entitled to part company with anyone who finds himself unable to go along with it. Baker articulates a rather more moderate version of this agenda when he says

maybe, just maybe, tolerance and "acceptance" of immorality and lack of human standards leads to the suffering of those with HIV and the poor?

I happen to disagree with this stance. I think that HIV is caused by a virus, rather than immorality, and that if a similar virus were ever spread through some other human activity for which there were no religious tradition of 'shame', we would be single-mindedly focused on trying to find a cure, rather than apportioning blame. As to why the poor are poor, I'm sure that 'bad choices' do explain in part much of the world's poverty, but they do not explain it all: "I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all."

Larry says that - from his (non-christian) point of view - the Christian Coalition seems to have skewed priorities. From my non-christian point of view that also seems to be the case. Maybe, it's no surprise then that neither of us are christians!  

It's probably best for people like Larry and me to leave it to christians to work out what 'true' christian values are. Having myself rejected the religion for what I believe to be superior moral values, I realise that I have no business telling christians how they should interpret their faith.

"I think that HIV is caused by a virus, rather than immorality, and that if a similar virus were ever spread through some other human activity for which there were no religious tradition of 'shame', we would be single-mindedly focused on trying to find a cure, rather than apportioning blame."

And so we spend billions of dollars on a disease that could totally eradicated in one generation, just because we can't expect people to care about their fellow man. As I've said elsewhere, I am kind of bound by privacy issues from discussing particulars, but I have contact with this phenomenon almost every day. People don't have a clue how heinous and tragic our system of dealing with this disease is.

Much like the abortion debate. There, where we once saw promiscuity as the problem, now we see nature as the problem. Since we can't be expected to control ourselves, pregnancy is unfair and needs a "fix". The same with the drug problem in America.

Do you see a pattern? We've decided that "sin" is mandatory and nature must be fixed so that there are no consequences to it. In that effort, our government and tax dollars have been commandeered to work in that mode. Given that it is also the government of the Christian Coalition, I think they have the right to oppose that.

The "poor" of Jesus's time was a very different phenomenon than the "poor" now. A solid percent of our nation's poor owe it directly to drug abuse, either themselves, or a parent, or the lack of a parent/parents. Others are lost in a system of welfare, food stamps, SSI.

I don't believe it is an either/or situation. I don't believe our only two choices are republican and democrat. Frankly, I don't believe the answer is in politics at all, and that much of the problem STEMS from politics. So, when people reject the Dems' political solution, I can't say "shame on them", I reject it too. I think Larry does as well, at least to a philosophical point.

I'll stop nagging you kupe. I just think you have to see this from the perspective of people who have lost almost 40 years of legal battles and seen their values slowly purged from the nation. Right or wrong as that may be, you can't expect them not to take an opposition stance and try to regain ground when the political climate favors them.

Much like the abortion debate. There, where we once saw promiscuity as the problem, now we see nature as the problem. Since we can't be expected to control ourselves, pregnancy is unfair and needs a "fix". The same with the drug problem in America.

When, in recorded history, have humans ever been able to control themselves in the ways your suggestion would require? I imagine morality might work with some serious genetic and social engineering (after all we can nearly totally eliminate aggression from dogs and neutering fairly effectively ends the sexual drive in most animals) but you've made frequent statements that you are against such measures.

How do you propose AIDS is eliminated in a single generation when humanity has proven itself as a whole to be incapable of keeping their bits to themselves?

I didn't say it would, I said it could be. Should we excuse the fact that we choose not to? People murder Cacto, and no matter what we do we can't seem to keep them from it. Should we throw up our hands and stop jailing people for it?

Well, HIV is murder in much of the world now. Here in America it has become a life of servitude to drug companies and their therapies. Every single day the wives and partners of people who never did anything wrong walk into clinics only to find they've been handed this sentence by people that they thought cared for them.

A cure will be fine. I don't oppose finding a cure. But as with cancer there may well never be a cure, or it could take decades or longer. What will the world look like after 100 years of the raging epidemic we see in nations like China and Africa?

I believe we are obligated to care for the sick, but what do you do when the people you are keeping healthy are working tirelessly to spread it to as many other people as they can? What do you do? Like I said, I know stories that would ruin your day, and they aren't a drop in the bucket just in my little backward town.

I think I can edge out onto a limb and say this without violating anyone's privacy. I can say with almost 100% confidence that almost all the local HIV infections here in my area are due to a single digit percent of people infected with HIV. Those people not only are being tirelessly treated, they are being treated FOR FREE.

What do we do about that? How do we address a sexually transmitted disease that is totally reliant on promiscuity without ADDRESSING PROMISCUITY? Shove your head in the sand if you want, but this quasi-Liberal need to deny sexual responsibility is killing people, and those who support it should feel at least somewhat responsible.

I can't say shame on the people who support them.

I believe we are obligated to care for the sick, but what do you do when the people you are keeping healthy are working tirelessly to spread it to as many other people as they can?

Jail them in most countries, execute them in yours. That's what happens to murderers. I'm not suggesting a reduction in punishments simply because the killer uses a bio-weapon, and I don't know anyone who is. I think you're arguing against a strawman, BakerStreet.

We're never going to be able to remove the urge to kill from the human psyche without serious engineering work. So what do we do? We punish it severely and protect people where possible with education and, to a limited extent, self-defence techniques. HIV is just a weapon, but unlike most weapons there's a possibility its harmful effects can be minimised or even cured.

I don't see why we shouldn't look forward to a day where the forced infliction of HIV on another human is merely assault with a deadly weapon rather than murder with a 10-year delay.

EDIT: Just saw your second post. Promiscuity isn't the problem here, it's law enforcement. HIV is a tricky virus because it mutates as badly as the flu, but even so each person's strain can be traced back to the original host with a reasonable degree of accuracy. So it's possible to build murder cases and assault cases around infection. If that's not happening then it's a law enforcement issue.