Who Said That?
Sunday, August 17, 2008 at 10:12PM 
"I'm for morality, but morality goes beyond sex to human freedom and social
justice. . . Evangelists cannot be closely identified with any particular party
or person. We have to stand in the middle in order to preach to all people,
right and left. I haven't been faithful to my own advice in the past. I will be
in the future."
You know the drill! Leave your guess in the comments section below. Please, no google searches!
Also, you can check out past "Who Said That?" posts by clicking on the "Who Said That?" at the bottom of the post.
Kim Riddlebarger
This was Billy Graham's response back in 1979 when asked why he had not joined Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority. Billy is trying to come up with something like the two-kingdom model, but is sure going about it in a ham-fisted way.
Reader Comments (37)
(I'm certainly no Warren fan, but it's always ironic how those who rightly criticize poor Rick for his "Deeds not creeds" are also usually values-voters of the rightist variety themselves. Political moralism is the final frontier for good W2K to conquer.)
John, I agree with you. I don't understand where Zrim comming from. He sounds confussed.
I'm voting for Kim Riddlebarger for Pres.
but i have no clue as to who said the above quote...
I was making a generalization which, despite what certain forms of political correctness might say, is not always a bad thing. What I meant was that I generally find that those of us conservative religionists who would rightly criticize “deed over creed” Warrenism are also, by and large, those who view and approach their political involvement from a more moralistic posture. The upshot is folks who at once decry Warren and whose activist voting, for example, is mainly steered by something to do with making sure Adam and Steve remain permanently single, etc. This, I think, is just a form of moralism in political dress.
As uncommitted ideologically as I am, I’d like to describe myself as apolitical as well, but that seems disingenuous since we are all political. I’d rather say that I try to avoid a moralized politics and a politicized religion. I’m not always so sure my fellow conservative religionists are on the same page though.)
Well, I am not so sure it is such a bad thing to make sure that Adam and Steve remain single- many homosexuals are extremely aggressive, loud mouthed, are changing the political landscape and need to be shut up (I think John Calvin would agree with me). To make this the single most important issue and to vote for someone based on this solely would be wrong. Homosexuality is a sin which has serious ramifications though for the most important biblical institution- the family. When homosexual rights get legalized and we allow them to get married we are going against the biblical mandate of protecting and preserving the family unit. It has vast theological and political implications. I do not think that is a good example of your point about voting based on morality or "values." All sins can be forgiven but they need to be confessed as sin and then at least struggled against. We may have to struggle against particular sins the rest of our lives without much "victory" but to blatantly parade sin around with gay pride is very odd, unbiblical and needs to be spoken against. You will not win a popularity contest but at least you are making efforts to remain faithful to the scriptures. You had better think through that issue more carefully and as John Gerstner used to say "with a second glance."