‘Matthew 25 Network’ takes a pro-Obama message to Christian radio

I noted a few weeks ago that there’s a new religious political action committee, the “Matthew 25 Network,” that may very well have an impact on the political scene this year, far more than any religious progressives have had in quite a while.

To briefly review, the Matthew 25 Network is spearheaded by Mara Vanderslice, who served as director of religious outreach for Kerry-Edwards in 2004, and who has been active in encouraging Democratic candidates to discuss matters of spirituality more openly on the campaign trail.

The name of the project comes from the 25th chapter of the Biblical book of Matthew, quoting Jesus: “For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.” The point, of course, is to expand the definition of what constitutes a “religious issue” beyond just gays and abortion, to include matters like poverty, the environment, social justice, and AIDS/HIV.

The PAC’s efforts have been kept under wraps for a while, but we learned this week about the group’s first initiative — a minute-long ad that will begin airing on Christian radio stations, starting in Colorado Springs, best known for being home to James Dobson and Focus on the Family.

The ad features a woman narrator, saying, “You know it’s an election year when certain people start grabbing headlines by attacking the faith of Presidential candidates. With all these stones being cast at Senator Obama, it can be hard to know what to believe. But in Luke, Jesus taught us that we must listen to what a man says because “out of the overflow of his heart, his mouth speaks.” So here are words from Senator Obama’s heart.”

At that point, we hear excerpts from an Obama speech, in which he says, “I think we make a mistake when we fail to acknowledge the power of faith in people’s lives…. Kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side, I felt that I heard God’s spirit beckoning me. I submitted myself to His will, and dedicated myself to discovering His truth.”

Let me tell you a little secret: Mara Vanderslice knows what she’s doing.

David Brody, the senior national correspondent for Pat Robertson’s Christian Broadcasting Network, touted just how effective the radio spot is.

I think the ad is EXTREMELY strong.

It stays away from public policy and really focuses in his personal commitment to Christ. That is a type of message that Evangelicals will want to hear.

The flip side here is that another group may start running radio spots on Christian radio detailing Obama’s liberal positions on issues which may conflict with some Evangelicals.

But look, you have to give this group credit for believing that they have a faithful message with Obama and they are not shy about promoting it. Plus, you won’t find any John McCain radio spots on Christian radio right now. Man, how the tables have turned.

Quite right. In fact, the ad anticipates trouble, and addresses it head on. It implicitly acknowledges that the audience may have seen those ridiculous smear emails, and it’s “hard to know what to believe.” That’s why, the Matthew 25 Network argues, Christians have a duty to consider a person’s testimony.

Now, I can appreciate the fact that non-Christians may not find any of this compelling at all, and may not even like the fact that these ads are running. But keep in mind, the ads aren’t coming from Obama or anyone associated with his campaign or the party — this is an independent Christian PAC, targeting Christian voters, on Christian radio, with a Christian message.

And it’s effective as all get-out.

Didn’t Mark write Jesus saying “I was naked and you clothed me”?

Should we really be changing our Savior’s words because we are prudes?

  • Well with McCain unable or unwilling to talk about his faith to THE BASE, this is a natural opening to be exploited.

    Obama doesn’t have to win a majority of this vote, he just has to do a bit better the Kerry.

    That’s all.

  • “Didn’t Mark write Jesus saying “I was naked and you clothed me”?

    Should we really be changing our Savior’s words because we are prudes?”

    Which of the 10,000 translations are you referring to…before or after Constantine burned anything he didn’t want to agree with?

    In the fantasy the fantasizers need appeasement and “Jesus said” is all it takes. Good for them for the principles are universal.

  • Today’s Republican Christians look at Matthew 25 and think that if their mega-church spends 5% of their budget doing what Jesus actually commanded, then they’re actually doing the Lord’s work. The fact that they spend more on the preacher than they do on the poor never enters their mind.

    More power to the people who can remind them of how tattered the rags are that they stand in.

  • Off topic:

    Anybody know when Obama is going to challenge McCain to a debate on science?

    [Insert giggles, snorts, guffaws, chortles, and twitters here.]

  • Lance said:
    Didn’t Mark write Jesus saying “I was naked and you clothed me”?

    Should we really be changing our Savior’s words because we are prudes?

    Did you mean Matthew?

    It’s believed that Mark was Peter’s interpreter while Peter was imprisoned in Rome. Peter spoke Aramaic, which Mark translated into Greek when he wrote down what Peter said around 70 A.D.

    Matthew wrote in Aramaic between 40 and 80 A.D., but the earliest surviving copies of his text are translations into Greek.

    Either way, you’re not going to get an accurate word-for-word translation.

    Maybe we can just ask John McThuselah what Jesus said.

  • Matthew 25: The Christian Ideal that the Religious Right doesn’t want you to know about. I like to paraphrase the latter verses, beginning with 25:41, thus:

    “The People turned to the McCain and declared, “Depart from us, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For we were hungry and you told us to eat cake, we were losing our homes and you cast us into the street, we were unemployed and you left us to rot in poverty, we wanted to be at peace and you injected us into eternal war, and we were sick and in need of healthcare reform and you shunned us.”

    And the McCain said to the People, for he desperately needed their votes, “America, when did I see you hungry or homeless or unemployed or fighting an illegal war or sick, and did not help you?”

    And the People will reply, “We tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these our human brethren, you did not do for us.”

    Then the McCain and his Bushylvanian ilk will go away to eternal punishment.

    Yep—payback’s coming, McCain—and it’s bring a very special kind of Hell with it—just for you and your kind….

  • I think this idea is absolutely brilliant!! I don’t ever remember a Democratic candidate making an effort to appeal to the evangelical base in such a way. This is exactly what needs to be done in order to open the eyes and ears of the religious community to the reality that much of the Democrat’s message is also the message and mission of their faith.

    What can someone say to the message of an ad such as this? To me, AMEN is the only possible response.

  • “The point, of course, is to expand the definition of what constitutes a “religious issue” beyond just gays and abortion, to include matters like poverty, the environment, social justice, and AIDS/HIV”

    Irony is the stem of the rose, as they say.

    I’m 51 years old. I was there at the beginning and saw alot of people ravaged and killed by AIDS. No one cared. They were shunned, despised and blamed. I find it odd that, still as far as “religious issues” are concerned you can file gays under Contempt, and we must look at it as a postive that religious issues can expand beyond the still tightly held bigotry and hatred. They can all go to hell as far as I’m concerned…that is if there actually were such a fairy tail relm.

    And this recent concern about HIV/AIDS? Well its seems only if its (quickly all one word) AIDSINAFRICA or PEDIATRICAIDS because we all know, plain old AIDS still means “fag.”

    I was put off by Obama’s waffle in FISA. I was put off by his rejection of Wes Clark, but to honest this ass-kissing god nonsence turns my stomach. I thought after eight years of the destruction caused by Bush and his touched by the hand of god presidency we would have moved passed it this time around. He’s making a deal with the devil.

  • Yes! But how will he respond to the abortion questions?
    My local paper has had numerous letters to the editors concerning Obama’s willing ness to destroy innocent lives.

  • I am no longer religious, and yeah I’m big on the separation of church and state. Furthermore, I’ll criticize Obama when I think he needs to be criticized (his campaign’s refusal on a Michigan re-vote, refusal on any reasonable town hall debates, FISA, etc.).

    But this is not one of those situations. I know lots of people who appear to do the right thing. Many of these people are regular churchgoers, but when it gets down to it, they consciously or unconsciously disregard parts of the bible that are objectionable when viewed from a modern lens.

    I guess what I’m getting at here is that people can have different motivations for doing the right thing. If that motivation is their religion, so be it. This is what Obama’s campaign is speaking to here. They’re appealing to the *good* parts of spirituality. I have no problem with that.

  • Um… I thought Obama told all PACs to shutter their shops vis-a-vis running ads on his behalf?

  • It is about time! Jesus was a liberal. Many progressive political types get their spiritual fulfillment in Christian churches so why not counter the Christian conservatives with a message of political progressiveness? Obama doesn’t need all of the Christians but he should be able to get all of the liberals and most of the moderates.

  • Just having Brody be impressed by this is actually something of note — the roundtables and networks have been taking their cues from him, and this could affect the all-important Beltway Wisdom.

  • Um… I thought Obama told all PACs to shutter their shops vis-a-vis running ads on his behalf?

    I believe he targeted unregulated 527s, not all PACs per se.

  • wouldn’t this have to be a 527? aren’t all of the other section 50x organizations prohibited from expressly endorsing a particular candidate?

  • I’m Jewish, but I think Mara’s ad is very good. I hope it reaches the right audience and as TCG@2 points out, we really only have to get a few Christians.

  • 17. On July 2nd, 2008 at 4:34 pm, Not a Tax Expert said:
    wouldn’t this have to be a 527? aren’t all of the other section 50x organizations prohibited from expressly endorsing a particular candidate?

    Are all PACs necessarily 527s?

  • My prediction is that these ads will have zero impact on “Christian radio” listeners–most of them are listening because the ultraconservative messages they like to hear on Fox are given the veneer of Bible authority on the endless talk shows on Christian radio. A minute of Obama is not going to uproot an hour a day of James Dobson and three hours more of Janet Parshall.

  • #19 – I don’t think so; but I thought they were either 527s, 501s or 504s. The can’t be profit corps, because corporations can’t contribute, right?

    My point was that I didn’t think 501s and 504s could directly endorse without losing their tax-free status, where as 527s had more leeway on how far they could go in aiding a particular candidate?

    (but again, this is why I am Not a Tax Expert.)

  • “I think we make a mistake when we fail to acknowledge the power of faith in people’s lives…. Kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side, I felt that I heard God’s spirit beckoning me. I submitted myself to His will, and dedicated myself to discovering His truth.”

    I have to echo what EvilPoet #8 said. Is there no limit to the pandering of politicians? This is so deeply personal, and he’s shoving it down our throats. I think it’s appalling. If McCain said something like this we’d be on his back for it. This is not Kennedyesque.

    I understand the political strategy. And I think it’s admirable that he’s attempting to lift the consciousness of many on the religious right beyond bigotry and fear to the noble principles which Jesus actually espoused, but this just crosses the line.

    Disclosure: I’m not a religious person, and I accept the fact that we’re a tiny minority in this nation and not well appreciated, but doesn’t this offend any of the religious people in the audience here? It’s just too, too . . . in your face, for want of a better phrase.

  • hark @ 22,

    I am not at all religious either. And this kind of crap (the quote, not the ad, as the ad wasn’t put out by Obama’s campaign) actually does make me think a bit less of Obama on a personal level. If he was somebody I knew, that would pretty much rule him out of my circle. But he’s a politician aiming to represent this country, a country whose population I mostly disagree with. (A recent study said that 92% of the US population believes there is a single deity. WHAT???) It does make me not like him, but I don’t need to like him on a personal level; I need to like his policy choices, and I need him to win.

    Also, this isn’t pandering for him. The ad is obviously very, very direct, but his campaign didn’t put out this ad. It does make me a little nauseous and embarrassed to read that quote, but Obama really believes what he said. It’s bizarre for somebody like me to wrap my head around, but he really does. And that’s ok, as long as he doesn’t impose it upon people in the way that Bush does, with things like abstinence only education and abortion restrictions.

    I’ve come to terms that I’m going to be repulsed by some things that Obama does; he’s a politician representing a very diverse (and pretty conservative) country. He’s not going to be on my own personal side all the time. He’s not perfect. But he still absolutely needs to get more electoral votes than McCain, and this overt statement on religion by a PAC can only help him in that endeavor.

  • Kneeling before crosses and submitting to God’s will doesn’t really do it for me. Indeed, it sounds a bit creepy and suspiciously “God talks to me” Bush-like.

    CB, however, typically and admirably, shows his capacity to impute and nicely accommodation even scurrilous sceptics like me.

    Could work. Will certainly be fun watching the skin and hair fly.

  • I was always confused from the beginning about the enlightment used to read about a lot and the more i read the more I got confused.

    Until I found about this guy and read about his story and what he said.

    There are two fanstatic free boooks on this site which clears most of the doubts we have. You can find them on the left hand navigation bar. One is Mystique of Enlightment and another one Mind is Myth. From then I fully understood that we are just another .orgnaism

    http://www.ugkrishnamurti.com/

  • If they can get this onto K-LOVE and Air1, McCain should be done with.

    The only thing that, I agree, needs to happen is the pesky pro-life vs. pro-choice thing. If this PAC can spin it so that pro-life can also mean the woman’s life, and that pro-choice does NOT mean pro-abortion (but rather safe, legal, and rare, hence pro-the woman’s-life), then tie this into the biblical story with the woman by the well in John 4, we’d be *so there*. Plus, of course, this parable ties nicely into Matt 25 again …

  • Matthew 25 – King James’ Version

    35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

    36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

    Matthew 25 – New International

    35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in,

    36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

    Man, talk about your PC. “I needed clothes”?

  • Hark # 22 and Emily # 23;
    I am not a particularly “organized religious, (or rather, organized religion), person”: in actuality, my religious beliefs are about as disorganized as most of the rest of my life seems to have become. However, I too always feel a little creepy and put upon when somebody, unasked, and between the two of us, declares his or her beliefs by a statement such as the quote by Obama. What we may be missing is the context within which the statement was made. He is a public figure. He was making a public statement. There have been many public questions, rumors, innuendo and downright slanders regarding Obama’s religious commitments, his beliefs and how he came to them. It sounds as if he was a making a public, rhetorical statement, perhaps in response to a direct question or challenge at a rally. Public statements and public rhetoric, like dramatic speech or stage routines performed off the stage, often come across as stilted, formal, pretentious and sometimes downright embarrassing if one is exposed to it in a less public, more personal setting. We often hear or read these statements alone at our computer, in front of a TV or with a few other people. Some of us may remember the feeling of being overwhelmed or “overloaded”, when in a “face to face” meeting, your companion, however funny and talented they may be in larger gatherings, performs an unrequested impersonation or other such “dramatic routine” that goes on for too long. It has been called “speechifying”. During my military years it was known as “B*llsh*t” and the person who did it too often soon became known as a “B*llsh*t Artist”.
    Public drama and public rhetoric seems to require the dilution of public gatherings to “sound right” and sincere.
    D. Chisholm

  • Why would anyone quote from a book that is already dead-wrong on page 1? If all of us descend from Adam, we should all have identical Y-chromosomes. Obviously that is not the case.

  • 30: mutant. Ooops, that is Darwin! Where in the Bible is the concept of “mutation”? Page 1 is still nonsense.

  • I heard this ad for the first time today and I was disgusted. While Obama will receive his judgement later, I think that the excerpts from his speeches sound hollow and are spoken to entice the Christian vote to see him in a different light. At no time during the primaries did he pronounce his so called faith in Jesus. I heard more about his association with the likes of Farrakhan and a certain Rev. Wright who do not seem to be teaching something different than what I have read in the Bible. Time will tell and God will have the final decision but I cannot see how any Christian group can endorse this candidate with his background.

  • This is quite akin to the 50 state strategy.

    Who would think the GOP would be forced to spend money on ads on Christian radio before now?

    Make ’em sweat. Run ’em ragged.

    I love it.

  • Comments are closed.