Samuel Adams is presented as strongly Christian in profession and rhetoric, yet “the least Christian in his conduct” regarding Jesus’ teachings (truthfulness, peacemaking, turning the other cheek); what does this expose about how easily “Christian language” can be used to sanctify actions that contradict Jesus?
Another way to ask: If Samuel Adams sounded very Christian but didn’t live out Jesus’ teachings like truth-telling and peacemaking, what does that show about how easy it is to use Christian words to cover un-Christlike actions?
Direct Answer
It exposes that Christian-sounding rhetoric can mask deep disobedience, because a person may speak reverently about God and morality while using methods that directly violate Jesus’ teachings.
Support from Transcript:
Bercot calls Samuel Adams the “most conventional Christian” and says “God and Christianity mattered very much to Samuel Adams,” shown in many “representative quotes.”
Yet he also says Adams was “the least Christian in his conduct” in relation to “Jesus’ other teachings,” which he “completely threw… out the door.”
He contrasts Adams’ behavior with Jesus’ commands: “Turn the other cheek, not Samuel Adams,” and “yes means yes… not Samuel Adams.”
Adams used religious-national language: “Revelation assures us that righteousness exalted the nation,” and he believed government should “encourage and help religion.”
Bercot says his “Christianity and his politics were just totally entwined,” making him “the ultimate god and country man,” where politics becomes the controlling aim.
Discussion Follow-ups
What kinds of ‘Christian’ phrases today can function as cover for unchristian actions? How can a church evaluate actions by Jesus’ teachings rather than by religious language?
