The lead senior pastor of the United Methodist Church of the Resurrection in Kansas, Rev. Adam Hamilton and the Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate, is currently facing renewed scrutiny over his remarks on the Bible as he campaigns against Republican Sen. Roger Marshall.
Hamilton has reportedly spent decades discussing questions which surrounds the biblical interpretation, inspiration and apparent inconsistencies in Scripture. In one of his 2018 reviews in the United Methodist Church discussion, he further explained that he does not believe every biblical passage should necessarily be read as a literal historical account. He then pointed to differences between Gospel accounts, including differing descriptions of where Jesus ascended into heaven, as an example of passages that require interpretation rather than a strictly literal reading.
His views ok remarks have also been documented in earlier discussions about biblical inerrancy. In 2014, during the presentation about his book Making Sense of the Bible, Hamilton then questioned if the Bible was dictated by God or written without errors. He states that Christians should examine difficult passages through the teachings and character of Jesus.
The issue has now surfaced on the 2026 Kansas Senate campaign. Kansas Republican Sen. Roger Marshall his opponent has now referred to Hamilton’s alleged claim about finding “hundreds of mistakes in the Bible” while criticizing his theology. The statement appeared as part of a broader political attack over Hamilton’s religious views.
Hamilton has also previously raised the question of whether Christians can conclude that the Apostle Paul was wrong on certain issues. In a 2015 discussion, he asked how much latitude Christians have to push back on biblical passages and specifically questioned whether someone could conclude that Paul was wrong.
The controversy illustrates how Hamilton’s long record as a pastor and author has become part of the political debate surrounding his Senate campaign, with supporters and critics interpreting his approach to Scripture very differently, and the argument still on ground.
