admin
The Fox4 debate turned into an accountability moment this week when moderator John Holt pressed Democratic nominee Adam Hamilton about how his church handled allegations that a volunteer had inappropriately touched campers in 2005. Hamilton admitted the church “should have called the police immediately” and pointed to a later change in policy — but voters are right to ask why that common-sense step wasn’t taken in the first place.
Debate spotlight: Holt confronts Hamilton over 2005 church retreat
On the Fox4 debate stage, John Holt replayed Hamilton’s own earlier words and asked the obvious question: why did the church investigate internally instead of calling law enforcement? Hamilton, founder and senior pastor of Church of the Resurrection, said policies were different back then and that the church later changed them. That answer landed flat. Parents entrusted their children to church leaders, not to private investigations that left serious questions unanswered.
Why the 2005 decision still matters
The record shows two teenage boys reported a man entered their sleeping area at a 2005 retreat and touched them. Church leaders investigated internally and, according to reporting, did not notify police until after further allegations surfaced in 2006. Linn County prosecutors later declined to press charges from those retreats because the 2005 probe was described as inconclusive. The volunteer identified in reporting, Scott Preston Moore, was later convicted in a separate 2013 case — but that separate conviction doesn’t erase the original failure to bring in law enforcement when parents expected protection.
Campaign consequences: trust, leadership, and political ads
Senator Roger Marshall’s campaign has used the episode in ads and debate debateings to ask whether Hamilton is fit for higher office. That’s fair. A candidate’s record of judgment matters. Voters want to know whether a leader will put rules and institutions above protecting kids. Saying “we changed policy afterward” is not the same as explaining why you didn’t act when it counted most.
Bottom line for Kansas voters
This isn’t about scorekeeping between parties. It’s about basic responsibility. If you’re running for the U.S. Senate, you should be willing to answer plainly: what did you know, when did you know it, and why didn’t you call the police? Hamilton’s concession on camera is a start, but Kansas voters deserve clear answers and documentation — not warm reassurances after the fact. Churches should shepherd souls, not dodge subpoenas, and candidates should learn that “policy” is no excuse when children’s safety is at stake.
