Okay, I’m borrowing a claim already made elsewhere about the First Lady’s husband.
But it is instructive when blessing Hillary Clinton as the Christian candidate in this year’s presidential contest to remember what Mrs. Obama said about Mrs. Clinton.
First, the baptism of Clinton (by a Fuller Seminary turned Yale University theologian no less):
The best case to be made for Hillary Clinton is that on balance she better represents the convictions and character that should concern Christian citizens. No candidate is perfect. There are certainly areas where Secretary Clinton’s policies and record might give Christians pause. But she takes the threat posed by climate change seriously. Her policies, such as paid family leave, would actually strengthen American families. She is committed to a just and welcoming approach to immigration that does not unduly compromise the legitimate good of security. She supports major reforms to America’s overly retributive and racially-biased criminal justice system. And, perhaps most importantly, she has demonstrated much deeper commitment to supporting the disadvantaged and the vulnerable than her opponent has, his grandiose rhetoric notwithstanding.
Second, keep in mind what Obama said about Clinton:
One of the important aspects of this race is role modeling what good families should look like. And my view is that if you can’t run your own house, you certainly can’t run the White House. Can’t do it.
Of course, Mrs. Obama and the president have not always been so discerning about certain popular entertainers or the lyrics to their songs which rival most of what Donald Trump has said.
Still, sorting out the Christianness of the candidates and their observers is getting really hard to do especially when partisanship clouds judgment.
Volf lists concern for climate change as the key indicator of a candidate’s Christianness? Odd.
I was unable to post a comment at Merritt’s place, so I posted this on Miro’s FB page — with the full expectation that I will not hear back from him:
Miroslav, it was great talking with you at the October 2006 Christianity and Culture conference in East Lansing (has it really been ten years now? Wow!). I have accorded my signed copy of Exclusion and Embrace a place of honor on one of my bookshelves.
I am curious. You say in the interview with Merritt that Clinton “… on balance … better represents the convictions and character that should concern Christian citizens.” And your very first statement in support of that claim is that Clinton “… takes the threat posed by climate change seriously.”
Do you suppose the sixteen scientists who signed on to this statement do not take “the threat posed by climate change seriously”:
No Need to Panic About Global Warming
I’d love to hear your thoughts.
Thanks!
LikeLike
Running mate Mike Pence (along with other notables like the Kellers, JI Packer, Piper, and ANN VOSKAMP) all blurbed the same book on John Newton written by a Piperite, Tony Reinke. So there. Xian, Schmexian.
https://blogs.thegospelcoalition.org/justintaylor/2015/06/09/learn-about-one-of-the-most-spiritually-healthy-christians-in-church-history-tony-reinke-on-john-newtons-vision-of-the-christian-life/
LikeLike
rlk, you might also like to hear this — sensible stuff about climate change. It’s real, but no reason to panic (though it is reason for lefty redistributive measures).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks, Darryl. I hadn’t seen that. I will take a look.
LikeLike
The paid family leave thing is a Trump policy. Just saying.
And the climate is always changing. There have been lots of times throughout recorded history where the climate has gone through drastic changes, most notably, the centuries of “global cooling” that caused repeated crop failures that eventually contributed to the fall of Rome. Not to mention the Rhine freezing over so the Germans could poor across what once was a natural barrier. The barbarians were hungry. Maybe the Mexicans are too.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Bryan
It is all about the rate. Rapid changes have been known to lead to mass extinctions. The fact that rapid changes may happen naturally does not entail that it is a good idea to do things that cause natural changes. Increasing the CO2 content in the atmosphere by 30% in 50years is a rapid change. Predictions are hard (especially about the future), but the models indicate that continual CO2 production in the atmosphere is quite likely to lead to pretty bad outcomes – not least of which is major population displacement due to coastal flooding.
LikeLike
Her husband has more hope than any other POTUS:
LikeLike