Love Hillary
From a recent editorial in Christianity Today:
. . . Vitriolic language directed at political figures does not, to use the Pauline metaphor, attract others with “the aroma of Christ.” It just creates a stench, making it more difficult to nurture relationships with those who want to meet Christ and who happen to support Clinton. Such talk easily slides into denigrating those on the other side of the political spectrum—who may just be on the other side of the aisle on Sunday mornings.
None of this precludes vigorous and pointed disagreement in the public square. Neither John the Baptist nor Jesus nor Paul was always meek and mild when they challenged the principalities and powers. But when vigorous political discourse turns into bashing of public figures, it perpetuates a great lie: that they are merely the ideologies and symbols attached to them. When a candidate’s ideology is mistaken for his or her personhood, it masks a crucial truth: that each person, no matter their political views, bears God’s image and matters deeply to him.
While pundits see candidates as punching bags, evangelicals are supposed to see candidates as, well, people. As we ponder how candidates are “fearfully and wonderfully made,” we may haltingly come to realize that the most bold and courageous thing we each could do this election season, no matter who we vote for, is this: Love Hillary.
I don’t get all the hating of Hillary. I can understand disagreeing with her. I can comprehend having deep disagreements, in fact.
But I just don’t get why so many people — including some Christians — hate her so much. Some of these are people who generally know that hate isn’t a recommended Christian virtue.
Like it or not, the woman is a person of deep faith. You can refer to the new book by Paul Kengor (who had earlier biographies on the faith of Reagan and George W. Bush) for information about her Methodist upbringing, her prayer life, and her involvement in Bible studies. It’s called God and Hillary Clinton: A Spiritual Life
For us, the evidence is anecdotal. One time Mrs. Clinton, when First Lady of Arkansas, came to Searcy for an Associated Women for Harding event. My wife had a few moments with her alone and got to share the journey of our family with a mentally-handicapped child.
No photographers were around. No journalists. Just two women talking about a child. And Diane still remembers the compassion, the total focus, the deep faith, and the insight (since she did know quite a bit about the Arkansas educational system and its opportunities) of the First Lady. I have a picture of the two of them, along with two of our friends, that I’ll post here sometime. (Translation: I can’t find it right now.)
I’m not suggesting you should vote for Hillary. I’m not saying I’ll vote for her.
But I don’t get the hatred. Vigorous political disagreement? Yes. Hatred? No.
I’ve heard people make the very worst assumptions about why she stayed with her husband through their trials and about why she’s done so many other things. How do they know that? I’m thankful these people aren’t my closest friends.
- – - -
(Added Monday evening — thanks, Marla. From our Arkansas days [L to R]: Diane, Hillary, Marla, Margaret.)
The link is there. I didn’t say you were insinuating that you said that one should not do as Christ demonstrates. I’m saying that those comments come across as one not taking responsibility for acting like Christ. There is a difference.
Our actions should not depend on whether or not others agree with us or not. Our actions (and words) should be like the Christ no matter what, and expecting outrage when our enemies hate us isn’t the right response. Acting like Jesus doesn’t come with the stipulation that we can do it only when people agree with us. This post of Mike’s isn’t calling us to be outraged at a certain position or group, it’s calling us to act like Jesus.
Thanks for making me clarify though. Sometimes we all need to in order to not be misunderstood.
Tim, I’m still not sure how my calling for the religious left to speak out against the hatred of someone like Bill Maher can be construed as “one not taking responsibility for acting like Christ.”
Let me try my point again. The religious left can get themselves all in a tizzy when Ann Coulter says something outrageous. However, Bill Maher can make extremely vulgar and offensive statements and I hear nothing from the religious left about it. Why is that? Mike said that he was against Ann Coulter speaking at Harding because she was a “purveyor of hatred.” Now, I know Maher has not been invited to speak at Harding, but I nevertheless decided to ask the simple question if Maher was a purveyor of hatred. I got zilch response to the question. Was it because Maher has not been invited to Harding as was Coulter and thus everyone thought the question irrelevant or was it because no one from the religious left commenting on the blog could bring themselves to say Maher was a purveyor of hatred?
I guess I would be a little more sympathetic to the religious left’s problems with “hate speech” on the right if they showed a bit more concern about what comes from their side of the proverbial aisle.
Of course, a lot of it depends upon how we define hate speech, doesn’t it? For instance, support of any attempt to insure marriage remains between a man and a woman is often defined as hate. When hate starts being defined in such ways, it makes any meaningful conversation pretty tough for those of more “traditional values.” (Of course anyone who would be for such legislation regarding marriage is an ignorant and unenlightened pawn who cannot think for themselves and is easily duped by politicians who merely use the rhetoric of the religious right to get elected — correct?)
I really need to get some work done. I do, however, greatly enjoy these conversations with all of you — even those of you who are hopelessly incorrect.
Note to Greg: You are correct in that I was not excluding the non-Christian allies. My reasoning is that the most vocal groups on both extremes tend to be the religious right and the secular left. That was why I was arguing as I was (plus I like trying to make you guys defend your non-Christian political allies).
The only responsibility we have control over is our own, which is why I try to direct it away from changing others’ behavior and onto ourselves. I can’t speak for Mike, but perhaps you got no response because it wasn’t outrage he called for, but the call for acting like Christ. The difference between being reactive and proactive.
This is why there is no hope in politics, and why I think Lipscomb was dead-on. There should be no “religious right” and “religious left”. It’s just too divisive. The only identifying mark I need is Christian.
Good post and excellent responses. I especially like Tim Lewis’. If we are disciples, we are of a much greater eternal kingdom and shouldn’t allow ourselves to be drug into the name calling and bickering the is characteristic of carnal, temporary political power struggles.
Hillary rocks! Ha ha!