Assessing candidates’ virtues and convictions
Christians are once again asking how faith and theology should inform our political thinking and engagement.
Few thinkers are better qualified to explore this territory than Miroslav Volf.
He is the Henry B. Wright professor of theology at Yale Divinity School, director of the Yale Center for Faith and Culture and co-author of “Public Faith in Action: How to Think Carefully, Engage Wisely and Vote With Integrity.” And as a Croatian, Volf arguably is less influenced by partisan conditioning than many American Christians.
Here we discuss how he believes Christians should engage the public square, and Volf makes his best case for the candidate he believes is more “Christian” in the upcoming presidential election.
Q: What do you mean when you say the Christian faith is a “public faith?”
A: The Christian faith is one single faith that we encounter in myriad of forms. By “public faith” we don’t mean some special kind of faith, but we refer to the public dimension of that one faith. It is faith as it concerns common goods. There are circles of these common goods: from the roads and water pipes that run by our houses, through elementary schools all the way to a nation’s monetary policy and international relations. Since Christians believe in the God who created and is redeeming all things, Christian faith is concerned with all these common goods. We should not forget that there is no clear demarcating line between common goods and personal good, between public faith and private faith. My desires are intimate things, but they, too, concern the common good and are of public import.
Q: In a given election, is there ever a “Christian” candidate?
A: With just a bit of facetiousness, we could say that Jesus Christ is the only Christian candidate. Short of him, just as, strictly speaking, there are no Christian nations, so there are also no Christian candidates for the public office. Candidates can be more or less aligned with the commitments, convictions and character that we see displayed in Christ, in the New Testament as interpreted in the context of the entire Scripture and taking into account the changed economic, political and cultural conditions under which we all live.
Q: Who, in your opinion, is a more “Christian” candidate in this presidential election?
A: It seems clear to me that Hillary Clinton is not only the more competent of the two major-party presidential candidates running for office now, but that the kind of vision she stands for is more in line with the Christian faith than is Donald Trump’s. It is important to keep in mind the whole range of convictions and virtues when making an assessment, rather than zeroing in on just one or two. In “Public Faith in Action,” we discuss some 25 of them, ranging from positions on wealth and education, through positions on abortion and euthanasia, to positions on war, policing and religious freedom.
Q: Make your best case for the candidate you think Christians should vote for.
A: 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.