I’ve referred in earlier posts to the strange phenomena of Christians who voted for Obama, and continue to support him, on the theory that while Obama is not himself pro-life, his policies will lead to less abortion. By now, it should be clear to anyone that Obama’s policies will increase abortions, yet many of his ostensibly pro-life supporters continue to support him, surely a case of refusing to see what must be painful to acknowledge. And now, it’s difficult not to wonder if one of Obama’s chief “pro-life” supporters has been rewarded for his loyalty.
Professor Douglas Kmiec of Pepperdine has been appointed by President Obama as Ambassador to Malta
Douglas Kmiec, the conservative Pepperdine University law professor and prominent supporter of President Barack Obama, is likely headed to the Mediterranean.
The White House said today that Obama has chosen Kmiec as the new ambassador to Malta, the archipelago nation south of Italy. Though originally a supporter of Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney, Kmiec has been a high-profile defender of the Obama administration and its personnel choices. He recently has come to the defense of Dawn Johnsen, nominated to head the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, even as Republicans have held up Johnsen’s nomination because of her views on abortion and national security.
I don’t know the professor, but it seems to me that if he wants to preserve his credibility as a “pro-life Obama supporter,” then he needs to turn down this appointment. Otherwise, whatever the truth of the matter, he appears to be one more Obama supporter getting a payoff. How can he serve in any way as a figure of conscience on the abortion issue for the Obama administration, when he works for them directly?
I hear that the going rate for state dinners in Malta is 30 pieces of silver.
UPDATE: It would seem the Ambassador Kmiec didn’t quite fit the bill. I wonder what his opinion is NOW of Obama’s governance…..
July 5th, 2009 8:01 am
Ah, Yes, Pepperdine. Another ‘”Christian” University.
July 14th, 2009 1:19 pm
Condescension like that in the response by enharmonic here has led me to renounce faith in much of anything at all. What is a “Christian” university in the first place? A university can be no more “Christian” than a country can be “Christian” than a car can be “Christian” than a dog can be “Christian.” Certainly, your conservative ideals and condescending approach to life do not make your university a more “Christian” place. At least harmonicminer does not deny the faith of those he is addressing, though his incredulity may be equally condescending. Play nice or you’ll make the rest of the world just as disillusioned as I am.
July 14th, 2009 2:01 pm
Hmmm. It seems to me that a university can be “Christian” in the same sense that a family, or even a church can be, and it is a different sense than that in which individuals are “Christian.” But that doesn’t take away the usefulness of the word as a shorthand for “institutions whose organization, ethos, behavior, stance, and demonstrated priorities are primarily in support of historical Christianity and the values that flow from it, or are affirmed by it.”
It is, of course, a spectrum. But the meaning of the term can be conveyed by comparing, say, the Communist Party USA with the Roman Catholic Church. Surely the church is not “perfectly Christian” in every particular, and surely it errs, and shows its humanity over and over… and surely it is FAR more deserving of the label “Christian” than the Communist Party USA.
Why the unwillingness to use terms of art which are shorthand for phrases too cumbersome to be said every time a reference is made? I’m guessing you use such terms all the time, in other contexts, which are imperfect fits, but which convey an essence of some sort.
But, to please your sensibilities, here is a phrase to replace enharmonic’s, which should remove all ambiguity from her meaning:
“Ah, Yes, Pepperdine. Another university that claims to support Christian beliefs, moral perspectives, and values, but which lionizes faculty who take positions 180 degrees at odds with those perspectives, and who also support national leaders who do the same.”
Clear?
July 14th, 2009 11:37 pm
As to your first paragraph, I am sorry that you have such low views of family and the church. The church failed most when it became institutionalized (as a university is institutionalized) instead of a living, breathing organism, and I am shocked at your comparison of family to a university setting that ultimately cares about the bottom line (that would be $$$) as much as any business. Historical Christianity is an incredibly relative term – you can only say that your historical Christianity may be traced to Constantinian Christianity at best, Evangelical American Christendom at worst.
I am also confused as to who is deciding that he has THE authoritative corner on what are “Christian beliefs, moral perspectives, and values.” I believe wholeheartedly that many of the professors at your own university take positions 180 degrees at odds with your perspectives – does this mean that your university is not a “Christian” one?
Furthermore, I was unaware that a presidential appointment had anything to do with a university “lionizing” one of their own. It would seem to me that this professor is being lionized by Obama – not Pepperdine.
Quite unclear. Muddled at best.
July 14th, 2009 11:51 pm
Concerned,
The historical moral teachings of the church, the central core of it, have been very similar regardless of the era, denomination, etc. Do you suggest otherwise?
The church has ALWAYS been a very human, very fallible organization. There was no golden age when it was better than now. Read Acts. Read the letters of Paul, etc. Then read the history of the early church. There were always conflicts, battles over power and authority, moral failings, the whole nine yards. Thankfully, it is not the church that saves us, but Jesus Christ, or else we’d be in a heap of trouble.
It’s funny that you speak of “when the church became institutionalized,” as if there was a time when it was a pure, spiritual organization without conflict or flaw.
When was that, exactly?
And if you know anything about Professor Kmiec‘s career, you know that he indeed is lionized by his institution, as well as by Obama.
As I said, there is a spectrum in these matters. To the degree that an institution manages to remain faithful to historic Christian standards, it deserves the label “Christian.” The less faithful it is to these standards, the less it deserves the label.
Again, this usage is distinct from what we mean when we discuss a Christian person, for the simple reason that institutions do not have souls, and do not make moral choices AS institutions, but simply reflect the moral choices made by members of the institutions.
July 15th, 2009 7:53 am
“Historical Christianity is an incredibly relative term…” Thank you for making my point! The issue here is when one claims to be THIS THING and actually practices THAT THING, that, in common understanding, makes one a hypocrite. Maybe an understandable example would be when the leader of a pro-life group takes his own daughter for an abortion. Or when an avowed pacifist kills someone in self-defense.
BTW, Concerned. What exactly are you “Concerned” about?