In case you missed the glowing New York Times profile of Sen. Hillary Clinton’s faith [1] over the weekend, you missed intriguing tidbits like the fact that she carries a Bible along with her on the campaign trail. Also included in the piece was this very telling portrayal of her beliefs (emphasis mine):
In a brief quiz about her theological views, Mrs. Clinton said she believed in the resurrection of Jesus, though she described herself as less sure of the doctrine that being a Christian is the only way to salvation. As for how literally to interpret the Bible, she takes a characteristically centrist view.
“The whole Bible gives you a glimpse of God and God’s desire for a personal relationship, but we can’t possibly understand every way God is communicating with us,” she said. “I’ve always felt that people who try to shoehorn in their cultural and social understandings of the time into the Bible might be actually missing the larger point.”
That she rejects historic orthodox Christianity is clear — no major confession of faith through the ages has ever expressed belief that there is salvation outside Christ. What remains a little unclear is the statement that we can’t possibly understand God’s communication. If she means that she herself can’t understand it, that’s one thing. But, if she means that god communicates with us in ways that are unknowable, I would beg to differ.
The fact that God has communicated to us via the written word means that he is understandable, and that it he is knowable through his word. To say that “we can’t possibly understand every way God is communicating with us” is to say that we really have no basis for understanding any way. If this is so, we in effect become agnostics.
I don’t think Sen. Clinton is intentionally courting the votes of the “agnostic left,” but they may have just found their candidate…