c. 2000 Religion News Service

(Samuel K. Atchison is an ordained minister and has worked as a policy analyst and social worker to the homeless. He currently is a prison chaplain in Trenton, N.J., and a fellow of the George H. Gallup International Institute in Princeton, N.J.)

(UNDATED) The formal announcement by Hillary Rodham Clinton that she is a candidate for a Senate seat from New York did little to satisfy the curiosity of onlookers.

To be sure, the first lady possesses many of the qualities one would expect of a senator. She is intelligent, articulate and thinks fast on her feet. Moreover, as is the case with most astute politicians _ most notably her husband _ she is a master at voicing the thoughts that are on the minds of her listeners.

Yet, for all her skill and political savvy, the question of “why” remains unanswered. Why the Senate? Why New York? Why now?

It isn’t a question of Clinton’s ability, but of her motivation.

Somehow, her carefully scripted response, “I may be new to the neighborhood, but I’m not new to your concerns,” rings hollow.

Indeed, even some of her staunchest admirers are at a loss to explain her rationale. For example, in the current issue of Newsweek, Anna Quindlen argues the Senate is an unworthy venue for Hillary’s considerable talents.

“What can you be thinking, to think so small? … (The Senate is) a job of taking grand notions and grinding them into the gray sand of sad consensus. You take steak, and after a while it becomes stew. You take stew and after a while it becomes soup. You take soup and after a while it becomes mush. Why would someone so smart and so strong want to make mush for six years?”

Others have suggested that after seven years of sublimating herself as the power behind the throne, Hillary is anxious to have her own coming-out party to address the nation and the world on her own terms.

In fact, according to another Newsweek article, this is actually a campaign strategy. In the aftermath of her much-publicized health care debacle, Clinton was forced to work behind the scenes and out of public view for the causes she believed in.

“Now, as she officially launches her New York campaign for the Senate, Hillary’s aides have reversed their public-relations strategy and offered glimpses of the candidate as an aggressive and committed policymaker and strategist. Her supporters, who previously minimized Mrs. Clinton’s policy role, are now being encouraged by the White House to describe every detail of her backstage dealings. That image may not match what Americans seek in a first lady, but aides hope it’s exactly what they want in a senator.”

But is it what’s best for her would-be constituency?

Notwithstanding Clinton’s skills and political acumen, is self-actualization _ that is, the desire to come into one’s own _ a healthy motive for service?

As a pastor with nearly 20 years’ experience in serving the needs and examining the motives of parishioners, I think not. From my observation, the fact that one has both the ability and desire to perform a given job does not necessarily prove he or she is the best person for the job.

To give what some may think is an overly simplistic example, I’ve known people who could out-sing the birds in the trees but who were not fit for service in a church choir. Why? Because though they possessed the desire and talent to sing, their motivation for service was wrong.

The purpose of a church choir is to lead the congregation in the worship of God. Yet many soloists use their talent for self-aggrandizement and the worship service as a venue for performance. Things may go smoothly for a time, but if a better singer happens to join the choir, sparks may fly because the resident soloist’s need for validation may go unmet.

Obviously, service in the Senate represents an entirely different economy of scale. Yet the issue of motivation, as a function of character, remains in force. Indeed, if anything, it becomes an even greater concern.

One need only mention such names as Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon and Hillary’s husband, Bill, to be reminded of the havoc that can be wrought by talented-but-needy people.

This is not to say Hillary Clinton, or for that matter, any other politician, is fundamentally flawed. What it suggests, however, is that whenever someone asks for the right to act in what he or she deems to be our best interests, they’d better be willing to answer the question “why.”

DEA END ATCHISON