Every day I am asked how I will be voting.
Principled Christian non-voters and secular anarchists have written
to urge a public statement on voting abstinence. Good folks in both
parties and plenty of journalists are frustrated that we won’t answer
with a simple endorsement. That just seems too easy. Jesus was far
too slick to get boxed into any political camp.
One of the ways the Religious Right went wrong was telling folks
what to do rather than stirring people to think for themselves. Our
whole Jesus for President project has been about provoking imagination
and action. The decision we make on November 4 is an important one —
perhaps no more important than how we live on November 3 and November 5
— but important nonetheless. We have done all sorts of discussions
and studies to try and discern the most appropriate Christian witness
to the state (by the way, if I might recommend one book for this week,
it would be John Howard Yoder’s Christian Witness to the State
As a follower of the enemy-loving God, it is difficult to vote for a
commander in chief of the largest military in the world, especially
when no candidate seems to be preaching “blessed are the peacemakers”
or creating a plan for turning swords into plows.
If you are completely paralyzed by imperfect choices, writing in
“Jesus” is an option but should also come with grave responsibility.
Just because you don’t vote doesn’t mean you can’t critique any more
than owning stock should be a prerequisite for decrying the patterns of
Wall Street. However, if we do not vote, we had better be spending
every day of our lives trying to create alternative solutions to the
questions of how 48 million folks can have health care, how we can live
without fuel, how we deal with violent people … and on and on.
No candidate or party fully embodies the values of God’s upside-down
kingdom. It’s hard enough to find one politician that embodies a
consistent ethic of life when it comes to all issues (from abortion to
death penalty to war and poverty). Perhaps a good answer when folks
ask if you are a Republican or Democrat is: “On what issue?” I heard
one preacher say, “I’m not a Republican or a Democrat… I am a
Christocrat and it is Christ who forms my politics.”
It is not easy to make an imperfect decision. It just doesn’t feel
right to say to the state, “Please kill less”… as it still holds an
imperative “Please kill.” However, ideals can keep us from working for
“better.” We make imperfect decisions all the time. For
instance, you may try to avoid the large corporate Home Depot and shop
at the local hardware store but then find out that the hardware store
owner beats his wife, thus further complicating things. We always need to make informed decisions, though we may not endorse things that are imperfect manifestations of kingdom values.
One way for people of so-called “privilege” to act in solidarity
with the poor and marginalized is to ask folks in poverty who we should
vote for. Another experiment for white folks in this election might be
asking people of color who have suffered so much historically whether
we should vote or who we should vote for — and to honor their struggle
by submitting our voices with theirs.
One way to look at voting is that it is damage control -– not so much voting for something
as it is voting against something worse. We must do everything we can
to reduce the destruction done by the principalities and powers, and
voting may be one way to do that. Being an agent of God’s kingdom,
transformation means calling out the best that the state can do, and
not expecting it to be our savior.
More important than endorsing candidates is urging them to endorse
the political manifesto of our commander in chief and to embrace the
values of the peculiar, upside-down kingdom that blesses the poor, not
just the middle class. Our central allegiance is to God’s kingdom, and
we invite everything else in the world to align itself with the norms
of that upside-down kingdom. That is what we endorse, and we stand
behind everything and everyone that moves us closer to that — the
coming of God’s kingdom “on earth as it is in heaven.” And we get in
the way of everything that contradicts and works against God’s kingdom
— interrupting injustice with grace.
So if you want to know what I do on November 4, ask me on
November 5. I wouldn’t want to limit your imagination by pretending
there is one faithful answer to this difficult but very important
decision.
I am never happy with off-hand comments like "The Christian Right didn't teach people to think." I disagree. I remember lots of seminars on a Christian world view of politics, etc. I wonder how many young Christians today are as aware of the Constitution, US history, etc. Are we just knee-jerk "voting for hope"?
ReplyDeleteWould Jesus _never_ commit to being for or against any political camp? Would he have been neutral in an election between the Nazis and Social Democrats in Germany? Would he have been neutral in regard to the Abolition (anti-slavery) movement? So why must he be neutral regarding the abortion movement? Note that when asked on the pressing issue of his day, divorce, which divided the two political camps, Pharisees and Saducees, he answered definitely in favor of the Pharisees' view. No splitting the difference or not wanting to be boxed in. He also clearly sided _against_ the Zealots political movement. Are we making Jesus into what we want him to be when we say he must have been politically neutral?
Thanks for the comment. I should note (I probably should have previously) that the posting of the Claiborne commentary does not represent an endorsement of everything he says - simply something else to add to the discussion
ReplyDeleteAs to the previous comment:
I think there are some important points made here. I personally believe that we must be careful not to devolve into thinking that Jesus made no stand for anything. Quite clearly Jesus entire life of incarnation, mission, and love were an absolute stand for some things.
With that said (and holding the possibility that I could be very wrong about this) I am not sure I would say that Jesus endorsed any certain political party from his day. This is not to say that the way he lived his life and his opinions certain legal matters (i.e divorce) did not overlap with positions by certain political parties. They did then as they would now. However Jesus never did identify himself as a particular affiliation, because no one party encapsulated His Kingdom view (although again they may have had varying points of overlap)
I think the difficulty that Claiborne is getting at is how there has been times when certain political parties are called "Christian" when in fact they may only have small points of overlap.
Hypothetically, it could be hard to vote "pro-life" when one hypothetical candidate may be anti- abortion, but pro war. It would be inappropriate to call that candidate the only Christian option if another hypothetical candidate was not trying to overturn roe but was providing health care for those that would die without it and was slow to go to war. Voting either way can be a incomplete vote "for life" and both sides would have (in my opinion) some overlap with Kingdom principles.
Ultimately our decisions are made regardless of what camp it falls into politically as long as it is a fruit of loving God and our neighbors as ourselves.
Certainly we should be careful not to talk to broadly & dismissively about anyone (including the religious right) and people should prayerfully vote having fully examined the issues and not just voting based on any motto.
At least that is the way I see it right now. Thanks for responding!
Mike
Yes, if you think about it, saying "The Christian Right did not teach people to think for themselves" is just as dismissive as Ann Coulter saying "If Democrats had brains they'd be Republicans." I hear all the time "the other side doesn't really think!" Yes, they do. They just think differently. They prioritize issues differently. The Christian Right prioritized abortion, welfare reform, education reform, social security reform, etc. The left wants nationalized health care, etc. Is either "not thinking"?
ReplyDeleteIn the present election the difference on abortion were stark. On war the differences are not so clear. Neither McCain nor Obama is "in favor of war." Neither is pacifist, and Obama talks of invading Pakistan to get bin Laden, something McCain has rejected. The Democratic party under Clinton embraced a war in Bosnia that was vetoed by the UN, and ultimately led to Russia feeling humiliated and alienated in seeing Serbia bombed, and the rise of Putin.
I agree Jesus would not identify himself as "belonging" to any party-- in the book of Joshua the Angel of the Lord (who some see as preincarnate Christ) when asked by Joshua "are you for us or our enemies?" said, "No, I am the commander of the Lord's army." But I also think it is just as wrong to say that a Christian should not _reject_ some parties, such as the Nazi or Communist party, if they embrace certain evils. There is no reason for "moral equivalence" in regard to all views.