Lets Talk Presidential Election 2004

The following post is a compilation of thoughts... some my own, but some from others as well (see the cited list for links to sources). This morning in our Oasis gathering we discussed most of this material as a means to open conversation about the upcoming presidential election. If you would like to listen to that mp3 and read as you listen, you can get it here.
_________________

I recently had someone ask me, “What makes you most nervous about talking politics in church?” That’s a good question. I guess I would first have to admit that I am nervous, and then answer the question. Considering the amount of time I have invested over the past two or three months studying issues, researching candidates, and gathering as much information as I possibly can in order to be a “smart voter,” I would have to admit that it does make me a little nervous. As I have considered how to handle the “election season” with Oasis I recognize that I have a few different options.

1. I could ignore it completely.

2. I could remind you to vote as your “civic Christian duty,” and just leave it at that.

3. I could teach on the moral issues related to the election, things about which we are undoubtedly already in agreement.

Or, compelled by what’s going on in our country and world, I could try a fourth option.

4. Discuss all of the options available to you, and teach and educate ourselves on the things about which we may not already be in agreement.

Brian McLaren suggests that perhaps the most powerful and popular denomination in America is not the Baptists or the Catholics or the Methodists or the Assemblies of God. It’s what McLaren calls "radio-orthodoxy"—the set of beliefs promoted by religious broadcasting. If you doubt the power of radio-orthodoxy, just try contradicting it, especially in an election year.

The fact is, it’s hard to be a good pastor any time, but during an election year in a country blanketed by religious broadcasting, it gets even harder. How do we teach and lead our churches in a year like this—with an important and divisive election underway? As a result of radio-orthodoxy, it could be said that many if not most Christians in America are more or less unspoken members of the Religious Right. It doesn’t matter if pastors teach about social justice and care for the poor, the environment, the alien (stranger), or the enemy. Every day during drive time, well-intentioned people who tune into Christian radio hear radio-orthodox broadcasts from a different vantage point. Then, confused Christians have to decide with whom they agree. [1]

I will not go with option 1—ignore the election completely—although it is what some pastors choose to do. To ignore the election altogether is to ignore one of the most weighty issues every adult American citizen is pondering at this time in their lives. In my family we talk about things. We have discussions that are helpful to us in decision-making. The results of these discussions are hopefully wiser, more confident decisions. Oasis is a family. And hopefully we all desire to make wise decisions as we follow our Lord Jesus.

Neither will I go with option 2—to remind you that voting is your civic Christian duty, and leave it at that—although this is what many pastors choose to do. Yes, we have a civic Christian duty—to be a good citizen of the land in which you happen to live—but I do not believe our civic duty ends with voting. Christians are called to be good citizens, to engage their world and not to withdraw from government altogether. So, what does that mean? It means whether one decides to vote or not, one must find ways to contribute to our society/nation on Christ's terms. It has often been said that it is one's Christian duty to vote. But I am not convinced that such a statement is biblical. In fact, the biblical writers and audiences didn't have the right to vote in their land. However, it is certainly accurate to say that Christians must be good citizens and work for the betterment of their nation and communities. Many Christians exhaust their civic responsibilities by voting, believing that after they've voted they need do nothing else. [2] This is primarily why I will not go with option 2. We have a civic duty to do much more than vote.

Option 3—teaching on the moral issues surrounding the election—is not something I desire to do either simply because it would be “preaching to the choir” so to speak. This is the option most pastors choose during an election year. This is the option we are bombarded with through email, radio, and Christian advertising. Most of us already know and agree with the moral issues at hand. It’s easy to preach up a sweat when you know nearly everyone in the church is thinking, "Amen! Give ‘em hell… er… heaven!" But when your church feels threatened, intimidated, rebuked, insulted, discomforted, and otherwise unsettled, it’s another matter. We tend to shy away from tension. But it is the tension that makes us stronger. Invite it. Welcome it. Embrace it.

That is why I will go with option 4—discuss all of the options available to you, and teach and educate ourselves on the things about which we may not already be in agreement. Use your imagination for just a minute. Imagine we are living in Alabama or Mississippi, and it’s 1962. Oasis is an all-white church of Christians who share the views of our neighbors about integration, equality, and the like. As a pastor I would like to be truly prophetic in teaching the truths of God’s Word. One option would be for me to preach some rip-roaring sermons that would either get me fired fast or send most of you packing for a church more to your liking. I could then move to Massachusetts and get a job there, telling the story of my valiant stand for truth and consequent persecution among the Southern savages, and thereby become a certified hero, well-perched to preach similar fiery sermons against the bigotry of people in the South, to cries of "Amen! Give ’em hell… er… heaven!" from my New England parishioners. This would be very good for my career and very fulfilling. I could even write magazine articles about my exploits. But what good would it really do? Another option would be to avoid the subject of racism for 30 or 40 years, until other larger forces have already brought a change in the thinking of Oasis people. Then I could preach about it with enthusiasm, waiting just long enough to have all the excitement of taking risks, with none of the risk. What I am looking for, however, is a better option than either thundering self-righteousness or avoidance. It will involve risk. But it will also involve patience and gentleness and respect. Yes, I will need to be bold and courageous, but I will also need to be both clever as a serpent and harmless as a dove. [1]

Having said all of that as introduction, lets now get into the discussion.

The first thing we must recognize and admit is the fact that God is not aligned with any political party. God is not a Republican or a Democrat. Contrary to claims made by the Religious Right, God has not taken a side in the election of a President.

"It is the responsibility of every political conservative, every evangelical Christian, every pro-life Catholic, every traditional Jew, every Reagan Democrat, and everyone in between to get serious about re-electing President Bush." – Jerry Falwell, The New York Times, July 16, 2004

"I think George Bush is going to win in a walk. I really believe I'm hearing from the Lord it's going to be like a blowout election in 2004. The Lord has just blessed him...It doesn't make any difference what he does, good or bad..." – Pat Robertson, AP/Fox News, January 2, 2004

Consider the following statements of belief as posted by Sojourners magazine, a Christian publication on faith, politics, and culture.

We believe that God is NOT a Republican or a Democrat.

We believe that claims of divine appointment for the President, uncritical affirmation of his policies, and assertions that all Christians must vote for his re-election constitute bad theology and dangerous religion.

We believe that sincere Christians and other people of faith can choose to vote for President Bush or Senator Kerry—for reasons deeply rooted in their faith.

We believe all candidates should be examined by measuring their policies against the complete range of Christian ethics and values.

We will measure the candidates by whether they enhance human life, human dignity, and human rights; whether they strengthen family life and protect children; whether they promote racial reconciliation and support gender equality; whether they serve peace and social justice; and whether they advance the common good rather than only individual, national, and special interests.

We believe that poverty—caring for the poor and vulnerable—is a religious issue. Do the candidates' budget and tax policies reward the rich or show compassion for poor families? Do their foreign policies include fair trade and debt cancellation for the poorest countries? (Matthew 25:35-40, Isaiah 10:1-2)

We believe that the environment—caring for God's earth—is a religious issue. Do the candidates' policies protect the creation or serve corporate interests that damage it? (Genesis 2:15, Psalm 24:1)

We believe that war—and our call to be peacemakers—is a religious issue. Do the candidates' policies pursue "wars of choice" or respect international law and cooperation in responding to real global threats? (Matthew 5:9)

We believe that truth-telling is a religious issue. Do the candidates tell the truth in justifying war and in other foreign and domestic policies? (John 8:32)

We believe that human rights—respecting the image of God in every person—is a religious issue. How do the candidates propose to change the attitudes and policies that led to the abuse and torture of Iraqi prisoners? (Genesis 1:27)

We believe that our response to terrorism is a religious issue. Do the candidates adopt the dangerous language of righteous empire in the war on terrorism and confuse the roles of God, church, and nation? Do the candidates see evil only in our enemies but never in our own policies? (Matthew 6:33, Proverbs 8:12-13)

We believe that a consistent ethic of human life is a religious issue. Do the candidates' positions on abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia, weapons of mass destruction, HIV/AIDS—and other pandemics—and genocide around the world obey the biblical injunction to choose life? (Deuteronomy 30:19)

We also admonish both parties and candidates to avoid the exploitation of religion or our congregations for partisan political purposes. [3] (www.sojo.net)

As we contemplate our decisions regarding voting it is imperative that we consider the truths of God’s Word, as well as His character as expressed through Jesus Christ. Someone recently asked me the question, “Who do you think Jesus would vote for if he were living in the United States today?” Man, that is perhaps the toughest question I have had to face in a very long time. And I had a very profound answer. Are you ready? I answered… “I don’t know.” However, based on Jesus’ life and teachings, there are some things that we do know about him regarding how he might vote. I believe Jesus would vote for the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. I believe he would vote for those who mourn, for they will be comforted. I believe he would vote for the meek, for they will inherit the earth. I believe he would vote for those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled. I believe he would vote for the merciful, for they will be shown mercy. I believe he would vote for the pure in heart, for they will see God. I believe he would vote for the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God. I believe he would vote for those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:3-10)

Jesus’ mind always seemed to be on another Kingdom. Was he mindful of the earthly kingdom in which he lived? Sure he was. He paid his taxes when called upon to do so. He obeyed the governing authorities, and encouraged us to do likewise, as long as our obedience to the governing authorities does not compromise our obedience to God and His Kingdom. You see, we are members of two kingdoms, but when those two kingdoms come into opposition of one another, our allegiance falls to ONE. In the New Testament this came true for the early Christians. They belonged to God, and the conditions of His kingdom opposed what the governing authorities were teaching and admonishing them. The result was their persecution and ultimately for many of the early disciples, their death.

What does this mean for me as a voter in the United States of America? It means that when I consider how I should vote, I must consider what’s best for God’s Kingdom before I consider what’s best for the United States of America. God’s Kingdom is not the United States of America. This is a wonderful country, and I believe we should be very thankful and recognize the great privilege it is to live here. However, it is an abysmal mistake to think that we are a nation who has God’s blessing, His hand, and His protection. Those are things reserved for members of His Kingdom. And guess what. God’s Kingdom exists in many nations. We have fellow citizens in Mexico, Canada, France, Spain, Germany, Honduras, Haiti, Russia, China, Korea, and even Iraq, as well as many others. So I am fraught with the understanding that as I vote for issues and politicians in my country those decisions are also going to affect my brothers and sisters throughout the world, who are citizens of their own country, but furthermore citizens of the Kingdom of God. My allegiance must be to His Kingdom first. I must seek first His Kingdom and His righteousness.

So, if you choose to vote, you have much more to consider than the average citizen of the United States who does not belong to God. They are only considering their own interests, their own protection, their own gain. We must “look not only to our own interests, but also to the interests of others”—for this is the very attitude of Christ Jesus (Philippians 2:4,5).

Before you simply submit to the teaching that comes from “radio-orthodoxy,” do some research of your own, have open discussions among groups of Christians and dig into the critical issues of both the election and the scriptures. Allow people to ask you critical questions like, “Why are you considering voting for your candidate of choice?” Ask yourself that question. In these discussions and in your contemplation of these matters there are some important guidelines to consider:

1. Show respect for all positions on an issue, and for those who hold opposing opinions. It’s tempting, especially when one is reacting against a polemical, biased, chest-thumping opposition, to respond likewise and opt out of the Lord’s command about doing unto others.

2. Understand the opposing side so well that you can present its arguments as clearly as its proponents do. Each position has its upside and downside, as do opposing views. We tend to know our upside and their downside, but fairness requires we face our downside and their upside as well.

3. To show that you understand the opposition and have been willing to listen, present the opposing case’s position. Present it so compellingly that people would believe it’s your position.

4. Then present your position, rooting your position in biblical soil, admitting your position’s downsides.

5. Confess your openness to changing your thinking—thus modeling the teachability you hope your people will demonstrate. [4]

If you take time to do all of these steps as you pray, research, and discuss the presidential election, you will be giving yourself the tools you need for wisdom when it comes time to vote. You will be utilizing the important, common-courtesy of active listening (a rule that neither party seems to understand these days). God’s Word reminds us in James 1:19 “to be quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to anger”… a bit of wisdom that is ever important during these times.

You may have noticed a few paragraphs ago that I made the statement, “So, if you choose to vote…” What do you mean IF? It’s the Christian’s civic duty to vote, right? Aren’t we called to be good citizens of our government, and since it is a democracy whose success depends on our voice (which in this argument is considered “our vote”), then it is our Christian duty to vote. Right? Well, some Christians do feel that way. And that’s okay. But take time to listen to another perspective.

There are Christians who have a difficult time endorsing what many would call “the lesser of two evils.” Most of us have heard the argument that when considering whom to vote for one must weigh the candidates, and since none of them are perfect we must choose the “lesser of two evils.” The abstentionist would argue that the “lesser of two evils” is still “evil.” Some people choose to abstain because they find it difficult to support either major candidate for President. For instance, a believer may be more inclined toward Candidate A, but his positions on abortion, human life, and foreign policy may make it difficult for said believer to vote for him. But what if Candidate B had a similar list of questionable convictions and actions, it would make it difficult for the believer to vote for him in good conscience as well. This is where the “lesser of two evils” argument comes into play. Some Christians, out of ethical duty, would choose the candidate who appears “closest” to what the believer considers a righteous choice. And, again, that’s okay. However, some Christians have come to the conclusion that they simply cannot vote in favor of either candidate. The argument for that believer is, “Do I vote for the lesser of two evils as an ethical act, or is it more Christian to show my disagreement by abstaining?” So you can see why some Christians may choose to abstain from voting for President.

This is an option that is not uncommon in the wider Christian world in this country (Anabaptists Brethren, Mennonites). There is also a legacy of nonparticipation in government within the earliest members of the Restoration Movement (where the Church of Christ/Christian Churches are rooted). So, this option is not new or totally foreign to the faith, even if it is to our more immediate contexts.

Many Christians would argue that voting is participation in the empire cult, it is playing Caesar's game, and as citizens of the Kingdom of God who have higher allegiances, they feel they cannot participate. This view would be based upon the position of nonparticipation in the ways of empire held by the earliest Christians, and it assumes that ours is not a "Christian" country, but really a godless empire that only uses "Christianity" when it is politically advantageous. This may be contrary to the popular conservative Christian view, but to many believers it makes a great deal of sense. [2]

In the grand scheme of things it seems that even if a Christian decides to vote, participating in the electoral process is actually a very minor way of exercising our civic duty. Perhaps a more effective “voice” would be local activism and involvement, in which we volunteer, work for peace and justice, and write letters to our representatives and work for specific issues. Should it be said of the Christian who chooses not to vote, yet is locally very socially active in working for the betterment of the community, that he/she is not performing his/her civic duty? I should think not.

In conclusion, consider the following words from Sister Joan Chittister, writer for the National Catholic Reporter:

We must recognize that most likely God is not keeping a denominational scorecard on either party's platforms and legislative proposals, as in "This one is Christian, this one is not Christian, not Christian, Christian, Christian, not Christian." And the winner is… !!”

But, if the psalmist is anywhere near correct, there is a criterion we can all use to make our personal political decisions with moral confidence. You can bet God's own criteria still holds. You can bet God is still listening, just as in His message to Moses at the burning bush: "I have heard the cry of the poor… and I mean to deliver them."

Is it possible that this election may be a reprise of that same message—this time, for us?

The truth is that there are more than enough poor that we as a country no longer count: The unemployed who drop off the welfare rolls, the underemployed who get no benefits, the children without health insurance, the fetuses being disposed of for the sake of convenience, the Iraqi civilians being killed for the sake of macho, the elderly who are facing even more poverty in years to come as Social Security fizzles in the wealthiest country in the world while we go on investing more money in death these days than we do in life?

God is our leader, and like our leader we’d be wise to listen, as well, to the cries of the poor of other countries who, because of our economic or foreign policy plans, get poorer every day, fear us more every day and hate us more every day.

The list goes on and on. Who is "pro-life"? Where is the morality of saving life at one end only to starve it in mid-flight or kill it off cavalierly at the other?

And why are we as a people so nonchalant about it, so apparently unconscious of it all, so committed to a single-issue focus in the midst of it? Is it perhaps that this time Christianity itself has gone astray, has narrowed the criteria so clearly given at the burning bush, has itself lost perspective in a world that has never needed perspective more?

It isn't that Christianity doesn't have a place in the public debate, on the contrary. It's that politics has no place in Christianity.

It is not the place of political parties to seek to enlist the Christian community as part of its campaign staff. That smells far too much like collusion. It smacks far too much of the kind of theocratic thinking that preceded both the French and the Russian revolutions. It sounds too much like the rise of a new Christian Taliban. It sounds too much like this year's election, in fact.

It is not the function of Christian figures to condemn specific politicians. That, whether we like it or not, is still God's role. It is the function of Christianity to teach Christian values and criteria that can then be applied by you and me to the political positions of our politicians. Christianity must form us "to hear the cries of the poor" and then to vote accordingly.

We must be called to conscience—not to the political campaign strategies of either party.

If you want to cast a moral vote, print out one of the many comparative lists of the issues espoused by each candidate. Ask yourself the question, "Will this proposal, this position, affect the poor of this country or the world positively, negatively or neither?” Ascribe to each of the items in the platform or on the proposed legislative agenda a plus, a minus or a zero. Now count up the pluses. The program that will bring the most aid to the poor is the most moral position. [5]

Cast your vote accordingly. Or don’t cast it all. Either way, live your civic duty in God’s Kingdom, and subsequently in the United States of America.

_______________________________________________________

Sources

1. Brian McLaren, “Scared to Talk Politics In Church?” Sojourners Magazine
2. George Pickens, email conversation
3. Sojourners Magazine, http://go.sojo.net/campaign/takebackourfaith
4. Adam Hamilton, Leadership Journal, Spring 2004
5. Joan Chittister, “An Election Guide For Honest-To-God Serious Voters,” National Catholic Reporter, September 2, 2004

For further research on the candidates and the issues, and perspectives regarding Christians and voting:
http://www.smartvoter.org/2004/11/02/oh/
http://www.vote-smart.org
http://www.politics1.com
http://www.sojo.net
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2004/300804godisnot.htm
http://www.raptureready.com/republican.html
http://www.ivotevalues.com
http://www.thegoodsteward.com/article.php3?articleID=2234

Comments

[Harlan Booth]

Thank you for this!

I hope you do not mind, but I am sending this as a link to anyone and everyone.

[chris]

Don't mind at all. Send away!

[Bruce]

Hey this is good stuff I, like Greg have been forwarding my friends to this when asked about my position on voting.