Some churchgoers expect the entire focus of our worship service to be patriotic about three times each year (Memorial Day, July 4th, and Veterans Day). More dangerously, there is often an expectation that we should support the Republican platform or “our President” unconditionally. Conversely, some think that we should stay out of politics altogether, not considering that our socio-political context has changed dramatically since Bible times. We need to show that both of these views are, at the very least, oversimplifications.
If Paul can enlist his citizenship and its accompanying privileges for God's purpose, then so should we. Paul didn't get to vote, but we do - and should. (Maybe I'm wrong - my Mennonite friend, Ken, doesn't vote. He does, however, pray for the government daily. He also will--of course--never read this blog...) Slavery, fair wages, civil rights, and health and sanitation issues have all been transformed by the church operating in democratic societies during the last 180 years. This is redemptive work. It is not the primary work of the church, but it is the inevitable outcome of our lives as we are transformed into whole ("saved") people.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
"If Paul can enlist his citizenship and its accompanying privileges for God's purpose, then so should we. Paul didn't get to vote, but we do - and should."
Maybe I've misunderstood what you said here.. because I can't imagine you're saying the mennonites need to be called to repentance over their politics...
Paul could do a lot of things. That's not an argument for why we should. The way I'm seeing it, whether or not we vote is not at all a christian issue. How we vote, when and if we do, is.
No - I don't think that Mennonites (or other conscientious abstainers) should be called into question politically.
It is my conviction - and perhaps not as strongly held as Ken's - that we have a moral responsibility to vote. We have agreed to disagree quite successfully on many points, yet still consider ourselves brothers in Christ.
I'd like an amplification of your last statement if you get a chance.
The issue that I have with "should", and likewise with "moral responsibility", is that they both say (I think), "Voting is the right thing to do, as a Christian. If you do not do it, you are choosing the moral wrong. You are choosing to be anti-christan."
Choosing to disagree on what is the best course of action for "Christians" as they pursue Christ and Kingdom is one thing*, but I think that choosing particular actions and assigning them as the necessary outflow of a common belief/faith lies more in the area of legalism and litmus testing than of pursuing the same end by different means.
And if we have to have amplification, I know we agree.. VOX. That's all there is to it. : ]
Seriously, I assume you mean amplification of "whether or not we vote is not at all a christian issue. How we vote, when and if we do, is."
Okay. Here goes...
Voting or not voting in no way defines us as christian/not-christian. The only thing that defines us as christian is our belief/faith in Jesus/God and our pursuit of his Way/Kingdom. If we choose not to vote, it should be because we choose this as the best way to pursue that end. (there could be a lot of reasons for this.. anywhere from "i don't participate in politics because i'm not mature enough to handle it" to "i don't participate in politics because i believe it ties my allegiance to something other than King Jesus") We should "not-vote" in a distinctly christian way. Likewise, if we choose to vote, our reasons for doing so and the choices that we make as we vote should be done/chosen in a distinctly christian way. We should base our choice to participate and our choices within that participation on what we see as the best path of pursuit for the aforementioned end.
We have the liberty, in Christ, to vote, to not vote, to vote republican, democrat, libertarian, green, split-ticket.. etc.. Two of us, faced with the same choice, could make completely opposite decisions. What makes us christian is not the choice, not the action, but the faith.
* And for the most part, I think, a foolish one. Choosing what the Bride of Christ "should" do, on a particular issue, is somewhat akin to me deciding that your wife should run into the kitchen and whip me up a turkey pot pie--not only is it somewhat arbitrary, it's also not my place. If I'm hungry, then I need to decide if the best way to deal with that is turkey pot pie, and if I decide it is, the I'd better figure out what brand, how to cook it, etc.
OK - I'm certainly not trying to add another litmus test to determine "who's a real/better Christian." I apologize if that's how my comments appear.
Perhaps I should further amplify my position - but I maynot get around to it. Suffice it to say that I agree mostly with your amplification.
(...and I would agree entirely if it was a VOX.)
This sounds like a great title for a Zondervan "Counterpoints" series:
"3 Views of Christianity and Politics" edited by Brad S. Hilderbrand, Super Genius (tongue planted firmly in cheek).
I am not sold on Caperoon's argument on "How we vote, if and when we do, is." I believe that to say that "voting or not voting in no way defines us as christian/not-christian. The only thing that defines us as christian is our belief/faith in Jesus/God and our pursuit of his Way/Kingdom" and not have that include societal redemption through political involvement (or any other redemptive work) is incongruous. This is, I am sure, dangerous ground. On the one hand, we certainly do not want to become legalists (after all, that's as bad as saying "liberal" in some circles... just another form of name-calling), but we also know that the Kingdom demands everything of us without apology, and the Law of Christ holds a higher allegience than to our notions about personal liberty. Would anyone dare say that a person who felt compelled to "love his enemy" and preached such from the lectern or pulpit was a legalist, and that they were "free" to hate their neighbor? I would stay away from such unhelpful jargon if possible.
For me, political involvment is a way of, in our own flawed way, participating in God's work to redeem the world through Jesus Christ. No, it is not a perfect system, and it sure does look like all the people we elect are either crooks or idiots. But if we can, then we should. It is much the same as giving to the poor. Sure, many might use the food to fuel their bodies to do unlawful things, and heads of charities may be unhelpful in getting the aid to those who need it, but that doesn't make the act of giving not necessary. And to paraphrase Mark Twain, "He who does not vote has no advantage over he who cannot" (He actually said that about reading, but I think the point still applies).
I am sure there is more to be said, but I'm tired and I need to get back to work. Have a good day everybody!
Post a Comment