Fragments, Freedom, and Fallout--Part 16
Voting
Edit: I've added a second link near the end of this post. I hope you find time to listen.
Regular blog readers might remember an earlier incomplete and accidental post on voting. It didn't say much of anything, except that I wanted to write about voting. In the time since then I've done a lot of praying, observing, reading, listening, and thinking, and I'm finally ready to write about voting. Unfortunately I still don't know what to write. That is, I still do not have a definitive, "here's what you need to know and do" recommendation. I'm actually not sure that such a truth for all circumstances exists. What I hope to share are several realities that have become clearer to me over time, and I believe they have moved me at least one whit closer to feeling some measure of settledness on the matter. I have alluded to some of these issues in earlier posts.
1. Christian responsibilities toward leaders are much more clearly taught in Scripture than are specific civic responsibilities related to choosing leaders. Many American Christians see voting for elected leaders as a civic responsibility. While I realize that some legitimate defense for this is possible, I believe that seeing participation in voting as the ultimate proof of a citizen's desire to effect good in the world is a mistake. Some have gone so far as to say, "If you don't vote, you have no right to find fault with ________ (any civic circumstance, position, or leader)." I don't buy it.
Christians are called to effect change by being part of the kingdom of God, first and always. Sometimes that may call for speaking truth or carrying out action in civic areas. For other Christians, however, deliberately separating oneself from civic matters in preference to Kingdom work is perfectly legitimate and honorable. This is consistent with the Anabaptist tradition established and practiced in the 1500s, and constantly since then in some quarters.
2. Partisan loyalties almost always interfere with one's ability to consistently embrace and promote Christian principles. I would go so far as to say that I question the rationale of any partisan Christian who would not admit to having discovered this by experience. At some point, either partisan loyalty or Christian identity must be compromised if consistency is to be maintained to either identity
3. Not voting is one of the few places where a clear line can be drawn by Christians who mindfully prioritize God's Kingdom over all earthly kingdoms. When that line is maintained, the result is, I believe, great freedom to speak truth into any situation, and to hold up a standard of righteousness on all fronts. On the contrary, disengaging from a candidate whom one has voted for is extraordinarily difficult. The same is true for critiquing a policy that is held by the party which you or "your" candidate identifies with.
The default followup to voting for anything/anyone is to defend having done so, no matter what evidence surfaces that a policy or individual is on the wrong side of God's moral law. Any policy or position held by the "wrong" party or candidate is, in turn, extremely hard to affirm if one has already voted against them. Repentance is, of course, the alternative to the default followup. I need not enlarge on how difficult that course of action is. That's probably why it is rarely in evidence.
4. Voting forces some measure of compromise on voters. I don't mean to paint compromise as always being negative, but the fact remains that most things in earthly kingdoms are flawed and most offices and rights are subject to abuse and appropriation for selfish purposes. To participate in these systems calls for making many choices between bad and worse alternatives--not between righteous and evil ones. I say that with sincere respect for people serving in the civil realm who do act with integrity. It's a tough job. The burden of compromise is not one I wish to take on in the political arena.
5. Christians who vote cancel out the votes of other Christians. I don't have to go beyond my own family to see how this works. We have three children, some of whom vote. I don't make it a policy to quiz them on their voting habits. I'm positive though that vote canceling has happened in the past in votes cast by our offspring. Can you tell that we didn't indoctrinate our children very effectively on such matters? I admit to living with a lot of ambiguity over these matters in the past. I still do, despite writing this post.
6. Voting is not the best way to act responsibly and effectively in society. Staying close to the heart of God is. A related truth is that people who vote sometimes find it far easier to focus on finding the best candidate for shaping society according to their own preferences than on personally living life in a way that maximally influences society toward good ends.
7. Voting often means entanglements with the use of force, something that has always been eschewed in the Anabaptist faith heritage. In America, the executive branch of government is responsible for law enforcement. Law enforcement always ultimately relies on the use of force to operate. It's not hard for me to trace a direct line between voting for someone in the executive branch of government and casting a vote for the use of force (the president holds the highest office in the executive branch). Admittedly, the line is more difficult to trace when votes are cast for office holders in other branches of government (legislative and judicial), but they are all intertwined in some sense. Taxation is one example of an intertwined function of government that can involve members of all three branches of government. Unnecessary entanglements with the use of force is one thing I'm happy to avoid by not voting. Here also I offer my respect for law enforcement officers who act with integrity, with a desire to serve others.
8. Voting decisions are usually, of necessity, made on the basis of very limited information. No matter how carefully information is gathered, doing so from a distance is less than ideal. The greater the number of filters through which information passes before reaching the voter the greater the potential for distortion of that information. More biased "filters" also result in greater distortion. In local elections this is less of a problem. The only responsible voter is an informed voter, but becoming an informed voter is incredibly challenging and time consuming. The easiest thing to do, of course, is to vote a straight party ticket. I hope we all understand why that's usually a bad idea.
As soon as Hiromi became a naturalized American citizen, he proudly exercised his new voting privileges in the next election. It was the last time he did that. Alone in the voting booth, he realized that he knew almost nothing about the people whose names appeared on the ballot. I think he ended making some willy-nilly markings and escaping as soon as possible.
9. When Anabaptists begin to view voting as a sacred duty, I believe they have adopted a second-rate option. In other words, they would do better to become knowledgeable about the well-tested traditions of their own faith heritage, instead of falling over themselves to run after what is currently popular in the fundamentalist and evangelical world. The mashup of church and state is a prominent feature of conservative politics. The conservative political world is populated by many whose ideals have very little in common with the "faith of our fathers," and living there is hard to do without absorbing also many of those second-rate values. To some extent, this is true also of the "liberal" world. From my perspective it appears that the liberal world is less "mashed-up" with Christianity than the conservative world (please hold your fire).
Too many Anabaptists seem clueless that an uneven exchange is occurring when they step out of the deep, flowing stream of God-honoring, compassionate living into the shallow rushing torrent of seeking to improve the world through political action.
10. Anabaptists would benefit from hearing leaders instruct their people on voting. I don't mean that they should tell people how to vote or even whether or not to vote. I wish they could simply help clarify the limitations of voting, along with highlighting the things that are right about not voting. Principally, mindfully abstaining from voting can be a help in aligning our commitments and loyalties with Heavenly Kingdom principles. Voting opens a Pandorra's Box of assaults on such commitments and loyalties.
In Mark 8:15, Jesus warned his disciples against both the leaven of the Pharisees (hypocrisy) and the leaven of Herod (worldliness). One of the limitations of voting is that it is wholly a creation and mechanism of earthly kingdoms--worldly, in other words. Prioritizing the kingdom of God means, at the very least, that voting privileges should be held very loosely. Better tools for changing society exist and should be employed. Freedom to not vote is worth exercising.
***************
Here's an interview with Dean Taylor that I listened to after I wrote this post. He's articulate and wise (I suppose you'd expect that from the president at Sattler College) and says some of the same things I tried to say here--plus a lot more. I had seen an article of his recently which covered some of the same ground and couldn't find it again right now. Maybe a reader can put the link in the comments if you know where it is.
****************
Today (a day after posting this blog) I listened to a speech by Joshua B. Good that I really enjoyed. He adds a lot of depth to some of the issues that I've wrestled with. I grinned to myself at an early mention of being influenced by Dwight Nisly, whom I've known all his life. Years ago when I taught the kindergarten class in Vacation Bible School, he was in my class. He is now a pastor and teacher in New York City. I don't know Joshua B. Good, but I liked identifying a small thread of personal connection with him through Dwight.
Good does a really nice job of clarifying the difference between Anabaptists and Protestants and Catholics in some of their core understandings of Christian faith. He addresses voting specifically, as well as many other issues on which the Christian right has spoken in contradiction to the Anabaptist Vision.* I'm still pondering what he said about participating in the liturgies of nationalism. I'm not quite at the same place personally as Good is, but I'm not prepared to argue with him.
Hearing some of where Good has been in the past helps add credence to where he is now, as I see it. Hint: He is a Liberty University graduate.
*Harold Bender wrote a short statement by that name in the mid-1900s. Since then it has been considered one of the formative statements of American Anabaptism. Good draws from that document in this speech.
Edit: I've added a second link near the end of this post. I hope you find time to listen.
Regular blog readers might remember an earlier incomplete and accidental post on voting. It didn't say much of anything, except that I wanted to write about voting. In the time since then I've done a lot of praying, observing, reading, listening, and thinking, and I'm finally ready to write about voting. Unfortunately I still don't know what to write. That is, I still do not have a definitive, "here's what you need to know and do" recommendation. I'm actually not sure that such a truth for all circumstances exists. What I hope to share are several realities that have become clearer to me over time, and I believe they have moved me at least one whit closer to feeling some measure of settledness on the matter. I have alluded to some of these issues in earlier posts.
1. Christian responsibilities toward leaders are much more clearly taught in Scripture than are specific civic responsibilities related to choosing leaders. Many American Christians see voting for elected leaders as a civic responsibility. While I realize that some legitimate defense for this is possible, I believe that seeing participation in voting as the ultimate proof of a citizen's desire to effect good in the world is a mistake. Some have gone so far as to say, "If you don't vote, you have no right to find fault with ________ (any civic circumstance, position, or leader)." I don't buy it.
Christians are called to effect change by being part of the kingdom of God, first and always. Sometimes that may call for speaking truth or carrying out action in civic areas. For other Christians, however, deliberately separating oneself from civic matters in preference to Kingdom work is perfectly legitimate and honorable. This is consistent with the Anabaptist tradition established and practiced in the 1500s, and constantly since then in some quarters.
2. Partisan loyalties almost always interfere with one's ability to consistently embrace and promote Christian principles. I would go so far as to say that I question the rationale of any partisan Christian who would not admit to having discovered this by experience. At some point, either partisan loyalty or Christian identity must be compromised if consistency is to be maintained to either identity
3. Not voting is one of the few places where a clear line can be drawn by Christians who mindfully prioritize God's Kingdom over all earthly kingdoms. When that line is maintained, the result is, I believe, great freedom to speak truth into any situation, and to hold up a standard of righteousness on all fronts. On the contrary, disengaging from a candidate whom one has voted for is extraordinarily difficult. The same is true for critiquing a policy that is held by the party which you or "your" candidate identifies with.
The default followup to voting for anything/anyone is to defend having done so, no matter what evidence surfaces that a policy or individual is on the wrong side of God's moral law. Any policy or position held by the "wrong" party or candidate is, in turn, extremely hard to affirm if one has already voted against them. Repentance is, of course, the alternative to the default followup. I need not enlarge on how difficult that course of action is. That's probably why it is rarely in evidence.
4. Voting forces some measure of compromise on voters. I don't mean to paint compromise as always being negative, but the fact remains that most things in earthly kingdoms are flawed and most offices and rights are subject to abuse and appropriation for selfish purposes. To participate in these systems calls for making many choices between bad and worse alternatives--not between righteous and evil ones. I say that with sincere respect for people serving in the civil realm who do act with integrity. It's a tough job. The burden of compromise is not one I wish to take on in the political arena.
5. Christians who vote cancel out the votes of other Christians. I don't have to go beyond my own family to see how this works. We have three children, some of whom vote. I don't make it a policy to quiz them on their voting habits. I'm positive though that vote canceling has happened in the past in votes cast by our offspring. Can you tell that we didn't indoctrinate our children very effectively on such matters? I admit to living with a lot of ambiguity over these matters in the past. I still do, despite writing this post.
6. Voting is not the best way to act responsibly and effectively in society. Staying close to the heart of God is. A related truth is that people who vote sometimes find it far easier to focus on finding the best candidate for shaping society according to their own preferences than on personally living life in a way that maximally influences society toward good ends.
7. Voting often means entanglements with the use of force, something that has always been eschewed in the Anabaptist faith heritage. In America, the executive branch of government is responsible for law enforcement. Law enforcement always ultimately relies on the use of force to operate. It's not hard for me to trace a direct line between voting for someone in the executive branch of government and casting a vote for the use of force (the president holds the highest office in the executive branch). Admittedly, the line is more difficult to trace when votes are cast for office holders in other branches of government (legislative and judicial), but they are all intertwined in some sense. Taxation is one example of an intertwined function of government that can involve members of all three branches of government. Unnecessary entanglements with the use of force is one thing I'm happy to avoid by not voting. Here also I offer my respect for law enforcement officers who act with integrity, with a desire to serve others.
8. Voting decisions are usually, of necessity, made on the basis of very limited information. No matter how carefully information is gathered, doing so from a distance is less than ideal. The greater the number of filters through which information passes before reaching the voter the greater the potential for distortion of that information. More biased "filters" also result in greater distortion. In local elections this is less of a problem. The only responsible voter is an informed voter, but becoming an informed voter is incredibly challenging and time consuming. The easiest thing to do, of course, is to vote a straight party ticket. I hope we all understand why that's usually a bad idea.
As soon as Hiromi became a naturalized American citizen, he proudly exercised his new voting privileges in the next election. It was the last time he did that. Alone in the voting booth, he realized that he knew almost nothing about the people whose names appeared on the ballot. I think he ended making some willy-nilly markings and escaping as soon as possible.
9. When Anabaptists begin to view voting as a sacred duty, I believe they have adopted a second-rate option. In other words, they would do better to become knowledgeable about the well-tested traditions of their own faith heritage, instead of falling over themselves to run after what is currently popular in the fundamentalist and evangelical world. The mashup of church and state is a prominent feature of conservative politics. The conservative political world is populated by many whose ideals have very little in common with the "faith of our fathers," and living there is hard to do without absorbing also many of those second-rate values. To some extent, this is true also of the "liberal" world. From my perspective it appears that the liberal world is less "mashed-up" with Christianity than the conservative world (please hold your fire).
Too many Anabaptists seem clueless that an uneven exchange is occurring when they step out of the deep, flowing stream of God-honoring, compassionate living into the shallow rushing torrent of seeking to improve the world through political action.
10. Anabaptists would benefit from hearing leaders instruct their people on voting. I don't mean that they should tell people how to vote or even whether or not to vote. I wish they could simply help clarify the limitations of voting, along with highlighting the things that are right about not voting. Principally, mindfully abstaining from voting can be a help in aligning our commitments and loyalties with Heavenly Kingdom principles. Voting opens a Pandorra's Box of assaults on such commitments and loyalties.
In Mark 8:15, Jesus warned his disciples against both the leaven of the Pharisees (hypocrisy) and the leaven of Herod (worldliness). One of the limitations of voting is that it is wholly a creation and mechanism of earthly kingdoms--worldly, in other words. Prioritizing the kingdom of God means, at the very least, that voting privileges should be held very loosely. Better tools for changing society exist and should be employed. Freedom to not vote is worth exercising.
***************
Here's an interview with Dean Taylor that I listened to after I wrote this post. He's articulate and wise (I suppose you'd expect that from the president at Sattler College) and says some of the same things I tried to say here--plus a lot more. I had seen an article of his recently which covered some of the same ground and couldn't find it again right now. Maybe a reader can put the link in the comments if you know where it is.
****************
Today (a day after posting this blog) I listened to a speech by Joshua B. Good that I really enjoyed. He adds a lot of depth to some of the issues that I've wrestled with. I grinned to myself at an early mention of being influenced by Dwight Nisly, whom I've known all his life. Years ago when I taught the kindergarten class in Vacation Bible School, he was in my class. He is now a pastor and teacher in New York City. I don't know Joshua B. Good, but I liked identifying a small thread of personal connection with him through Dwight.
Good does a really nice job of clarifying the difference between Anabaptists and Protestants and Catholics in some of their core understandings of Christian faith. He addresses voting specifically, as well as many other issues on which the Christian right has spoken in contradiction to the Anabaptist Vision.* I'm still pondering what he said about participating in the liturgies of nationalism. I'm not quite at the same place personally as Good is, but I'm not prepared to argue with him.
Hearing some of where Good has been in the past helps add credence to where he is now, as I see it. Hint: He is a Liberty University graduate.
*Harold Bender wrote a short statement by that name in the mid-1900s. Since then it has been considered one of the formative statements of American Anabaptism. Good draws from that document in this speech.
posted by Miriam Iwashige at
6:31 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home