"Not Voting" as an Act of Christian Discernment : Calling the Emerging Church Into a Different Kind of Faithfulness
Monday, July 21, 2008
It is worth noting that one place where evangelicals and prot. mainlines, Southern Baptists and Sojourners, evangelical fundamentalist' leaders(Dobson) and emergent village leaders (McLaren) converge is on our obligation to vote. They may not agree on whom to vote for, but they generally agree that voting is the Christian thing to do. In the midst of Shane Claiborne's Jesus for President, there are those who warn us against withdrawal. Where is the recognition that abstaining from voting (refusing to participate) can be an even more aggressive activist (dare I say Biblical) stance for justice? It had been my hope, that the emerging church, atune to post modern, post Christendom and even post-Marxist post structuralist critiques of capitalism and democracy, might become a place of new Christian discernment for this new aggressive social posture of resistance towards the State and its marriage to multi- national corporate interests. Dissappointedly, I don't think it has appeared yet. In the interest therefore, of promoting further conversation on this matter, I offer three issues to consider as you discern for yourself and your church as to whether to vote or not vote as act of Christian social justice. Please note that I am not saying it is always wrong to vote as a Christian. Rather I am asserting that voting is always an act of Christian discernment. Here are three issues to consider in discerning whether to vote or not.
1.) The State is an (Preserving) Order of Creation. If you're a Calvinist you see God at work in all things (Common Grace) and that includes government. We should therefore participate in that. If you're a Lutheran, you see that God is at work "preserving" creation in the State for the ongoing work of redemption until He comes, and therefore we should support that. Then there are some of us who follow Yoder (mostly Anabaptists) who consider that there are times when government is flat out evil and we should therefore not participate, indeed resist, or better yet (if you're under postmodern influence) seek out tactics to subvert. I must admit, after staunchly disagreeing with pres. Bush's approach to war and economy these last eight years, it might be incumbent on us all to vote for the preserving of the world from more American government induced violence and injustice.
2.) Voting is Violence Steve Knight recently posted on Hauerwas's comments in voting for Obama. Hauerwas makes the case that voting is violence. Voting in essence polarizes and sets one group over against another. Once the 51% wins, voting sets the majority over against the minority in an act of domination. The 51% tell the other 49 what to do (er where to go in GB's case). Should we Christians participate in that? Likewise, given the overt captivity of American government by territorializing powers of capital, should we encourage this process by legitimating it by our vote? Sometimes I think young thinkers, especially emerging church folk, cannot imagine what would happen if instead of evangelicals (or even better the voting block of the Christian church en toto) becoming a block of voters polarized over against the rest of the country by one issue, we simply refused to vote. What kind of subversive power for justice would be enacted? If every one refused to vote (and participate in the polarization), and the president of the United States was elected by 10,000 people, how much change would this evoke in the State? How much power would be stripped to wage war?
3.) "The Christian Nation" There is no question that some of the impulse to vote is to see justice take hold through the public sector. This is James Dobson, this is Jim Wallis. Yet I suggest that the organizing activity to vote (by Christians) may in fact distract Christians from the real work of justice in their own churches as communities of justice in the world. I believe just as the empty signifier (Zizek) "Christian Nation" distracts conservative evangelicals (in fact distances themselves from) from their own immediate participation in God's justice through Christ in a people, so the same thing is very prone to happen among protestant mainline and emerging types when they advocate voting for justice through Obama. We keep working for justice in this way (family sexual values for Focus of the Family - social justice values for Sojourners) in turn giving hope for a Christianized America (one side sees Christianized as a sexually moral family-safe society, the other sees Christianized as a socially just society) via government. Meanwhile we are passivized towards engaging in justice ourselves in our own local churches. Indeed this becomes an excuse to keep justice concerns a safe distance as we (think we) are accomplishing it through other means. See my arguments on this here.
As for me on these three issues, 1.) I lean towards a Lutheran vote for the preserving of some baseline order in order to prevent te continuation of the problematic policies of the Republican administrations. 2.) I recognize that the polarizing has lessened in this election versus the prior Bush campaigns. 3.) Having said all that, I have no hopes for Christian justice coming through the halls of US government. Neither do I have hopes that Obama will somehow avoid being absorbed by the existing Order of the State.
My verdict: I will vote for Obama, but not expect too much (yeah, there I go parroting Stanley Hauerwas again).
In the meantime, I urge a discussion of these three issues in the emerging church forums. I urge we read Romans chapter 13 in view of John Howard Yoder's discussion in ch. 10 of The Politics of Jesus. Whenever big politics starts sneaking into the church, let us push the discussion of what it means to refuse the rule of any other name but that of Christ as Lord. If you're part of the so-called Hauerwas mafia, bring up the Christian anarchist stance into the political conversation of the emerging church. Do all of this in order to make it harder for Christians to just assume we should all get in line and vote.
What do you think? on issues 1,2, and 3?
Posted by David Fitch | 10:02 AM
COMMENTS:
Hello David
loved the article. I wrote a piece on abstaining from voting over here:
http://hewhocutsdown.blogspot.com/2008/02/dont-vote.html
and it's been a constant subject over at Jesus Manifesto as well:
here:
http://www.jesusmanifesto.com/2008/01/08/ten-reasons-why-i-wont-be-voting-for-the-president/
here:
http://www.jesusmanifesto.com/2008/01/10/10-reasons-to-vote-a-sympathetic-challenge-to-marks-10-reasons-not-to-vote/
and here:
http://www.jesusmanifesto.com/2008/06/05/the-election-and-our-election/
Thank you for not assuming that 'voting' is somehow the Christian thing to do.
10:42 AM
Excellent, thought-provoking entry, David. I'm still not sure how I'm going to play this out, but I'm definitely thinking hard.
1:23 PM
David,
Thanks for stirring the pot with this. I appreciate your voice in this, as well as the folks at Jesus Manifesto for holding emerging folk accountable.
Here's my problem or pushback, though, in the discussion -- and I really do think this is the crux of it right here: You say, "the same thing is very prone to happen among protestant mainline and emerging types when they advocate voting for justice through Obama."
"advocate voting for justice through Obama" -- even the way you worded that is inaccurate, I think, because I have yet to meet someone in the emerging church conversation who is planning to vote for Obama who expects him to be the bringer of justice to our nation. Perhaps he might/could bring about more "just" policies, and there's certainly hope that would be the case. This isn't a messianic hope, this is just plain-old optimism (with a heavy dose of skepticism mixed in).
When does the hermeneutic of suspicion ever quit? It doesn't. This is like the classic put-down that to be a Christian you have to "check your brain at the door." While there might be some truth of anti-intellectualism with some corners of evangelicalism, we know by-and-large that this cliche is false, and we react negatively to it. That's how I feel every time someone makes this argument that as an emergent Christian who supports Obama I am in danger of "checking my brain at the door." Give me/us a little credit, please?!
This is why I couldn't bring myself to join Bob Hyatt's "ObamaChrist" Facebook group. I get the joke -- I just don't think it's very funny (and in fact I think it's pretty damaging).
OK well I'm sort of rambling at this point, so I'll stop. I do think this is a good conversation, I just wish those coming from the Anabaptist/Anarchist angle would give us Obama folks some credit. That's all. I haven't checked my brain at the door, thankyouverymuch.
5:56 PM
Steve, that's certainly fair and thanks for the push back. I think the comment that makes me think the most - is your statement"this isn't a Messianic hope." I guess I see that to some extent. Indeed Brian McL's post is a well reasoned and balanced post on the subject. So I can see where I have perhaps falsely characterizied Obama supporters.
The part of this post that I'd like to take a stand on however is what I see as a "blind spot" in emerging circles towards the church itself being a radical place of justice. (I know , I "harang" on this alot) It just would seem with all the political theory (and I write a bit here and there on the post Marxist-poststructuralist political theorists that I find so compelling) and the failure of the US governemnt, that we consider the unique opportunity to call into being a new faithfulness towards "being" communities of justice of Christ in the world. But again and again, this is considered "withdrawal." Stunningly, it seems to me, the emerging church types (and I am not talking about Emergent Village per se but my talks with emerging types throughout N America) cannot escape the 50 year old spell of Neibuhrianism. Don't you agree the emerging church is living under a Neibuhr hangover?
So can't I keep taking stabs in the hopes that this issue of church and the poitical becomes an essential issue that the Emerging church addresses? (nd I know we had talked about a conference on this in the future)
... Steve ...thanks for including me in the conversation.
6:43 PM
Another new and excellent resource related to discernment about voting is Cascade Books' ELECTING NOT TO VOTE:
I ran a review of here:
http://www.englewoodreview.org/?p=53
ELECTING NOT TO VOTE considers in detail the three points that you raise, David, and I think it could prove to be a great resource for your call to "bring up the Christian anarchist stance into the political conversation of the emerging church."
Shalom,
Chris Smith
Englewood Christian Church /
Englewood Review of Books
Indianpolis
4:19 AM
Hello Steve
The concern is not you, then. But people, particularly influential people like Tony Campolo, Brian McLaren and Jim Wallis communicate something. Having read their works and where they are coming from I believe all three have the spirit of the thing dead on, and are approaching politics from a right state of mind.
With that said, that is not necessarily how people hear them. I know many people who hear "vote Democrat", not "be a prophetic voice irregardless of party". Direct endorsement of Obama only aggravates this misunderstanding amongst Christians who look up to these people (among others) and respect their opinion.
Therefore, to prevent a slide towards a Christian Left (which, while I don't believe it's the intention of the above men, I do see it as a distinct possibility) there are those of us who fight to ensure that the terms of the discussion are not being changed midway - that a prophetic stand, prayer for the leaders, and actions for loving society must take place whether one votes Democrat, Republican, Communist, Green, Libertarian or not at all.
The fact that you responded so well is testament that you are not struggling with this conflation. But I know many who do...and therein lies the concern.
Peace to you
6:20 AM
Jesus said, you are either for me or against me. When you for for anyone who is for any human behavior that Jesus is against then you are siding with an anti-christ and are a partaker with in his evil intentions and are in danger on hell. One picture is worth a thousand words, check it out at:www.johnnorrisbook.com
7:14 AM
It seems to me that point one is by far the strongest. Since in this country we enter a small booth and make decisions that can be kept to ourselves unless we decide to become a politician, it seems that voting is not the grand statement that many in the other categories seem to make it.
"Voting is violence". Only someone unaware of real violence would seem to be able to actually say that. Only someone who makes their vote a violent and polarizing act is doing that. I can take part in the politics of the United States and not have it be dominant in my life.
I do not hate President Bush, I do not hate Obama or McCain or even the "devil man" Cheney. I am not as interested in what the world thinks of our nation as I am in what they think of other things. In fact, I don't think they think about us as much as we like to think they do.
As I vote and care for the people in the nation in and the world I live on I will choose to live such a good life that people will wonder, not who I voted for but who I serve.
9:00 AM
David,
Unsure how much you read other blogs, but have you been following Scot McKnight's review of John Stackhouse's "Making the Best of It" over at jesuscreed.org? your comment on 50 years of Niebuhrianism reminded me of the "Christian Realism" espoused in Stackhouse's book. I was surprised to see such a resounding support for the book...until i read your comment just now!
blessings,
mike
10:50 AM
I have always chosen to abstain from voting, while being in Canada it makes even less of an impact these issues that you brought up and more all fuel my "passion" for not voting. I find that I can be more subversive by not voting that voting.
Thanks for the post David!
Let us know if you are ever coming up through Sarnia.
3:28 PM
Great post! This past Sunday night I attended Shane and Chris's "Jesus for President" tour and was blown away by their radical interpretation of the relationship of God's people and political power. That event, my own thoughts, your former posts analyzing Zizek's political theory, and reason #3 have now convinced me that the more courageous act for a Christian is to not vote. For this would require us to live in such a way that we are the agents of change and justice and reconciliation in the United States. We would have to impact our communities the way Shane and his friends have impacted Kinsington.
Being from the south, I have seen and believe wholeheartedly that church relies on political power to change society to a degree that is sinful. Call it our addiction to Christendom, our addiction for prestige and power.
I am still struggling with all of this, whether to vote or not. Mainly for the same reasons you gave in your response to #1.
So the question I keep asking myself is "Am I brave enough to not vote?"
Right now I am afraid the answer is no.
7:56 AM
Long time reader, first time poster..
Dave, personally I think the "Christian" vote in America is bad for the rest of the world. It’s not that I think Christians are bad.... it’s just the ones making any noise in America seem to me to be crazy. All this “name it and claim it,” “[Our] God is right” and “we are a blessed nation” talk really takes its toll on the rest of the globe. People fear our God because Gods people are crazy.
Christians like you (myself included) I think are more observers of state and believe the Jesus looks allot different that what is portrayed in the mainstream media.
A vote from the “emergent” way of thinking would want the state of America turned on its head being that it’s so counter-cultural. The emergent view [I think] isn’t one of obtaining power, staying a super power or being a world police. So who is representing our views politically? Personally I think the minute someone takes on that role they stop being “emergent?”
Sorry if this is coming out so odd.
Cheers from Canada
11:45 AM
On #2:
Voting as violence is certainly one way to frame the nature of voting, however, the notion that voting is violence does not necessarily follow from the fact that majorities and minorities are formed. Part of the nature of the voting is the rules of the game put in place before the voting happens. If no one is coerced to vote and everyone accepts before hand that one side will win and one side will lose with the concomitant acceptance of the outcome then the notion of voting as violence, imo, is undermined.
Might it not be just as permissible to see voting as an act of non-violence in that it undermines the centralizing nature of human power structures and therefore gives voice to even those on the margins over and against the power structures that seek to undermine human flourishing?
4:38 AM
I find it odd that the Christians who put so great an emphasis on the Church taking responsibility for social justice also put so much hope in nationalized distribution of wealth. Fitch, I don't mean to be belligerent, but if we are to earnestly live out what you are saying (especially about not being passivized towards engaging in justice ourselves in our own local churches), does it make sense for Christians to get excited about a candidate who proclaims socialized government programs to be the solution to our nation's problems? If we are to vote, shouldn't we lend our support to those who are working toward less government involvement? Why do so many emergent types get excited about the prospect of having a president who wants government to do the job of the church?
I have to ask-- why are you going to vote for Obama? Because there are only two substantive reasons I can think of why any Christian would-- his social programs, and his position against the war. After reading your post, I don't think you are putting hope in his social programs. Yet there are other candidates who promote less government and are against the war. Is Obama's position on the war so important that we are willing to partake in a movement that lifts Government up as savior? Not to mention, it shocks me when Christians are willing to overlook abortion as an issue to be put on the scale of discernment. I really don't understand how Christians can get behind a candidate who so assiduously supports abortion. Obama might not proliferate violence against terrorists, but he will support violence against unborn children. Is that like comparing apples and oranges?
Maybe you can help me understand Fitch-- what is it that democratic Christians hope for in Barack Obama?
I don't want to sound sardonic, I really am confused (and disturbed), and I always like your answers.
11:47 PM
David,
I can't believe you would consider voting for Obama. He is an extremist on abortion and think of how many things will follow from that basic position: an end to the US holding back the UN drive to make abortion and contraception the way to "manage" poverty in the third world, the appointment of pro-abortion judges, the end of all limits on abortion such as partial birth abortion ban (he says he will sign the FOCA), etc. The Democrats should be punished by their natural constituency for allowing the pro-abortion extremists to control the party until they realize they have to reach out to working class Catholics and Evangelical voters in order to win elections. Until they do, they deserve to continue losing.
If the issue is war, how can anyone who is aware of US history seriously expect anything different from the Democrats than the Republicans? The Democrats started the war in Vietnam (at least escalated it). The Republicans ended it. I think Obama is just as likely to start another war as McCain. And is a quick US withdrawal from Iraq, now that the damage is done, really going to help Iraqis? Or is it simply a matter of American self-interest to get out now because it is expensive and ugly? I don't have the answers here - I am just saying that this election is not for the purpose of electing someone who can go back in time and make a different decision on invading Iraq.
Obama is more like the Religious Right in his zeal and idealism than McCain is. I worry that he will build up great expectations, based on starry-eyed idealism, that will blow up in everyone's face a couple of years from now. I also think he will further polarize the country, once the radical nature of his policies become apparent.
This is a tough election. Christians have already lost, as far as I can see, because of who has been nominated in both parties. Both parties are ignoring large sections of Gospel driven concern (for the poor - the Republicans, for the unborn - the Democrats). All that remains is to try if possible to limit the damage done. Both candidates will further damage the moral fiber of America; the only sensible thing to discuss now is which candidate (and party) will cause deeper and longer term damage. It seems like a toss up between not voting and voting for McCain with a clothespin on one's nose. One should also hope that neither party gets control of the House, the Senate and the Presidency all at once.
The most important thing is to look at it from the underside as a minority that is not in control, which is where the Church really is (whether individual Christians know this or not). And this is why I cannot take seriously the Emergent Church/Sojourners Niebuhrian approach, with its trimphalism, its reduction of the Gospel to the materialistic dimension of life, and its civil religion.
6:27 PM
OK Craig, that does it! You're right. I'm not going to vote in this election either (I'm serious).
Peace bro, the peace of Christ ...
12:11 PM
How would your response change if you lived in a nation like Australia, where voting is compulsory. With his hyperbolic rhetoric, would Hauerwas describe that? A form of totalitarianism, I guess. But like many Australians (inc. Christians), there are distinct advantages in expecting all citizens to exercise their democratic responsibilities. Surely the American system is "government of the people, for the people, by SOME OF the people"?
If voting in western democracies is a form of violence (he can't be serious?!), then I would happily take that form of violence rather than the rule of monarchs, oligarchs, authoritarian or totalitarian regimes. Perhaps Hauerwas needs to spend some time visiting nations ruled by (or formerly ruled by) authoritarian/ totalitarian regimes. I'm sure the people there would happily accept the 'violence' of voting.
I recognise that some forms of representative government (and their associated voting procedures such as proportional representation) are more democratic in character (and hence less violent in terms of Hauerwas' overblown rhetoric) than others in which the "winner takes all" (such as "first past the post" or "preferential" voting).
Proportional representation promotes cooperation between parties and alliance building rather than division and competition.
I would contend that some forms of democratic representation are indeed more just than others, but that still doesn't mean they're "violent". To use such extreme language denigrates and diminishes those people both today and in the past who REALLY have suffered (died!) under violent regimes.
8:01 AM
David (and others),
Anthony Smith has posted a response (of sorts) today on the Emergent Village blog:
http://www.emergentvillage.com/weblog/not-voting-as-violence
Please read it and respond to it if you would.
Thanks,
Steve K.
4:30 AM
As a Christian we are exhorted to hear the Word of the Lord. His Word says that if we humble ourselves and pray and turn from our wicked ways He will heal our land. If we are spending more energy on who to vote for instead of acting justly, loving mercy, and walking in humility with our God, perhaps we have missunderstood what it means to live as strangers in a strange land. Our hope should never be in a nice person or someone who can promise us security...once we take that path it's difficult to see it any other way.
6:43 AM
a black guy I know said he always gets suspicious when white folks say it is good not to vote. or get political. hauerwas? this whole damn nation of america is based on the anti-christian value of rebellion by force. that said, you either secede 100%, declare yourself not an american, do not vote, and do not pay taxes. But if you do decide that them old timey christians paid taxes, you are an idiot not to vote. you can write in a candidate. you can pick the lesser of two evils. if you think obama will make america more the kingdom of god you are crazy. but if you think he can make it a more just, sane, loving place to live, you might be right. whatever you do, whoever you agree or don't agree with, if at the least you don't write in shane claiborne for president, you are not using a gift. for the stiffnecked among you, remember jesus said to use dishonest wealth for the kingdom. a democracy built on violence, such as ours, is dishonest wealth we do not deserve. but we might as well use it. the ability to vote is the ability to have a voice in a liberal free society. women and blacks fought for the right to be heard. I think anyone who thinks "voting is violence" needs a real physical beatdown. they need to watch their kids bleed a litte. or be the black guy pulled over by a white cop. voting as violence? you never felt violence, mr. "rich-white-privileged" hauerwas.
3:57 AM
http://www.emergentvillage.com/weblog/not-voting-as-violence
3:59 AM
Absolutely unbelievable. Not only could I disagree more with the belligerent message of the emergent churchI can not express how sick it makes me to see Christians supporting Obama. There is absolutely ZERO reason to support him. He is not anti-war. You can't prove that he was against Iraq when it began. God put George W. Bush in power to punish evildoers, did He not? It's blatantly in the Bible! Romans 13...
Unborn children are not evil doers but Obama passionately supports killing him. He is the single most pro-abortion/choice candidate in our nations history. Abortion is inherently evil! How can you possibly justify voting for him? This is mind numbing! Obama supports the racist program of Affirmative action, a program that says "blacks can't do it on their own, they need white help"
Obama does not support the poor, democrats do not support the poor. Democrats control almost every single poor city in the USA and they've had that control for years and each city keeps getting worse. Tell me how they care for the poor? By keeping them poor and instilling an entitlement mentality into their brains? Yea, that's REAL Christian.
You have to be kidding! I certainly do not endorse McCain or think he's a great Christian candidate but a Christian simply can not justify voting for a man that lies and lies and lies and despises people for 'clinging to religion.' There is NOTHING I can find about Obama that the Bible supports.
But alas the Bible is just a bunch of black and white issues right?
Unbelievable. It is sickening that Christians are going to this great of lengths to be liked by the world. If we are doing God's will, the world will definitely not like us very much.
Hence why the world hates George W. Bush.
3:58 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home