I hear you (and other Anabaptist/anarchist voices) saying "I don’t believe the voting booth is where I should stand." But how long are you going to "stand" for paying taxes that feed the Empire and "its penchant for war, expansion, wealth-creation, and being first"? Are you going to live below poverty level to avoid having to pay taxes? I know some are doing list. Are you willing to go that far? Choosing not to vote is easy.
I don't doubt your sincerity and commitment to kingdom living, but saying that to vote is to participate in Empire is, in my opinion, a ridiculous oversimplification. I respect Shane Claiborne, Mark Van S., and others in this conversation immensely, but my concern is that thousands of "Jesus For President" fans will choose not to vote (based on these anti-Empire principles) but not do much else in the way of radically investing their lives in kingdom mission -- and by not voting, allow the same political party and political values that elevate the rich over the poor to continue its reign over this country.
I'd much rather participate in BOTH the electoral process (and hope for a better outcome than the last eight years) AND radical kingdom living and mission. I think this either/or thinking is bollocks, if I'm going to be perfectly honest.
markvans
· 1 year ago
Great point, Steve (about choosing not to vote being easy). I'm not convinced (at all) that a vote for Obama will do anything at all to rectify the previous 8 years. You can say that either/or thinking is bollocks, but that (to me) grossly simplifies the position that I have.
However, I think that non-voting is, by itself, nothing. To me, non-voting isn't useful as some sort of strategy for withdrawal or "opting out." However, it is useful if it is part of an overall strategy of alternative politics. To me, this requires creating alternative systems, engaging in community-building, protest, civil disobedience, etc.
joet
· 1 year ago
Absolutely. Well said Mark, I respect your position far more for hearing that.
gyakusetsu
· 1 year ago
I would also say that non-voting is also non-support, and non-responsibility. I don't want to be complicit in the sins that the person I could have voted for commit. I don't want to aid in helping them have the power to order killing. I don't want to aid in them being paid a salary that is collected by force. I don't want to aid in them lying and pandering. etc.
Rather, I want to encourage change through non-violent means, through the Kingdom and voluntary interaction, rather than via the Sword.
And, Mark, I absolutely agreed about alternative systems. I am particularly reading a lot on various forms of mutualism and agorism, lately.
knightopia
· 1 year ago
Hey Mark, I'd be interested in hearing more about this idea of "alternative politics" and "creating alternative systems." Are you guys really committed to "unplugging" from ALL of the Empire? I'd say more power to ya, but I'm still waiting to see how that works practically speaking. I mean, even the Amish pay taxes, right?
I realize I'm being simplistic here, so touche on that point. I do realize that I'm writing a comment on a blog post, so this isn't exactly a systematic theology or anything (on either side). And I'm not trying to be cynical here (I'm voting the candidate who is touting "Hope," right?), but I am pretty skeptical that the majority of Claibornagains out there are really going beyond just "opting out" to the "overall strategy" you are talking about. My concern is that "Jesus For President" has become a rallying cry for the disinterested and disaffected to just not care about what happens in our present political/governmental system. This is honestly what I'm hearing from more and more people every day: "I just don't care about this election." With so much at stake, it troubles me that "Jesus For President" may just be a philosophical/theological/intellectual "Eject" button for a lot of people. Does this concern you at all??
gyakusetsu
· 1 year ago
Excellent post.
My only concern is your inclusion of "wealth-creation" as a presumably bad thing.
Can you explain how the creation of wealth is a bad thing? Is wealth creation not how we feed and clothe an exponentially expanding population? Or do you presume that we can just get by with whatever exists right now forever?
joet
· 1 year ago
I don't think there is a problem with wealth creation in a fundamental sense. In a community where everyone has access to exactly the same resources and the same training and ability, I guess there would be no opportunities to make money. Given that currency was originally a proxy for bartering work and products, inequalities are inevitable when some are more driven, intelligent, hard-working, creative etc than others.
However, our economy is not based on rewarding the hard-working. Our economy is based on a global system of Apartheid where those who work hardest see least of the benefits and wealth is mostly accumulated in the hands of the few. If our wealth has been accumulated by the exploitation of people (and/or natural resources, which often goes hand-in-hand), it is undoubtedly a bad thing.
Unfortunately, we all unwittingly participate in this evil, and it is hard to see how to break down the system. The millions who barely scrape together a life so that we can retail products to sustain our standard of living are simply disposable parts of the machinery. Those at the bottom (and there is a big bottom with almost 3 billion people below the $2 per day poverty threshold) are often directly or indirectly victims of our own vanity and greed.
Paul
· 1 year ago
"Five years and 60,000 deaths later…"
That is a typo, right? I think the conservative estimate would be more like 600,000. The president's "shock & awe" speech in March of 2003 was what transformed my fear that Bush was no Christian from a "probably" to a "definitely." It wasn't simply what he had done by way of invading Iraq without real cause. What really got me was at the end of his speech when he asked the nation to pray for "our soldiers" and for the families of any them who had been injured or killed.
Setting aside the troubling fact that Bush had already said God had personally okayed this course of action, one has to wonder how anyone could stand there and address the nation knowing full well that US bombs had already killed thousands (and most likely tens of thousands) of innocent civilians and, as the supposed born-again Christian leader of a supposedly Christian nation, not ask that nation to also pray for them and their families. And of course he closed his speech with a "May God bless America."
I've often wondered how different things would have been had he actually been the type of man who could have genuinely asked his country to pray for all of the victims and then asked God to bless us as well as the Iraqis. And how different things would have turned out, given what he actually did say, had this supposedly Christian nation snapped out of its Rovian Stupor and realized that whatever god this politician was getting directions from it was way, way smaller than the one Jesus was calling Father.
Maria Kirby
· 1 year ago
I agree with you that "In the end, Barack Obama and John McCain will be just as interested in Empire-building and war-mongering as any other president who has come along." However, I disagree with your analogy of the President being the equivalent of a king. If you look back on the history of other empires you will notice that they were plagued with civil war. The succession of political power was almost always determined by force. Voting does not change the nature of politicians to pursue empire-building and war-mongering, but it does reduce the violence associated with the change of power from one faction to another. In my mind, voting promotes peace -at least domestically. While I agree that there are a lot of things wrong with our system, the fact that we have a constitution, that we can influence changes politically without resorting to violence is a giant step in the right direction. I like the fact that there is a public debate about issues. In some respects it is more important to have people thinking and debating how their country should be run than in the details of who actually wins the election. The public debate helps our leaders know what is important to citizens. It helps our leaders make better laws.
In my mind the flaw with voting is that people view that as their only public responsibility, when in fact voting is what gives the citizen power to influence his government in other ways, i.e. letter writing, etc. It's not like our elected officials have made up their minds before being elected and then they won't change after their elected.
Also, there is no rule that says we have to vote either Republican or Democrat. I think the either/or mentality has gotten us kind of stuck. Life just isn't so black and white. And the candidates aren't really so different from each other that we need to think that one or the other or both are of the devil.
All Comments
I hear you (and other Anabaptist/anarchist voices) saying "I don’t believe the voting booth is where I should stand." But how long are you going to "stand" for paying taxes that feed the Empire and "its penchant for war, expansion, wealth-creation, and being first"? Are you going to live below poverty level to avoid having to pay taxes? I know some are doing list. Are you willing to go that far? Choosing not to vote is easy.
I don't doubt your sincerity and commitment to kingdom living, but saying that to vote is to participate in Empire is, in my opinion, a ridiculous oversimplification. I respect Shane Claiborne, Mark Van S., and others in this conversation immensely, but my concern is that thousands of "Jesus For President" fans will choose not to vote (based on these anti-Empire principles) but not do much else in the way of radically investing their lives in kingdom mission -- and by not voting, allow the same political party and political values that elevate the rich over the poor to continue its reign over this country.
I'd much rather participate in BOTH the electoral process (and hope for a better outcome than the last eight years) AND radical kingdom living and mission. I think this either/or thinking is bollocks, if I'm going to be perfectly honest.
However, I think that non-voting is, by itself, nothing. To me, non-voting isn't useful as some sort of strategy for withdrawal or "opting out." However, it is useful if it is part of an overall strategy of alternative politics. To me, this requires creating alternative systems, engaging in community-building, protest, civil disobedience, etc.
Rather, I want to encourage change through non-violent means, through the Kingdom and voluntary interaction, rather than via the Sword.
And, Mark, I absolutely agreed about alternative systems. I am particularly reading a lot on various forms of mutualism and agorism, lately.
I realize I'm being simplistic here, so touche on that point. I do realize that I'm writing a comment on a blog post, so this isn't exactly a systematic theology or anything (on either side). And I'm not trying to be cynical here (I'm voting the candidate who is touting "Hope," right?), but I am pretty skeptical that the majority of Claibornagains out there are really going beyond just "opting out" to the "overall strategy" you are talking about. My concern is that "Jesus For President" has become a rallying cry for the disinterested and disaffected to just not care about what happens in our present political/governmental system. This is honestly what I'm hearing from more and more people every day: "I just don't care about this election." With so much at stake, it troubles me that "Jesus For President" may just be a philosophical/theological/intellectual "Eject" button for a lot of people. Does this concern you at all??
My only concern is your inclusion of "wealth-creation" as a presumably bad thing.
Can you explain how the creation of wealth is a bad thing? Is wealth creation not how we feed and clothe an exponentially expanding population? Or do you presume that we can just get by with whatever exists right now forever?
However, our economy is not based on rewarding the hard-working. Our economy is based on a global system of Apartheid where those who work hardest see least of the benefits and wealth is mostly accumulated in the hands of the few. If our wealth has been accumulated by the exploitation of people (and/or natural resources, which often goes hand-in-hand), it is undoubtedly a bad thing.
Unfortunately, we all unwittingly participate in this evil, and it is hard to see how to break down the system. The millions who barely scrape together a life so that we can retail products to sustain our standard of living are simply disposable parts of the machinery. Those at the bottom (and there is a big bottom with almost 3 billion people below the $2 per day poverty threshold) are often directly or indirectly victims of our own vanity and greed.
That is a typo, right? I think the conservative estimate would be more like 600,000. The president's "shock & awe" speech in March of 2003 was what transformed my fear that Bush was no Christian from a "probably" to a "definitely." It wasn't simply what he had done by way of invading Iraq without real cause. What really got me was at the end of his speech when he asked the nation to pray for "our soldiers" and for the families of any them who had been injured or killed.
Setting aside the troubling fact that Bush had already said God had personally okayed this course of action, one has to wonder how anyone could stand there and address the nation knowing full well that US bombs had already killed thousands (and most likely tens of thousands) of innocent civilians and, as the supposed born-again Christian leader of a supposedly Christian nation, not ask that nation to also pray for them and their families. And of course he closed his speech with a "May God bless America."
I've often wondered how different things would have been had he actually been the type of man who could have genuinely asked his country to pray for all of the victims and then asked God to bless us as well as the Iraqis. And how different things would have turned out, given what he actually did say, had this supposedly Christian nation snapped out of its Rovian Stupor and realized that whatever god this politician was getting directions from it was way, way smaller than the one Jesus was calling Father.
In my mind the flaw with voting is that people view that as their only public responsibility, when in fact voting is what gives the citizen power to influence his government in other ways, i.e. letter writing, etc. It's not like our elected officials have made up their minds before being elected and then they won't change after their elected.
Also, there is no rule that says we have to vote either Republican or Democrat. I think the either/or mentality has gotten us kind of stuck. Life just isn't so black and white. And the candidates aren't really so different from each other that we need to think that one or the other or both are of the devil.