10 comments

• 

  markvans

  1 year ago

  Love the article...but I gotta push back on the notion that non-voting is a sort of sidestepping, smug, evasion of duty.
  
  If someone is apathetically withdrawing from voting or treating non-voting like an "I wash my hands of this whole thing" sort of moment, then I agree. In fact, people usually assume that my non voting falls into one of these categories.
  
  I don't no-vote in order to extricate myself from the system. Instead, I choose to let my kingdom vision determine the way in which I am going to engage the system. I could probably write about 5 pages about this, but I've already written about this stuff already...so I'll spare everyone the lecture. :)
  reply
• 

  Ted

  1 year ago

  I'm with Mark. I'm not interested in anathematizing voting, but I too push back at the allegation of irresponsibility against those of us who abstain. I abstain for the "noble" reasons described in the article (and I'm also with Mark that the article is very good!), and resonate with Mark's reasons as well, and I have some of my own:
  
  The candidates in question are professed Christians, and to vote for either of them would mean supporting them in a decision to exert power that I do not feel I could claim for myself. In particular, this person would be commander-in-chief of the armed forces who will almost certainly have to exert life-and-death power over others. I cannot adjudicate the sincerity of their claims to faith, and it would be disingenuous of me to ask a Christian brother to do something that I consider unavailable to myself, even if they have no qualms about it. To put it with bumper-sticker simplicity, friends don't let friends bomb people.
  
  Another reason is informed by my faith but not necessarily determined by it: I don't vote because I don't believe in modern democracy and I don't consent to be governed. I agree to be subject, in keeping with my calling as a Christian, but I do not see that as the same thing. I abstain not out of apathy, in but in dissent.
  reply
• 

  Ted

  1 year ago

  BTW -- None of my quibbling about the voting thing should take away from the awesomeness of a turn-of-phrase like "In the light of His kingdom, all other executives are just lame ducks," or "Ellul-ebullient." That's good stuff.
  reply
• 

  zackallen

  1 year ago

  Great article.
  
  I have to side with Mark and Ted about the non-voting thing. If the abstinence is out of apathy then I believe there is a problem. I feel like I care about what happens in the political realm just as much anyone else. But like Mark said, "I choose to let my kingdom vision determine the way in which I am going to engage the system."
  
  And always remember kids, "friends don't let friends bomb people." I love it.
  
  in Him,
  >>zack
  reply
• 

  BDRhodes

  1 year ago

  Zack -- Thanks, and I'll ditto Mark's kingdom-as-engagement-rudder idea. Well said indeed.
  
  My prolonged pot-shots at the no-vote crowd is perhaps because I have most interacted with it via a couple house-churches that are very non-missional, very disengaged. "Our mission is to be the church," is the common line I've heard. They're often hesitant to say that we are God's people blessed-to-be-a-blessing, kingdom folks who advocate for, incarnate with, and befriend the last, lost, and least. "Our mission is not to transform the neighborhood." -- granted, but our mission of "being the church" will itself invariably through relationships and neighborliness wind up transforming the neighborhood.
  
  My point, and here I'm shooting from the hip, is that if you're not going to vote (which is fine) then you'd better also be engaging your neighborhood positively ("seek the shalom of the city" is how Jeremiah might say it). When I hear the no-vote argument from disengaged people who have built up theological walls around not just voting, but all engagement, then my patience begins to wear thin indeed. We're not saved to become Essenes, for heaven's sake.
  
  OK, that's my two (rather grumpy, sorry) cents. :)
  
  Pax Christo,
  Brandon
  reply
• 

  zackallen

  1 year ago

  Right on, bro. I think I'm with ya there.
  
  Some of what you were saying (esp. "but our mission of 'being the church' will itself invariably through relationships and neighborliness wind up transforming the neighborhood.") reminded of something one of my pastors once told me. As a Christian wherever we go, things should get better. I think that what "better" means may be up for debate, but I think the general gist is the same.
  
  in love,
  >>zack
  reply
• 

  Michael Cline

  1 year ago

  Brandon, great article. There are some really heavy sentences in here that should make us all stop, think, and maybe even pray. I love the way you used "election" language (and in my Arminianism, I'm glad you didn't go too far into the definition--"election" is a word my camp likes to bypass) :) .
  
  I'd agree with my non-voting brothers below me here. I got a little self-righteous when you called me a Pharisee...oh wait, maybe that's the problem. You nailed me. But, even though I disagree with some of those "prolonged pot-shots," I'm glad you wrote this article and that we could get it up on JM because our readers have already heard long arguments from the non-voting crowd. Mark, myself, and a few others have already written that viewpoint to death. So thanks for being willing to represent a more middle ground and give a lot more people a platform to shake their heads with.
  reply
• 

  Darren

  1 year ago

  The lumping of Jim Wallis with James Dobson or with people who "tell you that your election is about elections" is absolutely absurd. I know it's really popular (and maybe even somewhat warranted) to speak of the rise of the "Christian Left" or whatever you might call it (the Constantianism of the Left), but I'm kind of tired of seeing Jim Wallis thrown in there as though he isn't theologically "sophisticated", or takes Election Day more seriously than God's election of the world in Christ. That is patently false and just plain condescending.
  reply
• 

  markvans

  1 year ago

  There are certainly differences between Dobson and Wallis. But there are certain similarities.
  
  For the record, it is much more popular to embrace the rise of the Christian Left than it is to decry it, unless (of course) you are on the religious right. None of the folks who frequent here fall into that category.
  
  I find it very tellign that you find it condescending for someone to find similaries between Wallis and that horrible Dobson fellow. After all, Wallis is sophisticated and that Dobson isn't.
  
  Doesn't that show that you're condescending towards the religious right? I would never argue that Dobson isn't theologically sophisticated. My issue with him isn't that Dobson is stupid. It is that I disagree with his understanding of theology and politics.
  
  I have no doubt I agree with Wallis on many more issues than Dobson. But his mistake is akin to the mistake of Dobson: aligning with political power to achieve Kingdom goals. That is an honest critique. Not a condescending one.
  reply
• 

  hewhocutsdown

  1 year ago

  Jim Wallis, Tony Campolo, and some other well-known, well-respected Christian leaders are also, whether they want to be or not, becoming poster-children for the rise of a left-leaning, politically active evangelical population.
  
  I personally don't see much difference between, say, Campolo and Colson. I respect both men, and believe them both to be dedicated, intent Christ followers. But as Mark was describing, we disagree on the mechanics.
  
  There is a wonderful debate between Chuck Colson, Greg Boyd and Shane Claiborne, and the results were hilarious. In theory they were pretty much all on the same page, but the practice was incredibly divergent.
  
  The point being made here is that the evangelical left's practice is much more akin to Colson than Claiborne, even if it's political ideas are the other way around.
  reply