The Wandering Heretic

Voting season has come to the American shores. Again, I chose, among a set of people I would not wish to lead me to the ice cream store, just which one gets my vote…or if I should vote at all. It may be surprising, in view of the last few decades, but the connection between voting and being a Christian was not always as rock solid as it is today. Nor am I limiting myself to the connection between “right wing” Republican voting as has been the pattern since Reagan and the “Evangelical vote.” I am referring to the practice of Christians voting at all.

Many of my literary if not physical mentors decried voting for secular leaders. Jacques Ellul, the great French Christian lay theologian, thought Christians should not be involved in the political process at all. For example he, in conformity with his “anarchic Christian” leanings, wrote the following concerning Christians running for office or even voting:

But there is still the delicate point of participation in elections. Should anarchists vote? If so, should they form a party? For my part, like many anarchists, I think not. To vote is to take part in the organization of the false democracy that has been set up forcefully by the middle class. No matter whether one votes for the left or the right, the situation is the same. Again, to organize a party is necessarily to adopt a hierarchical structure and to wish to have a share in the exercise of power. We must never forget to what degree the holding of political power corrupts.

Another follower of Ellul, in a reference I unfortunately can no longer find (perhaps it was Vernard Eller), modified the “no voting” stance quoted above. Instead, the Christian should not vote for a politician unless that politician was certain to lose. In effect, vote for the politician that would most reflect your values and ideology, even if that candidate had not a ghost of a chance of winning. Christian Anarchist would say, “especially if he had not a ghost of a chance of winning.” Many Christians who promote third party candidates (such as the hosts of Covenant Radio—at least during the 2004 campaign) in effect also promote a “vote but throw away that vote” philosophy.

Another Christian Site gives 10 reasons Christians should note vote. Most of the 10 actually boil down to one: Christians belong to God’s government and therefore should not vote for man’s (or Satan’s).

The ultimate destiny of Christians is to become kings and priests, ruling with Christ in the kingdom of God (Rev. 5:20). But every Christian has an important diplomatic job here and now. God’s people represent a foreign government, because, as Paul declared, “Our citizenship is in heaven” (Phil. 3:20)…As ambassadors for God’s future government, Christians must exemplify His way—His “holy nation” (1 Pet. 2:9). They are to represent the peace, order and abundant joy inherent in the spiritual government to which they owe their true allegiance. They are, in Christ’s words, to be lights to the world (Matt. 5:14-16). And the “Father of lights” (Jms. 1:17) will not permit His children (Eph. 4:8-9) to hide their good examples “under a bushel.”

So since Christians are “citizens of heaven” they should not vote or use their citizenship in any way on this earth. (I wonder what Paul would say about that absolute ethical border, per his behavior in Acts 21:39; 22:28?)

Finally, many would question the motives Christians should have in voting in secular elections. Many Christians vote either to “return America to its Christian origins” or to “establish a Christian nation.” Both Gregory Boyd and the late William Stringfellow attack both of those motives from different directions. Boyd, in his book, The Myth of the Christian Nation: How the Quest for Political Power is Destroying the Church:

Arguing from Scripture and history, Dr. Boyd makes a compelling case that whenever the church gets too close to any political or national ideology, it is disastrous for the church and harmful to society. Dr. Boyd contends that the American Evangelical Church has allowed itself to be co-opted by the political right (and in some cases by the political left) and exposes how this is harming the church’s unique calling to build the kingdom of God. In the course of his argument, Dr. Boyd challenges some of the most deeply held convictions of evangelical Christians in America – for example, that America is, or ever was, “a Christian nation” or that Christians ought to be trying to “take America back for God.”

Stringfellow, a Christian Lawyer from the Left, takes a different but similar tack on the “America is a Christian Nation” theme. In his book, The Politics of Spirituality, he claims it is idolatrous and even blasphemous for any nation to claim it is a “Christian Nation.” According to the Doctoral Thesis by Marshall Johnson on Bomblast, Blasphemy, and the Bastard Gospel: William Stringfellow and American Exceptionalism, the title of “Christian Nation” is reserved for the church and the church alone.

Stringfellow criticized vehemently the idea that America was a “Christian nation.” He described that view as “utterly without biblical warrant” and “apostate.” As I have already discussed, for Stringfellow no country, empire, or nation of this world can make the claim that it is Christian. Only the Church in its various idealized expressions can make that claim. He declared, “The Christian nation that exists in the world – the historic Christian nation – is in fact the Church of Christ.”

Though Stringfellow would have strongly encouraged voting, the motive of the vote being a prophetic call for the American nation to live up to its “Christian” roots appears to be for him historically and biblically dubious. For that reason, though his vitriol appears to have been most reserved for Republican presidents (Nixon and Reagan), he also denounced the “great society” of Johnson, et al. as well.

Yet, though I agree with many of the above points, I in fact think some of them actually develop into reasons for Christians to vote. Even more, I suggest they give even more support to the notion that they should only vote in the case where the candidate has a prospect of winning. However, with Stringfellow, I agree. The paradigm is not that we vote to return America to its ‘Christian roots.” The argument needs to be restructured along different, though related, lines.

More to come (obviously!)

This entry was posted on Tuesday, October 14th, 2008 at 4:18 pm and is filed under Culture. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. Or, if you wish, you can find all the posts Caine