Song of the Week: "One Voice" by The Wailin' Jennys

by Ben Howard

Happy Saturday! I hope you've had a good week and I hope you're starting a good weekend.

I spent the first four days of this week going through all of the reasons you should or shouldn't vote and I hope that series has been useful and enlightening for you. I know I've learned a lot putting it together and it's really helped me gain perspective on the election.

Here are those pieces if you want to catch up:
Why You Should Vote for Mitt Romney
Why You Should Vote for Barack Obama
Why You Should Vote for a Third Party
Why You Shouldn't Vote

With all of these posts and discussions in mind, I wanted to find a Song of the Week that would remind us of the unity that defines us even in the face of our diversity.

With that in mind, this week's Song of the Week is "One Voice" by The Wailin' Jennys.

I hope you enjoy!

Peace,
Ben

We are always accepting submissions for On Pop Theology. Submissions should be 500 to 1000 words and we recommend that you write about any topic you actually enjoy. If you have any questions, you can follow Ben on Twitter @BenHoward87 or email him at benjamin.howard87 [at] gmail.com.

The Election Chronicles: Why You Shouldn't Vote

by Ben Howard

This week in The Election Chronicles we've covered the reasons you should vote for Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, and then yesterday, the reasons you should vote for a third party candidate. However, there is one last option that we have yet to cover.

Today I'm going to address the reasons, as a Christian, you shouldn't vote.

Before I start into these reasons I want to make two things very clear: First, none of these choices is morally superior to any of the others. There are legitimate reasons for choosing any of these options and I will defend your choice of any of them, even if I disagree with you. Second, I will not be voting so this is my personal, non-objective position on the subject. I understand if you disagree, there are plenty of reasons to do so, but please do so respectfully.

As I see it, there are two arguments for why you shouldn't vote. First, you should not vote because voting for a candidate makes you culpable in all of their actions, including acts of violence. Essentially, if you vote for a presidential candidate and then that candidate takes us into a war, you also have blood on your hands. If that candidate oppresses the poor or the marginalized with their policies, your vote allowed him the power for that to happen.

Typically, this decision not to vote is one of protest against the power of empire. It argues that in a democratic system, such as ours, power is in the hands of the people, therefore to vote is to legitimize the power of the empire both for good and for bad. As a result, dissenting and not exercising this legitimizing authority undermines the power of the empire.

Honestly, I disagree with this reasoning. I don't think voting makes you responsible for the acts of the empire, I think being a citizen does. Everything the government does, both domestically and overseas is done in the name of all its citizens not just the ones who voted, or even the ones who voted the ruling party into power. A citizen of the United States is responsible for the acts of the nation, both good and bad.

Most of you are probably grimacing while you read that statement, but I would argue that it holds to Judeo-Christian understandings of corporate responsibility. The community is responsible for the decisions of its members and citizens are responsible for the actions of their nation. Remember, all of Israel went into exile, not just the kings and leaders.

So why don't I vote?

I do not vote because I do not consider myself a citizen of this nation and as such I do not believe I have the right to dictate the direction the nation takes. As a Christian, I consider myself a citizen of the Kingdom of God currently living in exile in a foreign land. 

As an exile, I hold to the ideas Jeremiah expresses in Jeremiah 29:7 when he says, "Also, seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray to the LORD for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper." However, while I pray for the peace and prosperity of the nation, and continue to be very engaged in the dialogue and discussion concerning how this should come about, I do not believe I am in the position to decide that direction because it is ultimately not my country.

I know that this sounds idealistic, and some of you probably view it as arrogant as well, but I promise that is not what I intend. I'm hoping to convey this as an attitude of humility. I may rant and rave and write a week long series about politics to try and influence the conversation, but at the end of the day, it is not my choice, though I will live with whatever decision is made.

I'd love to hear your comments and I'm so glad that so many of you have read through these pieces. I hope they've been helpful for you because they've been enlightening for me.

Peace,
Ben

You can follow Ben on Twitter @BenHoward87 or email him at benjamin.howard87 [at] gmail.com.

Also, you can subscribe to On Pop Theology via RSS feed or email on the top right corner of the main page.

The Election Chronicles: Why You Should Vote for a Third Party

by Ben Howard

Today we're going to continue The Election Chronicles series with the reasons why you should vote for a third party candidate. Monday I looked at reasons to vote for Mitt Romney and Tuesday I explored the reasons to vote for Barack Obama. Tomorrow, I'll look at reasons why you shouldn't vote.

Two reminders about this series. First, I'm trying to only address positive reasons why you would vote for a candidate. This entire series is based around trying to foster a supportive, productive political discussion. Second, I'm viewing this predominantly through the lens of why a Christian would vote for this candidate, so we're looking on a prouder scale than what would be in the best interest of the country.

So, why should you vote for a third party candidate?

You shouldn't. They won't win.

At least that's the easily pragmatic answer. And it's true, at least the second part is. A third party candidate is not going to win the White House, not this year, probably not in 4 years, probably not in 20 either. However, I don't think that's a reason why you shouldn't vote for a third party.

Since a third party candidate isn't going to win, I'm not going to focus on specific policies or ideologies. Instead, I'm going to explore the reasons you should vote for a third party that are above and beyond policy preference.

First, you should vote for a third party if you think the political system needs more nuance and more conversation.

The most helpful aspect of a third party is that it provides an additional perspective above and beyond the black and white of the two party system. If there are two clearly defined positions, a third party can provide a third way to those unsatisfied with the accepted norms of political discussions.  

For instance, in this election there are two predominant third party candidates, Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party and Jill Stein of the Green Party. Both of these candidates provide distinctly different views on economics and foreign policy than either of the established parties.

Now, to be fair, part of the reason for this ideological purity comes from not being in power. There are certain pragmatic constraints that come from actually being in the position to govern, but perhaps some new ideologies could turn into more productive and supportive action.

This leads to my next point. You should vote for a third party if you want to push an issue into the mainstream.

My political science professor from college is going to be so proud. When a third party is successful, this is typically how that success comes to fruition. They gain a lot of support, typically centered on one issue, then one of the two big parties adopts that issue and wins big. Think Ross Perot's Reform Party or Theodore Roosevelt's Progressive Party. They succeeded and their success prompted increased fiscal concerns and increased focus on corruption in business and politics, respectively.

If you think that there is an issue that needs to be pushed into the mainstream and neither the Republicans or Democrats is talking about it, then you should vote for a third party candidate who is, and I promise you there is one.

In fact, I think there is a major one and both major third party candidates support it. You should vote for a third party candidate if you support peace.

I fully believe that Christians are called to abstain from war and violence and the major third party candidates happen to agree with this position. Granted, the candidates come to this conclusion from different orientations with the Libertarian's in particular far more focused on the financial consequences of military action and a belief in laissez-faire foreign policy, but they do support peace.



As a Christian, I believe that peace is not only the absence of war, but also the absence of hatred, animosity and discord. It is not merely the absence of fighting, it is the presence of good will and harmony. So perhaps these candidates do not support peace as much as they oppose war, but it is a start nonetheless.

With all of these reasons to consider voting for a third party candidate, I want to share a word of caution just like I have for the two major candidates. First, let me reiterate that you will not win. Second, just because your candidate did not win and had no chance of winning, this does not make you a martyr for your ideology. If you vote for one of these candidates you are intending to play the political long-game. Much like I said for those who support Barack Obama, this does not make you morally superior to those who vote for mainstream candidates, it simply means that you have different priorities and political orientations.

I look forward to your comments and I hope you enjoy/avoid the Presidential debates tonight. Tomorrow, we'll cover why you shouldn't vote.

Peace,
Ben

You can follow Ben on Twitter @BenHoward87 or email him at benjamin.howard87 [at] gmail.com.

Also, you can subscribe to On Pop Theology via RSS feed or email on the top right corner of the main page.

The Election Chronicles: Why You Should Vote for Barack Obama

by Ben Howard

Yesterday we took a look at why a thoughtful Christian could and should vote for Mitt Romney. If you missed it you can read it here. Today we'll take a look at why that same Christian could and should vote for Barack Obama.

I want to remind you that this entire series is predicated on having a more constructive conversation around politics based around what each party, and each voter, is for instead of what they are opposed to.

With all that said, why should you vote for Barack Obama?

First, you should vote for Barack Obama because he supports government assistance for the poor and those without a safety net. 

This position has expressed itself many times, predominantly in the expansion of the healthcare. An Obama administration has and will continue to keep an eye on how it can help the impoverished in our country and how they can help them break free from the cycle of poverty that grips so many.

That isn't to say that the Obama administration, or any administration for that matter, will be able to end poverty, but it is something that Barack Obama has been adamant about. The poor in this country have been underrepresented for too long, and I believe that Barack Obama will do what he can to support them and try to help them out of poverty.

Second, you should vote for Barack Obama because he supports gay marriage. Now, before you get your pitchforks out, let me explain why I say that.

The debate over gay marriage has always been a contentious one mainly because the two sides are not debating on the same grounds. Those in favor of gay marriage argue on the grounds of civil rights while those who oppose gay marriage argue from religious beliefs about sin and homosexuality. I think we can all understand that we aren't having the same conversation.

With that in mind, and remembering that I cringe every time I hear "rights" language invoked, I think we should grant gay and lesbian couples the legal rights contingent in marriage. However, the settlement of the civil rights side of this argument does not answer the religious aspect of the question.

I think that removing the civil rights argument by allowing the legal marriage of gay and lesbian couples, will allow churches to have an honest discussion about whether or not they will support and perform same-sex marriages. If a church supports them, then they will perform them, and if they don't, then they won't. Moreover, I think this could force churches to investigate what they mean by the term marriage in a religious context and how that differs from a legal contract between two consenting parties.

Finally, you should vote for Barack Obama because he supports the environment.

Whether or not you agree with the science that supports global warming, the world and everything in it is part of God's good creation. As a result, we should do our best to care for it and use its resources carefully, deliberately and responsibly. I don't think that using oil and gasoline is bad, but it is in the amounts that we use them. We are wasteful and rip-roaring drunk on fossil fuels. It would probably do us some good to reconsider the way we live our lives in relationship with the world that surrounds us.

With all of this said, I want to leave you with the same reality check that I left yesterday for supporters of Mitt Romney. Even though the government is supporting and aiding the poor financially, they still need you, and they still need me. A check is not the only thing people need to escape the grasp of poverty and the church needs to be deeply, deeply involved in trying to alleviate these ills (as many of them already are). 

Also, and I say this with all due respect, just because you support the poor, and gay rights, and the environment, it does not make you morally superior over those who vote differently or over those who hold different priorities. The arrogance of one party fuels the hatred of the other in a never-ending spiral of loathing and frustration. It divides us and forces us to view each other as caricatures and issue arguments. Remember, the other side is made up of people just like you and there may just be something to what they are saying.

I look forward to hearing your comments and tomorrow we'll address why you should vote for a third party candidate.

Peace,
Ben

You can follow Ben on Twitter @BenHoward87 or email him at benjamin.howard87 [at] gmail.com.

Also, you can subscribe to On Pop Theology via RSS feed or email on the top right corner of the main page.

The Election Chronicles: Why You Should Vote for Mitt Romney

by Ben Howard

Last week I began a series called The Election Chronicles. The main goal of the series is to try and bring about a healthier, positive tone to the conversation about this Fall's presidential election. I'm sure this is an idea that's been tried by many; some I'm sure succeeded, others most likely failed, but either way I hope it's a useful endeavor for us.

You can check out last week's articles here:
An Introduction
Love Drives Out Fear
Top 5 Presidents That Look Like Jesus
Song of the Week: A Savior on Capitol Hill by Derek Webb

This week, I'm going to explore the reasons why a thoughtful Christian person should/would vote for Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, a third party candidate, and finally, why they shouldn't vote at all.

So, why should you vote for Mitt Romney?

First and foremost, voting for Mitt Romney promotes fiscal responsibility. If you've been in church long enough you've heard the phrase "good stewardship" tossed around rather loosely. Typically, in a church setting it's simply a euphemism that means, "Give more," but there is a solid argument that the proper and responsible allocation of one's resources is a virtue. In fact, Dave Ramsey and others have made a cottage industry out of the "Christian virtue" of fiscal responsibility and living without debt.

This may not be the sexiest reason to vote for a candidate, but it is a prudent and pragmatic one. Overwhelming debt and financial constraints can also promote political instability which often comes along with dramatic social upheaval. Voting for a candidate who promotes fiscal responsibility lessens this unlikely, but possible outcome.

Second, I would argue that a Christian should agree with Mitt Romney's position on limiting abortion. Please notice that I did not, and will not, use the phrases pro-life or pro-choice. I think both phrases ring hollow in a Christian context. For instance, the argument that being pro-life applies to the beginning of a life, but not to the rest of it (war, healthcare, social support, death penalty) is simply misleading and untrue. A Christian supports life to it's fullest, and while that includes dissuading the use of abortion, it includes many other things as well.


Also, I would argue that a "right to choose" is a misnomer as well. In fact, all rights language makes me highly uncomfortable. As a Christian, everything we receive whether it be food, shelter, or even our very bodies, is given to us a gracious gift from God. As a result, what is given is not ours and to assert that we have control or dominion over our it, "a right" to it, is to neglect the gift that has been given to us.

I think a Christian can vote for Mitt Romney because he is in favor of limiting abortions, which I think we can all agree is a good thing, but not because he is pro-life.

Finally, I believe that a vote in favor of Mitt Romney is a vote in favor of local authority over national authority. I'm not convinced that this is a global Christian value, in fact, it isn't. There is nothing in the Bible that says local is better than national. However, local is more responsive than national and the church does its best work in its immediate community, the community that it knows.

I think a vote for local authority allows churches to work alongside projects of government aid and to provide the best opportunity for helping people not fall through the cracks. I don't think it's perfect, but a locally oriented plan run by the community is something that the church can support and even partner with in pursuit of a better world.

Let me add a word of caution to all of those who agree with what I've said and will vote this way in November. If you want to limit government spending, then you and your community must be ready to support those in need, for they will still need support. If you want to limit abortions, then you will need to be there in support of the mothers and children and when necessary you will need to adopt and care for these children as your own. If you vote for local authority over national authority, then you must work with these people to help the poor and the marginalized, the sick, the hungry, and the orphaned. 

You are still called to do these things as a child of God, even if you think the government should not pay for them. You should vote the way you think is right, but do not forget who you are when you're done.

I look forward to your comments.

Peace,
Ben

You can follow Ben on Twitter @BenHoward87 or email him at benjamin.howard87 [at] gmail.com.

Also, you can subscribe to On Pop Theology via RSS feed or email on the top right corner of the main page.

Song of the Week: "A Savior On Capitol Hill" by Derek Webb

Happy weekend everybody! I hope you've all had a wonderful week doing whatever it is you do and I hope you've enjoyed reading us here too. Putting together this blog is one of my favorite things to do everyday and I appreciate each one of you so much.

In honor of our ongoing series "The Election Chronicles" this week's Song of the Week is "A Savior On Capitol Hill" by Derek Webb.

Here are the links to the series so far:
An Introduction
Love Drives Out Fear
Top Five Presidents Who Look Like Jesus

Next week we'll be looking at the reasons you should vote for Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, or a third party candidate, and finally, an argument for why you shouldn't vote at all. I'd love to hear any feedback you might have.

As for the song, I think the title makes the content pretty self-explanatory. I hope you enjoy and you can check out Derek's website here. This particular song is from The Ringing Bell album (the sound is based a lot on The Beatles' Revolver record).

Peace,
Ben

You can follow Ben on Twitter @BenHoward87 or email him at benjamin.howard [at] gmail.com.

Also, you can subscribe to On Pop Theology via RSS feed or email on the top right corner of the main page.

The Election Chronicles: Top Five Presidents that Look Like Jesus

by Jonathan Harrison

"He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,

nothing in his appearance that we should desire him." (Isaiah 53:2 NIV)

Of course, Isaiah forgot to mention  that Jesus would resemble a white Anglo Saxon Protestant with a pleasant smile. We can't really blame him though; Isaiah wrote in the 8th century BC, long before artistic interpretations of the Savior could be painted by White Anglo Saxon Males (who would be Protestant if they had a choice, naturally) and posted in every sanctuary in the Mediterranean. Logically speaking, if Jesus were to resemble anyone in the history of the world, it would be one of the members of the elitist of the elite WASPs: our U.S. Presidents (except for Kennedy and Obama {obviously}). Today I give you, the top five U.S. presidents that look like Jesus.


Martin Van Buren
Claim to Fame: 8th President
Little Known Facts: First president to be born a U.S. citizen. Also only president to not grow up speaking English, which brings into serious question whether he was actually qualified to be president (as the liberal media would like you to forget).
Beard factor: .  Not really bearded, but he paved the way. Sweet burns though.

Rutherford B. Hayes
Claim to Fame:19th President
Little known fact: At one time, he was alive.
Beard Factor:  X 10. Dude had a sick beard though. Leader in the clubhouse?







Ulysses S. Grant
Claim to Fame: 18th President
Little known fact: His autobiography is considered the best of its kind. Also raging drunkard according to the Animaniacs. Finally, in 1999 he appeared in the Will Smith steam-punk film "Wild Wild West." Sources say this was not actually him, but an actor in disguise.
Beard Factor:  X 7, maybe good enough for an apostle.

James Garfield:
Claim to Fame: 20th Presidency
Little known fact: Presidency lasted 200 days. 2nd shortest Presidency (got shot). A famous orange cat is named after him because, according to the creator, the name reminded him of "...a fat cat...or a St. Bernard...or a neat line of thermal underwear." Incidentally, James Garfield owned a pair of thermal underwear (unsourced).
Beard Factor:  X 9. Sadly, unlike the office of president, there is no vice-Christ. Sorry James.

Benjamin Harrison
Claim to Fame: 23rd President
Little known fact: Was first president to offer a billion dollar budget making him yet another tax and spend liberal. Was a republican. Had beard.
Beard Factor:  X8 (Editor's note: I think this is where my beard is at the moment. Good job namesake.)




I hope you've enjoyed this exploration of United States history. Now go out there and literally vote Jesus for President. Or at least make Mitt Romney grow a little stubble.

Jonathan wrote this. He is a person. He does not have a beard. He makes up for it by having Twitter: @jonateharrison.

Also, you can subscribe to On Pop Theology via RSS feed or email on the top right corner of the main page.

The Election Chronicles: Love Drives Out Fear

by Ben Howard

One of my tasks at work includes responding to emails that come in to our general inbox. I've only been in this particular job for about two months, so I only began responding to these emails about a month ago. This inbox has become one of the highlights of my day and it's not because of the conversations with customers.

Apparently, someone, once upon a time, signed our general work email account up for Tea Party email blasts and they are AMAZING!

Not only have they taught me about Barack Obama's numerous secret identities (did you know he was born in Kenya?!?), I also learned that he's a card carrying member of the Communist party!!! I didn't even know they made cards for that anymore!

But let me save the best for last, apparently, if Barack HUSSEIN Obama doesn't win this election, he's planning a military coup to overthrow the government!!! Granted, if you have the ability to mount a military coup then I'm not sure why you'd go through the grueling process of a campaign, but....exclamation points!!!

Clearly, I'm being entirely facetious. At least I hope it was clear because most of that was taken verbatim from the emails I'm referencing.

I've never been a fan of conspiracy theories. I think we landed on the moon. I think the JFK assassination was weird, but there was only one gunman. I'm confident 9/11 was not an inside job. I would say that banks did not commit fraud during the financial collapse of 2008, but they certainly committed stupidity. And yes, I'm convinced that Barack Obama was born in the United States, assuming convinced is the correct word for something I never questioned for a moment.


It's really hard to lie that big without people finding out. Ask Richard Nixon.

So why do these stories persist? Easy. We don't trust each other. At all. In fact, you can probably say that we're terrified of each other.


A couple weeks ago Peter Enns wrote a great article entitled "Dear Christian: If the Thought of Either Romney or Obama Getting Elected Make You Fearful, Angry, or Depressed, You Have What We Call a Theological Problem."

He goes on to talk about how politics have become a rival eschatology to Christianity and how hope in politics has replaced hope in an authentic salvation that politicians and governments can never fully supply.

I think he's right, but I also think we need to remember the call to love our neighbor and remember that "There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear."

This is what I was getting at yesterday when I said that I want to know what you're for, and not what you're against. I want to know what you love, and I want that love, that hope, that anticipation for something better to drive out the fear that infects us all so deeply.

Will a person be able to provide this? No. Will an election take us closer to the world as it was intended to be? I can't say that it's likely. But we can still hope. We can still try.

We are not called by God to recreate and redeem his world on our own, we are called to work alongside him as he reclaims and redeems his creation.

Maybe politics can help in this redemption, and maybe it can't, but either way let us remember that the person on the other side of the aisle is just as much God's creation as we are. They are our neighbors. 

Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are our neighbors. Barack Obama and Joe Biden are our neighbors. The members of the Tea Party are our neighbors. The Occupy Movement are our neighbors. So are the Israelis and the Palestinians, the Iraqis, the Iranians, the Muslim Brotherhood, the English, the French, the Germans and anybody and everybody else across this planet. They are all God's creation and let us remember that we love them, no matter what.

Peace,
Ben

You can follow Ben on Twitter @BenHoward87 or email him at benjamin.howard87 [at] gmail.com.

Also, you can subscribe to On Pop Theology via RSS feed or email on the top right corner of the main page.

The Election Chronicles: An Introduction

by Ben Howard

I've addressed politics here a few times, usually out of frustration. I've talked about Chick-Fil-A and fear, and I've also talked about the way hatred infiltrates us to the point where we become the very problem we seek to eliminate.

I know I often come across snarky and dismissive about politics. It wouldn't be an exaggeration to say that I place little if any trust in politicians to do the right thing, and that I'm deeply ambivalent about democracy in general as a functional form of government from a Christian perspective. If you want reasons for that, you can ask me in private, because that's not the reason for this post because today I'm putting on my optimism hat.

In an atmosphere that can only be described as suffocatingly divisive, I want to see if we can have a discussion with some degree of clarity. Today, I'm beginning a series entitled "The Election Chronicles." Starting on Monday, I'll be breaking down the reasons why you should vote for Mitt Romney, Barack Obama (Tuesday), a third party candidate (Wednesday), and finally, why you shouldn't vote at all (Thursday).

However, before I start writing these pieces I want to include you in my thought process. I want to know why you think I, or anyone, should choose one of those four options. 

One rule though: they have to be positive reasons why I should support a candidate/position. Just so you know, a positive answer does not contain the word oppose. I want to know what you are for, not what you are against.

Also, keep in mind that I want this discussion to be from a distinctly Christian perspective. If your reason for voting helps America, but hurts everyone else, that's not a good reason in this conversation. I want to know why supporting this candidate would make humanity better. How would supporting this candidate support the emergence of the kingdom of God?

I know there isn't a perfect answer. That's okay. We'll probably disagree. That's okay too. I promise I'll still love you.

Leave your thoughts in the comments, or you can contact me via Facebook, on Twitter @BenHoward87 or email me at benjamin.howard87 [at] gmail.com.

I look forward to hearing what you have to say and having this discussion with you.

Peace,
Ben

Also, you can subscribe to On Pop Theology via RSS feed or email on the top right corner of the main page.