by Ben Howard
Last night I was lucky enough to be part of a conversation about politics and the church. Though you would imagine a conversation like this quickly turning to cliches like "What issue is most important to Christians?" or "Who should Christians vote for?" I was pleasantly surprised that this isn't where our discussion went.
Instead, we talked about how the church and government interact, how they should interact and how they can interact going forward. During the conversation two of my friends, Allison and Katherine, helped me realize something that, while obvious when you consider it, had never crossed my mind. In a society based on democratic ideals culture is more important than the nation-state because culture dictates what the nation-state can or can't do.
In traditional political philosophy, the nation-state is held up as a beacon of progress. It's the innovation that transcends tribal and nationalistic identity in order to form a legal state that functions on behalf of all the people no matter what their background. It's one of the central tent-poles in the myth of modern progress. It allows us to look at history and trace a straight line from tribal peoples to ethnic nations to formally organized states. "Look," the narrative says, "we're getting better. We're more organized and more civilized."
Just behind the rise of the nation-state we saw the rise of democratic principles. In the 16th and 17th centuries the world saw the introduction or at least the acceleration of rights language and other concepts which would serve as the basis for the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution. However, over the course of a few hundred years the combination of these two has led to an interesting situation.
Aristotle argues that democracy is the lowest form of government because it will eventually become another form of mob rule, however within the structure of the nation-state that mob rule has taken on the form of cultural acceptance. Before I continue with this argument let me short-circuit one of the criticisms, namely that people participate in the national government via voting.
If you ever open a political science textbook one of things you'll read about is the role of parties in a democratic political system. Early on in this discourse on political parties you WILL read the following sentence, "Political parties exist to win elections." That is why the exist. Not to govern, or to follow the will of the people, but to win elections.
This leads to the interesting situation we find ourselves in regarding electoral politics. Your voice and your concerns only count if you're in one of two camps A) You live in an important electoral state and B) You have enough money to make someone pay attention. For instance, why do candidates never discuss the problem of urban decay and failing inner-city schools on the campaign trail? Well, that isn't the most important issue of undecided voters in Ohio, Missouri, Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Nevada, and Colorado.
Or, ask why we spend so much money subsidizing corn (thus leading to high fructose corn syrup and corn being in pretty much everything) or trying to make ethanol a bigger part of our fuel supply even though scientific studies find questionable value in it? Could it have something to do with Iowa being the first primary state? The first hurdle on the way to the White House? If you're say, a socially conscious liberal-leaning pacifist in Nashville, Tennessee who is concerned about military spending, homelessness and drug abuse, no one is listening. (For more information on this subject, check out Nate Silver's new book, The Signal and the Noise)
When it comes to governance though, the story is very different than what happens during the election. When it comes to governance, the government is no longer limited by the voice of the electorate, it is limited by the voice of culture, best exemplified in various forms of media (including for instance Twitter and Facebook).
No government will send its armies to war if the culture of its people opposes such an action. Not only would it not have the support and authority to do so, it also wouldn't be the first response. Why? Because the government is made up of people who also participate in the larger culture.
Even more, culture has become increasingly cross-national. The culture of the United States is becoming increasingly blended with other cultures, not synonymous by any means, but they are bleeding into each other. For instance, the conversation over national healthcare is a perfect example of this conflict between cross-national culture and the United States government.
The argument I want to make here is that we have too often used voting as a cop out for national and political change. People ask how they can change things and the answer they're given is that they can vote and assert their rights. But what happens if no one cares about your vote and what is asserting your rights means little more than getting the best for you and you alone? Voting is easy. It's the lazy way to affect change. It's trickle-down politics.
The more difficult questions concern how we engage and shape culture. How do we participate in the problems that we see in the world and how can we alter our participation to 1) eliminate suffering and 2) promote prosperity and healing? If we have a problem with economic systems that promote homelessness and the abdication of our responsibility to the poor, we don't just vote for the person who says corporations are bad. We have to ask ourselves what we do to perpetuate that system. We have to ask ourselves how we would build alternate systems and then, we have to try and establish those systems. We have to try and build culture.
Maybe we change the way governments respond, but that really isn't the point. Governments are reactive not proactive and the problems of the world need more than reactionary call and response.
I'm convinced that the church is called to be an alternative culture. One that no longer functions along the lines of the group-think that affects the majority of our traditional culture. The church is called to deconstruct this cultural tradition formed unintentionally formed by years of action and reaction and replace it with something new, something intentional.
Like Martin Luther said in one of his less invective-laced moments, "The Church is not reformed, but always reforming." The church must always be in the process of deconstruction and reconstruction in search of the culture of the kingdom and awaiting the return of the only true authority. We await the return of the King.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
by Ben Howard 
The more difficult questions concern how we engage and shape culture. How do we participate in the problems that we see in the world and how can we alter our participation to 1) eliminate suffering and 2) promote prosperity and healing? If we have a problem with economic systems that promote homelessness and the abdication of our responsibility to the poor, we don't just vote for the person who says corporations are bad. We have to ask ourselves what we do to perpetuate that system. We have to ask ourselves how we would build alternate systems and then, we have to try and establish those systems. We have to try and build culture.
