Some Thoughts on the Presidential Election and Remaining Prophetic
As November 4 nears, I am going to offer one of my favorite Psalms, a text that has challenged and comforted me through a few election cycles. Psalm 146:
Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord, O my soul!
I will praise the Lord as long as I live; I will sing praises to my God all my life long.
Do not put your trust in princes, in mortals, in whom there is no help.
When their breath departs, they return to the earth; on that very day their plans perish.Happy are those whose help is the God of Jacob, whose hope is in the Lord their God,
who made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them; who keeps faith forever;
who executes justice for the oppressed; who gives food to the hungry. The Lord sets the prisoners free;
the Lord opens the eyes of the blind. The Lord lifts up those who are bowed down; the Lord loves the righteous.The Lord watches over the strangers; he upholds the orphan and the widow, but the way of the wicked he brings to ruin.
The Lord will reign forever, your God, O Zion, for all generations. Praise the Lord! (NRSV)
I share this Psalm as a reminder for Christians that ultimately our hope is not in governments or political leaders, but in the God of Jacob. I do not intend to foster apathy or encourage people to refrain from important democratic processes such as studying the candidates, forming thoughtful positions on the issues, or voting. I do not even want to persuade people from endorsing a candidate if they feel she or he is the best person for the job. I will be voting for a candidate on November 4.
There are generally two ways of engaging democratically. The first is to build coalitions with people who share similar views on certain issues and promise that one will back the other on topics that may not be so important to the other person. This is basically our party system where politicians and different groups have allied together and support each other, even on matters that aren’t obviously relevant to them. The second way of democratic engagement is to form coalitions on a more ad hoc basis, taking the matter issue by issue, and, I believe it is to this form of engagement that the Church in American needs to commit itself.
I have also been fairly clear on my blog about how disappointed I have been with how the Religious Right has engaged American politics. I agree and disagree with them on their positions, but it is not generally their positions on the issues that bother me, so much as the means by which they engage democratically. They offer, in my opinion, a very thin and limited view of democracy because they have, more or less, followed the party system of engagement. Neither major party embodies the Christian ideals, and therefore, I am concerned of Christians baptizing the Republicans or the Democrats. When Christian bodies hitch themselves to a party, they place themselves in a tenuous position because they now have to answer for the decisions that party makes that may go against the gospel. My concern is that as I see a swelling of politically moderate and progressive Christians finding their organized voice, they will fall into the same trap as the Religious Right and opt for a party-type of engagement rather than a more prophetic promise to speak truth to power. I do not want to see these moderate and progressive brothers and sisters hitch themselves to the Democrats and write hagiographies of Barack Obama as the Religious Right has hitched itself to the Republicans and have written their hagiographies of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.
Christians are better suited to say, “No matter who is in office, we will work with or push against them in order to pursue justice for our neighbors and love for our enemies.” We maintain our prophetic voice when we are not known as Democrats or Republicans. If a party resonates with you, by all means join it, but remember, as a Christian, you are called to seek the Kingdom first, not the party’s platform. Leadership is vitally important, and I hope anyone reading this will prayerfully and thoughtfully consider their votes. Please do vote. But as you enter the poll, remember what Psalm 146 tells us: God brings justice, renewal, and grace while political leaders are temporary.
Wow I preached a bit more than I had intended. Maybe I just got a bit juiced up because it’s Reformation Day and I’ve got a list of complaints, a nail, and a hammer. Just trying to find the right door.
In 2004, Bill O’Reilly asked Bono who he was supporting for POTUS, and though it was very clear that Bono opposed the war and thus was for Kerry, Bono’s response was that he would have to work on the issue of debt relief for Africa with whichever administration won, so loyalty to the cause trumped his endorsement.
This seems to be the second way you describe, and I think there is a clear prophetic aspect to it. However, I think you are too quick to condemn the RR for its use of the first way of engagement. I think there are very legitimate criticisms of the RR, but I think it has to be attributed to the abuse of the party system of engagement rather than the mere use of it, and I have two main reasons why I think this is so.
The main issue that unifies the RR is abortion on demand. Now, if the RR is to prophetically speak to this issue using the second approach, what does it come up against? One of the two major parties is opposed to this issue (true, there are Democrats for Life, but there is no such thing as a nationally prominent pro-life Democrat right now). This de facto alignment of the Democrat party against the issue which the RR has taken up means that any democratic engagement between the two will be a partisan act. Additionally, the fact that abortion on demand has at its core a question of legality means that democratic engagement necessarily involves the acquisition of political power, and that means via parties. The Underground Railroad secured the freedom of many using a non-partisan engagement, but the Emancipation Proclamation was issued by the Executive. So too, the reduction of abortion can be secured by non-partisan engagement, but overturning a Supreme Court decision will take Justices and a President to appoint them. This requires a partisan engagement, unfortunate though it is.
So, even in spite of the RR’s abuses of their partisan engagement, I think their opposition to abortion on demand leaves them necessarily partisan (on account of one party adopting a pro-choice platform), and necessarily in need of political power (on account of the need to overturn Roe v Wade). How can someone who is pro-life say, “We will work with Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid to puruse justice for the unborn” when that triumvurate promises to pass the Freedom of Choice Act, effectively silencing any opposition to abortion on demand?
Engagement in this case, I think, requires the joining of parties, though your concerns about alignment with one party are duly noted. It’s unwise to be too attached to one party, yet at the same time, it’s unwise to be too detached.
Comment by Timbo — November 1, 2008 @ 9:01 pm