Christian Disciples and National Elections

For the past couple of weeks, before election day, on my way to my church in Waterbury Center, I drove by a sign that read, "Your Vote Is Your Voice."  That sign terribly bothered me and it felt like a thorn in my side every time I drove past.  Why?  Because your voice is your voice; your life is your voice.  And I don't know about you, but if I had to live two consecutive years without speaking, without using my voice, I'd consider myself in a strange type of hell.  So this little essay is one small piece of an attempt to work out how a disciple of Christ is supposed to approach voting and elections to avoid any strange hells.

First of all, I am glad that I decided to wait until after the election to write this essay.  This morning--the morning after the election--I was bombarded, whether I liked it or not, with news coverage about what the election results mean for the next two years.  It was a perfect example of our obsession with the popular mantra, "one man, one vote."  We should add to that mantra to say, "one man, one vote, one day."  Citizens and media of this country, and probably of many countries, pour countless hours of worry and countless torn hairs into making change and voicing themselves for one day, and are then content or discontent with the results of that one day for years to come.  The media coverage this morning implied that the balance of Democrat or Republican (no mention of 'third' parties, of course) decided yesterday, on the national and state level, will create a static political environment for the next two years.  By 'static' I do not mean that having a Democrat-controlled House of Representatives will not lead to different political outcomes than in the previous two years; I mean that, starting with inauguration in January, day after day for the next two years will be the same. 

Residents of Vermont should know that the story we tell of an election determining political outcomes is false.  We elected a Republican governor in 2016, seemingly stamping out any hope anti-gun legislators had of introducing gun restrictions.  Then came the shootings in Parkland and Texas and our own almost-shooting in Fair Haven.  After all that, Phil Scott described himself as "jolted" (the title of what is now a great podcast about the Fair Haven almost-shooting) and encouraged and then signed bills restricting gun use and ownership.  Life happened.  More than that, the March for Our Lives and student school walk-outs happened, as well as mounting and consistent pressure from students, parents, churches, and others on politicians.  What led to the changed political landscape concerning gun laws here in Vermont was, mostly, the activation and use of people's voices.  No election necessary.  Political outcomes need not be static or determined by one day, one vote, or the balance between Democrats and Republicans.

In fact, political outcomes should not and should never be determined by one day or one vote.  'Politics' is and should be defined as the actions taken by a person to care for the 'polis'--a Greek word meaning a community of people.  At the very least Christians, if not all people of every religion, should be political almost all the time.  Christians should be concerned about the community of people around us.  The entire Bible, and especially the prophets and Jesus himself, make very clear that faith cannot be lived in a vacuum.  Rather, our faith must be lived out in concern for the poor, oppressed, and widows, according to the prophets; and according to Jesus and the New Testament letters, our faith must be lived out as disciples, as disciples of our Teacher and Lord, Jesus, who called on us to love others as he has loved us (John); to be perfect as our Father in heaven is perfect, as in sharing the cloak off our back and offering shelter, food, clothing, and refuge to people as if they are Jesus (Matthew); and to share all things in common in love and service as if we are already living in the kingdom of God (Luke-Acts).  James summarizes all of it well: "by my works I will show you my faith."  At no point is faith in Christ meant to be the end of the story.  We are called, as faithful disciples, to care for the polis.  And God forbid if God intended for our faithfulness to be confined to a day of voting.

Discipleship, care for the polis (politics), should be lived daily.  Obviously we are busy providing the necessities for ourselves and families and discipleship, in terms of politics, may be impossible as a daily task.  Certainly, however, discipleship should be lived publicly, and therefore politically, as often as possible.  Perhaps monthly or bi-weekly would be good standards we can all attain.  That would mean that every other week or once a month we use our lives as our voice, by writing or calling our elected officials on the issues that matter to us or by actually addressing the issues that matter to us.  Putting constant pressure on your elected officials can and will change their minds.  Some politicians are, unfortunately, stereotypically hard-hearted, but most of them, in my experience, will listen to the overwhelming majority of opinion.  Even if they do not firmly believe that they are elected to represent you, at least they will believe that they have to do what the majority wants them to if they hope to be re-elected.  At the state and local levels this is especially true.  Your state and local governments can and do make faster and more effective change, anyway, and those elected officials are always far more accessible and flexible.  You can also use your voice to be your voice with non-elected officials, as well.  Town clerks and administrators, at least in the smaller New England towns that have town administrators, make a lot of decisions on behalf of the Selectboard and other elected officials and will hear you out.

If you are tired of the rambling, useless bickering between Republicans and Democrats, and would like actually new voices and real representation, it is at your state and local level you can start to find it.  Participate on those levels and you'll find that often two things are true: 1) that while party-affiliation does define a person, there is far less partisanship; 2) you are far more likely to elect 'third'-party candidates that are more clear about what their platform is than the vaguely broad platforms of the two major parties.

Whatever you do, then, you can make your voice known in many more impactful ways other than voting or ranting on social media.  Voting is a means of making your voice heard, but it is certainly not the way.  Voting can and does lead to change, but if it is the only tool in our belt then we're significantly handcuffing ourselves.  Ranting on social media, even if done wisely and respectfully, is the worst thing one can do.  It's possible to have civil arguments on social media and possibly change people's minds, and I still engage in that activity, but there is a better way to use social media.

Other than using your voice to be your voice, though, discipleship is best lived by using your life as your political voice.  If social media is your soapbox of choice, then why not use it as a means of building teams and coalitions to practically address the issues that matter most to you?  Rather than saying, "Politicians need to...," why not ask, "Who wants to help me...?"  Let's look at what living your voice as a disciple might mean practically. 

Say affordable housing is your issue of choice.  Politicians love to campaign on this one.  Apparently, whether housing is affordable or not is determined by the politicians and one or other political party.  That's what the "you must vote" machine wants you to believe.  But that's hogwash.  Currently, in Jericho, a group of clergy are looking into how our churches might be able to work together to provide affordable housing.  Think of it.  If our congregations pooled funds together, we could build a small complex with five or six housing units as a ministry, sell or rent those units at extremely low cost because we're doing it as a ministry rather than as a profit-scheme, and maintain some type of lease control over the units of it the owners of the units sell, we ensure that they receive a solid profit to buy a new house without bankrupting the new owners.  Or, if half of the members of our congregations, about a hundred-fifty people, decided to personally invest themselves in discipleship through affordable housing as ministry, we could dream bigger and build a communal living center with a shared church/sanctuary space and affordable housing units in which we also lived.  If members of our community other than our churches jumped in, boy.

Or say the opioid and drug addiction crisis is at the top of your list.  In Swanton, a group of concerned citizens decided to tackle the issue by trying to create (since I have moved, I don't know what has become of this effort) and host neighborhood block parties that would evolve into neighborhood support groups, believing that much of what leads to or contributes to addiction and addiction habits are the feelings of shame, isolation, hopelessness, and worthlessness that a community of loving, non-judgmental friends could alleviate.  Further, the team hoped to host events on spotting signs of addition in loved ones and how to help.  Churches in the area purchased DVDs about the opioid crisis in Franklin County to hand out for free.  Indeed, in the film that amounted to the biggest purchase, recovering addicts shared that they wish they had more people looking out for them, supporting them, and loving them beforehand, which the block parties and neighborhood support groups were meant to address.  The team also hoped to launch and sponsor Anonymous groups that were lacking in the area, like Narcotics Anonymous and Al-Anon. 

Or say the cost of health insurance or mental health care is your main issue, or gun violence (if you believe that gun violence is most related to mental health, which I admit I do not).  Addressing these issues apart from engaging with government and our elected officials is certainly difficult but it can be done.  My home church in Hudson, MA launched a health clinic (again, since moving away I don't know what has become of this) for those without health insurance or without the type of quality health insurance that would allow them to go for a check-up guilt-free.  As far as I recall, that clinic was extremely busy.  Obviously, a free health clinic side steps the issues of health costs and does not help if a person still needs to have an operation done, but plenty of research has showed that preemptive health checks can save the system and clients loads of money and time.  Still worthwhile.  And one idea that has been on my mind of late is the possibility of my church, or in combination with other churches, providing free emotional therapy/counseling and psychiatry on the weekends.  Stigma is probably still the number one deterrent to seeking mental health help, but I imagine that for most cost is truthfully the main factor.  If a mental health evaluation costs $100, then it makes little sense to work through the stigma; but if the evaluation and first contact is completely free, and all the sessions are free, then perhaps working through one's shame and fear of stigma might be worthwhile. 

Here I've given three examples of major political issues that have become major fights in our government because we rely on the two political parties to get stuff done, but that need not be major fights because they need not be left only or primarily to the whims of our elected officials determined on one day of voting.  If we took the time to use our lives as our voice, to be disciples of Christ, and built coalitions of like-minded people, then we could make significant inroads in addressing these three issues.  Not only these three issues, though.  Any issue that we think of can be addressed by us, you and me, right here and now and with every day of our lives. 

Relying on our vote rather than our lives, rather than living out our faith and discipleship--or philosophy and willpower, if we are not religious--is the height of laziness and indifference.  If all we do is vote, we may think that we care about the polis, about our brothers and sisters in community, but we don't.  If we truly care, we'd do something before, during, and after an election, with that vote and election as side concerns.  It's also, clearly, lazy, saying to the world, "Oh, someone else can do it.  Let the politicians do it."  In 1 Samuel 8, the Israelites say to God, "We're tired of trying to be holy on our own.  Give us a king so they can do it."  God is not pleased.  The act of discipleship and the life of a disciple should be the individual's responsibility and should not be delegated to one person or a handful of people.  A republic--which is what we have, with representative democracy--can achieve political goals, but the most effective means to achieving political goals is for the polis to take care of itself. 

I'd add that relying on our vote rather than our lives, rather than living out our faith and discipleship, also seems to be a means of state control.  If we are convinced that our vote is the most important aspect of our political life, then we are also convinced that the state and our elected officials are our only hope and that there's no sense doing anything other than state-sponsored forms of politics.  I'm not suggesting a conspiracy of any sort here but I am saying that the worst fear of any state/government is a mobilized polis controlling its own fate apart from the mechanisms of the state.  It makes sense for the state/government to urge its citizens only to vote, but it doesn't make sense for those same citizens to buy the argument.  If George Orwell were to re-write 1984, I believe he'd emphasize the state's insistence that people vote, vote, vote, because that's the only we can change, change, change, blah blah blah.  Again, I'm not suggesting a conspiracy of state-sponsored mind control to make sure we do nothing but vote, but it is certainly in the interests of those in governmental power to make those arguments, and not at all in our interest.  If we really want politicians to be held accountable, the best thing we can do is to vote and then not rely on that vote. 

Essentially, if we are to be true Christians--in other words, if we are to be true disciples, or people who truly care about the fate of our brothers and sisters in community, we cannot ignore the kingdom of God that is coming and is come.  God's kingdom is ruled by Jesus Christ, of whom we disciple.  That means we must vote in ways that we believe might bring us closer to that kingdom, and most importantly we must at all times and in all ways live according to the principles of that kingdom.  Real Christians, then, do not simply interpret the Bible and their faith into election choices, they interpret the Bible into faithful, dedicated, disciple political living.  Such disciple political living is scary, because we must begin saying, "Oh, shoot, I have to go out and do things," rather than mumbling, "Why can't they do things?" but God promises that through Christ and through the Holy Spirit we will have both the grace and power to do what is scary--and right and holy.

Preaching Politics

After a long hiatus from writing anything other than sermons and letters, I am again writing.  I have found a purpose that can motivate me to take precious time away from resting while my one-year old son naps: politics.  This political season has been a mess, as we all know, and as far as I am concerned the role that churches and ministers played during and after the presidential campaign has also been disturbing.  Much of the hateful division we see in the country right now is due to Christians' behavior, who claim to be people of love and compassion.  So here we go.  I am going to start, or at least for one random post in the midst of writers' block, preaching politics.

Not really.  Indeed, preaching politics is exactly what I will not do.  I won't do it because the separation of Church and State is good for both sides.  To have the state influenced or run by the church makes us a theocracy, the histories of which are not pretty; to have the church influenced or run by the state questions the validity of the Church, as the origination of the Church of England makes rather clear.  On one hand you cannot have a state in which non-believers feel uncomfortable, threatened, or are disenfranchised, and on the other you cannot have a Church informed by the political whims of the state.  While it can certainly be argued that efforts to remove a religious presence from state operations, schools in particular, have over-exaggerated what a separation between Church and State means, it should not be argued that the separation itself is dangerous. 

Yet arguing against the separation is, essentially, what many now do, whether they admit it or not.  To be honest, this was the first year that I paid any attention to the conventions of the two major parties.  I was saddened that at both ministers prayed publicly and openly for the election of a particular individual.  And I am of course no stranger to the concept that Trump made prominent and that Evangelicals have voiced over the years of re-empowering Christianity and Christian churches.  Putting aside for now the debate over whether we can actually call ourselves a Christian nation, what we are seeing can be no other than a trend to want to put Christianity in power and is, a) an attempt to sever the separation of Church and State in favor of the Church, and b) dangerous.

It is dangerous for a minister or church to step over the boundary into the State for a number of reasons.  I won't touch on the fact that Christianity and the Church has not meant one thing since the Reformation and so 'putting Christianity in power' could mean an internecine Christian war, as churches fight for political preeminence, which is dangerous.  Nor will I touch on a minister's personal political ambitions.  A minister, like any other citizen, should feel able and welcome to run for office at any level.

What I am talking about is when a minister steps into the political arena on behalf of his or her church and/or expressly in the role of a religious leader and throws his or her support behind a party or a candidate.  Preaching politics in that way is dangerous.  It is dangerous because the church's identity then becomes partly wrapped up in political results.  For instance, if a minister says, "We need to vote for Candidate A because we believe in God," and Candidate A wins, then the minister and the church will probably say that God ensured the victory.  But can we really say God did so?  On a larger scale it's like praying that your sports team wins, and then it does, and you thank God.  Well, did God care?  I don't know that we can say, especially if Candidate A turns out to be terrible.  Did God condemn us to terrible political leadership?  More importantly, if Candidate A loses, then the minister and the church might then say, "Everyone who didn't vote for Candidate A is sinful, and God is now punishing us for the sins of our country."  Walking down that road is not only theologically sketchy and terrifying but practically so as well.  When ministers claim that a certain event occurs as God's punishment against us, the corresponding emotion is not compassionate but hateful or distrustful.  If an earthquake is punishment, then we don't then serve the victims out of compassion.  Indeed, we might not serve the victims at all, but if we do, it would be with an eye toward converting everyone because we can't trust that they are good people.  Arguing that a political decision is some wide-scale punishment only heightens the issue because then the fear and distrust of people extends to one's own neighbors or family members, or to one's self.  The only solution that is ever offered in such a scary time is to follow that minister's or church's religious advice.

And if we believe that minister or church, then we have stepped into the second reason why a church's overstepping the boundaries is dangerous: power.  The founders of our country knew that human nature is less than ideal, and so created a government in which a person's own avarice and ambition would balance and check themselves.  Unfortunately, many churches do not contain the same checks, allowing ministers to funnel power to themselves and to the church that they oversee.  Such power in the hands of the church is not biblical or God-ordained. 

Look, sure, Paul might say in his letter to the Romans that we should obey authorities, and Christ may have said that we should render unto Caesar what is Caesar's (and render unto God what is God's, the meaning of all of that is obscure), but the arc of Christ's life and the Christian movement thereafter pushes against the powers that be.  Christ's political life fought against Rome and the temple leaders and Paul's message of grace for all encouraged nonconformity with typical elitist power structures.  Many scholars argue that it was when Constantine commandeered Christianity as part of his consolidation of power in the empire that the movement lost its passion and footing.  There are a lot of good arguments and lots of good evidence for that.  So for a Christian group to cheer when a candidate promises more power for Christians and churches, and for Christian groups to petition for such a reality, is essentially non-Christian.

It's also non-American--though the idea that something is non-Christian should be more relevant for Christians.  The first amendment, including the freedom of religion, guarantees the freedom of all religions, not an established church or established religion.  For one church or one religion to be promised political power explicitly contradicts the ideals and liberties on which our country was founded.  We cannot say that our country is a Christian nation for this same reason.  Speaking of which, a lot of Americans, I've noticed, could use a history lesson on the professed faith of our nation's founders, many would be surprised.  But even if the Founding Fathers were all Christian, they, too, would vigorously battle the idea that we are a Christian nation. 

During this election campaign a woman said, "Shame on you," to me because I am a Christian pastor and yet was arguing against building a governmental structure based on Christian principles.  I mean, sure, I'd understand if political power in the hands of a Christian church, or any religion's church, is a good idea, but it's not--it's not good for the Church, for the State, and because of that, it's non-American.  I as a pastor have to put aside any political ambitions I may have on behalf of the Church because doing otherwise would work to destroy the principles of my faith and the principles of my country.

So what is the role of a minister and of the Church in politics?  First it should be said that churches can still be political.  The word polis, from which we get politics, and the Greek work from which we get 'liturgy,' meaning 'work of the people,' are quite similar.  Just as Christ was a prophetic force on behalf of the oppressed, poor, and ravaged, so should churches be--to do the work of the people, of all the children of God.  That is where our political force should be centered: fighting for justice for the forgotten and destitute.  What the Church's political arm should be is prophetic for those who have less, not for the privileged.  Neither should the Church's political arm aim for amassing its own power to become privileged itself. 

Described in this way, what the Church's mission should be differs widely from what the most public expression of the Church is.  Those that we style Evangelicals seem to be pushing for its own political power, and gaining it, while ignoring those most oppressed and ravaged (refugees in particular).  At the same time the Church pushes for approval of certain policies, like a ban on abortion or gay marriage, which amount to a reduction of freedom of religion because, again, we cannot somehow gain freedom of religion for our way of believing without also guaranteeing freedom of religion for other faith systems that, in this case, may be okay with abortion or gay marriage.  By pushing for certain policies the Church is, again, trying to grab power for certain segments rather than fighting for justice in the name of Christ.

Likewise, what a minister's role is, or at least could be, entails preaching the morals and ideals of Christ rather than policies that may agree with our own theology but not the theology of other Christians or people of other faiths or no faith.  On behalf of the Church a minister should only preach on living grace.  Preaching in favor of a candidate or a policy runs in the above issues.  Preaching discipleship of Christ, however, encourages people to live better and trust in God rather than hope in greater power. 

There is a time for a minister to fill the Bonhoeffer role, though.  Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a German pastor who was executed during World War II for conspiring to assassinate Hitler.  Bonhoeffer may forever afterwards exemplify when the time is right for a minister to cross the line: when a political leader corrupts an entire nation into doing downright evil.  What's interesting here is that those ministers and churches who did cross a line did so in favor of the one candidate who could most provoke the Bonhoeffer effect.  With all that Trump said and promised, and has continued to say and promised since the election, throwing public support behind him as a pastor or church amounts to blinded hypocrisy and disavowal of our own principles.  I'm stopping well short, or at least short, of saying that individual Christians who supported Trump are hypocritical or disavowing his or her faith.  Deciding who to vote for this election season was complicated and difficult, more so than normal, and particularly so for Republicans or right-leaning independents.  Behind the exterior of Trump there are policies that one could reasonably support.  That does not change, however, that the attacks Trump leveled against whole swaths of people makes a minister's or church's public support of Trump hypocritical and sad in the light of Christian principles--not to mention dangerous given our country's Constitution. 

In all of this, my points are these: 1) while we as individuals should use our faith as a guide in our involvement in the political sphere, inserting our faith into politics as a tool for power or victory is not appropriate and often dangerous; and 2) a minister or church, of any faith, should never make political pronouncements except to prophesy on behalf of the oppressed that the government seems to want to ignore.  Whether we look to point one or two, the events of the campaign season and the results of it are troubling, especially as many Christians are now claiming political (and because political, spiritual) victory in the name of God over and against other Christians and definitely non-Christians.  That's not very Christian of us.  My prayer is that we can pull back before we institute a theocracy in all but name.

More posts to come.