Skeptical theism is something some should meditate on, resulting in empathy, active mercy and thankfulness. Whinging is another option.
Why donât you just relax and stop accusing people of some kind of racism or antisemitism? Whereâs mention of Jews?
Honestly, itâs not my impression that anyone here is anti-voting (if so, identify yourself). Itâs one thing to be anti democratic, and entirely another to acknowledge that we wonât achieve any sort of social justice by voting, and that itâs extremely naĂŻve to think we can bring any real change by voting in new president or prime minister, as been proven countless times.
1 Like
Canât we? We have pilocytic astrocytomas as well as salt-wasting.
1 Like
Because they are Christian nationalists in the Orwellian sense, and therefore anti-Judaist, Islamophobic, anti-intellectual, anti-feminist, homophobic, fascist.
Democracy is anti-democratic.
Not much to like about either. They either alter lives horribly, or end them most cruelly.
1 Like
Well, someone doesnât like the idea of non-Christians voting. So maybe the thing to do is to clarify what is meant by âBy the votes of whatever non-christians chose to vote?â
If somebody says that votes are meaningless, then that is saying something. But votes can change things, especially for minority voters.
I donât think this has worked out very well in the past. I donât see a lot of examples of Christians in these types of positions of power, where it has gone well, or where a trace of âChristianâ has been preserved.
I donât mean to suggest that Christians should not be involved in politics. Or even in positions of political leadership. Just not in positions of limitless power.
Iâm not convinced, though, that the best work we can accomplish is really at the political apex, but rather from below, as you have mentioned elsewhere, at street-level. Itâs disorganized and nearly microscopic, but the temptations to misuse power and money are less, because the power and money are less, and much more work to acquire.
Do you have examples of how Christians have actually been caesars and remained Christians, while actually accomplishing anything really good and on a large scale?
I donât understand what you mean here with rewilding politics and religion and the cause and effect relationship. Could you, please, explain?
Thanks!
Christianity conquered the Roman empire. By subverting it. With inclusion, kindness, generosity, forgiveness, grace, equality. The empire repaid the tactic. But not with those.
Christians must return to those radical, wild roots and infect politics with them. They must join the people, they must declare equality of outcome now, as in the transcendent. And make it so. The people would flock to that incarnation.
1 Like
Not through worldly power of caesar, though, but:
Right?
And a willingness to die for a God whose demands Rome understood to be subversive to its values and goals.
I donât believe we can achieve the things they did then in much different ways or for much different reasons.
I would love to see this happen, but I donât think it works that way. Not normally.
I would love to see this:
I want this, too. Desperately.
But how?
3 Likes
Lead the way. Away from Babylon the Great. Be righteous, you know the etymology. Stop committing the sin of Sodom. Implement the socialism, the full social justice of the prophets all the way to the final One.
That starts in oneâs neighbourhood. Offset and replace Caesar. And yeah, if we do it right we should get persecuted. Never happens does it?
Happened in Selma.
PS when Jesus fed the three thousand and the five thousand, was He rending unto Caesar? Was he sticking His head in the sand and thinking nice holy thoughts and la-la-laaing nice holy hymns?
1 Like
Super metaphors.
Dipping into the abomination of Business Lingo, however, I suggest that âactionable itemsâ may be of more use in this context.
Thank God, Caesar hadnât figured out how to tax miracles yet! Jesus was plundering Caesarâs tax rolls.
Iâve always imagined Jesus was a more soulful singer to his Father than la-la-laaing through the Psalms and prophets, while he was placing his head on the chopping block. His thoughts and actions were always holy. And wholly subversive of everything that was contrary to His Fatherâs will. They still are.
2 Likes
Itâs a tough call, isnât it? [Well, maybe many people donât think so; theyâve made up their minds.] How to be in the world but not of it. What is the appropriate level of contact and participation as citizens of actual worldly âkingdomsâ while also being citizens of the Kingdom of God.
As a âsecularly integratedâ member of society, I donât separate myself from contact with âthe world.â Iâm right there working alongside people who are and are not Christians, even working for my state (provincial) government! I know there are people who see me as suspect in all sorts of ways for doing that.
Because I donât live as a separatist in other ways, I canât claim such justification for not voting or participating in some way in political life, although I do participate minimally.
In the last few years, Iâve become familiar with generalities of Abraham Kuyperâs thinking, that says I should even be MORE involved, attempting (as I understand him) to be sanctifying my society somehow. I find that more like whitewashing a tomb. So, in this way, I like my church and state clearly separated. You canât âchristianizeâ the secular. At least I donât think so.
And then there are people, as you mention, who find participation in politics at all (although maybe not in other areas of secular life) unacceptable/inappropriate/____________. You surely have a better word to insert here.
One challenge, that simply wasnât anticipated in the NT, certainly not in the OT, is that most of us (at least the Us the show up in this forum) live in societies with at least some level of representation for the populace and the ability (the constitutional expectation even) to exercise some influence on government. Living in this unexpected situation, though, complicates things, at least I think it does. It certainly requires we think differently about much, including the decisions we make and the intended and unintended consequences of those decisions.
3 Likes
Then there was this wonderful headline this morning (I canât find an emoji in the keyboard for an iron):
1 Like
Thanks for the thoughts, Kendel.
Yes, the question is complicated and I guess it partly depends on how one defines âpoliticsâ. I think Jesus would indeed advocate âpolitical involvementâ for his followers in the sense of working actively in society (âthe worldâ) for the cause of love and justice. I donât agree with withdrawal from the worldâwe are called to be salt and light. On the other hand, I think the âbottom-upâ methodology of Jesus, that of changing hearts from the inside out, by serving and suffering, is dramatically different than that used by ruling powers (coercion to a certain behaviour through violence or the threat of violenceâ(laws) which do nothing to address the heart-issues of people. A Christian in political office by default has coercive powers over both believers and non-believers in a pluralistic society (and at the higher levels of government, the power over life and death). For me, this would seem to cause such cognitive dissonance and compromise of oneâs faith, that I just canât see political office as appropriate for Christians.
It does get sticky in a pluralistic democracy because I donât think God intends to coerce non-believers to Christian ethics, nor do I think it appropriate for Christians to try to use political power (however well intended) to force Christian ethics on non-believers. This is where I see the âtwo kingdomsâ as being very distinct for meâ in the methodology of societal change that each engages in. The earthly kingdom according to Romans 12 is justified by God to maintain societal order through coercion. The other kingdom to which Christians belong is not.
To be honest, being such a backslidden Mennonite 
, I have actually gone to the voting booth when Ceasar has asked my opinion about the ruler of his kingdom. Iâve tried to make the best of sorting through the unsavoury political sausage options and have offered my ranking. I have no delusions however that this is a âChristianâ vote in any way. I also struggle NOT to have my time and energies become wrapped up in the machinations of party politics especially during these divided and toxic timesâŚToo much focus on running that âsecondary kingdomâ easily distracts me from my primary loyality and methodology as a Jesus follower.
Not sure if that makes sense? Like you say, its complicated! And Iâm still trying to calibrate the fine line of involvement
3 Likes
The special airs tomorrow, Tuesday, on PBS (and probably on-demand later)
Hereâs more info and a preview
How did Michael Flynn go from being an elite soldier overseas to waging a âspiritual warâ in America? In collaboration with the Associated Press, FRONTLINE examines how the retired three-star general has emerged as a leader in a far-right movement that puts its brand of Christianity at the center of American civic life & institutions and is attracting election deniers, conspiracists & extremists.
He definitely has some dust in the attic.
2 Likes
2 Likes
âHe is full of borscht!â my seventh grade science teacher would say, using his favorite euphemism.
2 Likes
It certainly seems that way at times, particularly in state and national votes, where the the only viable choices are picked by party insiders for the most part, but the more local the election, the more impact your vote has. Still, while many in Jesusâ time wanted to kick the (Roman) bums out, he showed a different way to impact the world.
6 Likes
If anybody here who thinks social justice isnât affected by voting, I have a question for you: If George Wallace had won the U.S presidential election in 1968, would that have affected social justice for Blacks?
( Wallace, a rabid racist and segregationist, was governor of Alabama. He personally tried to block little Black children from attending segregated white elementary schools in Alabama. Read up on Wallace!)
The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King addressed voting in his famous Letter from Birmingham Jail
(He was jailed for peacefully opposing desegregation)
A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law. Who can say that the legislature of Alabama which set up that stateâs segregation laws was democratically elected? Throughout Alabama all sorts of devious methods are used to prevent Negroes from becoming registered voters, and there are some counties in which, even though Negroes constitute a majority of the population, not a single Negro is registered. Can any law enacted under such circumstances be considered democratically structured?
3 Likes